Dear Ray,
In my last email I asked you about "supposed contradictions of the bible", and you said that your website covered "most of my questions". I still have more that I have been pondering these last couple of weeks.
In some research Ive found that the manuscripts that were used to distribute the copies of the word of God were accidentally/intentionally altered for various social, political, and even theological reasons. Some were changed due to natural human error (mispelling a word etc) while others were theologically motivated. The one I have a question on is in I Tim. 2:11-15 where "Paul" instructs women to be silent, to have no authority over a man, and that she would be "saved through childbearing...if they continue in the faith" (Also verses 34-36 of Corinthians 14 about it being shameful to even speak in church).
Like I said Ive read "misqoutin g Jesus" (not that that makes me a scholar or an expert) and it mentions that there are many reasons to believe that this was not actually written by Paul but possibly a second generation follower (not the book itself, its definately Paul but the passages in question not by him) who didnt like the equality that the Gospel brough (which was not the norm in that culture in those days) and thus put it in there on the margin. At first I thought, "Oh, this sounds like someone just wants to take scripture they dont like out the Bible", but after further reading, there seems to be good reasons to suspect so.
First, these scriptures (esp. verses 34-36) are shuffled around out of place from where they are normally placed in other important textual witnesses (other copies of manuscripts). "In three Greek manuscripts and a couple of Latin witnesses, they are found not here, after verse 33, but later, after verse 40. That has led some scholars to surmise that the verses were...or iginated as a kind of marginal note added by a scribe...The note was then inserted in different places of the text by various scribes--some placing the note after verse 33 and others inserting it after verse 40. (Bart Ehrman, Misqouting Jesus, p. 183)
Secondly, they dont fit well into their immediate context (prophesy, and how to behave during Christian worship services, then this?) If it was removed, "it would flow seamlessly as a discussion ofthe role of prophets.
Thirdly, It doesnt seem harmonious with Pauls writing earlier in the book, when he gives instruction "to women speaking in the church:according to chapter 11when they pray and phrphesy --activities that were always done aloud in teh Christian services of worship--they are sure to wear veils on their heads (11:2-16)
Either Paul allowed women to speak or not at church...this is a perfect example of why I brought to you the "contradictions". It wont be contradictions if one were to admit from historical evidence that this was not from Paul...but if were are to take all of it and assume that its error free (not so much the translation, but even so the manuscripts) then we are forced to rethink the cannonization of the NT, woudnt it?
I mean, if this was the truth wouldnt the other scripture in refering to Junia as foremost of the apostles fall into place? Im reading that there are extraordinary lengths to prove it was really a man name Junias, where "there is no evidence in the ancient world for Junias as a man's name" ( p.185).
I know that you say that the translation isnt perfect, but if not even the manuscripts arent perfect, should we hold on to some passages that are blatantly contridictory?
Who approached Jesus? (Matthew 8:5-7) The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant. (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7) The Centurion did not approach Jesus. He sent friends and elders of the Jews.
This doesnt seem to be where its the same event only that Matthew records one aspect of it while Luke incldues a detail that mark missed, though I believe most of the case that is true, this is just one example of what I mean where it just CANT be the same event. If it is, then there is a mistake in the manuscript which we are basing as THE WORD OF GOD and that presents a big problem...if it just so happens that two centurions had similar circumstances and encounters with Jesus, then, it could make sense, but it is what it is...should we not call it for what it is? Two different events with two different people?
Well, I really look forward to your reply. I appriciate the time and effort in your site and helping unviel the truths of God. It continues to bless me. I have downloaded your audio files and have been hearing them every second I could get. Im sharing them with my fellow brothers and sisters as God leads me...Im waiting for the chance to share it with my pastors. A big peace of me really feels that they would embrace it, yet, another part ofme feels that it might be too good to be true. Well, thank you again for yor time. May God bless your day.
Eagerly searching for God's truth
Joed
ps. thank you for the previous emails that you replied to...
Dear Joed:
I will not take the time (it could take days) to try and unscramble all of the sources of scholarly bickering over whether words were changed or statements were added, etc. I believe Paul made the statments attributed to him regarding women not teaching in the congregation.
There are dozens (perhaps hundreds) of apparent contradictions in the Scriptures. I cannot take the rest of my life to try and explain them all. Hope you understand. It just does'nt bother me. Why spend time on what appear to be slight variations in the Scriptures? What is gained? Does the fact that the Bible says "the sun stood still in the midst of heaven," when in reality, for the sun to not move across the sky, it is the EARTH that would have had to "stand still" prove that the Bible is false, unreliable, and not of God? From the perspective of the earth, the sun DID STAND STILL IN THE MIDST OF HEAVEN. From the perspective of the earth, the sun DOES RISE and the sun DOES SET. We do not speak of earthrise and earthset.
Now for the Centurion: One account tells us that Jesus spoke to the Centurion and the Centurion spoke back to Him and the other account tells us that it was those whom the Centurion dispatched that spoke to Jesus and Jesus to them. How can they both be true? Does not this story itself give us the principle by which both can be true? Did not the Centurion state that he had authority over his men and when we spoke the word or command the word or command was to be followed?
The "friends" that the Centurion sent to meet Jesus just before arriving at the house were the Ambassadors, if you will, of the Centurion. His word was in THEIR MOUTHS. What they spoke to Jesus was the same as if the Centurion himself was speaking, and this is the way that I believe Matthew portrays this account, just as Jesus Himself is the "WORD of God" His Father. When Jesus speaks, IT IS GOD SPEAKING (listen to my Bible Conference tape on the Forum).
Don't get hung up on trivial things to the extent that you fail to see the sesson in the teaching. Forget whether it is the Centurion himself or his Ambassadors--what is the lesson to be learn from it. I assure you that both accounts give the exact, God-inspired, spiritual lesson.
God be with you,
Ray
