Biblical inerrantists: How do you account for this?

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
I started a different thread from the KJV debate because this is not directly related (though indirectly), and because this topic might appeal to some less conservative theists as well.

Here's the problem, which I mentioned in the other thread: the four Gospels give four seemingly different accounts of who was present at the tomb when Mary and Mary Magdalene discovered it empty. In my mind, this is not a problem, because I believe in the message being "preserved" rather than an inerrant text. But if you believe the Bible to be inerrant, how do you account for the fact that one Gospel, says there was a man, one says an angel, a third says two men, and the fourth says two angels?

Here is the text from each (King James Version, of course) ;) :

Matthew One Angel
[1] In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
[2] And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
[3] His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
[4] And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
[5] And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

Mark One Young Man
[1] And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
[2] And very early in the morning the first day of the week, they came unto the sepulchre at the rising of the sun.
[3] And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre?
[4] And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.
[5] And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
[6] And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him

Luke Two Men
1] Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
[2] And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
[3] And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
[4] And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
[5] And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?

John Two Angels11] But Mary stood without at the sepulchre weeping: and as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre,
[12] And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
Okay, I did too much cut and pasting for this one to just die. ;)

No comments at all?
 

NikPreviousAcct

No Lifer
Aug 15, 2000
52,763
1
0
The four gospels tell different stories, but they never contradict themselves. You get four people with four different backgrounds, and they're going to notice different details and overlook others because of their backgrounds. Make sense? Good night.

nik
 

mrCide

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 1999
6,187
0
76
i'm all up for a religious discussion but it's not possible with the trolls here on atot
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,904
6,787
126
So far I count one angle one man and a troll. He's probably the one who moved the stone.

Come on peeps, no need to fear the trolls. It's a fair question.

One thing I notice is that nice people think I'm nice and assholes think I'm an asshole. That's how I can tell who's who. :D

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I used to have as my sig. I'll see it when I believe it. Notice it's backwards? So maybe in order to see an angle maybe you have to have angelic qualities yourself, or else how would you recognize one. I hope not by the wings. The halo is probably also an aura that may be apparent only to people tuned in specialized ways. So what was reported may really be just an indication of the spiritual evolution of the reporter.

 

Smaulz

Senior member
Jun 20, 2001
938
0
0


<< The four gospels tell different stories, but they never contradict themselves. You get four people with four different backgrounds, and they're going to notice different details and overlook others because of their backgrounds. Make sense? Good night. nik >>

 

datalink7

Lifer
Jan 23, 2001
16,765
6
81


<< So far I count one angle one man and a troll. He's probably the one who moved the stone.

Come on peeps, no need to fear the trolls. It's a fair question.

One thing I notice is that nice people think I'm nice and assholes think I'm an asshole. That's how I can tell who's who. :D

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that I used to have as my sig. I'll see it when I believe it. Notice it's backwards? So maybe in order to see an angle maybe you have to have angelic qualities yourself, or else how would you recognize one. I hope not by the wings. The halo is probably also an aura that may be apparent only to people tuned in specialized ways. So what was reported may really be just an indication of the spiritual evolution of the reporter.
>>



Have I ever told you that you're a nice guy?


;):D
 

Spike

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,770
1
81
From what I understand, each author told it as they intepreted it. Not one of them was actually present at the tomb, so they do not actually have any proof themselves, they have to go with what they have been told and included what they believed. Since word of mouth tends to mess things up, it is understandable that someone who was actually there may have been a wee bit too excited or freaked (after all, a dead guy just up and dissapeared) to count the number of people (angles can look like people) at the tomb. Thats just what I think
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0


<< (angles can look like people) >>



Quite an acute observation dealing with such an obtuse subject.
 

SpecialEd

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,110
0
0
well... considering Mark, the oldest gospel wasn't written till at least 50 years after Jesus died... there is goign to be some variation on the same stories. Each of the four gospels was written for a different crowd, with slightly different attitude. There's gonna be differences.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
Most of the opinions expressed so far seem reasonable to me (except, perhaps for the part where I get called a troll. lol)

I am curious how a person would explain this if they believe in the inerrant, literal interpretation of the Bible. Even if you fudge over the difference between a man and an angel, it's hard to make 1 equal 2.
 

Novgrod

Golden Member
Mar 3, 2001
1,142
0
0
For what it's worth, here's the Catholic interpretation as I learned in highschool (though i'm an episcopalian, and nominally at that).

There are a couple types of truth--there's scientific truth (salt is composed of sodium and chlorine, the colonists won the american revolution). There's historical truth (the american revolution was fought over political ideology, not economics). there's axiomatic truth (the apple doesn't fall far from the tree). There might be more, but last is religious truth, which is found in the bible.

