Those Whose Faith is in the Bible as the Word of God..

by AGuest 46 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephMalik

  AGuest,

  You started this thread by saying: "If the Bible contains no error, and if Matthew and Luke's accounts are "scripture"... which means the writers were "borne along by the Holy Spirit" when they wrote... why, then, does Matthew's account occur "6 days" ... and Luke's account occur "about 8 days"... " I notice this thread a few hours ago and demonstrated that the scriptures were accurate on this matter and your criticism or them was unfounded. This statement had nothing to do with the fulfillment of the transfiguration but I see that you or the holy spirit speaking to you failed to understand this. Well sometimes things happen like that.

  Joseph
• 

  Chalam

  Hello AGuest,

  There is a simple explanation to your question.

  Matthew 17 (New International Version)

  The Transfiguration

  1 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. OK, six days after what?

  Matthew 16:21-28 (New International Version)

  Jesus Predicts His Death

  21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.

  22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. "Never, Lord!" he said. "This shall never happen to you!"

  23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

  24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will find it. 26 What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

  Now, let us see the other account.

  Luke 9:28-36 (New International Version)

  The Transfiguration

  28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. OK, "about eight days after" what?

  Luke 8:40-56 (New International Version)

  A Dead Girl and a Sick Woman

  40 Now when Jesus returned, a crowd welcomed him, for they were all expecting him. 41 Then a man named Jairus, a ruler of the synagogue, came and fell at Jesus' feet, pleading with him to come to his house 42 because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.

  As Jesus was on his way, the crowds almost crushed him. 43 And a woman was there who had been subject to bleeding for twelve years, but no one could heal her. 44 She came up behind him and touched the edge of his cloak, and immediately her bleeding stopped.

  45 "Who touched me?" Jesus asked.
  When they all denied it, Peter said, "Master, the people are crowding and pressing against you."

  46 But Jesus said, "Someone touched me; I know that power has gone out from me."

  47 Then the woman, seeing that she could not go unnoticed, came trembling and fell at his feet. In the presence of all the people, she told why she had touched him and how she had been instantly healed. 48 Then he said to her, "Daughter, your faith has healed you. Go in peace."

  49 While Jesus was still speaking, someone came from the house of Jairus, the synagogue ruler. "Your daughter is dead," he said. "Don't bother the teacher any more."

  50 Hearing this, Jesus said to Jairus, "Don't be afraid; just believe, and she will be healed."

  51 When he arrived at the house of Jairus, he did not let anyone go in with him except Peter, John and James, and the child's father and mother. 52 Meanwhile, all the people were wailing and mourning for her. "Stop wailing," Jesus said. "She is not dead but asleep."

  53 They laughed at him, knowing that she was dead. 54 But he took her by the hand and said, "My child, get up!" 55 Her spirit returned, and at once she stood up. Then Jesus told them to give her something to eat. 56 Her parents were astonished, but he ordered them not to tell anyone what had happened.

  As it is plain to see, "about eight days" after a completely different event!

  As it is written

  Matthew 22:29 (New International Version)

  29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.

  The Holy Spirit is the power of God Zechariah 4:6 It is unlikely that He brought to your attention the difference in the chronology of these accounts.

  There are many of these "discrepancies" in the four different gospel accounts but most of them are actually amount to nothing at all like this one or are easily explained when one looks carefully at the text or the writing style of the author.

  All the best,

  Stephen
• 

  PSacramento

  Aguest,

  What makes you think that John the apostle ( one of those present at the transfiguration) was John of Patmos that wrote Revelation?
• 

  besty

  For my next thread - Harry Potter And The Great Potter - Why JK Rowling Is The Messiah
• 

  BurnTheShips

  There is no contradiction between Matthew/Luke, necessarily. If one used inclusive time (including the day of the prophecy and the day of the transfiguration), and the other used exclusive time (not including those two days, just the days in between), then the apparent difference in days is explained. Besides, Luke was deliberately approximate, his version of events explicitly says "about 8 days".

  BTS
• 

  AGuest

  Dearest PSacramento, may you have peace!

