IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
No. A People is not an expression used to denote good individuals. It is usually used in reference to a tribe, as in the Cherokee people.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bible contradictions
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I don't know the Hebrew, kindly, just tell whether Jesus spoke the words on the Cross in Aramaic or not, please, right??Shem Tob's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew Matthew 27:46
יֵשׁוּ (Yeshu) – J esus צָעַק (tsa'ak) - cried out בְּקוֹל (be'kol) - with a loud voice גָּדוֹל (gadol) - great אוֹמֵר (omer) - saying בִּלְשׁוֹן (bilshon) - in the language הַקּוֹדֶשׁ (ha'kodesh) - the holy אֵלִי (Eli) - My God אֵלִי (Eli) - My God לָמָה (lama) - why עֲזַבְתָּנִי (azavtani) - have you forsaken me
WTT Psalm 22:2
אֵלִ֣י (Eli) - My God אֵ֭לִי (Eli) - My God לָמָ֣ה (Lama) - why עֲזַבְתָּ֑נִי (Azavtani) - have you forsaken me רָח֥וֹק (Rachok) - far מִֽ֜ישׁוּעָתִ֗י (Mishu'ati) - from my salvation דִּבְרֵ֥י (Dibrei) - the words שַׁאֲגָתִֽי (Sha'agati) - of my groaning
Matthew. 27:46
Mark. 15:34
Psalm 21:1 LXX
Beza M-05A Matthew 27:46
Beza M-05A Mark 15:34
Pe.shi.tta
We can read in our Bible: "eli eli lema sabachtani," as well as "eloi eloi lama sabaktani." But there is also the reading from the Pe.shi.tta: "eil eil lmana shvaqtan," and even a Hebrew reading (D 05 Codex): "Elei Elei lama zaphtanei" (both in Matthew and Mark).
Jesus said on the cross: ELI ELI LAMA SHAVAQTANI
- "Eli" is Hebrew, Aramaic, but also appears in the Aramaic text from Qumran called Genesis Apocryphon.
- "Lama" is Hebrew, but as the vocalic reduction had not been completed in the first century, this distinction with the Aramaic "lema" did not yet exist (= it was pronounced lama in Aramaic, as we can see a parallel in Greek, the transcription of which "for whom" is written as "laman" instead of the well-known Leman).
- "Sabaktani" is Aramaic; the "s" transcribes the sound "sh," and "b" the bilabial "v" sound, there is no problem with that.
But why do we have "eloi" in some Gospels? The Pe.shi.tta gives us the answer: this phrase was "translated" into another dialect: eil eil lmana shvaqtan (meaning) alah alah lmana shvaqtan. There was confusion between Jesus' words and their brilliance in the Greek text. "Eloi" is the transliteration of Elohi, which is a Hebraized form of elahi. On the other hand, the Pe.shi.tta retained the record of this brilliance (unlike the ancient Syrians who followed the Greek texts), despite being written in an eastern dialect (which explains the difference in pronunciation).
The variation between "ἱνατί" (Matthew 27:46) and "εἰς τί" (Mark 15:34) may have occurred due to the possibility of a third translation, such as "Eli, eli, la-ma shavaqtani: 'My God, my God, for what purpose (with this intention, namely, the crucifixion) have you forsaken me.'" Instead of "lama" (why?), we can read "la ma" (l + ma) for this, and there is no longer a question about why God did something, but rather Jesus' final testimony about his mission.
Regards
Betho_br
Member
Jesus spoke in the holy language, in Hebrew.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Actually, by the time of Jesus, Hebrew had been replaced by Aramaic as the local language. Jesus would have spoken Aramaic in his day to day conversations. Hebrew was studied in order to read the Torah and Prophets, and so Jesus likely knew enough Hebrew to do that.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey said:
I don't know the Hebrew, kindly, just tell whether Jesus spoke the words on the Cross in Aramaic or not, please, right??