That is to say, the bible is all true, but only as it applies to religion, not as it applies to science or history or whatever.

Now this strikes me as a half-assed excuse to force a square peg into a round hole, but it's what they say.

 

Polgara

Banned
Feb 1, 2002
127
0
0
I don't know inerrancy from Adam. but I can understand this one. Modern examples follow:



1. There's one guy at work who's a real hottie......

2. There's two really good looking guys at work.....




#1 is the start of a conversation to a girlfriend where I am about to reveal a daydream fantasy.

#2 is the start of a conversation to a girlfriend fishing for a date.



Sarah <== theologian

Hit the road Polgara or would you rather I addressed you as Johnny Reb?
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0


<< For what it's worth, here's the Catholic interpretation >>


I believe you did learn that in a Catholic school, but it isn't the official "Catholic" explanation. The official Catholic explanation matches Rio's view - that the Bible is non-literal and meant for interpretation.

So I'm afraid I'm not a whole lot of help on your question Rio! :)
 

Psylence

Banned
Oct 12, 1999
311
0
0
Say there were 2 men there, Sam and Ed, who were angels.

Therefore, all of the following statements would be true:

1) There was a man there
2) There were 2 men there
3) There was an angel there
4) There were 2 angels there
5) Sam was there
6) Ed was there
7) Sam and Ed were there

No errors, just different perspectives.


 

Netopia

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,793
4
81


<< The official Catholic explanation matches Rio's view - that the Bible is non-literal and meant for interpretation. >>




MT 26:26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this IS my body."


Ummm.... Catholicism says the Bible is non-literal eh? ;) I guess I can believe that... as long as I don't take it literally! :confused:

Joe

 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,407
8,595
126


<< Ummm.... Catholicism says the Bible is non-literal eh? I guess I can believe that... as long as I don't take it literally! >>

this is why the pope is considered a higher authority than the bible itself. he interprets it.
 

Optimus

Diamond Member
Aug 23, 2000
3,618
0
0
Joe,

While I think its counter-productive to get into a Catholic vs Protestant debate here as it just makes the lot of us look like loons (;) ), I will point out that non-literal does not mean "nothing literal in the entire book", it means some things are literal, some allegorical, and some may be non-literal... that the Bible is meant to be interpreted.

There are really 3 camps in Christianity on Bible literalism:

1) Bible literalists, to whom I would ask about Matt 26:26 "Why isn't that literal"? ;)

2) Bible non-literalists who believe in personal interpretation

3) Catholics, who believe the Church is the interpreter on earth.

:)


ElFenix:



<< this is why the pope is considered a higher authority than the bible itself. he interprets it. >>


No, not so - no more than a professor is "higher" than the material he teaches (before someone starts, lets call him a philosophy professor :) ). Dogma, which is when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" (and no time other than that), is what we believe the TRUE interpretation of the Bible and God's word. So we really believe that they are the same thing - what the Pope says (officially) is the same message as scripture (it is an expansion on the message).

So no - the Pope is not "higher" than the Bible by any means. We simply believe that the Church's interpretation is the true one, so it is a higher authority than someone else's personal interpretation.

Hope this helps!

Optimus



 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0
Most people do not interpret the Bible literally. Its earliest form was poetry from stories told almost 100 years before being written down. (at least for the new testement)
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
as an atheist looking from a biblical point of view, i find this "different perspectives" things to be very dangerous. it means you can question just about everything in the bible, because it might have just been one perspective, and there are other, lost perspectives that trump what we have now.

just my two cents.
 

Netopia

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
4,793
4
81
My statements were meant as sort of an ironic joke. I'm not going to make any other statements in this thread about that particular subject though as it will steer this thread to far off course. It's a good topic for some other long thread!

Please.... carry on with the original question of Rio.

Joe
 

Texmaster

Banned
Jun 5, 2001
5,445
0
0


<< as an atheist looking from a biblical point of view, i find this "different perspectives" things to be very dangerous. it means you can question just about everything in the bible, because it might have just been one perspective, and there are other, lost perspectives that trump what we have now.

just my two cents.
>>



I would respectfully disagree with you GoPunk especially looking at the original post.

They all pretty much say the same thing.

They went to the grave, Jesus wasn't there but one or two angels were telling them Jesus has risen from the dead.

And of course, Rio Level left out in John verses 4-8 4 And it came to pass, while they were perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in dazzling apparel:
5 and as they were affrighted and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? 6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7 saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.
8 And they remembered his words