Textual Discrepancies & How They Could Impact Christianity

The feeling is mutual. Again, Luke the evanglist writes: "Inasmuch as many have understaken to draw up a narrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us, even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,

​

It seemed good to me [Luke] also, having CAREFULLY INVESTIGATED all things from the first, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus, So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:1-4) The question is do you or do you not trust Luke. I trust Luke's investigation and reporting.Even given the elements of his particular style or flavor, even given that some sayingss seem in different order then elsewhere read, regardless, I basically trust that God used him to report to us. I count your complaint as a rejection, not so much of interpretation, but of quotation. "And He did not eat anything in those days, and when they were concluded, He became hungry." Your view is not of one unified revelation but of a fragmented religious scrap book of Jewish culture. You do not see or believe in the unity of the revelation of the Bible.The instance on the Mount of Transfiguration where Moses and Elijah were seen conversing with Jesus is an example. When Peter blurted out that they should make three tabernacles, one for Jesus, one for Elijah, and one for Moses, God rebuked Peter. "This is My beloved Son. Hear Him" They looked up and saw Jesus only.Jesus Christ completed the testimonies given by all the men of God in the OT. We needed them to appreciate the Son of God. They all, in a positive way, manifested something of this Coming One. Only the Son is completely satisfying to the Father.You're shortsighted if you cannot see this, I think. "God having spoken of old in many portions and in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, has at the last of these days spoken to us in the Son, whom He appointed Heir of all things, ..." (Hebrews 1:1,2a) "For as many promises of God as there are, in Him [Christ] is the Yes; therefore also through Him is the Amen to God, for glory through us." (2 Cor. 1:20) Jesus Christ is the great and final "Yes" to all the promises of God. And through Him we even have the grace to recognize this and proclaim "Amen" through Him.I don't mind if you dismiss these passages as "quote mining". It is your loss.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I wouldn't think so. I hazard a guess that it's an honest appraisal of what is there to be seen. Something that rings true being assailed by something that rings hollow. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

quote:

---

You are putting your emphasis on how much the suffering is discribed, whether mental or physical, what have you. That is beside the point. As long as you have a teaching from Jesus of a REJECTED King of Israel, you have the classic "Suffering Servant" paradoxical view of the Messianic promise.

---

Although the author of Luke calls the story a parable it isn't. There is no moral teaching. The story is an allegory and if it was a teaching by Jesus it was probably nodding back to Isa 5:1-7. The characters may not represent what Christians think they do since Jesus had a different view of what was coming than later Christians. If you want to get into that in more detail, you may want to take it up in the Parables 101 thread.What suffering actually is, is very much the point. Being rejected doesn't automatically mean one suffers (physical pain or mental anguish). Yes, it is important whether the author depicts someone as actually suffering or not. It was important to what the author was trying to tell his audience.We can see why these textual criticisms don't actually impact the religion as a whole. Catch phrases have no actual meaning and stories are conflated to present a new overall view. You've implied it yourself by your responses. It doesn't matter what the author actually says. We can interpret the stories to fit our beliefs. Interesting.

Kinda. The evidence shows that the Bible is simply the work of man, of committees, of power factions, of politics. It is not so much a scrap book as an anthology of anthologies. I may have even mentioned that before.The idea that it is some unified object is refuted by the fact that there is no such thing as an universal Canon.And it seems you still don't get it. The quotes themselves are not quote mining, your acts, your practice of pulling stuff out of context is quote mining.And you continue to simply dismiss almost all of the Bible it seems in favor of a few quotes taken out of context.This is the issue of the thread, there are textual discrepancies as well as multiple purposes for different sections. It is NOT all one unified message.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Thanks for the reply, jaywill. I neither meant to accuse you of anything inappropriate, nor to imply you were shutting off debate--you clearly are willing to continue debate. I was just curious, since I'd heard similar phrasing before in similar circumstances.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

