Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
I have a few questions before I make any statements on what I have read so far. When you make statements or comments on passages from the gospels are you interpreting from the original greek or are you using a thesaurus (spelling) of some kind?
If you are using a greek manuscript is it Textus Receptus ('Erasmus') or some other version of the available manuscripts.

Greek is not my forte and, whenever I feel it is not necessary, I rather consult English translations.
The one I use most often in my quote is the NKJV. I also use the NIV, but I went back on the NIV quotes and changed most of them, because the translation is not close to the Greek text. (please note I stated the translations I used at the bottom of my intro page).
I always compare with other translations, that is NASB, KJV, YLT & Darby. I also consult the Net Bible, even some French Bibles to be sure I do not quote a wrong translation. So in my work, you may see "Darby" or "YLT" or "NASB" in case where I think the others are misleading.
If there is some critical differences in translations, then I consult the tools given by The Blue Letter Bible (KJV, Textus Receptus) and also the Online Greek Bible.
I am also known to ask for translations from whichever list I belong to at the time, just to make sure on the tricky ones.
Despite my obvious handicap on that matter, I am careful about translations I work with, and never select one because it fits my purpose better than the others.
On the top of that page, I gave some of my main references:
http://www.concentric.net/~Mullerb/lrf.shtml

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

Dr.X
I guess you are probably right in your statement, however factually, the truth is there is very little to substantiate Alexander from the ancient texts available. I'm just saying if we are going to be critical on Biblical historical authenticity then lets put all ancient history to a critical review.

Maybe there was a Helenistic "Q" or a behind the scenes influence on the Carthegenian writings.

Doctor X

They have.

It has just taken a bit too long to get around to applying critical review to the Bible.

--J.D.

Iasion

Greetings Jim et al,


Really?
He must have borrowed the TARDIS
:-)


In fact,
there are contemporary records for Alexander :

* inscriptions (& coins and busts) - does anyone have any details?

* Aeschines speech Against Ctesiphon (c.330)

* The Astronomical Diary of Esagila, Babylonian priest (c.331)


As well as the well known later sources :

* Diodorus of Sicily

* Quintus Curtius Rufus

* Plutarch

* Arrian


Iasion

Jim Larmore

Bernard,
I have read your web-site pretty well, I'm sure there are parts of it that I scanned over that I should have paid more attention to, however the part I spent the most time on was your commentarial treatment of the "Q".

I think you have hit the nail on the head when you concluded that Mark was written first and the other two ( Luke and Matthew ) had access to his writings. I mean it just makes sense that they would have and I don't see anything to cause this fact to invalidate the historicity or authenticity of the three gospels. This is the same conclusion many Biblical scholars and commentators have made also. The harmonies and disharmonies of the gospels are no more than human error in many cases and really shows some independent work to some degrees. I think one of christianity's biggest downfalls is to make claims of inerracy with regard to the Bible. The Bible was written by human being who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they still made mistakes, this is obvious. The Bibles we have today are a compilation of many Bibles put together over the years. In the past I did some research on the KJV's translation and found it was rendered from the LXX, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, the catholic Rheims N.T and Erasmus' original Testus Receptus. What a diversified selection to draw from!!!!

Your opinions on the "Q" source however is something I have to be more sceptical about. If there was a written source for "Q" it had to be the writings of Mark ( for Luke and Matthew )in my opinion and possibly some other forms of manuscripts like letters etc. There had to be "oral" renditions of the story of Jesus and His work from the other apostles to add in there also. The influence of Peter ( the most outspoken disciple ) has to be considered as part of the "Q" as a matter of fact some commentators think Peter and Mark worked intimately together to write the gospel of Mark.
I think in some cases where you show Parenthetically a "Q" correction or complementation is "speculation" more than credible evidence for "Q". The writers redaction doesn't necessarily indicate a "Q" correction or complimentation of any passage. I'm not saying you indicate that but its almost apparent behind what you are saying and commenting on. Editing is something all writers do and these apparent corrections could be simply the work of the writers themselves.

Finally , Bernard I know you are not a Christian and your work here is not complimentary of scriptures but you have an insultive flair about your comments that I find particully offensive. I'm not saying this to piss you off its just the way I feel. I applaud your work here, its admirable to see someone dig to the depth you have. The fact that you stay away from the original language for your own translation is "discounting" however when it comes to synoptic work with the Bible. Working with the greek can give you a different and possibly more accurate perspective on many passages, especially when you consider there was no punctuation used in the original writings.

