Difference between revisions of "Talk:Luke 17-24 (Translated)"

Revision as of 16:20, December 23, 2009

Luke 23:34 Is it possible that this verse wasn't talking as much about those who crucified Christ not knowing they were crucifying an innocent man, but that they didn't realize that, by doing so, they were bringing the salvation of all mankind?

More likely than anything, this was an addition that never belong in Luke in the first place, added after the destruction of the temple to place the blame on Rome and not God. Just google the verse and you'll find tons of sources on this. 04:31, 12 October 2009 (EDT)

The only basis for excluding "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", is based upon its absence from older, and therefore supposedly better, mss, which is a questionable premise. (one side: http://www.cai.org/faq/kvj-part-2) Its exclusion on doctrinal grounds has no real basis. This does indeed fulfill the prophecy in Isa. 53:12, that he "made intercession for the transgressors", praying for them which despitefully abused Him. (cf. Lk. 6:28)

While it is true that there is no forgiveness without repentance, this is another case of the righteous asking for mercy for sinners, which has a solid Scriptural basis.

Exo 32:32 "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written." (A desire seen in Paul: Rm. 9:3)

Num 14:19 "Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now." (cf. Gen. 50:17; Amos 7:2)

Act 7:60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Thus these text must also be excluded, upon the doctrinal basis which is used for Lk. 23:34.

Praying as Christ did manifests selfless love for sinners, even our enemies, which we are commanded to do, (while also reproving such, which Jesus also did). While this may not secure deliverance at the final judgment seat, it can forestall immediate judgment. God hears the cry of the unjustly afflicted, and promised to kill Israelites in response to hearing their cry. (Exo. 22:21-24) But examples are given of intercession which prevented the warranted temporal judgment upon sinners. (Exo. 32:9-14)

As for the objection that the subjects of Jesus intercession were not ignorant, this is seen as regarding the full cognizance of what they were doing by the people overall, and is confirmed by other texts:

Act 3:17 And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers. (and repentance is then commanded: v. 19)

1 Cor 2:7-8 "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: {8} Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

Finally, rather than making a new translation which is supposed to correct liberal translations, here and in its "thought for thought" form it is following the practice of liberal scholarship. While archaic words can be replaced in the KJV with modern spelling, this radical revision is unwarranted and unwise. Better to just add conservative notes to the suggested revision. Daniel1212 08:53, 17 October 2009 (EDT)

====

Thanks for your analysis. I've learned from your quotes of other Scriptural passages. But note how those passages are slightly different: none contain the illogical reasoning of "forgive them because they know not what they are doing." Sin requires intent, and if there were a true and justified lack of knowledge, then there would be nothing to forgive. So the phrase in Luke has a logical flaw the others lack.

This phrase doe snot appear in the other Gospels and is not in the original manuscripts. That evidence alone is very compelling in demonstrating it is fake.

Jesus Himself did NOT forgive one of the thiefs crucified along with Him, so the contradiction is disfavored.

Finally, as an interesting aside, note how the fake phrase has been cited by evil-doers. One murderer quoted it defiantly just prior to execution. That would be very odd indeed if the phrase were authentic.--Andy Schlafly 10:16, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

One additional point: Luke was not an eyewitness, but served as an historian. It's implausible that he would include such a quote when the eyewitnesses Matthew, Mark and John all missed it.--Andy Schlafly 19:54, 18 October 2009 (EDT)

Thanks for your reply. Your objection #1 is that while others Scripturally prayed for God to forgive souls, yet these were culpable while those in Luke were said to be ignorant, thus forgiving them would be illogical. However, this supposes that the souls at issue were inculpably ignorant, and not at all guilty of slaying an innocent man, though they were blind that he was the Messiah. One can also be guilty of being ignorant, due to not cooperating with the grace that would have led to enlightenment. It was ignorance that Jesus was the Messiah that is stated in 1 Cor 2:7-8, and that the Jews were guilty of this is what Peter indicates in his preaching Acts 2 and 3. Realizing this, and the consequence of being on the wrong side of Jesus, the former crowd earnestly sought salvation. (2:37) Also, the apostle Paul testifies he was the chief of sinners, persecuting the church, but that he found mercy for because he "did it ignorantly in unbelief." (1Tim. 1:13-15; cf. 1Cor. 15:9)

It should also be noted that the Old Testament (Lev. 4;5; Num. 15) provides ample examples of how souls are in need of forgiveness, protection from wrath, in the case of sins of ignorance, perhaps such as due to carelessness/forgetfulness/neglect, after the giving of the law.

