Why are the Resurrection accounts so contradictory i.e. when read side by side ?

a reply to: Sigismundus

the word IMRAH means 'utterance' and can mean variously 'word' or 'oracle' as with the prophetic utterances

I almost agree with you. But in the original hebrew text there is no word oracle. Oracle is in the meaning of "words of Oracle""
And this I called Hellenization.
As for "us", indeed
אַתָּה-יְהוָה תִּשְׁמְרֵם (You will keep them YHWH)
תִּצְּרֶנּוּ, מִן-הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם. (You will preserve US from this generation, forever) is correct.

But you will keep them (imrot-words) and preserve us.

a reply to: kitzik

You wrote QUOTE "I almost agree with you. But in the original hebrew text there is no word oracle. Oracle is in the meaning of "words of Oracle"" And this I called Hellenization. As for "us", indeed אַתָּה-יְהוָה תִּשְׁמְרֵם (You will keep them YHWH) תִּצְּרֶנּוּ, מִן-הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם. (You will preserve US from this generation, forever) is correct..." UNQUOTE

So I think we actually agree that the translation is 'you will preserve US from this generation onward, forever ' is what is being said here - in that it has nothing to do with preserving any word (or 'utterance') of YHWH the way Chester translates it, but rather the general idea of = 'preserving the people of Israel forever'.

I don't think Chester understands that he is basing his whole textual-religious ideology on a grammatical mistranslation (i.e. that somehow the 'word of YHWH will be preserved forever') citing a Psalms verse which is then mangled - it is clear that he is not conversant with the Hebrew textual underlay to his own translation, otherwise he would not have cited that verse in the first place.

Chester and his apologetic ilk represent the kind of mis-interpretation of basic linguistic facts that I come across again and again on ATS threads - but generally the truth eventually prevails (though often after several posts !)

Thanks for your input - I wish more people like you would chime in from time to time - but we have to get back on track with the thrust of this thread which is why are the so-called Resurrection accounts so muddled in the gospels !

a reply to: Sigismundus

So I think we actually agree that the translation is 'you will preserve US from this generation onward, forever ' is what is being said here - in that it has nothing to do with preserving any word of EL the way Chester translates it, but rather the general idea of = 'preserving the people of Israel forever'.

No. I understand this pasuk as the word ""tishamram" reference to the Imrot -words. And word "tizrenu" referencing to "us" "poor people" from all wicked. Strangely enough i can't find this kind of explanation anywhere on the net But this is how I understood this pasuk.

a reply to: kitzik

You wrote QUOTE "No. I understand this pasuk as the word ""tishamram" reference to the Imrot -words. And word "tizrenu" referencing to "us" "poor people" from all wicked..." UNQUOTE

Here is the Hebrew text as it appears in the Aleppo Codex (Masoretic version - 9th century CE) for Psalms 12:7-8; let me know if the text you are reading is something different. It is clear that this psalm is textually not a unity, but made up of separate strands which may not always belong together.

אִמְרוֹת יְהוָה, אֲמָרוֹת טְהֹרוֹת:
כֶּסֶף צָרוּף, בַּעֲלִיל לָאָרֶץ; מְזֻקָּק, שִׁבְעָתָיִם אַתָּה-יְהוָה תִּשְׁמְרֵם; תִּצְּרֶנּוּ, מִן-הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם.

"The words of YHWH are pure words as silver tried in a crucible on the earth, refined seven times
Thou wilt keep THEM O YHWH;
Thou wilt preserve US from this generation for ever."

followed by a rather awkward side note verse at the end : The wicked walk on every side, when vileness is exalted among the sons of men = סָבִיב, רְשָׁעִים יִתְהַלָּכוּן; כְּרֻם זֻלּוּת, לִבְנֵי אָדָם

because it didn't happen.

a reply to: Sigismundus

followed by a rather awkward side note verse at the end : The wicked walk on every side, when vileness is exalted among the sons of men = סָבִיב, רְשָׁעִים יִתְהַלָּכוּן; כְּרֻם זֻלּוּת, לִבְנֵי אָדָם

And i see this not as a side note awkward verse, but clarifying the usage of word "tizrewnu".

a reply to: kitzik

So... from the way you parse the sentence, I suppose you could translate it as something like

12: 6ff

"The utterances of YHWH are pure words like silver purified in a crucible, refined seven times upon the earth. 7 You, YHWH, will keep them (i.e.the needy) safe and will protect US (the poor ones) from this time forever from the wicked who strut about when what is vile is honored by the sons of men..."

Either way one takes the referents in this passage, it has absolutely nothing to do with the preservation of the Hebrew or Greek texts of the Bible throughout all generations as Chester seems to believe (which is what I was trying to show originally)...

Clear as mud?

a reply to: Sigismundus

Is there a 'conspiracy of silence' on this muddled subject among persons who style themselves 'Christians' ?

Yes there very well could be a muddled conspiracy but I believe it is not from the Christian camp.

