Question on the Transfiguration

[2003cobra]

Hang on:

I said; "so of course there would be slight differences just as we would expect."

You say; "I agree with all you wrote"

But clearly you don't because you also say; "these differences are a problem."

So please clearly state what you position is on this issue.

You then go on to talk about the the authorship of 2 Peter and it being possibly an eye witness account depending on ones POV but you don't explain what that has to do with Matthew, mark and Luke's account of the transfiguration which is what your thread is about. Please explain.

I thought my post was clear. I will try again.

The differences are not a problem for a believer who recognizes the validity and authority of the Bible while recognizing God used fallible people to write the documents.

The differences are a problem for people who claim the documents are the inerrant, God-breathed Word of God.

Since inerrancy is not a claim of scripture — the Bible makes that claim about itself nowhere — it Is simply a man-made tradition which should be tested against scripture. And, when tested, the doctrine of inerrancy fails.

 

[turbosixx]

This was way down in another thread and wasn’t getting answered, so I thought it might need a fresh start.

What did the Father actually say from the cloud?

Matthew 17:5 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/17-5.html
5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!"

Luke 9:35 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/9-35.html
35 Then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!"

Mark 9:7 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/9-7.html
7 Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!"

There are differences, especially with Luke saying “my chosen” rather than “the beloved.”

When it comes to the gospels, I like to look at them all for a particular event. It helps to develop a better understanding of what is being said. For example, to know that Jesus on the night he was betrayed was in a garden in a place called Gethsemane on the mount of Olives, you would need to read 3 of the 4 to get all that information.

He can be chosen and beloved.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I thought my post was clear. I will try again.

The differences are not a problem for a believer who recognizes the validity and authority of the Bible while recognizing God used fallible people to write the documents.

The differences are a problem for people who claim the documents are the inerrant, God-breathed Word of God.

Since inerrancy is not a claim of scripture — the Bible makes that claim about itself nowhere — it Is simply a man-made tradition which should be tested against scripture. And, when tested, the doctrine of inerrancy fails.

Okay I agree with that (and well put BTW) but what has this got to do with the 3 accounts of the Transfiguration or are you using them to try and prove this point.

 

[2003cobra]

Okay I agree with that (and well put BTW) but what has this got to do with the 3 accounts of the Transfiguration or are you using them to try and prove this point.

On another thread I was going through some minor, insignificant errors in the gospels — insignificant, that is, for those who do not embrace the doctrine of inerrancy — and I asked what was really said at the transfiguration. No one wanted to answer, as this was the third error that I had brought up,and the others were damaging to their view on inerrancy. So I thought a new thread might draw out an answer.

Thank you for your comments. You are certainly welcome to join us there.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127447-Scripture-What-is-considered-Scripture/page23

I am now asking about the genealogies. Matthew says Joseph was a descendant of David’s son Solomon while Luke says Joseph was a descendant of David’s son Nathan. Getting adherents to the doctrine of inerrancy to admit both cant be true is like pulling chicken’s teeth.

 

[Right Divider]

On another thread I was going through some minor, insignificant errors in the gospels — insignificant, that is, for those who do not embrace the doctrine of inerrancy — and I asked what was really said at the transfiguration. No one wanted to answer, as this was the third error that I had brought up,and the others were damaging to their view on inerrancy. So I thought a new thread might draw out an answer.

Thank you for your comments.

The only "errors" are in your mind.

 

[glorydaz]

So you think Mark and Luke deleted part of the Word of God.

They are not perfect and complete.

They have an error of omission.

Thanks for finally answering.

No, they wrote exactly what the Holy Spirit prompted each one of them to write.
And don't pretend like I haven't been answering.

And don't claim I'm accusing God of error.

And don't accuse the writers of "deleting" or omission when they obediently wrote ONLY what God inspired each of them to write.

They, unlike you, would never go beyond what God inspired them to write down.

Write this.....actually means something.
NOT, write everything you heard or saw.
Not, write exactly what Matthew wrote.

 

[daqq]

I thought my post was clear. I will try again.

The differences are not a problem for a believer who recognizes the validity and authority of the Bible while recognizing God used fallible people to write the documents.

The differences are a problem for people who claim the documents are the inerrant, God-breathed Word of God.

Since inerrancy is not a claim of scripture — the Bible makes that claim about itself nowhere — it Is simply a man-made tradition which should be tested against scripture. And, when tested, the doctrine of inerrancy fails.