  Aguest, What makes you think that John the apostle ( one of those present at the transfiguration) was John of Patmos that wrote Revelation?

  Besides what our Lord himself told me? (Because one VERY TRUE “sacred secret,” dear PSacto... is that I don't KNOW this stuff! I have openly confessed that here more times than I can count.) It would be what he gave me to corroborate what he told me (which he ALWAYS does, sooner or later): the statement made before the very account being discussed. I had no idea who he was referring there to until HE told me: the Revelation is what my Lord was referring to at that very time. John DID see our Lord coming into his kingdom… before he (John) died.

  Did John SEE our Lord coming into his kingdom at the time he wrote the Revelation? No. He saw it LONG before. It was one of the things John saw... before Paul wrote about it to the Corinthians. John is the "man" of whom Paul wrote:

  "I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago--whether in the body I do not know, or out of the body I do not know, God knows--such a man was caught up to the third heaven. And I know how such a man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, God knows-- was caught up into Paradise and heard inexpressible words, which a man is not permitted to speak." 2 Corinthians 12:2-4

  Please note (1) the man was "anointed" (i.e., "in" Christ); (2) the event actually occurred a little over 14 years before Paul wrote of it , and (3) "the man," John... was NOT prohibited from speaking of it. Rather, those he told it to at FIRST... could/would not understand and/or accept it... and THEY considered such things as something not to be spoken of (you know, much like some of those here - LOL!), so that he (John) eventually stopped talking about it. That is, until he was TOLD to write about it, close to 60 years later:

  "Write down what you saw*, the things you are seeing, and the things you will yet see." Revelation 1:19

  *At the time that Paul wrote to the Corinthians about it.

  [NOTE: The word of my Lord is that NONE of the modern Bible translations have this verse accurate; however, NIV and ESV are closest. The NLT and RSV are totally inaccurate. All others are correct, but not totally accurate.]

  Why did Paul refer to John as "a man" he knew... rather than just saying, "[the Apostle] John was caught up..."? Because, Paul didn't really KNOW John at the time. Although he had briefly met him, Paul and the 12 had different 'territories" almost from the beginning: they were afraid of him because of his previous treatment of those in union with Christ, and so they sent him to Tarsus (thus, "Saul of Tarsus"). Acts 9:26-30 He did have more acquaintance with Peter and James, but none of the others, until the matter of circumcision came up (again; it had come up before with Peter). Galatians 1:15-19; Acts 11:1-18; 15:1, 2

  Dearest BTS... may you have peace, as well!

  There is no contradiction between Matthew/Luke, necessarily. If one used inclusive time (including the day of the prophecy and the day of the transfiguration), and the other used exclusive time (not including those two days, just the days in between), then the apparent difference in days is explained. Besides, Luke was deliberately approximate, his version of events explicitly says "about 8 days".

  My question had nothing to do with the differences between Matthew and Luke, individually, and their individual accounts. What THEY recorded. My question is, IF the Holy Spirit directed BOTH men, why did one report one amount of days... and the other another? Although I have received numerous responses trying to justify the “difference”… no one has responded to my question as to how or WHY… the HOLY SPIRIT would have given them differing timeframes.

  Dearest Chalam... peace to you (I think)...

  OK, six days after what?

  You yourself posted it:

  "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

  Now, let us see the other account.

  Okay, let's!!

  OK, "about eight days after" what?

  Well, according to YOU... something that took place a whole chapter… and possibly even several WEEKS earlier (i.e., Luke 8:4-56)! But how CLEVER of YOU: you have completely OMITTED Luke 9:1-27, and most specifically, verses 18-27, which culminates with the statement:

  "But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."

  Which is virtually EXACTLY the same statement that occurred in Matthew's account! BUT... LOOK AT YOU... removing entire events to fit your teaching! What a scribe YOU are! WHOO-HOO! You GO, boy! Now, we know exactly how such things occur! Thank you for cleaing THAT up!

  As it is plain to see, "about eight days" after a completely different event!

  Plain… to one who is “blind,” yes. Indeed. I totally concur.