So i think there is sufficient warrant to allow that these were guilty souls, and hence the intercession, which is consistent with other Godly examples of such. (The correlation of sins and affliction also has an element of mystery to it, as Jesus forgave a sick man who did not ask, equaling it with healing, (Luke 17:17-25) a correlation that is also seen in James 5:14+15. The former is invoked by your(?) church to validate proxy faith, though in both cases it is not be presumed that they could not assent to faith.)

2. As acknowledged, the mss issue could be an argument for exclusion, as debatable as it is. However, excluding it due to its sole inclusion in Luke would also logically candidate numerous other texts for deletion, which uniquely are provided by the inspired diligent historian, and whose accuracy is well attested to. Luke's gospel for Gentiles, which he researched different sources for (though ref tags were not needed) has 59 percent more material than Matthew, and records six of Jesus’ miracles and 18 parables or stories (publican sinner,s etc.) that are not found in any other gospel, with it overall having more than twice as many of His illustrations than other Gospel writers, making it the longest gospel account. His propensity for thoroughness also weighs against the argument that sees it implausible that he would include a quote that other writers did not know of. Concise (what's that?) overview of gospels here: http://www.lifeofchrist.com/life/gospels/print.asp

3. As for Jesus not forgiving the railing criminal, that offers no real weight favoring disallowing Him from doing it to others. Grace is owed to no man, and God could have even brought Tyre, Sidon, and Sodom to repentance. (Mt. 11:20-24)

4. And as noted before, the misappropriation of Scripture text by enemies is not odd, but logical, and cannot itself warrant their exclusion, lest we remove the 75% percent (i think) of the KJV which the BOM is said to plagiarize! Good day. Daniel1212 00:42, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

I think there's definitely a precedent for eliminating passages with questionable textual support (e.g. the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7-8). However, even in the cases where the text is almost certainly much later, such as the longer ending of Mark, it could be a good idea to at least provide a note, along the lines of "Some manuscripts add..." just to avoid charges of manipulating the text. Even very liberal translations often do that type of thing. (Of course, they are still criticized for "tampering with the Word of God," but a little footnote can go a long way toward eliminating that kind of charge.) Just a thought.--Cory Howell 14:59, 22 October 2009 (EDT)

I do not think Mark left an abrupt ending, and better to include such, and then put a note. In fact, I still hold to my assertion that outside updating words, no real revision is necessary. The KJV does not produce liberals, though cults use it for its power, and providing sound conservative commentary is far far better than a "thought for thought" translation which does a substantial amount of revision, largely driven to prevent attempts by liberals to hijack the text.Daniel1212 21:56, 26 October 2009 (EDT)

I was concerned when I saw this edit, but took the time to read the full commentary above as well as the referenced online analysis/debates before commenting here. As a non-scholar but someone who takes the teaching of Jesus to heart, it troubles me to see Jesus' plea for forgiveness completely stricken from this Gospel, when it could have been left in brackets and annotated. I'm not saying this out of an unwillingness to consider that it could be inauthentic, but because I'm not convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it is inauthentic. You would not convict a man of a crime while reasonable doubt remains, and to purge a statement attributed to Jesus Himself from a Gospel when there remains reasonable doubt for doing so is the kind of act that Christians are warned against in other parts of the New Testament.

My reasons for still having doubt are straightforward:

• I have not found in any of the referenced articles or the debate above an alternate explanation for how Isaiah 53:12 would have been fulfilled. Much of the validity of the Bible comes from how the life of Jesus was the fulfillment of prophesy, "closing the loop" as it were. Removing this statement breaks one of these important connections unless another reference can be found that is equal or better to the passage in Luke.
• The argument that something could be invalid because it is mentioned in one Gospel but not in others should not be used to invalidate it. When I was a young Catechist, my teacher explained why there were four distinct Gospels and not just one "biography of Jesus" by explaining that these were the accounts of different witnesses each describing the same story in their own way. The next week, she showed us a filmstrip about Jesus and afterward asked each of us to write what happened. As you can guess, each of us missed details that others caught, and sometimes we used very different words to describe the same things. The teacher's point is that the story still happened as it did no matter how each of us described it later, and that's what the Gospels are like. As I write this, I also realized that while there were many different recaps, no one added anything to the story that wasn't there in the filmstrip.
• The Bible is full of accounts where mankind, as opposed to individual men, is regarded child-like in terms of our capacity to live up to God's standards. Jesus was sent on behalf of all mankind, not just the individuals who saw him for who He was, but also for those who didn't. When I read the "Father forgive them" statement, I've always thought of the word "them" as referring to mankind and its inherent immaturity regarding God, and not just the people on the scene. That's just my personal observation, but it's as valid as any of the other opinions I've seen expressed here.
• What is the harm in leaving the statement in place with brackets, and then annotating it? This allows for the full ability to comment on why it may not be considered authentic without opening the door to criticisms of censorship or ideological "spinning" of the Bible. Engaging people to read & think about the Bible themselves, and research their questions regarding it with guidance is a much better approach than telling them to simply accept the conclusions you've reached on their behalf.

