Why are the Resurrection accounts so contradictory i.e. when read side by side ?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: DISRAELI

Actually you may be right...I believe im thinking of the ASV... as opposed to the "authorized version"...
I was thinking he meant the "american version"...

Who or what decides is 'authorized or not authorized'; is that determined by one's church affiliation and one takes on faith this particular Bible (or interpretation of) is the true one? I guess I wonder how/why/who changed the wording and what was the original Keystone Text used?

The world in the late 1500's and through 1600's was going through a change. Great Britain attained world wide colonization and had established all major Sea trade routes from east to west. At one time the "Sun never Set on the British Empire".

English became the trade language of the world and still is. It was early that God preserved his word to this generation in an English Bible the Authorised Version. This version has all the words, verses, sections and chapters in it unlike all the other 350 plus English versions that have popped up since the 1830's. Up until that time there was only one English version the AV. the AV was used in the greatest revivals the world has ever seen. The AV was used to lead more people to Christ than all the other 350 plus versions put all together.

God is either powerful enough through sinful men to preserve his words unto this current time. But if he hasn't and all we have are corrupt versions then he isn't powerful enough to do as he promised in Ps 12:6, 7 and no one should follow him.

I believe he has and this through faith alone and has three signature proofs as I pointed out earlier. 1) The AV ability to define any word in context. there was no dictionary at that time. 2) it has a supernatural Divinely inspired cross-reference system that connect the words, phrases and verses together to help us study the doctrines of God as they are found in the Bible not men's theologies passed off as Biblical. and 3) It is the only Bible were you can go and find all the words, phrases, verses, chapters and books that contain all the words of God just as he inspired them in the originals.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You wrote QUOTE 3) [the KJV / AV] is the only Bible were you can go and find all the words, phrases, verses, chapters and books that contain all the words of God just as he inspired them in the originals..." UNQUOTE

All the 'words'? The words of which you speak were not written in English originally but un-pointed paleoHebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek.

The Aramaic underlay to the gospel sayings in the NT were translated into Greek and from Greek into English; you are a long way from the mother-tongue and therefore a long way from understanding the text.

Surely you knew this?

a reply to: Sigismundus
You do know we have no Originals in the original languages?

surely you knew this?

What I speak of is God preserving his words in English as they were in the originals, not giving us the originals in the original languages again.

If he hasn't done it then we have no preserved word today and he promised to preserve them forever.

By faith I believe that God did it, and only the AV has them all just as they were in the originals.

Just do a verse count.

a reply to: ChesterJohn
You wrote: QUOTE "I think you might find this a little entertaining considering the ending of Mark..." UNQUOTE

No reputable scholar to-day believes that Mark 16:9-20 (the 'longer' ending) is Markan. It is different in theology, Weltanschauung, syntax, grammar, spelling, vocabulary, style of utterance, sentence length and import from the rest of the Gospel.

What you have is an Empty Tomb story that ends in mid sentence (ephobounto gar) and a promise of a manifestation of 'ho Iesous' in the Galilee (on the lips of the 'young man in a white linen garment'); there are no angels in the story and only women visit the tomb in Mark's gospel.

You can see at a glance that the Resurrection narratives follow the same story-line up to Mark 16:8 and from that point they begin to diverge.

Go back and read the Resurrection pericopes side by side for a glimpse of what I am talking about....

a reply to: Sigismundus

Mythos and Logos, when mixed as it is in the Gospel, ends like the unfixed end of a rope, plenty of loose ends going all directions. The Gospel ends in a dreadlock of split hairs.

There can be put forward many good reasons why John avoids to mention the soldiers directly. Remember that two of the richest and most powerful Jews around were present at calvary, who bribed the soldiers to avoid Jesus dying and being cremated in Gehenna. The general narrative seems to support the idea that Jesus was saved by his star among the legionaries and the power of money and wealth. Not only did they pay for Jesus to be taken away to a secure location, they provided this location, a newly made, clean family grave (i.e. big enough and clean enough to heal a dying Jesus in). They must also have bribed the soldiers that were put to guard the tomb. They bought all the clean linen the weaver girl had to offer, provided enough antiseptics to drown/bury a king (an idiomatic expression of vast amounts). Also they must have paid for the Essene healers (or they felt obliged since Jesus was like one of them), one of whom we meet in Mark, the young man dressed in white. Essene healers were primarily skilled healers. Their vow of chastity was directly related to how they would treat people of all castes and (feudal) classes of society; who were either married or given away for marriage, and they would be called to heal anything, including, but not limited to, you know, intimate ailments, so they lived (at least the greater part of) life in sexual poverty. Just like nurses and doctors today they would wear sparkling clean white garments and they followed extreme rules of isolation, cleanness and hygiene to avoid spreading diseases. Then as now, medics are certainly angels good enough as any other angel I've heard of.