Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[ddt]

See post 1919, the King James version doesn't say "the" voice it says "a" voice. There is no contradiction unless you make the assumption the voice they heard is God's and not Paul's.

See, you really should consult the original. Here's Acts 9:7:

οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες οἱ συνοδεύοντες αὐτῷ εἱστήκεισαν ἐνεοί, ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες.

And here's Acts 22:9:

οἱ δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντος μοι.

In both instances, there's clearly the definite article (τῆς resp. τὴν), so Luke clearly writes "The Voice". You'd have a better case arguing he meant Sinatra.

 

[ddt]

Speaking of translations, here is a good site that talks of translation problems and the alleged contradiction in Acts 9 and Acts 22. Here is a portion of it:

"In the case of the question you have raised {Acts 9, Acts 22}, the problem is more a matter of translation. Unfortunately the translators of the King James Version did not take into account the fact that the same Greek word meant both “hear” and “understand.” Also, the same Greek word can mean both “sound” and “voice.” The apparent contradiction is correctly solved by the translation of the NET Bible, as well as that of the NASB and the NIV."

http://bible.org/question/i’m-troub...-229-where-it-unclear-whether-men-paul-his-co

Really. Yes, the verb ακουω could also mean "to understand", but its primary meaning is "to hear" - you know, that's where the English word "acoustic" comes from. Do you really buy it that the audience couldn't understand The Voice, that spoke in Aramaic, the lingua franca of the day? And as to φωνη, yes, it could mean "sound", like the chirping of the birds. But Luke never writes there are birds chirping, so we can rule that out as well.

And remember Acts 9 appears not to be written by Paul (because it is in the 3rd person), whereas Acts 22 (is written in the 1st person).

No it's not. Both are written by the same author, who, in Acts 22, just quotes Paul. You have not even the faintest idea how people write?

 

[DOC]

Wow, so the Bible is inherently accurate - as long as you cherry pick each sentence from different translations?

No, a flat out contradiction will have no other possible explanation or translation that can explain it. If one gospel says Christ was not crucified or resurrected, that could not be explained. All the gospels agree on the major things such as Christ was crucified and Resurrected. Minor discrepancies are normal for eyewitnesses. IF there was no video taken of the 911 attacks, you could imagine all the discrepancies that would occur in the stories about what actually happened.

 

[joobz]

No, a flat out contradiction will have no other possible explanation or translation that can explain it.

Such as conflicting genealogies.

But I guess that's a "minor" discrepancy. right?

 

[Robrob]

No, a flat out contradiction will have no other possible explanation or translation that can explain it. If one gospel says Christ was not crucified or resurrected, that could not be explained. All the gospels agree on the major things such as Christ was crucified and Resurrected. Minor discrepancies are normal for eyewitnesses. IF there was no video taken of the 911 attacks, you could imagine all the discrepancies that would occur in the stories about what actually happened.

Why do I have an image of you humming to yourself as you do a little soft shoe routine?

 

[Craig B]

No, a flat out contradiction will have no other possible explanation or translation that can explain it. If one gospel says Christ was not crucified or resurrected, that could not be explained. All the gospels agree on the major things such as Christ was crucified and Resurrected. Minor discrepancies are normal for eyewitnesses. IF there was no video taken of the 911 attacks, you could imagine all the discrepancies that would occur in the stories about what actually happened.

What translations can reconcile the chronologies and other details of the different birth stories in Matthew and Luke? Or the different genealogies in these Gospels? Or the timing of the cleansing of the Temple? Or the circumstances in which the alleged Resurrection was revealed to the disciples? Or the length of time the risen Jesus remained on earth? Or the location from which he rose into the sky? These are not "minor discrepancies of eyewitnesses"; they are all "flat out contradictions".

ETA In any case, I would expect discrepancies in the testimony of fallible human eyewitnesses. I cannot accept that discrepant testimony might exist in an inerrant work inspired by an infallible omniscient Divinity "Who can neither deceive nor be deceived". If you admit discrepancies, you deny inerrancy, and reduce the New Testament to the same status as any other fallible human work.

 

[Akhenaten]

...So Young isn't so superior after all, DOC?

I never said it was superior, but it is certainly something to consider when there is a difficult verse.

Where "consider" means "quote selectively whenever it appears to support the DOC version of the fairytale" and "difficult" means "glaringly obvious as a gap in the plot/continuity error".

Speaking of translations

<snip>

Good idea. Let's shall.

How are you going with your Greek lessons?

And remember Acts 9 appears not to be written by Paul (because it is in the 3rd person), whereas Acts 22 (is written in the 1st person).

There's nothing to remember, other than "if there's a way to be wrong, DOC will find it" and we really don't even need to remember that since new examples are posted almost daily.

 

[Mojo]

What translations can reconcile the chronologies and other details of the different birth stories in Matthew and Luke? Or the different genealogies in these Gospels? Or the timing of the cleansing of the Temple? Or the circumstances in which the alleged Resurrection was revealed to the disciples? Or the length of time the risen Jesus remained on earth? Or the location from which he rose into the sky? These are not "minor discrepancies of eyewitnesses"; they are all "flat out contradictions".

ETA In any case, I would expect discrepancies in the testimony of fallible human eyewitnesses. I cannot accept that discrepant testimony might exist in an inerrant work inspired by an infallible omniscient Divinity "Who can neither deceive nor be deceived". If you admit discrepancies, you deny inerrancy, and reduce the New Testament to the same status as any other fallible human work.

To quote George Carlin, "results like these do not belong on the résumé of a supreme being."

 

[Akhenaten]

So, the Young's Literal Translation should give the answer to this "difficult" problem?!

