Did Mark make a mistake?

[Hellisreal]

So why did you start the thread in the first place?

Mrs Abbott, I started the thread because its a sin to not try to learn your faith.

I think it is a valid question and I think its fine to question the errors of the bible.

There are plenty after all. I am trying to see if some were copist errors, human writers bad memories, ect. and more.

I would think asking both Protestants and Catholics would be an excellent way to get all the bible readers here to share their thoughts. Maybe they know about this story and accepted a view of a commentary.
Maybe they have their own speculation.
Maybe a minister taught them how to view it.
Maybe there is some other view I have not explored yet.

Maybe you could be more helpful and add your thoughts instead of knock me for trying to understand the bible better.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Mrs Abbott, I started the thread because its a sin to not try to learn your faith.

I was starting to wonder if you were questioning the validity of your faith as opposed to trying to understand and enrich it. Thank you for clarifying.

I’ve checked out many of your threads and they seem to imply that you have doubts to their validity such as “Did Mark get this wrong”, “did Paul get that wrong”.

Hellisreal:

I think it is a valid question and I think its fine to question the errors of the bible.

There are plenty after all. I am trying to see if some were copist errors, human writers bad memories, ect. and more.

You believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God though right? Despite the human errors that may be contained within?

hellisreal:

Maybe you could be more helpful and add your thoughts instead of knock me for trying to understand the bible better.

I don’t knock your style. It’s a bit unorthodox I admit, yet it makes for good discussion.

However, perhaps you could clarify where you’re coming from so we all don’t get blindsided trying to answer a possible skeptic as opposed to someone trying to enrich their understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Hellisreal]

QUOTE=Stylteralmaldo;2248677]

You believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God though right? Despite the human errors that may be contained within?

Yes, I accept Dei Verbum. I dont see why its bad to point to mistakes though, no matter how or why they are there and to try at very least to examine them without fear.

I don’t knock your style. It’s a bit unorthodox I admit, yet it makes for good discussion.

That is very nice of you to say!

However, perhaps you could clarify where you’re coming from so we all don’t get blindsided trying to answer a possible skeptic as opposed to someone trying to enrich their understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

I am a Catholic and have never doubted my faith, nor do I now. I am not looking to find reasons not to believe in the bible or to not be a Catholic striving to be a better Catholic each and every day!

I see no threat to biblical examination of scriptures. There are many things to factor in and consider. I like the fact that there are. In other faiths, this conversation would never be allowed. In other faiths, some doctrines may be on the line, but in mine- no such thing.

So, I think its a good thing to really dive into it using reason and faith together and I see there are some people that are very threatend by the mere thought! And maybe even a bit angry with the notion that its “up for discussion”

Hope that gives you a better idea.

 

[lak611]

I see no threat to biblical examination of scriptures. There are many things to factor in and consider. I like the fact that there are. In other faiths, this conversation would never be allowed. In other faiths, some doctrines may be on the line, but in mine- no such thing.

So, I think its a good thing to really dive into it using reason and faith together and I see there are some people that are very threatend by the mere thought! And maybe even a bit angry with the notion that its “up for discussion”

Hope that gives you a better idea.

That helps! I was thinking of approaching this thread as a debate with an agnostic. Now I know that is not the best angle to take.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Hope that gives you a better idea.

This should give you a better perspective as to where I come from as far as trying to better understand the Holy Word:

Does the Bible contain historical errors?

Keep up the questions.

God will not steer us wrong. All truth leads to Rome!

 

[Hellisreal]

Thanks for that link to another thread S.

I really liked Church Millitants final say on it too. If we say intent is all that matters in the issues I am raising, then that should apply to the books others rejected too. I never thought of that angle actually. Interesting.

 

[mrs_abbott]

Mrs Abbott, I started the thread because its a sin to not try to learn your faith.

I think it is a valid question and I think its fine to question the errors of the bible.

There are plenty after all. I am trying to see if some were copist errors, human writers bad memories, ect. and more.

I would think asking both Protestants and Catholics would be an excellent way to get all the bible readers here to share their thoughts. Maybe they know about this story and accepted a view of a commentary.
Maybe they have their own speculation.
Maybe a minister taught them how to view it.
Maybe there is some other view I have not explored yet.

Maybe you could be more helpful and add your thoughts instead of knock me for trying to understand the bible better.

I’m not knocking you for trying to understand the bible better. I just read some of your responses to people who have posted and it seemed like you already knew the answer to your question. That’s why I asked you why you started the thread in the first place. I wasn’t trying to make fun of you.
I was just wondering why you started this thread if you seemed to know the answer already.
I’m glad you are trying to understand the bible better. I applaud your quest for knowledge!

 

[Hellisreal]

I dont have any answers Mrs Abbott. I have more questions than answers. But, I also have heard many of the responses before as we all have. I am not outright rejecting them, I am saying I dont find them adequate in each case.
They are all speculations really.

 

[RichardAValdes]

The issue of True vs. “free of error” depends on how you define “true” and “error”. The statement may make a true religious statement but not be an accurate historical, biological or geological statement. It depends on the criterion used to evaluate the messate. I read the Bible as a religious text, not a history, especially with all of the variations which were introduced by translators and copyist.

 

[Hellisreal]

The issue of True vs. “free of error” depends on how you define “true” and “error”. The statement may make a true religious statement but not be an accurate historical, biological or geological statement. It depends on the criterion used to evaluate the messate. I read the Bible as a religious text, not a history, especially with all of the variations which were introduced by translators and copyist.

You have made a very good point, one I have been thinking about for a long time now.

Thank you for helping me see what it is that is really important.

 

[davidmammola]

Hellisreal,

What you are mistaking for errors in the Bible are passages you are not interpeting correctly.

