(A) I don't think anyone on this forum is trying to undermine the Bible, if
what Mr. Eisele means by "undermine" is what I think he means. We are
trying to understand the Bible and use the tools of biblical scholarship to
do so. Understanding may lead to a different way of interpreting texts than
we did before.
(B) Mr. Eisele concluded from George's comments that he was claiming there
are errors in the Bible. I do not think George was claiming anything of the
sort. He was pointing out the fact that Matthew, who used Mark's gospel,
retold the story from a somewhat different perspective, that led to what
George sees as a discrepancy. There are plenty of these in the gospels
alone. If anyone would carefully read through a synopsis of the gospels,
which lays the same episodes from the different gospels side by side, he or
she would see right away that, say, Mark, Luke, and Matthew would tell the
same story from a different angle, with changes in Matthew and Luke from the
earlier account in Mark. The best explanation for these differences is that
each evangelist had a different theological agenda. We need to become
cognizant of and alert to these agendas and differences, so that we can
appreciate them. It would be naive to assume that everyone is going to tell
the same story the same way. I am glad that we have four gospels that give
us four different portraits of Jesus. They give me more insight into Jesus
and more insight into how the early believing community came over time to
understand Jesus than just one gospel would have.
(_Synopsis of the Four Gospels_, 8th edn., by Kurt Aland. United Bible
Societies, 1982)
I could even point to a discrepancy within one writer, Luke, in his two
accounts of Jesus' ascension. In the one (Luke 24) it appears from the
timeline of the chapter that Jesus' ascension took place the evening of his
day of resurrection. In the second (Acts 2--Acts was written by Luke), the
ascension took place 40 days after the resurrection. The Church accepted
the chronology of the second account, and that is why the Feast of the
Ascension is set on the fortieth day after Easter. Why the discrepancy? I
have no idea, but perhaps Luke had his reasons that might be teased out of
his writings with careful reading and reflection. If anyone wishes to get
bent out of shape over this discrepancy, that's fine with me. Personally,
it is not a problem.
Rather than passing swift judgment on the information or arguments others
present, we should first try to understand them.
Bob Schneider
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Eisele" <jeisele@starpower.net>
To: "Walt Hicks" <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>
Cc: <gmurphy@raex.com>; <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: Historical accuracy?
> Walt writes
>
> >I agree that there some differences but don't see this one.
>
> A) This doesn't seem to be the proper forum for undermining
> the Bible.
> B) If you are going to claim that there are errors in the
> Bible, please tell us why you think an omnipotent God
> would allow them.
>
> Jim Eisele
> Genesis in Question
> http://genesisinquestion.org
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 10 2002 - 11:13:25 EDT