What I meant by God protecting His word, was that I think a lot of it survived. I don't know what was left out, changed, forged, etc. But, maybe the whole point is what we believe. What do we do about what we believe?
If only a lot of it survived then how do we know which is the part that survived? And if only a lot of it survived then can you really say that God protected his word?
sorry if this is a derail, but this is the part that stood out to me the most on this thread.
Since this has turned into a "God protecting His word" discussion, may I chime in with a different perspective? Perhaps it will even have some bearing on the topic.
If one approaches the Bible from a textual accuracy, original languages, research-oriented perspective, these questions become nagging skeletons in the closet. For some the closet gets too full. Others, like Mike perhaps, have a huge closet and a great capacity for 'splaining them away according to some cherished notion to keep them in the closet. You're giving the skeleton a workout in the light of day. It amuses me to see the scripture wrestlers grapple with it.
From a faith perspective, such wrestling becomes irrelevant. Making things "fit" becomes an exercise in self-gratification. Since leaving Way thought behind, I've received more life-changing insight by simply reading the Bible by faith as a spiritual experience...of communing with my God and having Him speak to me personally through the pages.
Greeks know Greek quite well and it hasn't made them more spiritual. Bible scholars are no more holy than Joe Schmoe. It's a treadmill that goes nowhere.
Greeks know Greek quite well and it hasn't made them more spiritual. Bible scholars are no more holy than Joe Schmoe. It's a treadmill that goes nowhere.
Careful now son... keep coming up with stuff like that and we'll have to call the Nobel committee...
I neither requested nor care for your opinion on how I approached those verses, nor do I accept you as an authority on whether my approach was right, wrong, close, on the mark, off the mark, on the wall, off the wall, 99 bottles of beer on the wall, etc.
You wrote: "I neither requested nor care for your opinion on how I approached those verses, nor do I accept you as an authority on whether my approach was right, wrong, close, on the mark, off the mark, on the wall, off the wall, 99 bottles of beer on the wall, etc."
Calm down there, buddy. :)-->
My comment was for the benefit of irisheyes only. You have my permission to ignore it. Don't worry about it. Try to forget it. Try thinking about something else. Count to ten. Whistle a happy tune. These are only suggestions and not to be considered commands.... OK? :D-->
Raf, are you traveling by boat over there? Looks like Katrina's heading up for more of your great state. We're in the clear for now. GC: I know hot. I'm in Baton Rouge. No breeze whatsoever.
As for whatever Mike said that was for my eyes only, I couldn't figure it out back tracking. Yes, Evan, Baton Rouge!! How did you get so smart, anyway? I've spent the day babysitting my granddaughter (1 last week) and talk about putting life back in prosective . . . .
GC: I know hot. I'm in Baton Rouge. No breeze whatsoever.
As for whatever Mike said that was for my eyes only, I couldn't figure it out back tracking. Yes, Evan, Baton Rouge!! How did you get so smart, anyway? I've spent the day babysitting my granddaughter (1 last week) and talk about putting life back in prosective . . . .
Ooooh we're neighbors! I've been meaning to travel up that way for over a year now! ;)--> A grand baby sounds wonderful.
Here's the footnote on pages 257-258 that covers those verses:
"24. Matthew 27:52 and 53 are clearly added by scribes. Manuscript 354 in Venice, Italy, omits these verses. Though other textual documentation for this has not yet been found, it must be realized that the earliest manuscript including this section of Matthew 27 dates from the fourth century AD. These verses must be an addition since they are contradictory to other scriptures which teach us that the dead are dead and will remain so until Christ returns. Until that time, only Christ has been raised bodily from death onto everlasting life. Textual critics as well as marginal notes in other old manuscripts have recognized these verses as later interpolations. The phrase 'after his resurrection' in Matthew 27:53 demonstrates the passage is totally out of context, obviously a scribal addition."
Without spending much time on these things, this here sounds even more harsh an assessment than the GMIR article.
Scanning the GMIR article will take a little more time (in proofreading) and it's on dark paper, so it might not work at all on my scanner. I can send you an xerox copy anytime, though.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
20
26
49
33
Popular Days
Sep 5
30
Aug 25
30
Aug 26
26
Aug 24
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Tom 20 posts
CM 26 posts
Mike 49 posts
irisheyes 33 posts
Popular Days
Sep 5 2005
30 posts
Aug 25 2005
30 posts
Aug 26 2005
26 posts
Aug 24 2005
21 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Film at 11:00! The suspense is killing me./s
Oakspear
if you don't believe that the bible is godbreathed, then there's no problem
Mike
Here is a rough OCR version of the article: Early Patristic Evidence for the Forgery of Matthew 27:52b and 53 Daniel L. McConaughy Seventh Way Corps Way Magazine May
Posted Images
WordWolf
Will someone signal me if Irisheyes is still interested in this question when Mike
is done?
