"Objawiłem im Twoje imię i nadal będę objawiał"
Napisano 2003-08-13, godz. 15:36
2 Samuel 24:24
2 Samuel 24:24 reports David as purchasing a threshing floor and cattle from Araunah for 50 silver shekels. However 1 Chronicles 21:25 says that David paid out not 50 silver shekels but 600 gold shekels. How can this be?
The record at 2 Samuel 24:24 shows that David purchased the threshing floor and the cattle for 50 silver shekels ($110). However, the account at 1 Chronicles 21:25 speaks of David’s paying 600 gold shekels (c. $77,000) for the site. The writer of Second Samuel deals only with the purchase as it relates to the altar location and the materials for the sacrifice then made, and it thus appears that the purchase price referred to by him was restricted to these things. On the other hand, the writer of First Chronicles discusses matters as relating to the temple later built on the site and associates the purchase with that construction. (1Ch 22:1-6; 2Ch 3:1) Since the entire temple area was very large, it appears that the sum of 600 gold shekels applies to the purchase of this large area rather than to the small portion needed for the altar first built by David.
1 Kings 7:14
How could Hiram, a skilled artisan under King Solomon, be said to be of the tribe of Naphtali according to 1 Kings 7:14 while at the same time be of the tribe of Dan as 2 Chronicles 2:14 states?
This apparent difference resolves itself if we take the view, as some scholars do, that she was born of the tribe of Dan, had been widowed by a first husband of the tribe of Naphtali, and then was remarried to a Tyrian.
1 Kings 7:26
How is it that the molten sea spoken of at 1 Kings 7:26 is said to contain two thousand bath measures of water whereas the parallel account at 2 Chronicles 4:5 speaks of it as containing three thousand bath measures?
The account at 1 Kings 7:26 refers to the sea as ‘containing two thousand bath measures,’ whereas the parallel account at 2 Chronicles 4:5 speaks of it as ‘containing three thousand bath measures.’ Some claim that the difference is the result of a scribal error in the Chronicles account. However, while the Hebrew verb meaning “contain” in each case is the same, there is a measure of latitude allowable in translating it. Thus some translations render 1 Kings 7:26 to read that the vessel “held” or “would contain” 2,000 bath measures, and translate 2 Chronicles 4:5 to read that it “had a capacity of” or “could hold” or “could contain” 3,000 bath measures. (AT, JB, NW) This allows for the understanding that the Kings account sets forth the amount of water customarily stored in the receptacle while the Chronicles account gives the actual capacity of the vessel if filled to the brim.
1 Kings 9:28
Why does 1 Kings 9:28 say that 420 talents of Gold were brought from Ophir but at 2 Chronicles 8:18 it mentions that this amount was 450 talents?
David donated 3,000 talents of gold from Ophir for construction of the temple, gold valued at $1,156,050,000. (1Ch 29:1, 2, 4) Later, the trading fleet of David’s son Solomon regularly brought back from Ophir 420 talents of gold. (1Ki 9:26-28) The parallel account at 2 Chronicles 8:18 reads 450 talents. Some scholars have suggested that this difference came about when letters of the alphabet served as figures—that an ancient copyist could have mistaken the Hebrew numeral letter nun (0), representing 50, for the letter kaph (+), standing for 20, or vice versa. However, the evidence is that all numbers in the Hebrew Scriptures were spelled out, rather than represented by letters. A more probable explanation, therefore, is that both figures are correct and that the gross amount brought was 450 talents, of which 420 were clear gain.
1 Kings 15:16
Is there a discrepancy as to the time frame when Asa actually warred against Baasha?
The statement at 2 Chronicles 16:1 that Baasha came up against Judah “in the thirty-sixth year of the reign of Asa” has caused some question, since Baasha’s rule, beginning in the third year of Asa and lasting only 24 years, had terminated about 10 years prior to Asa’s 36th year of rule. (1Ki 15:33) While some suggest a scribal error and believe the reference is to the 16th or the 26th year of Asa’s reign, the assumption of such error is not required to harmonize the accounts. Jewish commentators quote the Seder Olam, which suggests that the 36th year was reckoned from the existence of the separate kingdom of Judah (997 B.C.E.) and corresponded to the 16th year of Asa (Rehoboam ruling 17 years, Abijah 3 years, and Asa now in his 16th year). (Soncino Books of the Bible, London, 1952, ftn on 2Ch 16:1) This was also the view of Archbishop Ussher. So, too, the apparent difference between the statement at 2 Chronicles 15:19 to the effect that, as for “war, it did not occur down to the thirty-fifth [actually, the fifteenth] year of Asa’s reign,” and the statement at 1 Kings 15:16 to the effect that “warfare itself took place between Asa and Baasha the king of Israel all their days,” may be explained in that once conflicts began between the two kings they were thereafter continuous, even as Hanani had foretold. – 2Ch 16:9.
1 Kings 18:1
In 1 Kings 18:1 Elijah is said to have gone before Ahab in the third year in order to end the drought upon the land. Yet at Luke 4:25 and James 5:17 the record states that this drought ended after three years and six months. How can these differences be reconciled?
Both Jesus and James say that it did not rain in the land for “three years and six months.” Yet, Elijah is said to appear before Ahab to end the drought “in the third year” – no doubt counting from the day he announced the drought. Thus, it must have been after a long, rainless dry season when he first stood before Ahab.—Luke 4:25; James 5:17; 1 Kings 18:1.
2 Kings 25:8
Why does 2 Kings 25:8 say that it was on the 7th day of the fifth month that Nebuzaradan came to Jerusalem when Jeremiah 52:12 tells us it was the 10th day of this month?
Second Kings 25:8 says that it was on the seventh day of Ab (fifth month) that Nebuzaradan, the servant of the king of Babylon, “came to Jerusalem.” However, Jeremiah 52:12 tells us that it was on the tenth day of this month that Nebuzaradan “came into Jerusalem.” The Soncino Books of the Bible comments on this, saying: “The interval of three days may be accounted for as representing the date of Nebuzaradan’s arrival on the scene and the commencement of operations.” (Edited by A. Cohen, London, 1949) It would appear, then, that Nebuzaradan arrived at Jerusalem on the seventh day, made his survey from his camp outside the city walls, and gave directions for the demolition of the city fortifications and the plundering of its treasures; finally, on the tenth day of the month, he entered the city and its holy temple. According to Josephus (The Jewish War, VI, 250, 268 [iv, 5, 8]), Herod’s temple was burned by the Romans on the tenth day of the fifth month (70 C.E.), and Josephus makes note of the precise correspondency of this date with the burning of the first temple on the same day by the Babylonians.
1 Chronicles 2:13-15
Why does 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 speak of the seven sons of Jesse, whereas First Samuel refers to David as the eighth?
The Bible account at 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 says that “Jesse, in turn, became father to his first-born Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimea the third, Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh.” The account at 1 Samuel 16:10, 11 says: “So Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel; still Samuel said to Jesse: ‘Jehovah has not chosen these.’ Finally Samuel said to Jesse: ‘Are these all the boys?’ To this he said: ‘The youngest one has till now been left out, and, look! he is pasturing the sheep.’” In the next chapter of 1 Samuel, Ţ17 Üverse 12, the account reads: “Now David was the son of this Ephrathite from Bethlehem of Judah whose name was Jesse. And he had eight sons.”
It appears from these accounts that one of those sons shown to Samuel did not live long enough to marry and have children, in consequence of which his name was omitted at 1 Chronicles 2, which gives the genealogy of Jesse and others. It is well to remember that First Samuel was written by Samuel, Gad and Nathan and was completed about 1077 B.C.E. Chronicles, however, was written by the priest Ezra about 460 B.C.E. When writing 1 Chronicles 2:13-15, Ezra left out the name of the son of Jesse who evidently had died childless.
1 Chronicles 3:17
Who was the father of Shealtiel?
Certain texts indicate that Jeconiah (King Jehoiachin) was the fleshly father of Shealtiel. (1 Chronicles 3:16-18; Matthew 1:12) But the Gospel writer Luke called Shealtiel the “son of Neri.” (Luke 3:27) Neri apparently gave his daughter to Shealtiel as a wife. Since the Hebrews commonly referred to a son-in-law as a son, especially in genealogical listings, Luke could properly call Shealtiel the son of Neri. Similarly, Luke referred to Joseph as the son of Heli, who was actually the father of Joseph’s wife, Mary. – Luke 3:23.
1 Chronicles 3:19
If 1 Chronicles 3:19 states that Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah then why is it that Ezra 5:2 calls him the son of Shealtiel?
Pedaiah became father to postexilic Governor Zerubbabel and was therefore a vital link in the line leading to Jesus. (1Ch 3:17-19) Because of some unrecorded circumstance, Zerubbabel is also called the son of Pedaiah’s brother Shealtiel. Shealtiel may have adopted Zerubbabel if Pedaiah died when the boy was young; or, if Shealtiel died before fathering a son, Pedaiah may have performed brother-in-law marriage, fathering Zerubbabel in the name of his brother Shealtiel.—Ezr 5:2; Mt 1:12.
1 Chronicles 6:3-14
Why does Ezra list 23 names in his priestly genealogy at 1 Chronicles 5:29-40 (1 Chronicles 6:3-14) but lists only 16 names for the same period when giving his own genealogy at Ezra 7:1-5?
This is, not a discrepancy, but a simple condensation. Additionally, according to a writer’s intention in recording an event, he highlighted, minimized, included, or omitted details that another Bible writer expressed differently in recording the same event. Such are not contradictions but, rather, are differing accounts reflecting the writers’ point of view and intended audience.
2 Chronicles 14:5
Why does 2 Chronicles 14:5 state that Asa removed the high places from Judah when at 1 Kings 15:14 and 2 Chronicles 15:17 say that he did not remove them?
The record at 2 Chronicles 14:2-5 states that Asa “removed the foreign altars and the high places and broke up the sacred pillars and cut down the sacred poles.” However, 1 Kings 15:14 and 2 Chronicles 15:17 indicate that “the high places he did not remove.” It may be, therefore, that the high places referred to in the earlier Chronicles account were those of the adopted pagan worship that infected Judah, while the Kings account refers to high places at which the people engaged in worship of Jehovah. Even after the setting up of the tabernacle and the later establishment of the temple, occasional sacrificing was done to Jehovah on high places, which was acceptable to him under special circumstances, as in the cases of Samuel, David, and Elijah. (1Sa 9:11-19; 1Ch 21:26-30; 1Ki 18:30-39) Nevertheless, the regular approved place for sacrifice was that authorized by Jehovah. (Nu 33:52; De 12:2-14; Jos 22:29) Improper modes of high-place worship may have continued in spite of the removal of the pagan high places, perhaps because the king did not pursue their elimination with the same vigor as he did the removal of the pagan sites. Or Asa may have effected a complete removal of all high places; but if so, such cropped up again in due time and had not been removed by the time of the conclusion of his reign, allowing for their being smashed by his successor Jehoshaphat.
How can we harmonise the differing figures concerning those that returned from exile found at Ezra 2:1-67 and Nehemiah 7:6-69?
Both books list the number of persons from various families or houses who returned from Babylonian exile with Zerubbabel. The accounts harmonize in giving 42,360 as the total number of returned exiles, apart from slaves and singers. (Ezra 2:64; Neh. 7:66) However, there are variations in the numbers given for individual families or houses. In both listings the individual figures yield a total of far less than 42,360. Many scholars would attribute these differences to scribal errors. Whereas this aspect cannot be wholly discounted, there are other possible explanations for the variations.
It may be that Ezra and Nehemiah based their listings on different sources. For example, Ezra could have used a document listing those who enrolled to return to their homeland, whereas Nehemiah might have copied from a record listing those who actually returned. Then, too, there were priests who were unable to establish their genealogy (Ezra 2:61-63; Neh. 7:63-65), and other Israelites may well have faced the same problem. These may not have been listed in the family groupings but could have been included in the total. So the 42,360 persons could be the combined total of the number from each family plus many others who were unable to establish their ancestry. Later, however, some may have been able to establish their correct genealogy. This could explain how a fluctuation in numbers might still give the same total.
Is there not a contradiction in the Proverbs at chapter 26:4, 5? Verse four reads: “Do not answer anyone stupid according to his foolishness, that you yourself also may not become equal to him.” But verse five says: “Answer someone stupid according to his foolishness, that he may not become someone wise in his own eyes.”
There is no contradiction here. Rather, the verses simply contrast the right and the wrong ways to answer a stupid person. Verse four gives instruction not to answer a stupid person in harmony with his foolishness in the sense of resorting to his degrading methods of argument—ridicule, attacks on personalities, loud boisterous talk, fits of rage, and so forth. One would thereby show oneself to be on the same level as the stupid one, and that is what the latter part of verse four warns against. So, it is the second part of the verse that indicates how the first part is to be understood.—Compare Proverbs 20:3; 29:11.
On the other hand, it would be proper to answer the stupid one “according to his foolishness” in the sense of analyzing his contentions, exposing them as being ridiculous. Showing that his arguments lead to entirely different conclusions from those he has drawn would be deterrent to his continuance in his stupid way. It should serve as a reproof and a rebuke. He should not feel so wise. Enforcing the consequences of a foolish argument, that is, demonstrating the absurdity and undesirability to which that viewpoint leads, is one of the best ways of dealing with such an argument.
Why does Daniel 1:1 say that Nebuchadnezzar lay siege to Jerusalem in Jehoiakim’s third year, when Jeremiah records Nebuchadnezzar’s first year as coinciding with the fourth year of Jehoiakim’s rule?
Daniel 1:1 reads: “In the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim the king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it.” Critics have found fault with this scripture because it does not seem to agree with Jeremiah, who says that the fourth year of Jehoiakim was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. (Jeremiah 25:1; 46:2) Was Daniel contradicting Jeremiah? With more information, the matter is readily clarified. When first made king in 628 B.C.E. by Pharaoh Necho, Jehoiakim became a mere puppet of that Egyptian ruler. This was about three years before Nebuchadnezzar succeeded his father to the throne of Babylon, in 624 B.C.E. Soon thereafter (in 620 B.C.E.), Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah and made Jehoiakim a vassal king under Babylon. (2 Kings 23:34; 24:1) To a Jew living in Babylon, Jehoiakim’s “third year” would have been the third year of that king’s vassal service to Babylon. Daniel wrote from that perspective. Jeremiah, however, wrote from the perspective of the Jews living right in Jerusalem. So he referred to Jehoiakim’s kingship as starting when Pharaoh Necho made him king.
Zechariah 11:12 is quoted by Matthew in chapter 27 and verse 9 of his book, yet he applies this quotation to Jeremiah. How can this be?
Some have queried why it is that Matthew quotes Zechariah but attributes his words to Jeremiah. (Matt. 27:9; Zech. 11:12) It appears that Jeremiah was at times reckoned as first of the Later Prophets (instead of Isaiah, as in our present Bibles); hence Matthew, in referring to Zechariah as “Jeremiah,” could have been following the Jewish practice of including a whole section of Scripture under the name of the first book of the section. Jesus himself used the designation “Psalms” to include all the books known as the Writings. – Luke 24:44.
Why do Matthew’s and Luke’s versions of Jesus’ genealogy differ? Matthew 1:1-16 lists Jacob as “the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, who was the mother of Jesus,” while Luke 3:23-38 says Joseph was “the son of Heli.”
At least two authorities give as the preferable solution of this the explanation that Luke traces the natural lineage of Jesus through his fleshly mother Mary and her ancestors, while Matthew gives Jesus’ legal lineage, through Joseph and his ancestors. Starting with the oldest entry in each of the genealogical accounts, the understanding above helps us to see why they part company after David, Matthew’s account going through the line of David’s son Solomon, while Luke’s traces instead through David’s son Nathan, and why, though they meet again briefly at Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, they then branch off once more and pursue different lines. Matthew ends with Jacob as the father of Joseph and, according to this understanding, Luke ends with Heli, who was actually the father of Jesus’ fleshly mother, Mary. – The Westminster Dictionary of the Bible (Revised Edition of 1944, page 198, column 1); McClintock and Strong’s Cyclop&dia (1882, Volume III, page 773, column 2).
Why, then, does Luke omit Mary and list Joseph as “the son of Heli”? Says the Cyclop&dia above, page 773, column 2: “In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughter’s husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numbers 26:33; 27:4-7).” In keeping with this rule, Joseph’s name would replace Mary’s in Luke’s account, even though the genealogy there was traced through Mary’s lineage. The Cyclopaedia sees in the very wording of Luke’s account a confirmation of this thought, saying, page 774, column 1: “The evangelist Luke has critically distinguished the REAL from the LEGAL genealogy by a parenthetical remark: ‘Jesus being (as was reputed) the son of Joseph (but in reality) the son of Heli,’ or his grandson by his mother’s side.” – Luke 3:23.
How are we to understand Matthew 1:17, which speaks of three sets of generations (fourteen for each set) from Abraham to Jesus Christ, although the previous verses list only forty-one generations?
There is a simple explanation to this seeming difficulty. It is apparent that Matthew counted David twice, not taking into consideration the total but only the uniformity of the three groups of fourteen names or generations as a memory aid. As Matthew himself puts it: “All the generations, then, from Abraham until David were fourteen generations, and from David until the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon until the Christ fourteen generations.”
This style on the part of Matthew is not to be wondered at, however, for genealogical lists were at times abbreviated. For example, Ezra lists twenty-three names in his priestly genealogy at 1 Chronicles 6:3-14 but lists only sixteen for the same period when giving his own genealogy at Ezra 7:1-5.
When Jesus came into Capernaum, “an army officer came to him, entreating him,” asking Jesus to cure his manservant. But at Luke 7:3, we read of this army officer that “he sent forth older men of the Jews to him to ask [Jesus] to come and bring his slave safely through.” Did the army officer speak to Jesus, or did he send the older men?
The answer is, clearly, that the man sent the elders of the Jews. Why, then, does Matthew say that the man himself entreated Jesus? Because, in effect, the man asked Jesus through the Jewish elders. The elders served as his mouthpiece. To illustrate this, at 2 Chronicles 3:1, we read: “Finally Solomon started to build the house of Jehovah in Jerusalem.” Later, we read: “Thus Solomon finished the house of Jehovah.” (2 Chronicles 7:11) Did Solomon personally build the temple from start to finish? Of course not. The actual building work was done by a multitude of craftsmen and laborers. But Solomon was the organizer of the work, the one responsible. Hence, the Bible says that he built the house. In the same way, Matthew’s Gospel tells us that the military commander approached Jesus. But Luke gives the added detail that he approached him through the Jewish elders.
From how many men did Jesus Christ expel the demons who took possession of a large herd of swine?
The Gospel writer Matthew mentions two men, but Mark and Luke refer to just one. (Matthew 8:28; Mark 5:2; Luke 8:27) Evidently, Mark and Luke drew attention to only one demon-possessed man because Jesus spoke to him and his case was more outstanding. Possibly, that man was more violent or had suffered under demon control for a longer time. Afterward, perhaps that one man alone wanted to accompany Jesus. (Mark 5:18-20) In a somewhat parallel situation, Matthew spoke of two blind men healed by Jesus, whereas Mark and Luke mentioned only one. (Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35) This was not contradictory, for there was at least one such man.
Why did Jesus instruct his followers, as recorded at Acts 1:8, to preach in Samaria, since earlier (Matt. 10:5, 6) he had told them not to preach to the Samaritans?
When sending his twelve apostles out on a limited preaching tour, Jesus told them: “Do not go off into the road of the nations, and do not enter into a Samaritan city; but, instead, go continually to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matt. 10:5, 6) That Jesus did not forbid all preaching to the Samaritans can be seen by his own words and actions. In one of his parables he showed that the Jews should consider the Samaritans as neighbors. (Luke 10:29-37) Once Christ healed ten men, one of whom was a Samaritan, and Jesus commended that man for being the only one of the ten who expressed gratitude. (Luke 17:11-19) Also, Jesus preached to a Samaritan woman at the well of Sychar and later also to others in that Samaritan city.—John 4:4-43.
Consequently, Jesus’ order at Matthew 10:5, 6 must be understood as a restriction that applied particularly to that time and occasion. By what Christ said about “the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” it seems evident that he was emphasizing the importance of taking the message to the Jews first, giving them the first opportunity. So, on their preaching tour the apostles were to concentrate on the Jews, not attempting at this time to preach to all peoples and nations. Surely the six pairs of men would have more than enough to do during their relatively brief tour even with their territory restricted to the cities and villages of the Jews. – Mark 6:7.
The situation was quite different when Jesus said what he did as recorded at Acts 1:8. He was, in effect, giving his followers some parting instructions that indicated the worldwide preaching work to be accomplished. Just before ascending to heaven he said: “You will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth.” And that is just the way it worked out. Due to persecution the Christian disciples were scattered, and as a result their message was preached in Samaria. – Acts 8:1-17.
How can we harmonize Matthew 12:30 with Mark 9:39, 40? The latter has been used to argue in favor of all the various religions that preach in Jesus’ name.
Mark 9:39, 40 is harmonious with Matthew 12:30, of course. In Matthew 12 the Pharisees displayed themselves as not being on Jesus’ side because of their false accusations, and so Jesus said to them: “He that is not on my side is against me, and he that does not gather with me scatters.” (Matt. 12:30, NW) The Pharisees were against him and were scattering Israelites away from him. But in Mark 9 the man involved was a fellow Israelite who was not falsifying about Jesus but who believed in the power of his name and was using it to cast out demons. The fact that he succeeded showed Jehovah God, Jesus’ Father, did not disapprove or leave the man in the lurch. So how could Jesus object? The record shows that he did not: “John said to him: ‘Teacher, we saw a certain man expelling demons by the use of your name and we tried to prevent him, because he was not accompanying us.’ But Jesus said: ‘Do not try to prevent him, for there is no one that will do a powerful work on the basis of my name that will quickly be able to revile me; for he that is not against us is for us.’”—Mark 9:38-40, NW.