  Again, I bid you ALL peace... and ears to hear... as well as eyes to see... IF you are truly wishing it.

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  PSacramento

  Interesting view Shelby, thank you, although I still don't see how you associate John of Potamos with the apostle John.

  Even John of the Gospels and epistles calles himself either the DISCIPLE whoem Jesus loved of the "elder".

  FYI for anyone that cares in regards to how old man is:

  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/10/091001-oldest-human-skeleton-ardi-missing-link-chimps-ardipithecus-ramidus.html
• 

  BurnTheShips

  My question is, IF the Holy Spirit directed BOTH men, why did one report one amount of days... and the other another?

  Because although both were moved by the Spirit, both still wrote as individual human beings, from their own perspectives, and from their own individual uniqueness. In writing Scripture, the writers made full use of their own unique talents and backgrounds so that although they were inspired by the Spirit, it was as individual human authors that they were charged to do so. In reading the text, we need to first understand what their intentions were in writing them. But ultimately, Christianity is not a faith of a written word, which is a dead letter on its own, but of a living Word that dwells within us and speaks to us when we read the good book.

  BTS

  PS. I believe the bible is inerrant. However, there are different definitions for what inerrancy means. For fundamentalists, every word, tense etc has to be inerrant.

  The Bible was written by many different people over many years, then repeatedly translated through various languages, then the parts were shuffled around, thrown out and added, and then we get what we have today.

  Why is this a problem? The Bible is by no means inerrant in that strict fundie sense. Evolution is a fact of science. Genesis is not literal.

  I believe many atheists and agnostics are turned away from Christianity by the severe lack of intellectual honesty in fundamentalist groups which are still trying to push a Bible that is inerrant in this very strict fashion.

  For me, inerrancy is a consequence of inspiration. It has more to do with salvation and the book as a whole than with verbal inerrancy down to every last letter. When it comes to the knowledge needed for the sake of our salvation, it is inerrant, because it contains the message that God wanted transmitted to us.
• 

  AGuest

  Hmmmm....

  "The fossil puts to rest the notion, 'popular since Darwin's time*,' that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings.
  Ardi instead shows an unexpected mix of advanced characteristics and of primitive traits seen in much older apes that were unlike chimps or gorillas."

  *And we know great a many put their faith in that "notion"...

  Seems like the WTBTS is the only "institution" whose "light"... "keeps getting brighter."

  Peace, dear PSacto!

  Your servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA, who decided a LONG time ago that she would just have to wait until ALL of the "evidence" is in on this particular subject... before making coming to ANY conclusion...
• 

  AGuest

  I still don't see how you associate John of Potamos with the apostle John. Even John of the Gospels and epistles calles himself either the DISCIPLE whoem Jesus loved of the "elder".

  Who calls him "John of Potamos [Patmos]"? (May you have peace!) I mean, he identified himself as "John, who is also your brother..." and wrote that he was in/on Patmos... but who said he called himself by that description? When did that description even come about? Sure, Luke identified Saul as being "of Tarsus" (Acts 9:11), but I know of no direct identification of John as being "of Patmos."

  BUT... along with the word of the Holy Spirit (whom you only needed to ask)... we have the closing at John 21:24... which is very similar to the closing of the Revelation, as to "testifying/bearing witness." John is the only writer to use this word in this way... in his gospel, his letters, and the Revelation.

  Because although both were moved by the Spirit, both still wrote as individual human beings, from their own perspectives, and from their own individual uniqueness.

  I'm sorry, but what you are suggesting cannot be (an may you have peace, as well!). IF they were "borne along by the Holy Spirit," THAT One told them what to write... and they would have had no "perspective." I am telling you the truth. So, I have to say that I d on't think, by this statement, that you understand what it means to be "moved" by the Spirit. It is not an abstract thing, but literally thing. IF they were "moved" by the Spirit... and thus "inspired,"... they were IN SPIRIT. That is what "inspired" means (well, what it meant at the time. Language "evolution" has done a number on that, though...).

  Anyway, peace to you both!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA