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

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: vethumanbeing

ChesterJohn: No I don't mean that _javascript:icon('

')

Thanks for the succinct and 'right to the point' clarification.

a reply to: vethumanbeingIf you have followed my post you already should know what I mean by his hand on it. But just incase you forgot or didn't see them here they are again.

1) Every English word can be defined by the context

2) Divine supernatural Cross-reference system that is employed in the words, phrases, verses and sections of Scriptures.

3) It is theonly Bible that has ALL the VERSES in it.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Which Bible; I have 5 versions of it.

originally posted by: vethumanbeing
a reply to: ChesterJohn
Which Bible; I have 5 versions of it.

I have 15 English Bible but only one is the Preserved word of God as promised in Ps 12:6 ,7. I have access to 30 English Bibles for study. I have two Hebrew Interlinear Bibles, one Greek Interlinear.

I will challenges you. Read your 5 Bibles and if any match the criteria of all three points above3 then you have it in your hands.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
Do you not see the problem with so many versions of the Bible written or re-interpreted to appease or manipulate their constituents/or the potential of? If you want to engage in 'Bible Wars' with me; lets look at the "Song of Solomon".

a reply to: Sigismundus

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.

At the onset I was reluctant to engage in this type of discussion simply because it is an old and controversial subject which leaves more enemies than teaching will ever do. I did not bother to check your source of people that you call scholars simply because those sources are nothing but opinionated teachers at best. I will not argue that point that - Quote "No serious biblical scholar believes anything past Mark 16:8" Unquote - that explained all that I needed to know concerning your beliefs. You do realize that you have condemned the New Jerusalem Catholic Bible as being translated by unqualified translators, do you not? Yes they also include the long rendition of Mark 20:9-20 among many other translators.

You are in very deep water when you support Westcott and Hort and I would advise anyone of the same mindset to understand who these two men along with Origen were even till death. If that is what you support then that is your prerogative but you are treading deep water.

There is a high conflict among the true translators such as Charlesworth concerning the Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus MSS. There is highly questionable characters of all three such as Westcott, Hort and Origen who you seem to admire.

Now let us examine John 20:13 where you insist that you have a valid translation that the word Kurios means "husband". Hang on to that translation because it is a rare translation indeed. When you read on down from verse 13 to the 18th verse of John 20 you will note that the author refers to the same entity that you interpret husband, as being Lord and not husband. So in effect the very same author of John 20: 13 and 18 use the same word (whatever it may be) interchangeably as husband and Lord. Does it not mean Lord Master which is Strongs 2962? I do challenge your source as bogus and very misleading as to infer that Mary Magdalene was the husband of the assumed dead Jesus. I believe that was your intent. I also believe that you had to present that avenue of thought so as to confirm your belief that Jesus did not die on the cross but lived to procreate with Mary Magdalene. In doing so you had to inject the bogus interpretation that Jesus was the husband of Mary.
Thank you for a very good lesson in deceiving the ignorant but I am not one of them.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Not at all.

Just only one Version has all the verses. The easiest way to find the preserved word is by verse count.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Why don't you do a thread on the Song of Solomon. I would be interested in reading your study of it and any problems you see with it.

a reply to: Gothmog

So God's inspiration was imperfect? Because he inspired 4 people to write 4 differing accounts of the same event.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: vethumanbeing

Why don't you do a thread on the Song of Solomon. I would be interested in reading your study of it and any problems you see with it.

You are a sly one; pushing this very difficult text back upon me. There are no problems with it poetically (its the different written interpretation or edited by many others that appear in their bibles). I am not sure any one cares about the manipulation of certain texts. I am surprised Psalms exists at all; "The Song of Solomon" is so esoteric and holds so many meanings. I would have to think about it.

a reply to: vethumanbeing

Seeing it as Poetry is first and foremost. Many do not and thereby take it literally. As in modern Poetry there are some literal aspects but over all it is Poetry. Not like unto some English Poetry like Old King Cole or other anti Monarchy. But in the fact it more song or flowing form meant to be a song of love, man and woman representing God and Israel.

a reply to: Seede
Ref: Mark's ending in mid sentence at 16:8

It might be a worthwhile exercise to find what the Resurrection accounts actually have in common.



l. All four Gospel accounts mention that Joseph of Arimathea begs for the body of Jesus and is granted burial rights to the corpse from Pilate in a rock tomb.