Not all believers in Jesus followed him along with the twelve apostles. Some who wanted to follow Jesus were told to go back home and bear witness to him there. (Mark 5:18-20) Hence it was not necessary for this man to bodily follow Jesus to be on his side. There were only two sides in this controversy, either for or against Jesus, and since he was not against him he was for Jesus. From Pentecost and the outpouring of the spirit on the faithful it would be necessary for this man to associate himself with the congregation of Christians in order to receive the spirit and be approved of God for not being against Jesus. It is different with the religious systems that now preach in Jesus’ name. It cannot be said that all these are not against him for that reason, for they are against Jehovah’s faithful witnesses who do preach Jesus and his kingdom. So as they are against the least of these his brothers, they are against him and their mere use of Jesus’ name does not gain favorable recognition of them as true followers. Matthew 7:20-23 (NW) applies to them: “Really, then, by their fruits you will recognize those men. Not everyone saying to me, ‘Master, Master,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. Many will say to me in that day: ‘Master, Master, did we not prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many powerful works in your name?’ And yet then I will confess to them: I never knew you at all. Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.”
Matthew says that the transfiguration took place six days after Jesus told his disciples that ‘some of the would not taste death’. However, Luke states that this occurred eight days later. How is this possible?
The promise was fulfilled “six days later” when Peter, James, and John accompanied Jesus into “a lofty mountain” (Mt 17:1; Mr 9:2; Lu 9:28) where, while praying, Jesus was transfigured before them. Lukes account however, apparently includes the day of the promise and that of the fulfillment, making it eight days later.
When Jewish religionists asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah he said, “I am not.” But Jesus told his disciples that John was Elijah. Why the disagreement?
The record of John’s reply is found at John 1:19-21 (NW): “Now this is the witness of John when the Jews sent forth priests and Levites from Jerusalem to him to ask him: ‘Who are you?’ And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed: ‘I am not the Christ.’ And they asked him: ‘What, then? Are you Elijah?’ And he said: ‘I am not.’” Over two years later Jesus said just the opposite: “The disciples put the question to him: ‘Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ In reply he said: ‘Elijah, indeed, is coming and will restore all things. However, I say to you that Elijah has already come and they did not recognize him but did with him the things they wanted. In this way also the Son of man is destined to suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples perceived that he spoke to them about John the Baptist.” – Matt. 17:10-13, NW.
The Jews questioning John thought that Elijah would be resurrected to return and fulfill Malachi’s prophecy that Elijah would come and do a preparatory work before the arrival of “the great and terrible day of Jehovah.” (Mal. 4:5, 6, AS) But John was no resurrected Elijah; so he correctly denied that he was Elijah. But when Jesus said that “Elijah has already come” and the “disciples perceived that he spoke to them about John the Baptist,” Jesus knew that Malachi’s prophecy did not mean Elijah himself would come again, but that one like Elijah would come to do a work similar to that done by Elijah, a work of turning sincere Israelites to true repentance. Jesus knew that before John’s birth it was foretold that “he will be filled with holy spirit right from his mother’s womb, and many of the sons of Israel will he turn back to Jehovah their God. Also he will go before him with Elijah’s spirit and power, to turn back the hearts of fathers to children and the disobedient ones to the practical wisdom of righteous ones, to get ready for Jehovah a prepared people.”—Luke 1:15-17, NW.
Thus John was to fulfill Malachi’s prophecy, and he did, and therefore he was the Elijah to come according to that prophecy. So Jesus gave the correct answer. But in view of the fact that the Jews who questioned John had in mind a resurrected Elijah, John was also correct in denying he was the prophet in that sense.
f Matthew reports that the mother of James and John approached Jesus about giving her sons the favoured position when he got into his Kingdom, how can Marks parallel account say that it was actually James and John themselves who asked this of Jesus?
Here is a similar example. At Matthew 20:20, 21, we read: “The mother of the sons of Zebedee approached [Jesus] with her sons, doing obeisance and asking for something from him.” What she asked was that her sons should have the most favoured position when Jesus came into his Kingdom. In Mark’s account of this same event, we read: “James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, stepped up to [Jesus] and said to him: ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever it is we ask you for.’” (Mark 10:35-37) Was it the two sons of Zebedee, or was it their mother, who made the request of Jesus? Clearly, it was the two sons of Zebedee who made the request, as Mark states. But they made it through their mother. She was their spokesperson. This is supported by Matthew’s report that when the other apostles heard what the mother of the sons of Zebedee had done, they became indignant, not at the mother, but “at the two brothers.” – Matthew 20:24.
Have you ever heard two people describe an event that they both witnessed? If so, did you notice that each person emphasized details that impressed him? One may have left out things that the other included. Both, however, were telling the truth. It is the same with the four Gospel accounts of Jesus’ ministry, as well as with other historical events reported by more than one Bible writer. Each writer wrote accurate information even when one retained details that another omitted. By considering all the accounts, a fuller understanding of what happened can be gained. Such variations prove that the Bible accounts are independent. And their essential harmony proves that they are true.
Matthew 20:29 and Mark 10:46 speak of Jesus healing the blind beggar Bartimaeus as Jesus was leaving Jericho, but Luke 18:35 reports the event as Jesus was entering Jericho. How can this contradiction be explained?
In Matthew it says that this healing took place as Christ left Jericho, whereas in Luke the indication is that it took place on the way into Jericho. Some have suggested that these were two different events, and that is a possibility. Archaeology, however, has thrown additional light on this apparent discrepancy. Early in the twentieth century A.D. excavations were made at Jericho by Ernest Sellin of the German Oriental Society (1907-1909). The excavations showed that the Jericho of Jesus’ time was a double city. The old Jewish city was about a mile away from the Roman city. In the light of this evidence, it is possible that Matthew is speaking of the Jewish city which Christ had left, whereas Luke is speaking of the Roman, at which Christ had not yet arrived. Thus, on his way from the old to the new city, Christ met and healed the blind Bartimaeus. Therefore, if these three passages in Matthew, Mark, and Luke refer to the same event, there is not any contradiction; and if they refer to different healings, there of course would be no contradiction.”
Matthew spoke of two blind men being healed by Jesus, while Mark and Luke mention only one. (Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46; Luke 18:35) Who was correct?
Matthew’s account is not contradictory. He is simply being more specific as to the number, while Mark and Luke focus on the one man to whom Jesus directed his conversation.
Why does Matthew 26:65 say that the high priest ripped his outer garments in response to Jesus alleged blasphemy when Marks account says it was the inner garments that were ripped?
The Greek word hi&ma'ti&on means outergarment while khi&ton' is the word used in the Greek for undergarment or innergarment. Both these words may have been used at times interchangeably to mean “garment” as indicated in the accounts of Jesus’ trial by Matthew and Mark. The high priest ripped his clothing to demonstrate forcibly his sanctimoniously assumed horror and indignation. Matthew uses the word hi&ma'ti&on here, while Mark uses khi&ton'. (Mt 26:65; Mr 14:63) Or it is possible that in his fervor he ripped one garment, then another.
How did Judas Iscariot die?
Matthew 27:5 states that Judas hanged himself, whereas Acts 1:18 says that “pitching head foremost he noisily burst in his midst and all his intestines were poured out.” While Matthew seems to deal with the mode of the attempted suicide, Acts describes the results. Judas apparently tied a rope to the branch of a tree, put a noose around his neck, and tried to hang himself by jumping off a cliff. It seems that either the rope or the tree limb broke so that he plunged downward and burst open on the rocks below. The topography around Jerusalem makes such a conclusion reasonable.
Matthew 27:7 reports that it was the chief priests that bought the potters field, but at Acts 1:18 it is said that Judas Iscariot purchased it. How is this so?
Related to Jesus death is the question of who bought the burial field with the 30 pieces of silver. According to Matthew 27:6, 7, the chief priests decided they could not put the money in the sacred treasury so they used it to buy the field. The account in Acts 1:18, 19, speaking about Judas, says: “This very man, therefore, purchased a field with the wages for unrighteousness.” The answer seems to be that the priests purchased the field, but since Judas provided the money, it could be credited to him. Dr. A. Edersheim pointed out: “It was not lawful to take into the Temple-treasury, for the purchase of sacred things, money that had been unlawfully gained. In such cases the Jewish Law provided that the money was to be restored to the donor, and, if he insisted on giving it, that he should be induced to spend it for something for the public weal [well-being]. . . . By a fiction of law the money was still considered to be Judas’, and to have been applied by him in the purchase of the well-known ‘potter’s field.’” (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1906, Vol. II, p. 575) This purchase worked to fulfill the prophecy at Zechariah 11:13.
Why does Matthew 27:9 attribute the words about the thirty silver pieces for Jesus’ betrayal to the prophet Jeremiah, when, actually, Zechariah recorded the words, at Zechariah chapter 11 verse 12 of his prophecy?
The name Jeremiah is omitted in some later manuscripts. Some say it was a copyist’s error. Others say it was just a slip on Matthew’s part, saying Jeremiah when he meant Zechariah. None of these explanations seem adequate. We may view as correct the New World Translation’s rendering of Matthew 27:9, 10: “Then what was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying: ‘And they took the thirty silver pieces, the price upon the man that was priced, the one on whom some of the sons of Israel set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, according to what Jehovah had commanded me.’”
A more probable explanation is this. The order of the prophetic books, as received by the Jews in Matthew’s time, was Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the twelve minor prophets. It is so found in the Babylonian Talmud, also at present in the manuscripts of the French and German Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia, under “Bible Canon,” shows that at one time Jeremiah preceded Ezekiel and Isaiah in the listing of the prophets and that it was later that Isaiah went ahead of Jeremiah. So in Matthew’s time Jeremiah stood first in the listing of the prophets, and since it was the practice of those times to call an entire division of the Bible by the name of the first book in that division, Matthew could say Jeremiah and mean the division that it headed, and which division included the book of Zechariah.
Jesus showed that this was the practice, to call an entire division by the first book in that division, when he said, at Luke 24:44 (NW): “All the things written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms about me must be fulfilled.” When he said Psalms he did not mean just that one book, but all the writings or Hagiographa, of which collection or division Psalms was the first book. And when Jesus said the Prophets he meant that entire division, but sometimes they used the name of the first book in that division to mean the whole section, and then the section would be called just Jeremiah. So in this sense Matthew could refer to Jeremiah and yet mean Zechariah’s words, since Zechariah’s prophecy was in the division that opened with the book of Jeremiah.
What colour was the garment Jesus wore on the day of his death?
According to Mark (15:17) and John (19:2), the soldiers put a purple garment on Jesus. But Matthew (27:28) called it “a scarlet cloak,” emphasizing its redness. Since purple is any color having components of both red and blue, Mark and John agree that the cloak had a red hue. Light reflection and background could have given different casts to the garment, and the Gospel writers mentioned the color that was strongest to them or to those from whom they got their information. The minor variation shows the individuality of the writers and proves that there was no collusion.
At Jesus’ impalement, which garment or garments did the soldiers distribute by casting lots?
This question is based on an apparent discrepancy between Matthew’s account and what John says occurred on this occasion. First, Matthew wrote: “When they had impaled him they distributed his outer garments by casting lots.” (Matthew 27:35) Mark presented essentially the same information. (Mark 15:24) However, John wrote: “Now when the soldiers had impaled Jesus, they took his outer garments and made four parts, for each soldier a part, and the inner garment. But the inner garment was without a seam . . . Therefore they said to one another: ‘Let us not tear it, but let us determine by lots over it whose it will be.’ This was that the scripture might be fulfilled: ‘They apportioned my outer garments among themselves, and upon my apparel they cast lots.’ And so the soldiers really did these things.” – John 19:23, 24.