Possible solutions:
Phenomenological language
Approximations
Errors in copying
Errors in translation
Our failure to understand literary conventions or the language of the day/Statements we do not yet understand
There is usually a perfectly reasonable solution to many of the so-called contradictions in the Bible when one looks hard enough.

All Scripture is true but not all of it is meant to be literalistically interpreted, just like when a person says, “I’ll meet you at sundown.” It’s a true statement, even if the sun does not go down because the speaker meant it as things appear, not literally.

 

[Hellisreal]

Hellisreal,

What you are mistaking for errors in the Bible are passages you are not interpeting correctly.

Possible solutions:
Phenomenological language
Approximations****Errors in copyingErrors in translation
Our failure to understand literary conventions or the language of the day/Statements we do not yet understand
There is usually a perfectly reasonable solution to many of the so-called contradictions in the Bible when one looks hard enough.

All Scripture is true but not all of it is meant to be literalistically interpreted, just like when a person says, “I’ll meet you at sundown.” It’s a true statement, even if the sun does not go down because the speaker meant it as things appear, not literally.

I think I have already considered the bolded areas, but again-

Thank you for the thoughts and I have an open mind! I am merely exploring the various things that can radically change our understanding (or lack of) when reading The Holy Scriptures.

God be with you

 

[adriancombe]

It is pretty obvious, taking Haydock’s explanation into account, that Mark did not make a mistake here.
I am with St. Augustine on inerrancy.
Aside from grammatical errors from Greek not being their first language, I am not aware of any of the purported “errors” attributed to NT authors having been shown to hold water.

 

[Hellisreal]

It is pretty obvious, taking Haydock’s explanation into account, that Mark did not make a mistake here.
I am with St. Augustine on inerrancy.
Aside from grammatical errors from Greek not being their first language, I am not aware of any of the purported “errors” attributed to NT authors having been shown to hold water.

Visit all my other threads and then try to hang on Haydock.

I used to myself. Along with all the other commentaries I never questioned.

I do like Augustine! Who does not?

Oh, wait a minute, he did have some unusaual views about sex. And some other things, but I still like the man! After all, he is a Saint, and a man who overcame Paganism. His love for the Church is unquestionable. but, he was a bit odd in some areas, which I am okay with!
As he was not “in charge” to define many things that if he could have, would be absoulute horror!

But, he gave us more to be grateful for than to be dismayed with in the end anaylisis. A good man, but a man with sexual issues for sure.

 

[HailMary]

Simply curious what kind of thoughts/ideas everyone has on this bible stumper:

Mark Chapter 2 23-28

Read it very carefully.

Now, read 1 Sam 21:1-6

Any thoughts? Reasons for the major mistake?

Very good question. When Jesus speaks to the Pharisees He, rightfully so, says that the High Priest is Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. If you know a thing about dynasties, you know that by attacking the Son, you threaten the dynasty (recall the plagues). What Jesus is basically saying to the Pharisees’ time is up and their punishment is near (~ 70 AD).

 

[jamannor]

Very good question. When Jesus speaks to the Pharisees He, rightfully so, says that the High Priest is Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. If you know a thing about dynasties, you know that by attacking the Son, you threaten the dynasty (recall the plagues). What Jesus is basically saying to the Pharisees’ time is up and their punishment is near (~ 70 AD).

Interesting, I never thought of it like this. Did you come up with this on your own, or did you read it somewhere?

 

[Hellisreal]

Very good question. When Jesus speaks to the Pharisees He, rightfully so, says that the High Priest is Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. If you know a thing about dynasties, you know that by attacking the Son, you threaten the dynasty (recall the plagues). What Jesus is basically saying to the Pharisees’ time is up and their punishment is near (~ 70 AD).

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!!!

I like it, I like it, and I was just going to bed, but I saw this and now I think I am too excited to go to sleep now.

THANK YOU so much

I will read about the dynasty angle tomorrow! I already recall an incident where this happened in the bible!!!

Great stuff.

 

[HailMary]

Interesting, I never thought of it like this. Did you come up with this on your own, or did you read it somewhere?

I attend a really amazing bible study in San Diego taught by a lay Catholic who recently put together a website which is on my signature. This just happened to be one of the things I remembered him answering.

God Bless you.

 

[Hellisreal]

I attend a really amazing bible study in San Diego taught by a lay Catholic who recently put together a website which is on my signature. This just happened to be one of the things I remembered him answering.

God Bless you.

You are very blessed to have a parish like you do.

 

[TOME]

All one has to do is read the four gospels, even causally, to find there are some very substantial differences in the four accounts of Jesus’ life and mission. These differences have spurred many attempts to understand the reasons for these differences and attempts have been made to reconcile them, for example, throught the Church’s history there have been periodic attemps to fuse all four accounts into one.

However, I think the works of modern scripture scholarship has presented a very important insight into why there are four different gospels and not one. And these insights have been acknowledged in “Dei Verbum”.

I think the most important insight is the gospels are faith documents, not historal narratives in the modern sense. As faith documents we must approach them as coming from the faith response of different communities of the Church, each have their own particular understanding who Christ Jesus is and how His life, mission and Paschal Sacrifice/Resurrection has affected the particular faith community. The gospels have come to us from different people at different times, culture and locations and needs all of which affected their faith response differently.

I have read in many different works that the best way to understand the gospels is to view them as portraits, not photographs or historical narratives. Therefore, I think if we say one gospel is more historically correct than another is to miss the point. Again, each gospel is coming from a different faith communities’ response so there is bound to be - there has to be
differences and not mistakes.

And if there are historical errors (in the modern sense) are these errors accidental or substantial errors in regards to the Divine Revelation coming to us through them? I think and hope most of us would agree the differences are accidental when considered in the light that all four gospels are faith documents whose truth is guided and guaranteed b the Holy Spirit.