The problem in the N/T is not with what was originally written by the authors, (which we no longer have in the physical record), but rather with centuries of scribes and copyists, (many with a particular bias after the second/third century). You could have chosen much better ways to show what you are attempting to get across because the Gospel accounts are meant to be put together as one record, (they are not in "competition with each other" trying to tell a different version as some speculate). The Gospel accounts are like four different rooms of a four-room house or like four different levels of a four-story house. The Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts , (and the Apocalypse), needs to all be placed together as a whole in order to get the full picture. This is in fact the one way which we have to weed out the errors of past copyists and scribes with a bias that may have mangled the Word to suit their fanciful dogmas.

Example of seeing the Testimony as one:

Matthew 16:5-7 HNV
5 The talmidim came to the other side and had forgotten to take bread.
6 Yeshua said to them, "Take heed and beware of the yeast of the Perushim and Tzedukim."
7 They reasoned among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread."

Mark 8:14-16 HNV
14 They forgot to take bread; and they didn't have more than one loaf in the boat with them.
15 He charged them, saying, "Take heed: beware of the yeast of the Perushim and the yeast of Herod."
16 They reasoned with one another, saying, "It's because we have no bread."

Therefore beware of the leaven of Herod, and of the leaven of the Perushim, and of the leaven of the Tzaddukim: for the kingdom of the heavens is likened to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until the whole (lump) was leavened, (Matthew 13:33, and you are the lump: for the kingdom of Elohim is within you, as the Master likewise says, Luke 17:20,21).

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

"Like wise Jesus" or "Likewise Jesus" ???

Likewise.

Brother and high priest.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No, they wrote exactly what the Holy Spirit prompted each one of them to write.
And don't pretend like I haven't been answering.

And don't claim I'm accusing God of error.

And don't accuse the writers of "deleting" or omission when they obediently wrote ONLY what God inspired each of them to write.

They, unlike you, would never go beyond what God inspired them to write down.

Write this.....actually means something.
NOT, write everything you heard or saw.
Not, write exactly what Matthew wrote.

Nope.

John 14:26

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The problem in the N/T is not with what was originally written by the authors, (which we no longer have in the physical record), but rather with centuries of scribes and copyists, (many with a particular bias after the second/third century).

:cheers:

 

[2003cobra]

No, they wrote exactly what the Holy Spirit prompted each one of them to write.
And don't pretend like I haven't been answering.

And don't claim I'm accusing God of error.

And don't accuse the writers of "deleting" or omission when they obediently wrote ONLY what God inspired each of them to write.

They, unlike you, would never go beyond what God inspired them to write down.

Write this.....actually means something.
NOT, write everything you heard or saw.
Not, write exactly what Matthew wrote.

I understand that you think God told them what to write. The Bible never claims that. Your position is just an extra-Biblical teaching of man.

 

[2003cobra]

The problem in the N/T is not with what was originally written by the authors, (which we no longer have in the physical record), but rather with centuries of scribes and copyists, (many with a particular bias after the second/third century). You could have chosen much better ways to show what you are attempting to get across because the Gospel accounts are meant to be put together as one record, (they are not in "competition with each other" trying to tell a different version as some speculate). The Gospel accounts are like four different rooms of a four-room house or like four different levels of a four-story house. The Testimony of the Master in the Gospel accounts , (and the Apocalypse), needs to all be placed together as a whole in order to get the full picture. This is in fact the one way which we have to weed out the errors of past copyists and scribes with a bias that may have mangled the Word to suit their fanciful dogmas.

Example of seeing the Testimony as one:

Matthew 16:5-7 HNV
5 The talmidim came to the other side and had forgotten to take bread.
6 Yeshua said to them, "Take heed and beware of the yeast of the Perushim and Tzedukim."
7 They reasoned among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread."

Mark 8:14-16 HNV
14 They forgot to take bread; and they didn't have more than one loaf in the boat with them.
15 He charged them, saying, "Take heed: beware of the yeast of the Perushim and the yeast of Herod."
16 They reasoned with one another, saying, "It's because we have no bread."

Therefore beware of the leaven of Herod, and of the leaven of the Perushim, and of the leaven of the Tzaddukim: for the kingdom of the heavens is likened to leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of flour until the whole (lump) was leavened, (Matthew 13:33, and you are the lump: for the kingdom of Elohim is within you, as the Master likewise says, Luke 17:20,21).