I haven't posted my say on this in a while, and it will be interesting to review it
and see if I view things any differently.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gc
If only a lot of it survived then how do we know which is the part that survived? And if only a lot of it survived then can you really say that God protected his word?
sorry if this is a derail, but this is the part that stood out to me the most on this thread.
gc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Since this has turned into a "God protecting His word" discussion, may I chime in with a different perspective? Perhaps it will even have some bearing on the topic.
If one approaches the Bible from a textual accuracy, original languages, research-oriented perspective, these questions become nagging skeletons in the closet. For some the closet gets too full. Others, like Mike perhaps, have a huge closet and a great capacity for 'splaining them away according to some cherished notion to keep them in the closet. You're giving the skeleton a workout in the light of day. It amuses me to see the scripture wrestlers grapple with it.
From a faith perspective, such wrestling becomes irrelevant. Making things "fit" becomes an exercise in self-gratification. Since leaving Way thought behind, I've received more life-changing insight by simply reading the Bible by faith as a spiritual experience...of communing with my God and having Him speak to me personally through the pages.
Greeks know Greek quite well and it hasn't made them more spiritual. Bible scholars are no more holy than Joe Schmoe. It's a treadmill that goes nowhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
WordWolf: Read some of your other stuff last night and was impressed. Would love your input.
GC: You're right. Who can decide?
Do you live in Louisiana or the Everglades, if I may ask:
Evan: You've got a wonderful perspective on it, probably the best way not to get an ulcer. But, then, what would we have to talk about?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
Evan said:
Careful now son... keep coming up with stuff like that and we'll have to call the Nobel committee...Link to comment
Share on other sites
gc
irisheyes, Louisiana, where its hot as hell, but not raining from Katrina.
gc
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Yet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mike,
I neither requested nor care for your opinion on how I approached those verses, nor do I accept you as an authority on whether my approach was right, wrong, close, on the mark, off the mark, on the wall, off the wall, 99 bottles of beer on the wall, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheEvan
Thanks for the comment, irisheyes.
But I still wish Mel Gibson would have included his version of this event, done up in the most macabre manner cinimetographically possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Raf,
You wrote: "I neither requested nor care for your opinion on how I approached those verses, nor do I accept you as an authority on whether my approach was right, wrong, close, on the mark, off the mark, on the wall, off the wall, 99 bottles of beer on the wall, etc."
Calm down there, buddy.
:)-->
My comment was for the benefit of irisheyes only. You have my permission to ignore it. Don't worry about it. Try to forget it. Try thinking about something else. Count to ten. Whistle a happy tune. These are only suggestions and not to be considered commands.... OK?
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Ok... then they ARE commands!
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
black is white, up is down, dogs sleeping with cats, mass pandemonium!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
WOW! Now we're talking about something REALLY important.
My comment was ADDRESSED TO you.
My comment was FOR THE BENEFIT of irisheyes only.
Now, let's see if there are any other extremely pressing matters to tend to...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You hate being exposed as a doubletalking dodger, don't you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Irisheyes, please note that the comment Mike made was solely for your benefit, so please be sure to pay very close to it, because when Mike speaks...
it rarely benefits the person to whom addressed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Oh... I hate when that happens.
:D-->
But I really do LIKE it when I'm exposed as a doubletalking dodger!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
That post immediately above this one was NOT mine. Some conterfeit posted it in my place!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hmm...
Was it Smikeol, or Gulliblum?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Raf, are you traveling by boat over there? Looks like Katrina's heading up for more of your great state. We're in the clear for now. GC: I know hot. I'm in Baton Rouge. No breeze whatsoever.
As for whatever Mike said that was for my eyes only, I couldn't figure it out back tracking. Yes, Evan, Baton Rouge!! How did you get so smart, anyway? I've spent the day babysitting my granddaughter (1 last week) and talk about putting life back in prosective . . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
gc
Ooooh we're neighbors! I've been meaning to travel up that way for over a year now!
;)--> A grand baby sounds wonderful.
I think Evan was born that smart!
Raf said:
So true!
:(-->
gc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
We may not need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows after all . . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
irisheyes
Could someone fill me in on what is says about these verses in JCOP? I'm curious. And I want to thank you all for making me feel so welcome
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mike
Hi irisheyes,
Here's the footnote on pages 257-258 that covers those verses:
"24. Matthew 27:52 and 53 are clearly added by scribes. Manuscript 354 in Venice, Italy, omits these verses. Though other textual documentation for this has not yet been found, it must be realized that the earliest manuscript including this section of Matthew 27 dates from the fourth century AD. These verses must be an addition since they are contradictory to other scriptures which teach us that the dead are dead and will remain so until Christ returns. Until that time, only Christ has been raised bodily from death onto everlasting life. Textual critics as well as marginal notes in other old manuscripts have recognized these verses as later interpolations. The phrase 'after his resurrection' in Matthew 27:53 demonstrates the passage is totally out of context, obviously a scribal addition."
Without spending much time on these things, this here sounds even more harsh an assessment than the GMIR article.
Scanning the GMIR article will take a little more time (in proofreading) and it's on dark paper, so it might not work at all on my scanner. I can send you an xerox copy anytime, though.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.