Farrell Till

Yes, as I showed in my latest post, inconsistencies wouldn't be necessarily errors, but irreconcilable inconsistencies would be. If I said on one occasions that I was born on April 19, 1934, but at another time said that I was born on April 26, 1933, this would be an irreconcilable inconsistency and, hence, an error. The fact is that I was born on April 26, 1933, so the first statement about my birth date would be an error.

Chili

The point made in the apparent contradiction is to show that 'just' a ray of light is not sufficient to illuminate the night and the day, such as would be required to make eternity a reality after crucifixion (as in Rev. 22:5 for example).

Magdalene thought that the body was stolen because for her (alone) the light of common day would not return without the morning star and thus reason cannot prevail . . . wherefore the final impostor will be worse than the first. This is exactly what the chief priests had predicted earlier which really is the level of spiritual maturity that prevailed in Judaism at this time, to which Jesus spoke in John 6 because the children of Israel died nonetheless.

The big difference between the Magdalene details is that Matthew returns the believer to Galilee once again for purgation to continue while John sends one to heaven after the purgation period is complete.

So if Matthew describes the not-so-divine tragedy and John spells out the divine comedy should we still expect them to be the same?

I am not sure if you get the message here Farrell but the bottom line is that Matthew sends one to hell while John sends one to heaven. After all, purgation for 40 years and still die must be hell on earth or the final impostor would not be the final one, nor could he be worse than he first.

Chili

God never would but the Lord God certainly will as he did in Matthew where the angel of light appeared to Magdalene and led her to Galilee once again.

JoeWallack

JW:
Here is BDAG for the offending word:

ἀποκρίνομαι 1 aor. mid. ἀπεκρινάμην (occas. NT, but the usual form in Joseph.). Pass.: 1 fut. ἀποκριθήσομαι; aor. ἀπεκρίθην (freq. in NT; in Jos. only Ant. 9, 35 and in Just. only D. 3, 6) (Ammonios, De Adfin. Voc. Diff. 67 [KNikkau ’66] states the purist’s position: ἀποκριθῆναι … ἐστι τὸ ἀποχωρισθῆναι, ἀποκρίνασθαι δὲ τὸ ἐρωτηθ�*ντα λόγον δοῦναι = ἀποκριθῆναι has to do w. making distinctions, ἀποκρίνασθαι with making a reply; cp. Phryn. 108 Lob; on developments in the Koine s. M-M; also B-D-F §78; W-S. §13, 9; Rob. 334; Mayser I 22, 158; Thackeray 239; DELG s.v. κρίνω).

�* answer, reply (so occas. in Hdt. and fr. Thu. on; ins, pap, LXX; En 106:9; TestSol, TestAbr, TestJob; JosAs 4:16; ParJer, ApcMos, ApcrEsdr [Epiph. 70, 14], EpArist; Philo, e.g. Aet. M. 4 [ἀπεκρίνατο]; Just.; diff. and more precisely Ath. [‘separate oneself’]) τινί and in Lk πρός τινα to someone (Thu. 5, 42, 2; Iambl., Myst. 7, 5 at end) Lk 4:4; 6:3; Ac 3:12; 25:16. To a question Mt 11:4; 13:11; 19:4; Mk 12:28, 34; Lk 3:11; 7:22; J 1:21, 26, 48; 3:5 al.; MPol 8:2. To requests, exhortations, commands, etc., the answer being quoted directly Mt 4:4; 12:39; 13:37; 1 Cl 12:4; MPol 10, 1 al. Freq. in Hermas: v 1, 1, 5 and 7; 3, 3, 1; 3, 4, 1 and 3; 3, 6, 5f al. Not preceded by a question expressed or implied, when the sentence is related in content to what precedes and forms a contrast to it, reply (as a reaction) Mt 3:15; 8:8; 12:48; 14:28; 15:24, 28; Mk 7:28; J 2:18; 3:9; Ac 25:4 al. τινί τι Mt 15:23; 22:46; Mk 14:40; Lk 23:9 (cp. Epict. 2, 24, 1 πολλάκις ἐπιθυμῶν σου ἀκοῦσαι ἦλθον πρός σε καὶ οὐδ�*ποτ�* μοι ἀπεκρίνω). οὐ γὰρ ᾔδει τί ἀποκριθῇ Mk 9:6; οὐδεν Mt 26:62; 27:12; Mk 14:61; πρός τι to someth. (Pla., Protag. 338d) οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ πρὸς οὐδὲ ἕν ῥῆμα he made no reply to him, not even to a single word or charge Mt 27:14 (cp. Jesus, son of Ananias, before the procurator Albinus: πρὸς ταῦτα οὐδ᾽ ὁτιοῦν ἀπεκρίνατο Jos., Bell. 6, 305; TestAbr A 16 p. 98, 11 [Stone p. 44] ὁ θάνατος … οὐκ ἀπεκρίθη αὐτῷ [Abraham] λόγον; Eupolis Com. [V b.c.] K. ὡς ὑμῖν ἐγὼ πάντως ἀποκρινοῦμαι πρὸς τὰ κατηγορούμενα.—Artem. 3, 20 ὁ μηδὲν ἀποκρινόμενος μάντις … καὶ ἡ σιγὴ ἀπόκρισις ἀλλ᾽ ἀπαγορευτική= … a negative answer, to be sure. Just., A II, 9, 1 πρὸς τοῦτο; D. 50, 1 πρὸς πάντα). W. inf. foll. Lk 20:7 (on the rhetorical exchange 20:2–8 cp. Pla., Meno 76a and b); w. acc. and inf. foll. (X., Hell. 2, 2, 18) Ac 25:4 (cp. Just., D. 67, 9); foll. by ὅτι and direct discourse Mk 8:4; Ac 25:16; IPhld 8:2; foll. by dir. disc. without ὅτι Mk 9:17; J 1:21 (cp. Just., D. 35, 2 al.).