I agree that scribes have made alterations. The removal of “my Chosen” and replacement with “the beloved” in Luke is a good example. An analysis of the manuscript evidence reveals the corruption.

I think the greatest value in the existence of four gospels is that they show that there were multiple witnesses attesting to the life and teachings and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

[glorydaz]

Nope.

John 14:26

“But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”

Bringing something to one's remembrance is NOT the same as permission to write everything down.

The Holy Spirit inspired the writing of the Bible. That does not mean each man was to write everything they knew, but only what they were inspired to commit to paper.

 

[glorydaz]

I understand that you think God told them what to write. The Bible never claims that. Your position is just an extra-Biblical teaching of man.

I understand you seek to defame the Bible. Fortunately, the Bible proves you a liar.

2 Peter 1:20-21KJV
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.​

 

[daqq]

I agree that scribes have made alterations. The removal of “my Chosen” and replacement with “the beloved” in Luke is a good example. An analysis of the manuscript evidence reveals the corruption.

I agree, that is indeed a better example, but you only quoted the NRS in the OP and did not quote the Luke passage from, say, the KJV, (Textus Receptus), so as to make the point, (so perhaps I did not fully understand the point you were making?). Another good example may be found in the statements from Matthew 26:28 ASV -vs- Matthew 26:28 KJV and Mark 14:24 ASV -vs- Mark 14:24 KJV. The ASV is reading from the NA/GNT/Westcott-Hort, (compilation texts), while the KJV is reading from the Textus Receptus, (and the Byzantine family of texts also agree here with the T/R). They cannot both be correct and yet one says "Covenant", (ASV, GNT, W/H), while the other says "New-Renewed (Kainos) Covenant", (KJV, YLT, (Young's Literal), from the T/R or Textus Receptus). However, as previously implied, the Scripture corrects itself and the Luke companion passage, (Luke 22:17,18,19,20), explains which is correct and which has been corrupted, (if you understand that there are more than one Cup during and after the Seder), and all manuscripts agree regarding what is found in the Luke companion passage when it comes to this particular.

 

[2003cobra]

I understand you seek to defame the Bible. Fortunately, the Bible proves you a liar.

2 Peter 1:20-21KJV
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.​

Did you bother to read the verse?

It is about spoken prophecies that came in old time found in the scriptures!

It says nothing about the New Testament in its entirety.

 

[glorydaz]

Did you bother to read the verse?

It is about spoken prophecies that came in old time found in the scriptures!

It says nothing about the New Testament in its entirety.

Going off half baked is your specialty, isn't it? :chuckle:

Peter is comparing what they saw on the mount with with the prophecies of old. Same thing....holy men of God speaking as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It's about credibility, authority, and trust. You attack all of those.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.​

 

[daqq]

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.​

Yep, so the "feet" of the Father already "stood", (stationed), upon the mount of Olives: and that was at the transfiguration event, (particularly interesting is the Luke version where "they feared as they entered into the Cloud", and thus the Cloud enveloped them), just as it is written in Zechariah 14:3,4, and just as the 2Peter passage which you have quoted speaks about. Yep, no room for any private interpretation: for according to the sure word of the Prophets, when it comes to the Father who is non-corporeal Spirit, "the clouds are the dust of His feet", (Nah 1:3).

 

[glorydaz]

Yep, so the "feet" of the Father already "stood", (stationed), upon the mount of Olives: and that was at the transfiguration event, (particularly interesting is the Luke version where "they feared as they entered into the Cloud", and thus the Cloud enveloped them), just as it is written in Zechariah 14:3,4, and just as the 2Peter passage which you have quoted speaks about. Yep, no room for any private interpretation: for according to the sure word of the Prophets, when it comes to the Father who is non-corporeal Spirit, "the clouds are the dust of His feet", (Nah 1:3).

This is what I'm talking about...."This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount".

 

[2003cobra]

Going off half baked is your specialty, isn't it? :chuckle:

Peter is comparing what they saw on the mount with with the prophecies of old. Same thing....holy men of God speaking as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. It's about credibility, authority, and trust. You attack all of those.

2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.

2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.​

It is about spoken prophecies found in the scriptures, prophecies that came in old time.

As much as you wish it were true, it is not a comment on the written New Testament. You are really grasping at straws.