You have written --

The majority of scholars believe that verses 9-20 of Mark 16 were not part of the original text, and were an addition by later Christians. Textual critics have identified two distinct endings—the "Longer Ending" (vv. 9-20) and the "Shorter Ending," which appear together in six Greek manuscripts

Those six manuscripts are not the Majority texts are they? How many texts are there that disagree with those selected six texts? Could you please answer that?


Your above statement leaves me to question your sources. Who are these textual critics and from which academia do they represent? As you say the majority, can you give a source of statistics of this majority?

I don’t understand your source of scripture either. In your account of “CF John 20:1-18” you have written – “13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my husband, and I do not know where they have laid him.” The English rendition of the main thirteen Christian bibles do not agree with the word husband used in place of Lord. Would you mind referencing that translation also?

In fact as your entire premise is flawed, I see that this has been presented numerous times in the past. I see nothing presented but the usual from your threads.

a reply to: Sigismundus

Chester understands nothing about the Bible except maybe the letters of Paul. He still uses a KJV and thinks it is the only properly translated and preserved Bible today. Despite the mistranslations of the Septuagint (virgin) and the deliberate deception of sons of Israel(Masoretic Deuteronomy 32:8-9) replacing the correct in the Greek and DSS "Sons of God."

You can't explain anything to him without getting name called or worse. He doesn't care about the work of scholars who labored to get accurate translations like the Jerusalem bible. He really believes that the mistakes are correct and preserved, as the Bible is the "preserved word of God." Well, the one HE uses.

It's not even worth dealing with people who just don't agree with logic and fact.

a reply to: Mryhh

Chester understands nothing about the Bible except maybe the letters of Paul. He still uses a KJV and thinks it is the only properly translated and preserved Bible today. Despite the mistranslations of the Septuagint (virgin) and the deliberate deception of sons of Israel(Masoretic Deuteronomy 32:8-9) replacing the correct in the Greek and DSS "Sons of God."

Are you referencing the Jerusalem bible or New Jerusalem bible?

You could be mistaken in the OT virgin account. The New Jerusalem (French influenced) text changed their doctrine from Jerome's rendition to the French rendition. So the Roman Catholics had it wrong since the 17th century and in 1966 got it right (or so you believe). But no they actually did not get it right. Then in 1985 the Roman Catholics updated the 1966 Jerusalem Bible to the New Jerusalem bible and now have it right (or so you now believe). So as you can see Chester may be right in simply staying with the majority texts.

Does not Chester have the right to accept his theology the same as you have the right to accept your own muddled mess? Now unless you are a translator or linguist of sorts, are you certain that you are right or you simply believe you are right. This world is full of arm chair linguists who do nothing but add confusion to an already theological concept. You can argue word change till hell freezes over but until you get access to the autographs you are simply dreaming that you are right. In other words it is still theology.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: troubleshooter

First day of the week and when the Sabbath was past is the same time SUNDAY (in our modern calendar).

The Narrative differ because of the individual who wrote them but as far as the facts they are in agreement.

Jesus Rose from the dead. A key point in getting saved see Romans 10:9,10

Why are you reading to see contradictions anyway?

these are not "facts".....they are religious lore.....there were many religions BEFORE Christianity, where most of what is said in the bible, was copied TO Christianity....

a reply to: jimmyx

And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy

Know that when I person uses the three D's in their replies they are nothing more than a religious counter intellegence

Disinformation or Misinformation is the reason certain agents of misinformation use the three D’s. Whether these agents are govt or counter govt, religious or counter religious, racist or counter racist, intelligence or counter intelligence (et al any group of individuals who want to disrupt other individuals and keep newcomers from following) they all use three distinct D’s. These three D’s are Dismiss, Debunk and Demean. In the end the results of the 3 D’s work together to destroy more than to build up.

1) Dismiss or Discredit

This is where any information given whether it be a conspiracy theory or a religion is taken by the agent of the three D’s to discredit the original information placing doubt so the new person or active ones will no longer look further in search of the truth.

An example of this in political field is this, one is presented with the conspiracy that 9/11 was an inside job. The Agents duty is to first discredit the information so as to stop or discourage the hearer/reader from looking any further into it

Another example in the field of religious belief, one is presented with the truth that the Bible is the infallible word of God preserved for us today. The agents job is to present opposing view to discredit that truth to dissuade people from trusting the Bible as infallible.

Discredit the info even with info that is far fetched and you have already hook people to believe what you say is true even without facts.

2) Distract

Undistracted truth is easier to follow and believe than Distractions. We call distraction on the Web and in Public Speaking “rabbit trails”. Create as many distractions and place as much misinformation as possible out there in opposition to truth so as to lead in so many directions one is over come with despair at ever coming to the knowledge of the truth.

i.e. Place as much misinformation mingled with a little truth as facts with no proof as possible in the minds of the hearer/readers to cause them to divert in many directions as possible. This causes more confusion and often creates an atmosphere that one can never know for sure.

This leads us to the third D,

3) Demean.