② Of the continuation of discourse like עָ�*ָה (וַיַּעַן וַיּאֹמֶר, cp. the Homeric ἀμειβόμενος προσ�*ειπε Il. 3; 437, s. DGE s.v. ἀμείβω; ἀπαμειβόμενος προσ�*φη Il. 1, 84 al.; for related pleonasm s. L-S-J-M λ�*γω III 7) continue Mt 11:25; 12:38; 15:15; 22:1; 26:25; Mk 10:24; begin, speak up Mt 26:63 v.l.; Mk 9:5; 10:51; 11:14; 12:35; Lk 1:19; 13:14; 14:3; J 5:19; Ac 5:8 (cp. Dt 21:7; 26:5; Is 14:10; Zech 1:10; 3:4; 1 Macc 2:17; 8:19; 2 Macc 15:14). Used formulaically w. εἰπεῖν or λ�*γειν, and oft. left untransl.: 2 Cl 5:3; ἀπεκρίθη καὶ εἶπεν J 2:19; ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν Mt 16:16 al. (TestAbr B 4, p. 108, 21 [Stone p. 64]; TestJob; ParJer 7:2); ἀποκριθεὶς ἔφη Lk 23:3; GPt 11:46; ἀπεκρίθη καὶ λ�*γει Mk 7:28; J 1:49 v.l.; 4:17; ἀποκριθήσονται λ�*γοντες Mt 25:37; ἀπεκρίθη λ�*γων Hs 5, 4, 3 Joly (cp. Hdt. 5, 67, 2 χρᾷ φᾶσα=[the Pythia] declared and said; TestLevi 19:2; B-D-F §420, 1; Mlt. 131; Schwyzer II 301; Dalman, Worte 19f [Eng. 24f]; PJoüon, ‘Respondit et dixit’: Biblica 13, ’32, 309–14).—B. 1266. M-M. TW.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago


JW:
I've highlited Luke 23:3 above which has the exact same form as Matthew 28:5. Presumably this is such a common word, 28:5 was not specifically identified above since there are so many uses of the word in the Christian Bible.

Note that in the definition above "later" is never used and there is nothing in the definition implying later. In fact, the definition indicates the opposite. The primary meaning is "answer" and the definitions and contexts of examples above support the common understanding that "answer" indicates a Connected Chronological sequence which is in Opposition to "later" which indicates a Separated Chronological sequence. So McDonald appears to have the following problems here:

1) The usual Lexicons have no range of meaning of "later".

2) There is no Context in "Matthew" to support "later" anyway. McDonald Confesses to us that if "later" was meant by "Matthew" than "Matthew" here would be out of Chronological order.

3) The usual Lexicons indicate a meaning opposite to "later".