I hear you.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

The 'context of the quote' is the introduction. The introduction tells us the context with which we are to read the rest. And that introduction tells that historical reportage is to follow. How do you deal with Luke's apparent disagreement? Do you claim to know his intent better than he did?Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The beginning of Moby Dick uses similar language and the book itself uses many of the same writing techniques. It is likely that the actual character Luke never even met Jesus and that the actual author of Luke was reporting hearsay (and of course, cribbing off even earlier Gospels and narratives).The story of the temptation in the desert is filled with symbolism and is an allegorical fable. It's likely that the author of Luke was creating a larger allegorical narrative and so changed the ordering and timing of events to suit his particular voice.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You're meandering off the point.A quotemine takes a persons (Lukes) statement out of the context they (Luke) intended. Jaywill wasn't quotemining Lukes introduction in supporting his contention that Lukes account is historical - for that is the very context Luke intends to set (it being the introduction).Whether it's truly historical or not isn't the issue. Whether it's a quotemine or not is.- I'm sure a lot of historians didn't meet the characters about whom they write. And 'cribbed' their information from various sources. History doesn't necessarily morph into allegory by their doing this.- The story being filled with symbolism detracts not one iota from it's historicity. It would more than add to it in the specific case of a long-awaited Messiah. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

It is precisely on topic. The quote taken from Luke aligns well with the opening of Moby Dick, a character, in the Gospel Luke, in Moby Dick the character Ishmael, makes a claim, of historicity. jawill was using that quote to support his assertion that the account of the temptation was to be taken as factual and literal.I am simply pointing out that the author of Luke was using that same techniques of allegory that we see repeated in Luke and many other parts of the Bible.The Textual discrepancies, for example between the account of the temptation in Luke and in Matthew would not have been significant or important to Jews of the time because they recognized that the writers were using symbolism and allegory.The impact on Christianity comes from the inability of many Christians to understand literature and the concept as expressed by jaywill that "the Bible is some Unified Revelation".

I'd remind you that the topic is your claim of (supposed) quote-mining.- You can quotemine Moby Dick by taking something stated in Moby Dick out of the context the author of Moby Dick intended. Whether or not Moby Dick is actual history or not is irrelevant to the issue of quotemining or no.It is not quotemining to point to Lukes declaration that his account is a historical one. The question then is whether you trust his claim. Jaywill says he does.- I think jaywill was doing as I am doing - countering your 'it's allegorical' claim by:a) pointing to the fact that the author doesn't agree with your view.b) stating his trusting the authors position over yours.- You say. He says not. A question of trust.- I'll restrict myself to contending with a single issue: your claim of quotemining. It's better that way