After first disseminating counter ideas and actions and Distracting as much as possible, the next step of an agent of disinformation is to demean anyone who get’s in their way. Name calling is the choice of most agents of disinformation. Name calling strikes into the heart of the hearer/reader to cause anger and counter attacks. In the long run it causes discouragement for others to follow along because it has become so cumbersome to follow with what appears to look like childish behaviour. But in fact it is the desired affect the Agents of Disinformation to dismiss

originally posted by: Mryhh
a reply to: Sigismundus

Chester understands nothing about the Bible except maybe the letters of Paul. First D Dismiss He still uses a KJV and thinks it is the only properly translated and preserved Bible today. Despite the mistranslations of the Septuagint (virgin) and the deliberate deception of sons of Israel(Masoretic Deuteronomy 32:8-9) replacing the correct in the Greek and DSS "Sons of God."

You can't explain anything to him without getting name called or worse. He doesn't care about the work of scholars who labored to get accurate translations like the Jerusalem bible. He really believes that the mistakes are correct and preserved, as the Bible is the "preserved word of God." Well, the one HE uses. the second D Debunk

It's not even worth dealing with people who just don't agree with logic and fact and the third D Demean.

His purpose here is to dissuade people from following Christ as Saviour by grace through faith alone.

As I said in our previous encounters under your other ATS user accounts find one place I called you any name or used the Three D's as you do.

a reply to: Seede

you are correct Seede we are indeed have the right to accept our own theology.

I would be one to concede to anyone if they find any ORIGINALS AUTOGRAPHS that we can study. capitalized for effect not yelling.

I had looked for years. There are none.

a reply to: Sigismundus

You are free to have your own opinion.

Like I said there is more to the preserved word than just translated words by men, it has the hand mark of God upon it.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Sigismundus
Like I said there is more to the preserved word than just translated words by men, it has the hand mark of God upon it.

You mean because we are IT's expression; and so are a particle of that Creation's concept (in IT's quest to know itself)?

a reply to: Seede

You wrote QUOTE "You have written -- The majority of scholars believe that verses 9-20 of Mark 16 were not part of the original text, and were an addition by later Christians. Textual critics have identified two distinct endings—the "Longer Ending" (vv. 9-20) and the "Shorter Ending," which appear together in six Greek manuscripts..."

"Those six manuscripts are not the Majority texts are they? How many texts are there that disagree with those selected six texts? Could you please answer that? " UNQUOTE

No serious biblical scholar believes anything past Mark 16:8 is by the author of the gospel of 'Mark' (whoever he was, since the gospel originally circulated anonymously). The Greek linguistic style of utterance of the verses in Mark 16:9-20 (vocabulary, sentence length, phraseology, spelling, diction, grammar, syntax etc. are all different from the rest of the book, and there is more than one ending (a shorter ending and a longer one) in various MSS. The longer ending is not found in Codex Sinaiticus and in Codex Vaticanus, two early uncial MSS (c. 350 CE). The longer ending (Mark 16:9-20) uses a long list of non Markan words.

Longer (fake) Ending of Mark (16:9-20_
Now after He had risen early on the first day of the week, He first appeared to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had cast out seven demons. 10She went and reported to those who had been with Him, while they were mourning and weeping. 11And when they heard that He was alive, and had been seen by her, they refused to believe it. 12And after that, He appeared in a different form to two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the country. 13And they went away and reported it to the others, but they did not believe them either. 14And afterward He appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at the table; and He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen. 15And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16"He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. 17"And these signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." 19So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed..."

The shorter ending is also clearly not Markan either : "And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

FYI

Noted Biblical scholars conversant in Koine Greek that have discussed and dismssed the 'endings' of Mark's gospel from 16:9ff as fakes (both the 'longer' and 'shorter' endings) include C.K. Barrett, Raymond Brown, F.F. Bruce, Rudolf Bultmann, Bruce Chilton, C.H. Dodd, Bruce Metzger, Joseph Fitzmeyer, Johann Griesbach, Gary Habermas, Burton Mack, John Shelby Spong, Kurt Aland, N.T. Wright, Wilhelm DeWette, Burnett Streeter, Helmut Koester and hundreds of others working in the field of NT Studies.

a reply to: Seede

You wrote QUOTE "I don’t understand your source of scripture either. In your account of “CF John 20:1-18” you have written – “13 They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them, “They have taken away my husband, and I do not know where they have laid him.” The English rendition of the main thirteen Christian bibles do not agree with the word husband used in place of Lord. Would you mind referencing that translation also ?..."

Here is the quote from John 20:13

Ἦραν τὸν kύριόν μου καὶ οὐκ οἶδα ποῦ ἔθηκαν αὐτόν

'They have taken away the body of my husband and I do not know where they have laid him...'

The KJV = King James Version of 1611 uses the epithet 'lord' for husband in this context as an Elisabethan English usage:
cf: Romeo & Juliet (Shakespeare, c. 1596) Act 3 Scene 5 where 'lord' and 'husband' are interchangeable in Elisabethan English

JULIET: Are you gone like that, my love, my lord? Yes, my husband, my friend ! I must hear from you every day in the hour. In a minute there are many days...

Also in Act 4 we see Juliet asking about her newly wedded husband when she asks the Nurse 'Saw you my lord?"

Just for clarification.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

No I don't mean that