I've ordered Moulton's Lexicon on speed delivery. Assuming there is a "later" in the definition I suspect it really means "after" emphasizing Sequencial Order and not Time separation. Under the circumstances it would be nice if McDonald could Save Us some Time himself and just provide the Complete definition here from Moulton. Otherwise, some of the more Skeptical Skeptics may become Skeptical regarding Why McDonald would not do so for an offending Word that at this point is the Key to his entire Defense.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Decypher

An interesting article: "Forever misusing the Concordance" (Inerrancy Exposed)

http://www.inerrancyexposed.com/forever.html

"A common trick of pop-apologists, when confronted with a biblical error, is to search a concordance for all diachronic meanings of the term - and select a meaning which obscures or eliminates the error. Forget which word best translates the word - just select which word best supports the doctrine of inerrancy! A classic example is the Inerrantist's treatment of Jesus' prophecy of the End Times. Jesus fully expected the End Times to occur immanently - within his own generation. And so, the Evangelists record Jesus saying "this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place." However, the Inerrantist has a significant problem with this verse (unless the Inerrantist is a Preterist, who oddly believes that Jesus did return in a generation's time). It is clear to most fundamentalists that Jesus never returned as he promised within his generation. So, they turn to a concordance, and note that the Greek 'genea' can mean 'age', and retranslate the passage with a meaning that favors their inerrant interpretation.

It doesn't matter a jot that all trained bible translators realize that in this particular passage Jesus must in fact have meant 'generation'. The Inerrantist is disinterested in the correct translation, as long as he or she can produce a meaning that is inerrant. It doesn't matter that in every other place in the New Testament, genea is translated 'generation'. Proper method in interpretation is thrown out the window by the Inerrantist. The Inerrantist will choose from the range of semantic meanings in a concordance, but ignore the particular context of the word within the sentence it actually appears (the synchronic sense - which is usually the more important in translation), choosing a word which is most convenient for their bias, even though it may be quite inappropriate and incorrect in the current context.

This tactic was exposed as a fallacious means of interpretation by biblical scholar James Barr, who called the tactic "illegitimate totality transfer". This exegetical error, which is very common among those who seek to prove their point from concordances alone, is explained by James Barr as follows: "The error that arises when the meaning of a word (understood as the total series of relations in which it is used in the literature) is read into a particular case as its sense and implication there, may be called 'illegitimate totality transfer' " (The Semantics of Biblical Language (Glasgow: OUP, 1961), p. 218)."


The article has an (amusing) example from Jason Gastrich, for anyone interested.

Chili

The "End Times" occurs at a time that is not known to the believer . . . who therefore would never know that it had been as believer since it has not come for the believer as of yet (or he would no longer be a believer).

Obviously, it is time that ends when the believer is born into eternal life or time would not end at the End Time. Time-as-such is only known in our left brain which must end when we are reborn from our right brain where segmented time does not exist.

The reason that Jesus called it "this generation" is because only this generation can be conceived to exist in the left brain that was built upon a blank slate from birth. Hence, "this generation" is true but that will not be this, or any particular generation in the history of time.

Chili

More obvious must be the fact that in Matthew the great commission was conspired by the angel of light while they were on a spiritual high (it was a mountain top event) with even one apostle short which is precisely what caused some of them to act like holy rollers in the absence of faith.

If you compare this with John you will find that the event must take place in the upper room (instead of Galilee) where there is no place for religion as such. It was and still is there that the stigmata is given to those who are send in his name so the spirit of God can go before them wherever they go. This would make them Jesuit by nature in the likeness of Jesus (or Paul) who's only burden was and still is the love for his fellow man.

Decypher

Yeah, of course, I'm sure your right...

Chili

Well if he comes to you or to any of you do you think he comes in this or in the next generation? I mean, will you be there in the next generation? :banghead:

Decypher

I know that other people have already responded to this, but I will comment myself:


The definition given above is in keeping with what McDonald claims about the meaning of the term "contradiction". I am not disputing that point. McDonald seems to have suggested that if a contradiction could really be demonstrated, it would actually involve giving credence to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If I have correctly understood him on this point, then it seems to be a very strange claim.


Imagine that one gospel says:

"Mary Magdalene was one of the women that visited the sepulchre."

And imagine that another gospel were to say:

"Mary Magdalene was NOT one of the women that visited the sepulchre."


We have a contradiction here. The skeptic certainly has an error in the Bible, and so is happy with that. Does it give any support to the resurrection of Jesus Christ? I can't see how. That we have a contradiction, doesn't mean that Mary Magdalene necessarily ever existed. It doesn't mean that any women necessarily went and visited the sepulchre. It doesn't mean that Jesus necessarily was resurrected, or that he even existed. It does nothing, as far as I am aware, to support the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(1) If a skeptic can find a contradiction in the Bible then there doesn't seem to be any problem. It can be done, in principle, without having to acknowledge that one of the gospel accounts is telling the truth about Jesus getting resurrected.

(2) You don't need a contradiction to have a guarantee of error. (Obviously skeptics are interested in demonstrating error) The dictionary quoted provides: "A proposition may be controverted in other ways than by asserting its strict negation. For instance "that's red", is controverted by "that's green", since both cannot be true together."