From John’s eyewitness account we learn that Jesus had outer garments and an inner garment. John 19:23 informs us that the soldiers made four parts out of his outer garments, each taking a piece; however, John does not tell us how they decided who would get what piece. Finally, John 19:24 reveals that the soldiers cast lots over Jesus’ one-piece inner garment.
The account in Matthew 27:35 does not disclaim the fact that Jesus had an inner garment; nor does it contradict the fact that lots were cast over it. Matthew simply does not mention this particular garment. Rather, he provides details about Jesus’ outer garments, which John says were made into four parts, Matthew adding that they were also distributed by the casting of lots.
By taking into consideration the two Gospels, Matthew and John, we can see that the soldiers cast lots over both the outer garments and the inner one. Instead of contradiction, we have two accounts written by different persons, each providing details that the other does not include, and yet neither one contradicting the other. And, as the later account written by John points out, the casting of lots for the Messiah’s apparel served to fulfill Psalm 22:18. We can draw this correct conclusion from reading either of the inspired books.
The account in Matthew 27:44 says that both thieves ridiculed Jesus. Yet Luke 23:39-40 tells of one scoffing and the other defending Jesus. How can this be?
A possible explanation would be that at the start both taunted Jesus, but that as time passed one of the thieves noted what was happening and observed how Jesus patiently endured injustice and cruelty. During these passing hours this thief might easily have changed his mind about Jesus, and, though scoffing at first, as Matthew notes, later championed Jesus, as Luke relates.
Matthews account of Jesus’ death indicates that he was still alive when he was pierced in the side. However John plainly states that he was dead. How can this be?
Though John’s account at John 19:31-37 is quite plain, the question posed might come up because of reading Matthew 27:49, 50. It says there: “But the rest of them said: ‘Let him be! Let us see whether Elijah comes to save him.’ Another man took a spear and pierced his side, and blood and water came out. Again Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and yielded up his breath.” The sentence put in italics is what causes the difficulty; it might lead one to conclude that Jesus was alive when speared.
Many Bible translations, including The Jerusalem Bible in French and English, Elberfelder and Aschaffenburger in German, and Moderna, Valera and Nácar-Colunga in Spanish, omit that italicized sentence. Other translations include the words, but put them in brackets or provide an explanatory footnote. For example, in the original edition of the New World Translation a footnote explains that the sentence is contained in some important manuscripts, such as the Sinaitic and Vatican No. 1209, but not in others. Many scholars feel that a copyist mistakenly put in Matthew 27:49 words belonging at John 19:34.
The Greek Scripture portion of the New World Translation is based primarily on the master text by Westcott and Hort. This respected master text contains the sentence in the main body at Matthew 27:49, but puts it in double brackets. In explanation it says that the sentence “must lie under strong presumption of having been introduced by scribes.” Possibly in the future we will have more manuscript evidence regarding Matthew 27:49.
Nonetheless, it is evident from the plain presentation at John 19:31-37 that Jesus was already dead when he was speared. So the account in Matthew must be understood in the light of this. Matthew does not say exactly when the spearing of Jesus’ side took place; it simply lists it as one of the occurrences at the time of Jesus’ impalement. But John’s account does give clear indication of the time element. In view of this, one’s understanding of Matthew’s account must be influenced by what John wrote. When this is done, there is really no contradiction.
Mark quotes Jesus as saying: “Truly I say to you, You today, yes, this night, before a cock crows twice, even you will disown me three times.” Yet the other three gospel writers relate this account with a cock only crowing once. Is this a contradiction?
This is evidently a matter of one writer giving a more detailed account than the others rather than being a contradiction. The incident involves Peter, and since Mark was his close companion over a period of time and doubtless wrote his Gospel account with Peter’s aid or on the basis of his testimony, it is reasonable that Mark’s account would be the more detailed one. (At other times Matthew gave the more detailed description of certain events, as seen by a comparison of Mt 8:28 with Mr 5:2 and Lu 8:27, and of Mt 20:30 with Mr 10:46 and Lu 18:35.) So, while Mark quoted Jesus’ statement concerning the two cockcrowings, the other three writers mentioned only the second and last one, which provoked Peter’s giving way to tears; but by this they did not deny that there was an earlier cockcrowing.
Mark 15:25 states that Jesus was impaled at the third hour but John 19:14 indicates that by about the sixth hour Jesus’ final trial before Pilate was ending. How is this possible?
Some have pointed to what appears to be a discrepancy between the statement at Mark 15:25, which says Jesus was impaled at “the third hour,” and that at John 19:14, which indicates that by “about the sixth hour” Jesus’ final trial before Pilate was just ending. John had access to Mark’s account, and he certainly could have repeated the time stated by Mark. Therefore John must have had a reason for stating the hour differently from Mark.
Why the seeming discrepancy? A variety of suggestions have been offered. None of these satisfy all objections. We simply do not have enough information to explain with any certainty the reason for this difference between the accounts. Perhaps Mark’s or John’s reference to the hour was parenthetical, not in chronological order. Whatever the case, one thing is certain: Both writers were inspired by holy spirit.
The synoptic Gospels clearly indicate that by the sixth hour, or 12 noon, Jesus had already been hanging on the stake long enough for the soldiers to cast lots over his garments and for the chief priests, the scribes, the soldiers, and other passersby to speak abusively of him. They also indicate that about 3:00 p.m. Jesus expired. (Mt 27:38-45; Mr 15:24-33; Lu 23:32-44) The truly important thing to remember is that Jesus died for our sins on Nisan 14, 33 C.E. – Mt 27:46-50; Mr 15:34-37; Lu 23:44-46.
Why is Luke 24:50 cited as proof of Jesus’ ascension into heaven and as a parallel to Acts 1:9-11 when some Bibles do not specify in this verse whether Jesus ascended into heaven or not ?
True, a few of the old manuscripts do not contain the words “and began to be borne up to heaven,” but many others, such as the Alexandrine, the Vatican 1209 and the Codex Ephraemi, do contain these words. The verses in their entirety read: “But he led them out as far as Bethany [on the Mount of Olives], and he lifted up his hands and blessed them. As he was blessing them he was parted from them and began to be borne up to heaven.”
The fact is, the scholars Westcott and Hort, who compiled one of the most authoritative Greek Bible texts, included the words as being in question in their text. And as has well been observed, the difference is “more easily explained as an omission from the Western than as an addition to the Oriental text.”
At John 3:22 we read that Jesus “did baptizing,” while just a little further on, at John 4:2, the record states that “Jesus himself did no baptizing.” How can this be?
As the rest of the text indicates, it was Jesus’ disciples who performed the actual baptisms in his name and under his direction. This is similar to the case in which a businessman and his secretary both can lay claim to writing a particular letter.
John 12:3 tells us that Mary greased Jesus feet with genuine nard but the accounts at Matthew 26:7 and Mark 14:3 report that it was on his head that she poured this same oil. How is this possible?
Some critics complain that John contradicts Matthew and Mark in saying the perfume was poured on Jesus’ feet rather than on his head. (Mt 26:7; Mr 14:3; Joh 12:3) Commenting on Matthew 26:7, Albert Barnes says: “There is, however, no contradiction. She probably poured it both on his head and his feet. Matthew and Mark having recorded the former, John, who wrote his gospel in part to record events omitted by them, relates that the ointment was also poured on the feet of the Saviour. To pour ointment on the head was common. To pour it on the feet was an act of distinguished humility and attachment to the Saviour, and therefore deserved to be particularly recorded.” – Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 1974.
Who carried Jesus’ torture stake?
John (19:17) said: “Bearing the torture stake for himself, [Jesus] went out to the so-called Skull Place, which is called Gol'go&tha in Hebrew.” But Matthew (27:32), Mark (15:21), and Luke (23:26) say that ‘as they were going out, Simon of Cyrene was impressed into service to bear the torture stake.’ Jesus bore his torture stake, as John stated. In his condensed account, however, John did not add the point that Simon was later impressed into service to carry the stake. Hence, the Gospel accounts harmonize in this regard.
How can we harmonize the accounts in Acts 7:2-4 and Genesis 11:31–12:4? The account in Acts indicates that it was while Abraham was in Mesopotamia that God commanded him: “Go out from your land and from your relatives and come on into the land I shall show you.” The Genesis account seems to indicate that this command was given to him in Haran following the death of his father Terah.
The account in Acts makes it very clear that God’s command to Abraham to leave his home country and move into the land that God would show him was issued in Mesopotamia before he took up residence in Haran. This command is clearly the same one that is recorded in Genesis 12:1. The wording of the command here shows that Abraham was still in Ur of the Chaldeans, for God commands him: “Get out from your land and from your relatives,” and Haran, about 575 miles northwest of Ur, was not Abraham’s “land,” for it lay far outside Babylonia of that day. Hence Genesis 12:1-3 is not chronologically placed in the account and it is the command issued by Jehovah before Abraham ever moved out of Ur in Babylonia and which also resulted in Abraham’s further move at the death of Terah in Haran.
Why did Stephen, at Acts 7:14, say that there were 75 persons in Jacob’s household when they moved into Egypt, whereas Genesis 46:26 says that there were 66 and Genesis 46:27 mentions 70?
There are various possible explanations. One is that Acts 7:14 is based on the Greek Septuagint Version, and another is that Stephen included the wives of nine of Jacob’s sons.
Let us first note what Stephen said, as recorded in Acts 7:14: “So Joseph sent out and called Jacob his father and all his relatives from that place, to the number of seventy-five souls.” With that in mind we can consider what the Genesis account says about Jacob’s family transferring to Egypt.
Genesis 46:8 begins: “Now these are the names of Israel’s sons who came into Egypt: Jacob and his sons.” Then follows a list of Jacob’s descendants, including some of his great-grandsons. The enumeration concludes: “All the souls who came to Jacob into Egypt were those who issued out of his upper thigh, aside from the wives of Jacob’s sons. All the souls were sixty-six. And Joseph’s sons who were born to him in Egypt were two souls. All the souls of the house of Jacob who came into Egypt were seventy.”—Genesis 46:26, 27.
The list of 66 of Jacob’s offspring has been added up in various ways. Some scholars have included Judah’s sons Er and Onan as well as his grandsons Hezron and Hamul. (Genesis 46:12) Others have not counted Er and Onan, for they were already dead at the time of the move to Egypt. (Genesis 38:6-10) Some Bible students have counted Dinah, who apparently never married, or perhaps Eliab, Reuben’s son who is mentioned in Numbers 26:8. To the 66 descendants can be added Jacob as well as Joseph and his two sons (these final three not being part of the move to Egypt). This is how the total of 70 is reached.
The disciple Stephen certainly would have known that the Hebrew text said that 66 of Jacob’s family moved to Egypt. Why, then, does Acts 7:14 present Stephen as using the figure 75?
Some Bible commentators claim that Stephen may have based his remark on the Greek Septuagint translation of Genesis 46:27. That version gives the higher figure because in verse 20 it adds five names (three sons of Manasseh and Ephraim and two grandsons) not mentioned there in the Hebrew text. Or, if Stephen himself had in mind the Hebrew figure of 66, when Luke wrote the book of Acts in Greek he may have given the Septuagint figure, as that Greek translation was commonly used.
But whether Stephen actually spoke of 75 or that figure sprang from the Greek version of Genesis 46:26, the number can be harmonized with the Hebrew figure of 66 by adding the wives of Jacob’s sons, which Genesis 46:26 specifically says were omitted.
Why would only nine wives be counted? Of the 12 sons, Joseph’s wife would not be included, for she was an Egyptian and was not called there by Joseph. (Acts 7:13-15) And by the time of the move Judah’s wife had died. (Genesis 38:12) That would leave 10 wives at most. It is possible that Simeon’s Hebrew wife had died also, for his last son, Shaul, is described as “the son of a Canaanite woman.” (Genesis 46:10) Or the figure nine would have been correct if Benjamin, the youngest son, had not yet married when the family took up residence in Egypt. If this is so, Benjamin’s sons mentioned in Genesis 46:21 were born after the move but are listed because of the role they were to play in the tribe and the nation. (Compare Hebrews 7:9, 10.) Thus, if the wives of nine of Jacob’s sons are added to the subtotal of 66 mentioned at Genesis 46:26 in the Hebrew text, we have a total of 75, as the Septuagint says and as we read in Acts 7:14.
How can Acts 7:16, which ascribes to Abraham the purchase of a burial place in Shechem, be harmonized with Genesis 23:15-19?
It might seem that there is a conflict, with Acts 7:16 saying Abraham bought a burial place in Shechem but Genesis 23:15-19 reporting that he purchased such a plot in Machpelah near Hebron. There are a number of possible explanations. Let us note some of the details. Soon after Abraham entered the Promised Land (1943 B.C.E.) he resided for a time in Shechem, which was in the northern area where Samaria was later built. (Gen. 12:6-8) When Abraham’s wife Sarah later died (1881 B.C.E.), he purchased as a burial place the field and cave of Machpelah, which was near Hebron to the south of Jerusalem. “Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah in front of Mamre, that is to say, Hebron, in the land of Canaan.” (Gen. 23:15-19) In time Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah and Leah were also buried there. – Gen. 25:9; 49:29-32.
Abraham’s grandson Jacob also dwelt for a while near Shechem, and he there purchased a tract of land and built an altar. (Gen. 33:18-20) When he was near death in Egypt, Jacob commanded his sons that he be buried, not in Shechem, but with his fathers in the plot that Abraham had purchased near Hebron. (Gen. 49:29-32; 50:12, 13) As to a burial in Shechem, Joshua 24:32 says that after the Israelites entered the Promised Land they buried Joseph’s bones “in Shechem in the tract of the field that Jacob had acquired,” which came to be in the territory of Joseph’s son Manasseh.
With this history in mind, we can note Acts 7:15, 16. In his masterful defense the Christian disciple Stephen said: “Jacob went down into Egypt. And he deceased; and so did our forefathers, and they [the “forefathers”] were transferred to Shechem and were laid in the tomb that Abraham had bought for a price with silver money from the sons of Hamor in Shechem.” So it might appear that Stephen was saying that Abraham, rather than Jacob, purchased land in Shechem. Yet Genesis 23:17, 18 tells us that Abraham bought a burial place in Machpelah near Hebron. Certain scholars believe that in addition to the purchase of the plot of land in Hebron, Abraham could have also obtained the land in Shechem where Jehovah appeared to him and where he then built an altar. (Gen. 12:7) If so, then this may have been the same land that Genesis 33:18, 19 mentions Jacob as buying from those who controlled it at that time. This view would eliminate any seeming problem with Acts 7:16.
Another approach is that Stephen may simply have been condensing two accounts, combining Abraham’s transaction at Genesis 23:15-19 and the purchase by Jacob mentioned at Genesis 33:18, 19. Giving some weight to this possibility is the fact that at Acts 7:7 Stephen evidently combined into one statement something God said to Abraham and something He said to Moses. (Gen. 15:14; Ex. 3:12) Thus Acts 7:16 may just be a condensed or elliptical statement that was sufficient for Stephen’s purpose, as was Acts 7:7.
Another possible solution can be considered. Abraham was Jacob’s grandfather. So, even though Genesis 33:18, 19 says that Jacob purchased land at Shechem, Stephen could have ascribed the purchase to Abraham the patriarchal head. Giving credence to this are other instances in the Bible where the names of forefathers were applied to and used for the descendants. – Hos. 11:1, 3, 12; Matt. 2:15-18.
Each one of these possibilities may be the solution to the seeming conflict between Acts 7:16 and Genesis 23:15-19. The fact that a number of plausible explanations are available emphasizes how unreasonable it would be for anyone today who does not have all the facts to conclude that Stephen was in error.
Why does Acts 9:7 speak of Paul’s travelling companions hearing a voice when Jesus blinded Paul but at Acts 22:9 we are told that these men did not hear a voice?
Careful attention to the function of other parts of speech, such as to the cases of nouns, has led to the clearing up of apparent contradictions. For example, at Acts 9:7, in recounting the remarkable experience of Saul on the road to Damascus, a number of translations say that his travelling companions ‘heard the voice’ but did not see anyone. Then, at Acts 22:9, where Paul is relating this incident, the same translations read that although they saw the light, ‘they did not hear the voice.’ However, in the first reference, the Greek word for “voice” is in the genitive case, but in the second instance, it is in the accusative case, as it is at Acts 9:4. Why the difference? None is conveyed in the above translations into English, yet the Greek, by the change of case, indicates something different. The men heard literally “of the voice” but did not hear it the way Paul did, that is, hear the words and understand them. Thus, the New World Translation, noting the use of the genitive at Acts 9:7, reads that the men who were with him were “hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice, but not beholding any man.”
Acts 9:27 says that Barnabas took Paul to see the Apostles. However when Paul was reflecting on this account in Galatians 1:18-19 Paul says states that he only saw the Apostle Peter. How can these two accounts be harmonized?
In Acts it states that when Paul arrived in Jerusalem and sought to associate with the disciples they were afraid of him, not having positive assurance of his conversion; “so Barnabas came to his aid and led him to the apostles,” detailing to them Paul’s conversion and his later Christian conduct in Damascus. (NW) In Galatians when Paul tells of going to Jerusalem, three years after returning to Damascus from a trip to Arabia, he says: “I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and I stayed with him for fifteen days. But I saw no one else of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord.” (NW) The only one of the twelve apostles Paul saw on this trip to Jerusalem was Cephas, or Peter. Yet this does not contradict the fact that at this time Barnabas “led him to the apostles.” It does not say Barnabas led him to the twelve apostles, or the committee of twelve. Peter was the only one of the twelve Paul met then. Any other apostles
Napisano 2003-08-13, godz. 15:40
How could Paul oppose circumcision in his letter to the Galatians, and yet have Timothy circumcised according to Acts 16:3?
Some of the Christianized Jews were slow to relinquish adherence to the Mosaic Law. Those in Galatia were seeking to force Gentile converts to Christianity to comply with the Mosaic Law, and placed special emphasis on circumcision. They demanded it as a requirement of Gentile converts. Paul opposed the position that circumcision was a divine requirement, arguing that if one point of the Law must be kept all points should, and that if some points could be set aside all could. He opposed the looking to any part of the Law as essential for salvation, rejected the belief that Christians were obliged to conform to all or part of the Law. Not by Law, but by undeserved kindness were Christians to be declared righteous. “Neither circumcision is of any value nor is uncircumcision.” It is immaterial, no issue. (Gal. 5:2-6, NW) So for circumcision to be urged upon Gentile converts as a requirement of the Christian faith was wrong, and to submit to it for that reason would obligate one to keep all of the Law. This Paul opposed.
Timothy’s case was different. “Paul expressed the desire for this man to go out with him, and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for one and all knew that his father was a Greek.” (Acts 16:3, NW) Paul wanted to use him in missionary service, in territories where they would be in contact with many Jews not even in the truth, who viewed uncircumcised persons as dogs. So Paul circumcised him, not as a matter of faith or divine requirement, but only to prevent needless controversy and premature stumbling of Jews over an inconsequential matter. It was in harmony with Paul’s regular concessions to gain a favorable hearing for the truth: “To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain Jews.” (1 Cor. 9:20, NW) Moreover, as we have seen, even some of the Christianized Jews stumbled over this point. So instead of permitting the irrelevant matter of circumcision to interfere with their preaching work and with their contact with the Jewish congregations, Paul circumcised Timothy. It was not a divine requirement, but a concession to remove a barrier that might stumble Jews slow to relinquish their ideas about the Law. It was not done to keep the Law on that point, as some Jews in Galatia insisted must be done by Gentiles. Actually, in Timothy’s case it was not fully a matter of a Gentile doing it, as it was in the Galatian controversies, for Timothy was half Jew. – Acts 16:1.
At Ephesians 2:8, 9, Paul says that Christians are saved by faith, not by works. He says: “You have been saved through faith . . . not owing to works.” James, however, insists on the importance of works. He writes: “As the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26) How can these two statements be reconciled?
Considering the context of Paul’s words, we find that one statement complements the other. The apostle Paul is referring to the efforts of the Jews to keep the Mosaic Law. They believed that if they kept the Law in all its details, they would be righteous. Paul pointed out that this was impossible. We can never become righteous—and thus deserve salvation—by our own works, for we are inherently sinful. We can only be saved by faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Romans 5:18. James, however, adds the vital point that faith in itself is valueless if not supported by actions. A person who claims to have faith in Jesus should prove it by what he does. An inactive faith is a dead faith and will not lead to salvation.
The apostle Paul was in full agreement with this, and he often mentions the kinds of works that Christians should engage in to demonstrate their faith. For example, to the Romans he wrote: “With the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.” Making a “public declaration”—sharing our faith with others—is vital for salvation. (Romans 10:10; see also 1 Corinthians 15:58; Ephesians 5:15, 21-33; 6:15; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:23-25.) No work, however, that a Christian can do, and certainly no effort to fulfill the Law of Moses, will earn him the right to everlasting life. This is “the gift God gives” to those who exercise faith. – Romans 6:23; John 3:16.
Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God?
Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God. Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.
The words of Psalm 102:25, 26 apply to Jehovah God, but the apostle Paul quotes them with reference to Jesus Christ. This is because God’s only-begotten Son was God’s personal Agent employed in creating the physical universe. Paul contrasts the Son’s permanence with that of the physical creation, which God, if he so designed, could ‘wrap up just as a cloak’ and set aside. – Heb 1:1, 2, 8, 10-12; compare 1Pe 2:3.
1 John 2:1
1 John 2:1 mentions a way to receive help after sinning yet other scriptures in the same book make it appear that there is no help if one sins. Is this just a problem that occurs through translation?
The Greek has an unusual tense called the aorist, which refers to action that is punctiliar, or momentary. Verbs in the aorist may be rendered in a variety of ways, according to their context. One way in which it is used is to denote one act of a certain kind, though not related to any particular time. Such an example is found at 1 John 2:1, where many versions render the verb for “sin” so as to allow for a continuing course of sin, whereas the New World Translation reads, “commit a sin,” that is, a single act of sin. This conveys the correct meaning that if a Christian should commit an act of sin, he has Jesus Christ, who acts as an advocate, or helper, with the heavenly Father. Thus, 1 John 2:1 in no way contradicts but only contrasts with the condemnation of the ‘practice of sin’ found at 1 John 3:6-8 and 1 John 5:18.
1 John 4:18
1 John 4:18 tells us: “There is no fear in love, but perfect love throws fear outside.” But Peter wrote: “Have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God.” (1 Peter 2:17) How can we harmonise these two verses?
Both Peter and John were apostles who had learned directly from Jesus Christ himself. We can thus be confident that what they wrote does harmonise. As to the verses quoted above, the key is that the two apostles were speaking of different sorts of fear.
Let us first consider Peter’s counsel. As the context shows, Peter was offering fellow Christians inspired advice on their attitude toward those in authority. Put another way, he was commenting on the proper view of subjection in certain realms. Thus, he advised Christians to be subject to men who held authoritative positions in human governments, such as kings or governors. (1 Peter 2:13, 14) Continuing, Peter wrote: “Honor men of all sorts, have love for the whole association of brothers, be in fear of God, have honor for the king.” – 1 Peter 2:17.
Taken in context, it is clear that when Peter said that Christians should “be in fear of God,” he meant that we should have a deep, reverential respect for God, a fear to displease the highest authority. – Compare Hebrews 11:7.
What about the apostle John’s comment? Earlier in 1 John chapter 4, the apostle dealt with the need to test “inspired expressions” such as come from false prophets. Those expressions certainly do not originate with Jehovah God; they come from or reflect the wicked world.
In contrast, anointed Christians “originate with God.” (1 John 4:1-6) That being so, John urged: “Beloved ones, let us continue loving one another, because love is from God.” God took the initiative in showing love – he “sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.” (1 John 4:7-10) How should we respond?
Clearly, we should remain in union with our loving God. We should not be in terror of him nor quake at the prospect of approaching him in prayer. Earlier John counseled: “If our hearts do not condemn us, we have freeness of speech toward God; and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we are observing his commandments.” (1 John 3:21, 22) Yes, a good conscience gives us the freedom to approach God without paralyzing or inhibiting fear. Out of love, we feel free to address, or approach, Jehovah in prayer. In this respect, “there is no fear in love.”
Let us combine the two thoughts then. A Christian must always have a reverential fear of Jehovah, born of deep respect for his position, power, and justice. But we also love God as our Father and feel a closeness to him and a freeness to approach him. Rather than being inhibited by any terror of him, we trust that we can approach him, as a child feels open to approaching a loving parent. – James 4:8.
What should you think if you come across a Bible contradiction?
Could It Be That:
q You are unaware of certain historical facts or ancient customs?
q You have failed to take the context into consideration?
q You have overlooked the writer’s viewpoint?
q You are trying to reconcile mistaken religious ideas with what the Bible really says?
q You are using an inexact or outdated Bible translation?
Have you ever read two biographies about the same famous person? If so, have you noticed that these biographies will differ without being necessarily contradictory? Often, it is because of the writer’s personal impressions or the sources he has used. It also depends on what the author feels is important to relate in his presentation, the angle he is developing, and having the audience in mind for whom the work is intended. Thus, accounts written with Gentile readers in mind would differ from those for Jewish readers, who already understood and accepted certain facts. These are just a few examples of passages in the Bible that, without careful analysis, appear to contradict one another. But when carefully examined, keeping in mind the writer’s viewpoint and the context, they are not contradictions at all but simply passages that require additional research. Most people fail to put forth this necessary effort, however, finding it so much easier just to say: “The Bible contradicts itself.”
Why are there sometimes word differences when a New Testament writer quotes from the Old Testament?
In a number of cases the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures evidently made use of the Greek Septuagint translation when quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures. At times the rendering of the Septuagint, as quoted by them, differs somewhat from the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures as now known (most translations today being based on the Hebrew Masoretic text dating back to about the tenth century C.E.). As an example, Paul’s quotation of Psalm 40:6 contains the expression “but you prepared a body for me,” an expression found in the Septuagint. (Heb 10:5, 6) The available Hebrew manuscripts of Psalm 40:6 have, in place of that expression, the words “these ears of mine you opened up.” Whether the original Hebrew text contained the phrase found in the Septuagint cannot be stated with certainty. Whatever the case, God’s spirit guided Paul in his quotation, and therefore these words have divine authorization. This does not mean that the entire Septuagint translation is to be viewed as inspired; but those portions quoted by the inspired Christian writers did become an integral part of God’s Word.
In a few cases the quotations made by Paul and others differ from both the Hebrew and Greek texts as found in available manuscripts. The differences are minor, however, and upon examination are seen to be the result of paraphrasing, epitomizing, the use of synonymous terms, or the addition of explanatory words or phrases. Genesis 2:7, for instance, says “the man came to be a living soul,” whereas Paul in quoting this portion said: “It is even so written: ‘The first man Adam became a living soul.’” (1Co 15:45) His addition of the words “first” and “Adam” served to emphasize the contrast he was making between Adam and Christ. The insertion was fully in accord with the facts recorded in the Scriptures and in no way perverted the sense or content of the text quoted. Those to whom Paul wrote had copies (or translations) of the Hebrew Scriptures older than those we have today and could investigate his quotations, in a way similar to that of the people of Beroea. (Ac 17:10, 11) The inclusion of these writings in the canon of the Sacred Scriptures by the Christian congregation of the first century gives evidence of their acceptance of such quotations as part of the inspired Word of God. – Compare also Zec 13:7 with Mt 26:31.
Napisano 2003-08-14, godz. 12:29
بة ز ة زش صسش صرش زش صسش صة زع غب ةصـسش
زش صسش صة زع غب ةصـزة زش صسش صش صب ش صةزة زش صسش صش صب ش صةت ثش صجحب ةخد ذ بة ز ة زش صسش صرش صززسش صسش صضش صة ززش ص سة زش صب ةطظزش صسش صة زصسش صة زع غب
ةصـزة زش صسش صش صب ش صةزة زش صسش صش صب ش صةت ثش صجحبع د ذ بة ز ة زش صسش صرش صززسصسش صة زع غب ةصـزة زش صسش صش صب ش صةزة زش صسش صش صب ش صةت ثش صجحب
ة زش صسش صضش صة ززش ص سة زش صب ةطظزش صسشصسش صة زع غب ةصـزة زش صسش صش صب ش صةزة زش صسش صش صب ش صةت ش صثش صجحبة ز صة زع غب ةصزة زش صسش صش صب صززسش صسش ش صصضش صة ززش ص
سة زش صب ةطظش صزة زش صسش صش صب ش ش صةت ثصةت ثش صجحش صب ةخد ذ بة ز ة زش صسش صرش صززسش صسش صضش صة ززش ص سة زش صب ش صجحزة زش صسش ش صصش صب ش صةغب ةصـ سش ت ثة طظزش صش صسش صش صب ش صةت ثش صة زجحب ةخ ت ثش صجحب ةخد ذ ش صجزة زش صسش صش صب ش صةت ثش صجحش صب ةخد ذ بة ز ة زش صسش صرش صززسش صسش صضش صة ززش ص سة زش صب ةطظزش صسش صة زع غب ةصـش صش صسش ح ب ةخد ذ بة ز ة زش صسش صرش صززسش صسش صضش صة ززش ص سة زش صب ةطظزش صسش صة زع غب ةصـسش سش ب ةخد ذ بة ز ة زش صسش صرش صززسش صسش صضش ش صش صصة ش صش صززش ص سة زش صش صب ةطظزش صسش صة زع غب ةصـسش ـسش زة زش صسش صش صب ش صةت ثش صجحب ةخد ذ بة ز ة زش صسش صرش صززسش صسش صضش صة ززش ص سة زش صب ةطظزش صسش صة زش صش صع غب ةصـسش ز ة زش صسش
and last but not least:
صش صب ش صةت ثش صجحب ةخد ذ بة ز ة زش ص سش صرش ص ززسش صسش صضش صة ززش ص سة ش صش صزش ش صش صصب ش صةطش صظزش صسش صة زع غب ةصـسش
Napisano 2003-08-14, godz. 12:38
In a number of cases the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures evidently made use of the Greek Septuagint translation when quoting from the Hebrew Scriptures
gamonie, nie czytali Strażnicy i nie wiedzieli, ze nie wolno :-P
W kilku przypadkach oczywiste jest, że pisarze Chrześcijańskich Pism Greckich cytując z pism Hebrajskich używali greckiego tłumaczenia Septuaginty
Napisano 2003-08-14, godz. 13:48
Raz że nie ja pisałem te wypowiedzi odnośnie sprzeczności (a jedynie wkleiłem dla zainteresowanych). A dwa ... Strażnicę to Ty chyba widujesz jedynie na stronach www
Napisano 2003-08-16, godz. 23:07
Moim celem nie było podważenie Biblii jako natchnionej księgi, tylko zwrócenie uwagi na bezsensowność zbyt dosłownego jej odbioru. Przypomina mi się fragment, w którym Jezus powiedział:
„W owym czasie Jezus przemówił tymi słowami: Wysławiam Cię, Ojcze, Panie nieba i ziemi, że zakryłeś te rzeczy przed mądrymi i roztropnymi, a objawiłeś je prostaczkom.”
Fragment ten w pewien sposób wyjaśnia mi te sprzeczności w Biblii. Wg mnie Jezus mówi tutaj również o tych „mądrych i roztropnych”, którzy odrzucają Biblię jako natchnioną księgę ze względu na nieścisłości, które są w niej zawarte. Zbawienie zostaje objawione ludziom, którzy przyjmują ją (Ewangelię) w prostocie serca. Św. Paweł również uczula na to, abyśmy nie zatracali właściwego sensu Ewangelii 1Tm1:3-7
Jeśli chodzi o te wyjaśnienia, które podałeś do tych sprzeczności, to niestety, nie wszystkie przeczytałem ze względu na moje ograniczenia czasowe i te związane ze znajomością języka angielskiego. Ograniczyłem się tylko do sprzeczności z 4 Ewangelii. Z niektórymi się w zupełności zgodzę (np. Mk14:30, Mt27:44, J3:22, J19:17, Mt17:12 i wiele innych) (trudno powiedzieć, czy te wyjaśnienia są prawdziwe, ale na pewno są one logiczne). Natomiast nie do końca mi się podoba wyjaśnienie np. do wersetu Mt8:28. Mam nieco odmienny pogląd na temat tego wersetu, jak i jemu podobnych. Poszczególne księgi Nowego Testamentu były napisane kilkadziesiąt lat po zmartwychwstaniu Jezusa Chrystusa. Zanim były spisane były przez te lata przekazywane drogą ustną. Autorzy tych ewangelii nie zwracali uwagi na dokładną rekonstrukcję zdarzeń, ani nie przekazywali nauki Jezusa Chrystusa słowo w słowo (czasem jednak niektóre zwroty tak im utkwiły w sercu i pamięci, że postanowili je zacytować – np. Mt27:46, Mr5:41 itp.). Chcieli oni raczej oddać sens nauki Jezusa Chrystusa, prawdy moralne i teologiczne, które głosił im ich Mistrz. Z tych ustnych przekazów zrodziły się potem 4 ewangelie. Nie zmierzam do tego, żeby zakwestionować natchniony charakter tej księgi. Dla Boga nic nie jest dziełem przypadku Mt10:29n. Co więcej, uważam że te sprzeczności potwierdzają jej natchniony charakter. Podobnie jest z muzyką. Muzyka pochodząca z syntezatorów i automatów perkusyjnych, w których wszystko jest idealnie równe (stałe tempo, idealna równość dźwięków, idealny rytm itp.) jest muzyką sztuczną. Prawdziwa muzyka pochodzi z rąk człowieka, który nie jest tak super precyzyjny jak maszyna, ale za to czuje tę muzykę. Podobnie jest z ewangeliami. Mamy tu do czynienia z przekazem, który różni się w wymiarze mikro, ale jest identyczna w wymiarze makro, co utwierdza nas w przekonaniu, iż NT nie jest to rodzaj żadnej manipulacji, tylko żywym sprawozdaniem naocznych świadków zmartwychwstania Jezusa.
Wracając do tych sprzeczności z księgi rodzaju (tzn. kolejności stwarzania i ilości zwierząt wprowadzonych do arki), mam na ten temat odmienne zdanie, które „kupiłem” od pani A. Świderkówny z jej książki „Rozmowy o Biblii”. W każdym z tych przypadków mamy tu do czynienia z dwoma różnymi opowiadaniami napisanymi przez różne tradycje, które w tej książce zostały nazwane „Kapłańska” i „Jahwistyczna”. Jak słusznie zauważył autor komentarza do sprzeczności z Rdz1:24-26 pierwszy opis jest opisem chronologicznym opisującym stworzenie świata (Moja nauczycielka od języka polskiego zwróciła nam uwagę na podobieństwo tego opisu z teorią Darwina, w której Bóg stwarza najpierw niebo i ziemię, a potem żywe istoty w kolejności od tych najbardziej prymitywnych to tych najbardziej skomplikowanych – czyli człowieka), a drugi opis koncentruje się na stworzeniu człowieka i jego moralnym upadku. Żadnego z tych opisów nie można odbierać zbyt dosłownie. Biblii nie można traktować jak podręcznika do historii. Już św. Augustyn pisał, że Bóg dał nam Swego Ducha, nie po to, aby nas pouczył o biegu słońca, ziemi i innych planet. Bóg chciał sobie wykształcić chrześcijan a nie matematyków. Naturalne jest to, że człowiek już od samego początku zadawał sobie pytanie „Skąd się wziął ten cały wszechświat?”. Gdyby Bóg chciał napisać prawdę o stworzeniu świata, to musiałby użyć bardzo skomplikowanego aparatu matematycznego, zaawansowanej fizyki, chemii i użyć pojęć, które nie byłyby znane ludzkości. Biblia nie była by wtedy księgą dla ludzi. Jednak Jego opis stworzenia świata jest bardzo prosty, który w pełni zaspokoił potrzebę wiedzy prymitywnego człowieka. Ponadto miejmy na uwadze, że w Biblii jest zarówno natchnione słowo Boże, jak i słowo ludzkie, tzn. takie, które jest w pełni zrozumiałe dla ówczesnego człowieka, które było zgodne z ich wyobrażeniami otaczającej rzeczywistości. Tego stanu rzeczy nie chciał burzyć nawet Jezus Chrystus, który uzdrawiając epileptyka, na oczach ludzi potraktował to jako przypadek opętania przez złego ducha.
Jeśli chodzi o sprawę ilości zwierząt wprowadzonych do arki, to tutaj znowu mamy do czynienia z dwoma uznanymi za natchnione, niezależnymi, wzajemnie uzupełniającymi się opowiadaniami, które przy formowaniu księgi rodzaju zostały ze sobą splecione, co widać gołym okiem w tekście, gdzie poszczególne fragmenty opisu się powtarzają. W książce pani A. Świderkówny zostały one z powrotem rozdzielone na 2 niezależne opowiadania. A jeśli chodzi o tę liczbę zwierząt, to chodzi o nieuzgodnienie tego faktu w trakcie składania tych tekstów (może dlatego, że nikt się nie czuł upoważniony do zmiany słowa Bożego).
Napisano 2003-08-18, godz. 06:36
Czemu mają służyć te złośliwe uwagi?
Ja?! :shock: To przecież Ty i inne stworzenia świadkolubne uważacie, że prawda jest tylko w hebrajskim oryginale (i oczywiście w PNŚ).
Co masz do Lxx?
To może lepiej było zacząć nowy wątek, skoro z bieżącym nie ma to wiele wspólnego?
nie ja pisałem te wypowiedzi odnośnie sprzeczności (a jedynie wkleiłem dla zainteresowanych).
Gdybyż tak było... :roll:
Strażnicę to Ty chyba widujesz jedynie na stronach www
A jeszcze odniosę się do przytoczonej przez Ciebie przykładowej „egzegezy”.
czyli mniej więcej:
Genesis 2:2 that records that God rested “from all his work.” Contrasting with this is Jesus’ comment at John 5:17 where he says that God “has kept working until now.” How is this possible?
The context shows the record in Genesis is speaking specifically of God’s works of material creation, while Jesus was referring to God’s works concerning his divine guidance and care for mankind.
Niedawno w Strażnicy był artykuł o myśleniu „właściwym”, tzn. polegającym na posłuszeństwie. Powyższy komentarz jest klasycznym przykładem takiej refleksji nie zaburzanej aktywnością umysłu.
W Rdz 2,2 zapisano, że Bóg odpoczął po całej swej pracy. Natomiast Jezus powiedział (J 5,17), że Bóg wciąż działa. Jak to możliwe?
Kontekst wskazuje, że zapis z Księgi Rodzaju mówi o Bożym dziele materialnego stworzenia, podczas gdy Jezus odnosi się do pracy Boga dotyczącej jego boskiego przewodnictwa i troski o ludzkość.
Bóg podtrzymuje wszystko słowem swej potęgi. Akt stworzenia nie był, jak chcieliby deiści, działaniem typu „zrobić i zapomnieć”. Stworzenie istnieje dlatego, że Stwórca wciąż go chce, wciąż podtrzymuje go w istnieniu. Gdyby zrobił sobie dzień wolny, to w poniedziałek (czy raczej, przepraszam, w niedzielę) musiałby zaczynać od nowa. :-D
Biblia stosuje antropomorfizację, bo bez tego trudno jest nam — zwłaszcza na początku — cokolwiek pozytywnie pomyśleć o Bogu. Odpoczynek Boga na pewno podkreśla sakralny charakter dnia świętego. Rozumienie jednak dosłowne tego sformułowania prowadzić może łatwo do śmiesznostek, jak ta omawiana. Od tego już tylko krok do wizji brodatego, zziajanego Staruszka (no bo jak „odpoczął”, to pewnie był zmęczony) :-P
Strażnica odrzuca filozofię, czyli umiłowanie mądrości. Tym samym nieuchronnie skazuje się na umiłowanie głupoty.
Napisano 2003-08-18, godz. 10:49
Bardzo ciekawy komentarz odnośnie Mateusza. Z tego co przeczytałem w słowniku (ponieważ nie znam osobiście greckiego), ostatnie słowo tego zdania - nepios - oznacza dosłowniej "dziecko" (tu zacytowałeś "prostaczkom", PNŚ "niemowlętom"). To ciekawe, by nie sądzić że ludzie znający nauki Chrystusa są "prostakami". Jak Ty to rozumiesz? Ja rozumiem to na swój sposób, Jezus raz powiedział żeby jego uczniowie byli jak dzieci. Co charakteryzuje dzieci a co charakteryzuje dorosłych? Zastanawiam się jakie jest Twoje zdanie...
PS Jeśli chodzi o księgę rodzaju (Noe - Zwierzęta) to już wcześniej podałem do tego wyjaśnienie (Heinz - Angielski). Jak nie zrozumiałeś to chętnie Ci przetłumaczę.
Staho, odnośnie Twojego tekstu - ja bym się wstydził swojej córce pokazywać takie posty. Rasistowskie gadki... tak to odczułem...
Pozdrawiam wszystkich, PC
Napisano 2003-08-18, godz. 15:57
>Bardzo ciekawy komentarz odnośnie Mateusza. Z tego co przeczytałem w słowniku (ponieważ nie znam osobiście greckiego), ostatnie słowo tego zdania - nepios - oznacza dosłowniej "dziecko" (tu zacytowałeś "prostaczkom", PNŚ "niemowlętom"). To ciekawe, by nie sądzić że ludzie znający nauki Chrystusa są "prostakami". Jak Ty to rozumiesz? Ja rozumiem to na swój sposób, Jezus raz powiedział żeby jego uczniowie byli jak dzieci. Co charakteryzuje dzieci a co charakteryzuje dorosłych? Zastanawiam się jakie jest Twoje zdanie...
Ja nie jestem zwolennikiem dosłownego tłumaczenia Biblii, też nie znam greckiego, ale wydaje mi się (co sprawdzę) że wyraz „nepios” znaczy również „prostaczkom”. Ponadto wg mnie Twoja koncepcja nie przeczy mojej. Wydaje mi się, że chodzi tu o przeciwstawienie do mądrych i roztropnych. Jezus mówił do faryzeuszy i uczonych w piśmie (uznawani za mądrych i roztropnych), którzy się naśmiewali i gorszyli Jego nauką, że nierządnice i celnicy (te prostaczki) uprzedzają ich w wejściu do królestwa niebieskiego.
>PS Jeśli chodzi o księgę rodzaju (Noe - Zwierzęta) to już wcześniej podałem do tego wyjaśnienie (Heinz - Angielski). Jak nie zrozumiałeś to chętnie Ci przetłumaczę.
Sięgnij do wcześniejszych postów. Miałeś prawo nie zauważyć, ale tam gdzie wcześniej było napisane „Ta wypowiedź zostanie skasowana” w rzeczywistości została zmodyfikowana. W tej wypowiedzi podjąłem próby przetłumaczenia tego tekstu, prosząc Cię, abyś sprawdził czy dobrze i abyś wytłumaczył mi sens tej wypowiedzi, bo nie zrozumiałem.
Napisano 2003-08-25, godz. 08:09
a co, jesteś kolorowy? :shock:
Rasistowskie gadki... tak to odczułem...
Napisano 2003-09-18, godz. 01:45
- Wzywać imię "Jahwe"
- Wzywać imienia Jahwe
>>Reply: To jest żaden argument. Różnica na którą starasz się tak mocno zwrócić uwagę nie istnieje wogóle w języku Biblii.
> Uff. Wobec tego dam narazie za wygraną, a sprawę odłożę do momentu, jak będę miał niezależne źródło skąd będę mógł zaczernąć tę informację.
Co prawda języka hebrajskiego nie znam, ale pozwoliłem sobie zajrzeć do gramatyki greckiej, a następnie do LXX w Rdz4:26
Rdz 4:26 „Setowi również urodził się syn; Set dał mu imię Enosz. Wtedy zaczęto wzywać imienia Pana.”
W języku greckim mamy:
kai tw shq egeneto uios eqwnomasen de to onoma autou enws outos hlpisen epikaleisqai to onoma kuriou tou qeou.
chciałbym zwrócić uwagę na:
to onoma kuriou tou qeou
po kolei mamy tutaj: rodzajnik „to” l.p. rdz. nijaki, potem jest „onoma” – imię, potem „kuriou” – od „kurios” - „Pan” – końcówka ou charakterystyczna dla l.poj rodz. męski Gen. (kogo? czego?), potem "tou" - rodzajnik l.poj. rdz. męski Gen, i na końcu „qeou” – „Boga” – ta sama forma gramatyczna co i „kuriou”. Dosłownie mamy tutaj „imię Pana Boga”. (Kogo? Czego?). Trudno mi powiedzieć, jak to oddaje tekst hebrajski, ale jedno jest pewne – zarówno tłumacze Septuaginty jak i cały Naród Wybrany tak właśnie rozumieli ten fragment – „wzywać imienia Jahwe”.
Ponadto mam taką prośbę, żeby nie dokuczać więcej Yogiiiemu złośliwymi uwagami. Wg mnie jest on w błędzie, ale myślę, że inteligencją to mimo wszystko nie jednego przewyższa. Poza tym to on nakręca całe te forum...
Napisano 2003-09-18, godz. 08:42
Napisano 2003-09-20, godz. 21:19
Hmmm. Jak by to wytłumaczyć. Tę różnicę chciałem podkreślić tylko w języku polskim. A mianowicie pisząc:
- Imię "JHWH" - miałem na myśli konstrukcję "Imię" a po tym wyrazie wyraz w formie mianownika lub w wołacza- czyli "JHWH"
- "Imienia JHWH" - miałem tak naprawdę na myśli "Imię" a potem wyraz w dopełniaczu (kogo?, czego?). Ponieważ JHWH się nie odmienia musiałem się posłużyć słowem "imienia", aby uwypuklić że chodzi mi o dopełniacz następnego wyrazu a nie jego formę w mianowniku lub wołaczu.
Trochę zamieszałem, ale mam nadzieję, że odszyfrujesz moją myśl.
Napisano 2003-09-21, godz. 11:35
Może będzie to troszkę wyglądać na lapidarną odpowiedź, ale nie mam zamiaru się ciągle powtarzać. Wydaje Ci się że Twoja interpretacja ma swoją rację? Ja bym nie dał sobie za nią uciąć głowy. Zdajesz sobie z tego sprawę że cała ta interpretacja może w ogóle odbiegać od myśli zapisanej "parę" lat temu? Starasz się opierać o język polski podczas gdy biblia była spisywana językiem staro-hebrajskim (nie wspominając już o fragmentach aramejskich). Być może się mylę, ale nie widzę jakiejkolwiek różnicy w tekście Biblii na którą starasz się zwracać cały czas uwagę, jeśli chcesz udowodnić że tak jest - naucz się czegoś, naucz się tych języków, idź na kurs języków semickich - przyjdź i powiedz że teraz Cię stać i lepiej żebym Cię posłuchał . A masz możliwości, bo kombinator z Ciebie nie lada. Ja nie znam do końca odpowiedzi na to zagadnienie - nie mam takiej wiedzy, znam troszkę hebrajski i to tyle - ale nie powinniśmy gdybać opierając się na języku polskim - wydaje Ci się to obiektywne? Czasem ciężko jest znaleźć prawdę, trzeba mieć do tego sporo cierpliwości...
Tak więc, odszyfrowałem Twoją myśl, ale nie widzę podstaw by uznać ją za obiektywną rację. Szczerze Ci powiem że nie interesuje mnie to już tak jak kiedyś. Nabrałem troszkę do tego dystansu. Fakt, na świecie dzieje się coraz gorzej. Każą nam kupować rzeczy których nie potrzebujemy. Telewizja i reklamy na ulicach każą nam wierzyć że kiedyś pewnego dnia będziemy super gwiazdami, milionerami i bogami - ale my nigdy nimi nie będziemy, … powoli uczymy się tego faktu. Plakaty ukazujące półnagich mężczyzn i kobiet na których młody człowiek ma się wzorować. Czy tak wygląda prawdziwy mężczyzna? Heh, self improvement masturbation, self destruction. Jednak w tym całym szaleństwie znajduję parę ciekawych elementów dających wiele do myślenia Weźmy pod uwagę matematykę. Wierzę że matematyka jest językiem natury, a wszystko wokół nas może być opisane i zrozumiane dzięki liczbom. Jeżeli zbierzesz liczby z dowolnego systemu pojawi się wzór... a więc wszędzie wokół nas występują prawidłowości. Podobna sytuacja występuje w Biblii, ktokolwiek spisał ten język i go oznakował – jest godny pochwały i podziwu. Hebrajski to matematyka. W języku polskim możemy przedstawić oddzielnie albo liczby albo wyrazy, takiego zróżnicowania nie ma w języku hebrajskim, ponieważ alfabet stanowi także gamę liczb. Przykład: hebrajskie słowo AB (Alef i Bet) oznacza „Ojciec”. Translacja numeryczna: Alef to 1, Bet to 2, 1+2 w sumie daje 3. Hebrajskie słowo oznaczające „Matkę” to AM. Alef czyli 1 i Mem czyli 40 = 41. Zsumuj 3 i 41 otrzymujesz 44. Teraz słowo JeLeD, które oznacza „Dziecko”, w zapisie numerycznym to 10, 30 i 4 w sumie 44. Rozumiesz... ojciec + matka = dziecko... I takie są całe pisma hebrajskie, po prostu ciąg cyfr – był to jedynie malutki przykład. Nie dość że język biblijny jest ułożony pod względem gramatyki i wokalizacji (np. psalmy można śpiewać – to nie żart), to wszystko pasuje ze sobą pod względem matematycznym. Wszystko to kryje na dnie pewną potęgę… przy której człowiek nabiera trochę szacunku.
Wydaje się, jak na ironię, że mogę się do tego zabrać dopiero jak dojrzeję "duchowo" jak również i emocjonalnie... [+ wiedza]
P.S. Zaproponowałbym Ci swoje skany zdjęć z książki The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language omawiającej język staro-chiński (trzymający się już parę tysięcy lat) i jego ciekawa kontrukcja ujawniająca pochodzenie (język chiński bazuje przede wszystkim na ukazywaniu malutkiej historyjki dającej prawdziwe znaczenie słowa). Np. słowo chińskie oznaczające "Łódź" składa się z pomniejszych słów "statek" + "osiem" + "ludzi". Natomiast "ogród" to = "proch" + "życie" + "dwie osoby". Heh, zadziwiający świat starożytny.
Pozdrawiam, Paweł C.
Napisano 2003-09-22, godz. 08:14
Grzesiek jasno wykazał jasno, że sens zdania "objawiłem imię Twoje..." należy przedstawić nie jako wypowiadanie imienia Jahwe czy Ojciec, ale na tym, że Jezus objawia nam, fakt wcześniej nie znany, iż Bóg jest naszym kochanym Ojcem. "Poznać przez doświadczenie" nie przeczy temu wcale, wręcz przeciwnie - doskonale ten sens uzupełnia, gdyż przez Jezusa poznajemy Boże ojcostwo.
Abraham, Izaak i Jakub nie poznali się na Bogu? Yogii proszę rozjaśnij mi tę myśl - bo z tego co czytałem to byli oni pokornymi sługami Jahwe, czy się mylę?
Jak więc widać, Yogii wprowadziłeś tylko zamieszanie do oczywistego fragmentu Pisma Świętego, ale cóż nie wszystko możemy odrazu poznać.
Napisano 2003-09-22, godz. 13:13
OK Yogiii! Nie wracamy więcej do tego tematu. Być może i masz rację, że w piśmie hebrajskim nie ma różnicy pomiędzy „imię Jahwe” a „imienia „Jahwe””. Nie będę się z Tobą kłócił. Jeśli się uczysz hebrajskiego, to mogę Ci polecić przekład interlinearny księgi rodzaju. Ja tam zaglądałem i pod tym kątem, ale niestety nie mogłem zrozumieć kodów gramatycznych. Ale wszystko wskazuje na to, że możesz mieć rację, że język hebrajski nie rozróżnia tego. Jeśli miałeś na myśli, że ja w jakiś sposób umniejszam wartość pism Hebrajskich w porównaniu do LXX, to mnie źle zrozumiałeś. Chciałem tylko podkreślić, że LXX może czasem pomóc nam właściwie zrozumieć te pisma (spojrzenie na to od innej strony, pokazanie, jaki szczegół jest istotny, a jaki nie, itp.) Życzę Ci szybkich postępów w nauce tego Języka. Na naukę języków semickich się jeszcze nie wybieram. Na razie próbuję się nauczyć języka greckiego, kierując się tym, że NT jest dla mnie osobiście dużo ważniejszy niż ST, mimo iż hebrajski jest dużo ciekawszym językiem. Niestety idzie mi to bardzo powoli (nie mam wrodzonego talentu do języków). Szkoda trochę, że odbierasz mnie jako kombinatora. Wierz mi, nie chodziło mi o to, aby udowodnić swoją rację za wszelką cenę. W pewnych momentach nie zrozumieliśmy się dobrze. Jednak dzięki Ci za polemikę. Jest ona bardzo kształcąca i wiele się przez nią nauczyłem.
Panie Andrzeju. Zeszliśmy trochę z tematu, ale w końcu... to tylko forum. Jednak wydaje mi się, że to nie wyszło nam na złe.
Napisano 2003-10-09, godz. 08:38
A któż to u nas nowy ? Cooo to ma być?! Chyba rozpracowała naszą polemikę:
>Drogi Yogi, nie wiedzieć czemu rozpocząłeś długi spór, który nie powinien mieć tu miejsca z bardzo prostego powodu.
Ja go poruszyłem? no no...
>Grzesiek jasno wykazał jasno, że sens zdania "objawiłem imię Twoje..." należy przedstawić nie jako wypowiadanie imienia Jahwe czy Ojciec, ale na tym, że Jezus objawia nam, fakt wcześniej nie znany, iż Bóg jest naszym kochanym Ojcem. "Poznać przez doświadczenie" nie przeczy temu wcale, wręcz przeciwnie - doskonale ten sens uzupełnia, gdyż przez Jezusa poznajemy Boże ojcostwo.
Ależ ja tego nie neguję, podtrzymuję tę wersję od samego początku...
>Abraham, Izaak i Jakub nie poznali się na Bogu? Yogii proszę rozjaśnij mi tę myśl - bo z tego co czytałem to byli oni pokornymi sługami Jahwe, czy się mylę?
Jak to leciało? "Sługa nie wie co jego pan czyni" ...
>Jak więc widać, Yogii wprowadziłeś tylko zamieszanie do oczywistego fragmentu Pisma Świętego, ale cóż nie wszystko możemy odrazu poznać.
Wow, "nie wszystko możemy odrazu poznać", no co Ty - przeiceż jesteś Jego Sługą. A tak poważnie - nie było w tym żadnych konkretów - ani z mojej strony ani z Twojej... zatem następnym razem konkretniej jeśli możesz
Użytkownicy przeglądający ten temat: 0
0 użytkowników, 0 gości, 0 anonimowych