If the only thing you wish to harp on is the one example of jaywill quoting the opening of Luke I am more than happy to concede that in that one incident it was not quote mining. I have no problem agreeing with that. We have no idea what the author thought, we only know what the character Luke in the Gospel said.Further, if you would actually read the thread you would find that I was referring to a common and continued practice of jaywill of taking one quote out of context and using it as proof text for some other passage, the concept that the Bible explains the Bible. How is the declaration of the character Luke any different than the declaration of Ismael? No it is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of looking at the literature itself and understanding the culture of the author.It is important to the topic, and helps the audience understand the some of the things that lead to the positions so many Christians espouse.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I am still curious how you would imagine a book inspired by God to mankind.Do you think that if such a book existed there should be instantaneous and universal agreement among all readers about every part of it ?Do you envision that the very second it was read, all matters in it would be instantly comprehended, with not one moment of disagreement, no need for consultation, no discussion, no debate, no need for any committees ?Would you expect that all enfluenced by it would be totally free from political opinions or considerations ?Does this book of God come floating down from heaven and, BINGO!, as soon as 100 intelligent people read it, there is absolutely unanimous agreement by all parties, instantaneously, concerning each and all details regarding this book ?Yes, the council of Nicene was presided over by a politcal figure who perhaps had less interest in theology then in the unity of his empire. I don't deny these things.Many of us do not feel that these evidences of humanity's meddling render God Almighty powerless and not able to communicate to His creatures.These things that "discourage" you, many of us do not find as insurmountable obstacles to a God inspired communication from the Divine to the Human. Let's see here. Can I also assume that Evolution did not occur because there is no universal agreement on just how it happened ?That's different huh ?Let's see. There is also no Solar System because there is no universal agreement that there are nine planets or eight. That Jesus did not eat anything during the 40 days was not at all "pulled out of context." Verses which are plainly in context, you flatly contradict.There was really little need to appeal to other passages. But I did. And I will stand by this:Moses and Elijah had great ministries in the Old Testament. Each of these ministries was accompanied with a extreme fast. That the Son of God was similar in this regard is totally not a surprise to me.To you a career skeptic, probably Moses means nothing, Elijah means less, and the Son of God means nothing. So to a indoctrinated career unbeliever, following around Bart Erhman, what's the difference ?Moses fasted for 4o days, (perhaps 80, since he turned around and went right up the Mt. Sanai again to meet with God again after the golden calf incident ).Elijah went 40 days and nights on one small meal. These two represent the law and the prophets. That the Son of God's ministry should have a similar fast is understandable to me. I don't see why a more important figure should be accompanied by a less particular and perhaps miraculous fast. These textural problems presented in this discussion, I don't think are too serious. You're looking for some devastating textural contradiction.I don't know of one which is devastating to the general message of the New Testament.Maybe the most significant one I can think of is about John chapter one. I have heard that some manuscript/s read "only begotten God" rather than only begotten son. Now that is a pretty significant descrepancy, maybe. Which was written - "only begotten son" or "only begotten God"? I don't know. But either way, I still need the salvation of Jesus. Do you see?You guys are looking for some textural descrepancy which will obsolve you of the seriousness of needing the salvation of Christ.You seem to be hanging your hopes on some copyist's typo or error which will allow you to dismiss the urgency of the need of a Savior.I don't think you have any such textural problem that will allow you to disregard the overall Gospel message.Some people go to Seminary to find God. And some other people go to Seminary to get away from God. I think they figure that if they can lose God in a Theological Seminary they can lose God anywhere.I am serious. And I think Bart Erhman and some "destructive" higher critics are of this latter type of seminarian. (Higher Ciriticism is not in and of itself necessarily opposed to the Gospel.)Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Please show where I said things discourage me?The fact is that there is not even a universal list of what books would be included. And the folk familiar with how literature is written and how the terms were used also understand that the mention of 40 days is symbolic of a long fast of indeterminate length in the Moshe myths and the Elijah story as well and that fasting does not mean going without all food. Ah, so yet again the goal posts move. Now it is just a "general message of the New Testament". That's a whatever jaywill, of little importance and I don't think even very significant to what I think the message of the New Testament, the Gospel is.Salvation, if there is salvation, will be by GOD's grace. The message of the New Testament though is that we are charged to try to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sorrowful, teach the young, protect the helpless, to do.The textural discrepancies impact Christianity by moving peoples focus from just doing to some future possible reward.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

You may notice that I put discouraged inside of quotes, not meaning I was quoting you. Rather for lack of a better word, I put it in quotes - mine.Encouraged may have been more appropriate, as in encourage your a prior skeptical view of things related to God. Then take the books agreed upon by all, for starters. I could converse with you for weeks on the usage and significance of numbers in the Bible.You are creating a false dichotomy. Ie. because 40 is used symbolically therefore Jesus did not really go without food for 40 days.Why not ? Why is the symbolic usage of 40 suppose to negate the details of Jesus' fast ? By all means, put the goal post back then. Specifically, you have no grounds to contradict the details given by Luke about Jesus wilderness fast. What's God's grace ? Is it to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sorrowful, teach the young, protect the helpless PLUS contradict the details about Jesus Christ as told in Luke ? Don't exagerate too much.
And my Bible says that God Himself is an exceeding great reward. "Do not be afraid, Abram I AM your shield and exceeding great reward." (Gen 15:1) It seems that God wanted Abraham to appreciate that in the here and now just knowing God was Abraham's exceedingly great reward. He did not say He will be, but He was.And Christ tells the overcomers in the church in Philadelphia the be careful that no one robs them of the rewarding crown which they already have: "I come quickly; hold fast what you have that no one take your crown." (Rev. 3:11) So there is not only a future enjoyment of God. There is a present reward and prize of the enjoyment of God today.This is not then all, "Pie in the sky" but "Ham where I am". Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.