All the translations should be considered.

. . . and the most desirable answers cherry picked from them willy-nilly, regardless of the academic bankruptcy of this approach.

When someone claims there is a contraction . . .

Seems to me, DOC, that you have trouble with English --> English translations, so I doubt that you're going to have much credibility with Ancient Greek --> English.

. . . and there is a translation out there (or other possible explanation) that says there is no contradiction, then the the alleged contradiction is suspect.

I'll just add 'alleged' to the list of words you've seen other people using and thought you'd use it too, despite not understanding what it means.

In any case, it's not the "alleged condradiction" that is suspect, and as far as I can tell neither are any of the translations. Quite simply, two different verses, written by the same author and recounting the same event say two completely different things. This is, by definition, a contradiction.

Perhaps if you were to present the ancient Greek (or Aramaic, if you prefer) versions of the two verses and your translations of them then we could discuss that.

I have still never seen an alleged contradiction in the NT that can't be reconciled in some way.

Of course not, but only because you'll distort, twist, wilbur, misattribute and lie about any contradiction that you can't get away with ignoring altogether.

(I haven't studied the OT deep enough to answer totally for that section of the bible)

If the level of your knowledge of the New Testament is any indicator I find it surprising that you've even heard of the Old Testament.

 

[Akhenaten]

No, a flat out contradiction will have no other possible explanation or translation that can explain it.

Such as conflicting genealogies.

But I guess that's a "minor" discrepancy. right?

Allegedly.

 

[Craig B]

Such as conflicting genealogies.

But I guess that's a "minor" discrepancy. right?

Maybe there's a "translation" in which they're the same.

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[Akhenaten]

One fine day in the middle of the night
Two dead men got up to fight.
Back to back they faced each other,
Drew their swords
And shot each other.

- Anonymous


Seems legit.

- DOC​

 

[pakeha]

No, a flat out contradiction will have no other possible explanation or translation that can explain it. If one gospel says Christ was not crucified or resurrected, that could not be explained. All the gospels agree on the major things such as Christ was crucified and Resurrected. Minor discrepancies are normal for eyewitnesses. IF there was no video taken of the 911 attacks, you could imagine all the discrepancies that would occur in the stories about what actually happened.

DOC, are you saying Acts doesn't count as a gospel?
That Acts was confected by several authors?
That Luke couldn't keep straight the account of Paul's conversion?

 

[Akhenaten]

 

[DOC]

What translations can reconcile... the different genealogies in these Gospels? ...

"Matthew and Luke actually give two different genealogies. Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, the legal, though not the physical father of Jesus. Luke, on the other hand, gives the ancestry of Jesus through Mary from whom Jesus was descended physically as to his humanity. This is a beautiful fulfillment of prophecy and actually testifies to the accuracy of the Bible. Through Joseph, Jesus became the legal heir to the throne while at the same time bypassed the curse of Coniah as prophesied in Jeremiah 22:24-30. Both, of course, were in the line of David so that Jesus had a legal right to the throne as the adopted son of Joseph and was at the same time a physical descendent of David through Mary."

From the article: Why do Matthew and Luke’s genealogies contradict one another?

http://bible.org/question/why-do-matthew-and-lukes-genealogies-contradict-one-another

 

[Akhenaten]

"Matthew and Luke actually give two different genealogies.

<snip>

In spite of all of this allegedly being written:

. . . at a time where information was hard to come by in that era of no paper, no newspapers, and little literacy . . .

Somehow or other the detailed genealogies of two complete non-entities were preserved without error for centuries and then somehow came to be in the possession of just the right people to write it all down (somehow) in the gospels, decades (or longer) after the alleged events took place.

This is a beautiful fulfillment of prophecy and actually testifies to the accuracy of the Bible.

The Bible does quite a lot of testifying to its own accuracy. It's almost as if someone used the details from the Old Testament fairytales to make the New Testament fairytales look like fulfilled prophecies.

As a matter of fact, it's exactly like that.

As if anyone would be stupid enough to be taken in by such an obvious attempt at subterfuge.


Oh, wait . . .

 

[pakeha]

"Matthew and Luke actually give two different genealogies. Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, the legal, though not the physical father of Jesus. Luke, on the other hand, gives the ancestry of Jesus through Mary from whom Jesus was descended physically as to his humanity. ...

DOC, it seems to me if Luke wanted to give Mary's genealogy he'd have said so.
After all, he is one of the world's great historians, even if he contradicts himself when he tries to tell the story of Paul's conversion twice in the same account.
Does Luke ever say he's writing out Mary's genealogy?
No?
Then why give credence to the idea he is doing so?
Isn't it obvious the fellow was confused and made a mistake?

 

[Craig B]

@DOC

Here's Luke 3.

The Ancestors of Jesus

23Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry.

Jesus was known as the son of Joseph.
Joseph was the son of Heli.
24 Heli was the son of Matthat.
Matthat was the son of Levi.
Levi was the son of Melki.
Melki was the son of Jannai.
Jannai was the son of Joseph
Etc, etc.

Find Mary for me please. All I can see is Joseph and ancestors. And the names of these don't agree with Matthew. It would surely be, if you were right: "Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Jesus' mother was Mary. Mary was the daughter of ... etc"

 

[joobz]

"Matthew and Luke actually give two different genealogies.

Exactly.
That's called a blatant and direct conflict.


Now, of course you tell yourself convenient fictions about the geologies representing Mary and Joseph independently, but there is no reason to believe this. The bible doesn't say that. That is an extremely odd omission.
So odd as to suggest that it wasn't the actual intent of the author but a later invention to reconcile the difference.