2. All four Gospels mention that Mary Magdeline (and co.) saw where the tomb was and were the first to find the tomb empty.



3. All four Gospels mention that at least 1 person dressed in white was present when the women arrived (all agree it was on the day after the Sabbath i.e. the first day of the week).


4. The synoptic gospels mention 'fear' of the women at an empty tomb.


It is at this point that the Gospel descrepancies really begin. That is, up until Mark 16:8 the narrative is similar in outlines but beginning at 16:8 they all begin to diverge.

This is the smoking gun for the contention of modern Biblical scholars that Mark's gospel ends at 16:8; anything past Mark 16:8 (i.e. 16:9-20) uses non-Markan language, Weltanschauung, diction, syntax, vocabulary, style of utterance and grammatical constructions.

So historically we seem to be dealing with an empty tomb - but we are a long way off from having a resurrection with 'mainfestations' (i.e. appearances) of the so-called Risen Christ. It is possible that the blanks were filled in with midrashic expansions taken from the Old Testament (e.g. Hosea 6:2 'after two days he will revive us, on the third day he shall raise us up...' etc.)

a reply to: Sigismundus

I think you might find this a little entertaining considering the ending of Mark.

Here is a snippet of improtance from the article linked below

The verses in question have been in every Bible we know about in history in every language it was ever printed in, except the liberal RSV that removed them, and then the NRSV put them back in again.

Even critical text versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB and the modern Catholic versions keep these verses in their "bible" versions, although sometimes in brackets or in smaller italicized letters. When you see the footnote the "oldest and best manuscripts omit" or the NIV footnote "The most reliable early manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20" know that they are referring to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

To see what these "oldest and best manuscripts" are REALLY like, go here for many examples of their utter corruption and disagreement even between themselves.

brandplucked.webs.com...

The confusion and doubt thrown upon these inspired verses of Scripture can be seen in the modern versions themselves. The RSV of 1952 actually omits all twelve verses from their text and places them in small italicized letters at the bottom of the page. Then the NRSV, and the ESV (both revisions of the RSV) have put them back in the text in brackets and separated from the rest of the chapter and with a note: "SOME of the earliest manuscripts do not include 16:9-20."

SOME!?! I thought "some" meant several, not TWO! The NASB is interesting in that it continues to change from one edition to the next. The 1960 NASB brackets verses 9-20 and footnotes "Some of the oldest mss. omit." Then it adds another ending to Mark. Addition "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."

Mark 16:9-20 Is it inspired Scripture or not?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Aren't you the one that says the KJV isn't a legit version of the bible?

Why quote a KJV only site?

a reply to: Akragon

I never said that, as you know I stand by the AV being the preserved word of God

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Meaning the AV is the only "infallible" bible...

The author of your link disagrees... though reading though his links... he's in error all over the place...

especially concerning 1 john 5:7... but that is neither here nor there

In fact... not some, but NONE of the earliest texts include that passage... and most don't include the spurious ending of Mark

Also considering he's pushing Ken Ham and his band of jokers... i wouldn't trust this guy in any case

a reply to: Akragon
I think you may be confusing yourself here by not realising that the AV and the KJV are the same thing.
AV ("Authorised Version") has been the traditional label in England, which is why I always use it myself, and "King James Version" is the American preference,

a reply to: DISRAELI

Different wording though...

the KJV is written in "old english" more or less.... whereas the AV is written in plain modern

a reply to: Akragon
No, the "AV" is the British-usage name for the old-fashioned language version translated by King James' command. As I told you just above.
I have several copies of it. I see on the title page "Appointed to be read in churches". Hence "Authorised Version".

Perhaps there is an "American Version" in modern language, also abbreviated to AV, but Chester John presumably doesn't mean that one.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Actually you may be right...

I believe im thinking of the ASV... as opposed to the "authorized version"...

I was thinking he meant the "american version"...