Regards
I don't know the Hebrew, kindly, just tell whether Jesus spoke the words on the Cross in Aramaic or not, please, right??
And one's argument for that, please?
Regards
Jesus did speak Aramaic, but I never heard whether what he said was in Hebrew or not.
Plus, the pole, the beam, the stake, the timber, Jesus was executed on did Not have to be a T-shaped cross.
Acts 10:39; 13:29 uses the word: tree. See also Galatians 3:13 B
" xy'lon " the Greek word does not refer to a t-shape.
By the time of Constantine, the pagan Tau with a lowered "t" became popular use as a cross.
Thus, wrongly allowing the converted non-Christians to keep their jewelery changing the Tau to cross.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Bible contradictions
76.When Jesus entered Capernaum he healed the slave of a centurion.
Did the centurion come personally to request Jesus for this?
(a) Yes (Matthew 8:5)
(b) No. He sent some elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)
So, Bible-NT neither from GD nor from Jesus, nor from the twelve, please, right??
Regards
Audie
Veteran Member
What makes it "holy"?
Audie
Veteran Member
"Holy land" dont seem so holy.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
"Holy" simply means to set something aside from the others for God's purposes. For example, Jews set aside the seventh day from all the other days, so the sabbath is holy. We call Israel "holy" because it was the land set aside by God for the Jews as part of our covenant with God. The site of the Temple would be another example of holy land.
The Matthew account has Mary going to the tomb, having an angel telling her that the Messiah has risen and that He will be seen in Galilee, having her leaving with "great joy" to tell the disciples, having her met by the Messiah on the way, having her worshiping Him, having Him telling her to tell the disciples to go to Galilee to see Him.
The John account, however, has Mary going to the tomb, seeing the stone rolled away, and then running to tell the disciples "they have taken away the Lord out of the tomb and we do not know where they have laid Him".
That goes way beyond deferent details, it's flat out contradictory.
Both in the scripture and remain a contradiction.
Nothing is known to be written 50 years after Jesus died.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The earliest book of the NT is thought to perhaps be 1 Thessalonians, and scholars say it was written aground 49-51 CE, so about 2 decades after Jesus death. The last NT book to be written was most likely Revelation, and scholars estimate it was written around 96 CE, so about 6 decades after Jesus' death. While these estimates are not uncommon, they are not unanimous.
amazing grace
Active Member
I suppose if one LOOKS for contradictions, they can make scripture contradict. I still see no contradiction just a different telling of the same incident told by three different people - Matthew, Mark and John - as they each remembered it.
Audie
Veteran Member
Key words : " I dont see".
Key compsrison: mother denying her darling boy
caught in a lie with candy in his pocket would
ever lie or steal.
So you think that Matthew's memory of Mary knowing that the Messiah was alive, and John's memory of her not knowing that He was alive, is not contradictory. How do you define contradictory?
BTW, any particular reason for leaving Luke out of it?
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Let's save a lot of time and just discuss why anyone would expect there NOT to be contradictions in a collection of texts written over a long period of time by a lot of different authors focusing of a lot of different subjects.When I was a teenager, Christian apologetics was my thing. I would like to create a thread about contradictions in the Bible. Believers of it often claim it is without contradiction, something I used to tout.
Let’s compile the contradictions, and let’s try to explain them if possible.
I’ll start.
The account of how King Saul died. 1 Samuel 31 says that Saul killed himself, yet immediately after, in 2 Samuel 1 , an amalekite says that he killed Saul.
So context is important, right? On first glance, there are contradictions in the accounts. I read a scholarly commentary book on the books of Samuel, so I’ll relay what i learned from it. The scholar said that amalekites were thematically supposed to represent deceit. The original audience of the text would have understood that the amalekite was lying for personal gain, he did not really kill Saul.
Also, 1 Samuel and 2 Samuel is from the same author. Would it be likely that an author would contradict himself right away?
So that is one contradiction shoddily explained away.Let’s bring out all the contradictions!