I guess this goes to my biggest concern about this project, so I'll get it out of my system here. I like the KJV, and find the prose beautiful even if it can be archaic at times. When I first heard of this project, I was surprised at the degree to which people were willing to change Biblical text and still call it "The Bible", but that is the nature of the Bible, after all. The Old Testament found in a synagogue would not be the same as the one in the Bible of my church, so we have to decide for ourselves what version(s) to use as a guide in our lives.

I would liked to have seen this project be more of a "Conservative's Annotated Bible", which would be a great counterpoint to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible, rather than a re-translation of the Word of God itself. That's why I won't make any edits to the content pages itself other than the cleanup of obvious spelling and/or grammar errors. If these actions or my input above is unwelcome then tell me and I'll move on, but I want to try and represent the views of someone who sees himself as a conservative even if they don't line up with the mainstream here. --ChrisY 09:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Chris, thanks for your thoughtful comments. I'm glad you like the KJV; so do I. But fewer and fewer people, even Christians, are reading it. It's becoming as archaic as the Latin Vulgate. Adhering to the KJV doesn't address the problem of how most people are given increasingly liberal distortions of the Bible; adhering to the KJV does not evangelize. With each passing year, the KJV's share of the market decreases, and that's not likely to change.

The NIV, which overtook the KJV in sales two decades ago, erases many references to the unborn child and thereby falsely leads readers to support, or acquiesce, in abortion. Should we silently stand by and allow such deception? Of course not. A conservative approach to translation can catch and correct such distortions more efficiently than any other approach. A conservative translation can also most effectively communicate the message of the Bible in our modern, CNN-saturated culture. Of course our project will encounter issues like the Luke verse you mention above, and in good faith we'll sort those out with full respect for the original intent. I hope you can be part of this important work, even more than you have been.

Translating the Bible has always sparked controversy. But liberals have already been doing it, and silently permitting their distortions to spread is not an acceptable option.--Andy Schlafly 11:04, 23 December 2009 (EST)

The comments are appreciated. I think an accessible, contemporary translation of the Bible is important and valuable, just as the approval of Masses being spoken in the vernacular, and not just Latin, was after Vatican Council II. I'd want to help a project that makes the content of the Bible accessible to more people, but in good conscience I can't do more than copyedit if such fundamental quotes such as the "Father forgive them" one in question here are being removed without evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that they need to be. Two wrongs don't make a right, and it's not our place to criticize Biblical text being removed by one group because of their views and then doing the same thing ourselves without making an airtight case first.

I've seen analysis offered that the quote doesn't belong, but not airtight proof, and since the general tone of this Talk page acknowledges that this is a controversy among the faithful rather than an outright vandalism of the Bible that needs to be removed, why not restore the quote in the Conservative translation and annotate it? --ChrisY 11:20, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Earthly

My reason for including "earthly" was that I think it incorporates the non-physical parts of the world that are sinful. Putting both the materialism and non-physical parts together makes it more complete. Also, being of the world, "earthly" or "worldly", in my mind is more economic in word use because it encompasses so much in just one word. ameda 21:36, 15 November 2009 (EST)

I don't see how Jesus would be referring to any sins other than materialism in this context. It's only one Greek word, not two.--Andy Schlafly 21:44, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Very good point, I'm going to get rid of earthly. I guess my last point would only be that inherent is materialism is the knowledge that most people aren't materialistic in the sense that they just want objects, period. I think they want them more for either what those objects can give them (emotionally for instance) or bestow upon them in social status; things that are divorced from the "physical" world. Things that theology says replaces God.ameda 21:53, 15 November 2009 (EST)

Very interesting insight! Thank you.--Andy Schlafly 21:59, 15 November 2009 (EST)