I do respect you Bernard, keep researching the word of God maybe one day it will make a difference for you, Especially in the comming events we all face on this earth.

Best regards to you,

Jim Larmore

CX

I'm not sure I follow you here. By definition "Q" (quelle) is everything that is in GLk and GMt and NOT in GMk. So your statement is incoherent.

Bernard Muller

Jim wrote:
you have an insultive flair about your comments that I find particully offensive.

From where you come from, I can understand your point of view.
But "insultive" I object. I am certainly critical and I consider biblical texts as any other texts, with no reverence whatsoever. I do not treat them with white gloves, that's for sure.

Jim wrote:
The fact that you stay away from the original language for your own translation is "discounting" however when it comes to synoptic work with the Bible. Working with the greek can give you a different and possibly more accurate perspective on many passages, especially when you consider there was no punctuation used in the original writings.

I heard that before: the Greek would eliminate most of the "problems" which shows in the translations!
But some very proficient in Greek scholars come up with their own translations for particular passages, which show marked differences between them regardless. Some of them, pretending to have a knowledge of Greek superior to anybody else, supply off-center translations for their own benefit. So I think reviewing the best translations available & going into the Greek in case of major discrepancies is a more impartial approach. And I quote most of the time the NKJV, that is the New King James Version, which you should not find objectionable.
And why would you say the KJV translators would be better than 19th/20th century ones?

Best regards, Bernard

Jim Larmore

CX,
The "Q" is if it exists and I believe in a degree that it does, would be the influencial complementation or correction of an outside source written or otherwise. It is attributed to the GLuke and GMatthew. Mark is believed to existed prior to the Gluke and Gmatthew gospels so Mark could be a part of the written source of "Q". However, I think some attribute a "Q" source to even influence Mark and I agree that it could be Peter or other letters etc. ( Like I posted earlier )

Jim Larmore

Bernard ,
I didn't say the KJV translators were better than the more contemporary NKJV translators , I only said what I found in my research that they used as references when they "rendered" the KJV. I think the NKJV is an excellent "translation" which is more than I can say for the NIV and other more modern bibles which have whole sale deletions. Most of the Bible have very honest up front in your face statements but these new bibles are very politically correct about things like homosexuallity etc. The KJV and the NKJV are not so much like that at all. I believe the only aspect of political correctness which appeared in the KJV was they didn't want to offend the king about slavery because he had slaves , so you don't see much about slaves in the KJV translation.

I'm surprized the moderator hasn't called us for getting off the topic hear. I would like to ask your opinion on the prophecy of Daniel 2 where the king of Babylon dreamed of an "image" which portrayed the 4 major powers that we see in history.
The golden head was Babylon, the breast of siver was Medo-persia, the brass loins was Greese , the legs of Iron was Rome and the feet of miry clay mixed with iron depect the ten divisions that came after the barbaric tribes defeated Rome. Historically, these were the Heruli, Ostogoths, Visogoths, Suevi, Franks, Lambards, Anglo-saxons, Alamanni, Vandals and the Burgundians. The Bible says in Daniel 2:43 that the kingdoms of the toes would mix themselves but they would not cleave one with another. I believe this is referring to the attempt to unify Europe by the royal marriages over the years but there has never been one single unified power in Europe since Rome fell.

Prophectically, the Bible has been 100% accurate in this .

Your opinion sir:

Gregg

Jim,

Empire raising is hardly an extraordinary event in history. While I doubt the evidence for the rise of the Grecian Empire is as spotty as you claim, the story itself is hardly farfetched. Anyway, if it didn't happen, how do you explain the fact that Alexander's generals carved his empire up among them after his death? How do you explain the Greek Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt?

Now, somebody performing actual miracles, healing the sick, walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, bringing dead people back to life, coming back to life himself, then ascending into the sky--well, Jesus is not the only figure in history who was said to have done such things. You need to explain why you accept the gospel claims for Jesus, but not similar claims made for other holy men, religious leaders, kings, and emperors in history. And no, the success of Christianity is not evidence, or then the success of Islam and Buddhism is evidence for the authenticity of the founding stories of those faiths--as is the incredibly rapid growth of Mormonism.

And no, the martyrdom of early Christians is not evidence. There is really no evidence that ANY of the original apostles were martyred, much less that they were martyred for professing Jesus as Lord. Anyway, wouldn't the martyrdom argument also be an argument for the authenticity of Islam or of Mormonism?