NT Confusion... Which was it?

[Anonymous]

I would like to be frank in saying that I am not determined to "disprove" the Bible as we know it. I do think the work is inspired by God. I merely find issue with those associated with writing it. This being said, I would ask you to remember the Stations of the Cross. But look a few hours before that.

Matthew 26:52(KJV); 'Then said Jesus unto him, 'Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.'

But again in another gospel...

John 18:11(KJV); 'Then said Jesus unto Peter, 'Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?"

My quam doesn't deal with the message that Jesus said... it is with what Jesus actually said! It matters a great deal, because the two same incidents that are reported in the gospels have Jesus saying two different things. It is with this example I ask which is truth is which is false, because I am in the belief that the Bible is nothing but truth, but this inconsistency is muddlesome.

Any opinions?

[jerickson314]

Two comments:

1.) It is possible that two different quotations are being accounted for.
2.) The writings of the New Testament likely contain paraphrases of what Jesus said, not word for word quotations. One of the passages could have skipped a sentence. This would not be an error. Remember, these are eyewitness accounts written a few years after the events.

[Anonymous]

In regards to your first point:

I considered this, and looking at the passages in context, it does not seem likely that these are two different quotations being accounted for. Of course, this is my opinion, but the events and the necessity of the statement thereafter (I mean, the man's ear was severed!) just about eliminate that possibility.

In regards to your second point:

If this is true... then we have opened the gargantuan door of contextualism for the entire Bible, including the old testiment. While this "door" has arguably always been open, I feel it is necessary to prove that it is. I recall the long-creation days on the main site in terms of this. But what I find important with this situation is what can we call authentic and what can we call, dare I say, exaggerated?

It is food for thought, as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't sway belief in God or the Divinity of Jesus, but it does justify our questions on authenticity.

[jerickson314]

If this is true... then we have opened the gargantuan door of contextualism for the entire Bible, including the old testiment. While this "door" has arguably always been open, I feel it is necessary to prove that it is. I recall the long-creation days on the main site in terms of this. But what I find important with this situation is what can we call authentic and what can we call, dare I say, exaggerated?

The quotations being paraphrased is no problem. Pointing out a problem would be like saying, "My English translation has Jesus speaking English, so it doesn't record what he really said!" The Bible does say what he actually said. I was saying that both quotations are true, but that one record picked out a different part of what he said than the other.

And it doesn't logically follow that applying this to the gospels has any effect on the OT. This would be a hasty generalization fallacy.

Nonetheless, contextualism isn't necessarily a bad thing. People have pointed out that some extreme literal readings suggest a flat earth or an earth-centered universe. It is important to reason when a literal reading is correct and when it isn't.

And with the "long days" thing, the argument is that the Hebrew is more open than the English in terms of allowing for long "days". Obviously, the Hebrew is always more trustworthy.

[Anonymous]

The quotations being paraphrased is no problem. Pointing out a problem would be like saying, "My English translation has Jesus speaking English, so it doesn't record what he really said!" The Bible does say what he actually said. I was saying that both quotations are true, but that one record picked out a different part of what he said than the other.

That would be true, if the verses dipicted two similar sentences. But they clearly do not. One states that those who live by the sword die by the sword after telling Peter to put it away. The other questions Peter as to whether or not Jesus should allow this destiny after he tells him to put the sword away. It would be premature and unfounded to call these a paraphrase of a general statement when the only thing the two have in common is Jesus telling Peter to put his sword away. It is most definately a semantics arguement, but I still contend it a necessary one.

And it doesn't logically follow that applying this to the gospels has any effect on the OT. This would be a hasty generalization fallacy.

Oh but it does! If the inspired authors of the NT are paraphrasing or exaggerating situations, the inspired authors of the OT follow this potential. That is what I was getting at.

[jerickson314]

The paraphrased part was the command to put away his sword. The skipped sentence or whatever accounts for the rest. If you think that the Bible records must be complete, then both the crucifiction and the Resurrection accounts are hopelessly contradictory. By assuming that they are correct but not complete to the last detail, a reasonable harmonization is possible.

[Kurieuo]

My quam doesn't deal with the message that Jesus said... it is with what Jesus actually said! It matters a great deal, because the two same incidents that are reported in the gospels have Jesus saying two different things. It is with this example I ask which is truth is which is false, because I am in the belief that the Bible is nothing but truth, but this inconsistency is muddlesome.

Any opinions?

I believe it comes down to how one would define "inerrancy." I personally don't see this as a problem for the inerrancy position that many Evangelical Christians advocate. Especially so because I see that language is just a vehicle for conveying what happened—it is only a shadow of the real, not the real itself which possess the ultimate truth. For example, what if Jesus paused or sneezed while speaking. Should it be written, 'and Jesus said, "'Put up thy sword into... to... achooo... err... the sheath"' What if Jesus when speaking extended the "sh" emphasis on "sheath." Should it really say, "shhhheath" to be truly recorded? Is it really possible to precisely record every word a person says in the exact way they say it? Isn't language itself just a vehicle for conveying something to another? If so, then the telling of an event can only ever be conveyed by language, and can never actually itself be as true as the "real" itself.

This is perhaps one reason why the ICBI in article XIII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy state: "We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations." It is also a reason why I believe the two free citations you highlight are still true and accurate, since words can only ever convey what happened and what they each convey is in harmony with the other.

Kurieuo.