Bible Questions

Yidda wrote:

Scarlet according to Bl A.C. Emmerich

but JOHn said 19:2, it is purple - who are we going to believe now?

Jewel wrote:

but JOHn said 19:2, it is purple - who are we going to believe now?

[Matthew]
{27:28} et exuentes eum, chlamydem coccineam circumdederunt ei,
{27:28} And stripping him, they put a scarlet cloak around him.

[Mark]
{15:17} et induunt eum purpura, et imponunt ei plectentes spineam coronam.
{15:17} And they clothed him with purple. And platting a crown of thorns, they placed it on him.

[John]
{19:2} Et milites plectentes coronam de spinis, imposuerunt capiti eius: et veste purpurea circumdederunt eum.
{19:2} And the soldiers, plaiting a crown of thorns, imposed it on his head. And they put a purple garment around him.

The color purple, in ancient times, was not the color we call purple today, with more blue than red. Rather, it was a magenta color (dark scarlet), with more red than blue. This color was also called Tyrian Purple. It was made from a certain small gland inside a couple of different related species of shell fish.

It is very expensive today (2439.50 EUR per gram) and it was very expensive in ancient times. Only royalty or very wealthy merchants could afford it. The merchants of Tyre were well known for their purpura dye, because it was a seaside city, which harvested these 'marine snails' and made the dye by a long and complex process. Thousands of these shellfish were required to produce a small amount of the dye.

Also, the dye does not produce a consistent hue. Ancient hand-made dyes would vary in color much more than garmets of today. So a garment dyed in Tyrian purple would have variations in hue, not one solid uniform color.

The soldiers mocked Jesus, pretending to hail him as a king, and so they used a garment dyed with royal purple.

Matthew was writing for Jews, so he used one word for the color. Mark was writing for Romans, so he used a different word for the same color. John was writing for a wide audience; he wrote so late that, unlike the other authors of the Gospels, he realized he was writing a book that would be used very widely. So John used the name for the color that was most widely known.

so mali pala ang translation na yan, ngeee!

ang labo naman.


cge ito pa;


Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

Jewel wrote:so mali pala ang translation na yan, ngeee!

ang labo naman.


cge ito pa;

the translation is correct. could you point to me what you did not understand on the above explanation?

Jewel wrote:

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

this thread is about difficult passages their meaning a honest question on the bible. I think you should open up a thread for your questions.

If someone proposes a contradiction or an error in the Bible, I know by faith that there is a true, faithful, reasonable explanation as to why that proposal is incorrect,the claimed error is usually trivial,and because I know with certainty by faith that it is not, in fact, an error.

But numerous persons, whose faith is either weak or absent, have attacked Sacred Scripture by claiming certain contradictions or apparent errors in the text. They compare what is said in different books, and find apparent contradictions. Or they compare assertions made by the ancient text to the views of modern science, or to current theories in archaeology, and, having found a disagreement, they assume that the Bible is in error. Most of such claimed errors can be easily refuted. Interestingly, when a solution toa claimed contradiction or error is presented, the complainant typically rejects the solution and continues to cling to the same claim of error.

If even reason itself, without faith, offers an explanation as to why a particular point is not an error in Sacred Scripture, why is the solution rejected? Many such persons, who arrogantly assert that the Bible is full of errors, use this claim to reject any teaching of the Bible that they dislike. They want the Bible to have errors so that they will not be bound by any of its teachings.Arguments, such as those given above, that the Church has infallibly taught the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, are rejected with little orno explanation. For they know that if they accept the Bible as inerrant, they will have to change their lives to conform to the teaching of Christ in the Bible.

Yidda wrote:
the translation is correct. could you point to me what you did not understand on the above explanation?


this thread is about difficult passages their meaning a honest question on the bible. I think you should open up a thread for your questions.

purple and scarlet in english are not the same color.


They are difficult passages because they are contradicting to each other yet they are all written in the bible. so I dont think that a new separate thread is necessary. If you cant answer the question just leave them, some people might know the answer.


Thanks

Yidda wrote:If someone proposes a contradiction or an error in the Bible, I know by faith that there is a true, faithful, reasonable explanation as to why that proposal is incorrect,the claimed error is usually trivial,and because I know with certainty by faith that it is not, in fact, an error.

But numerous persons, whose faith is either weak or absent, have attacked Sacred Scripture by claiming certain contradictions or apparent errors in the text. They compare what is said in different books, and find apparent contradictions. Or they compare assertions made by the ancient text to the views of modern science, or to current theories in archaeology, and, having found a disagreement, they assume that the Bible is in error. Most of such claimed errors can be easily refuted. Interestingly, when a solution toa claimed contradiction or error is presented, the complainant typically rejects the solution and continues to cling to the same claim of error.

If even reason itself, without faith, offers an explanation as to why a particular point is not an error in Sacred Scripture, why is the solution rejected? Many such persons, who arrogantly assert that the Bible is full of errors, use this claim to reject any teaching of the Bible that they dislike. They want the Bible to have errors so that they will not be bound by any of its teachings.Arguments, such as those given above, that the Church has infallibly taught the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, are rejected with little orno explanation. For they know that if they accept the Bible as inerrant, they will have to change their lives to conform to the teaching of Christ in the Bible.

to believe that the bible is inerrant is not the same as proving that the bible is inerrant.

we are not questioning your belief, we are actually verifying whether what you believe about the bible is true.

Im sorry to say this, but it sounds that you are presuming that the bible is inerrant simply because you believe it to be so - that is very subjective and circular argument sister. Once you expose your bible in to a comparative discussion, you should always be open for scrutiny, and possibility that what you believe in may not be true after all especially if there are evidences given.


Thanks

Jewel wrote:

purple and scarlet in english are not the same color.


They are difficult passages because they are contradicting to each other yet they are all written in the bible. so I dont think that a new separate thread is necessary. If you cant answer the question just leave them, some people might know the answer.


Thanks

No. there is no contradiction as I have shown to you. If you do some reading and thinking on your own, I think you'll be able to answer those questions yourself as I have done.

Jewel wrote:

to believe that the bible is inerrant is not the same as proving that the bible is inerrant.

we are not questioning your belief, we are actually verifying whether what you believe about the bible is true.

Im sorry to say this, but it sounds that you are presuming that the bible is inerrant simply because you believe it to be so - that is very subjective and circular argument sister. Once you expose your bible in to a comparative discussion, you should always be open for scrutiny, and possibility that what you believe in may not be true after all especially if there are evidences given.


Thanks

I have discussed to you about the Inerrancy of Scripture in Q&A theology, you are welcome to review what I have said.

And besides there is no end to this type of question or objection to Scripture, claiming various inconsistences. What I am asking is an honest questions in the Bible.

Always when I look for a solution to the proposed contradiction, I find one. But I also find that it is not worth the time and effort. I know from faith that there is no contradiction.

And also I believe I have answered(honestly) your proposed contradiction.

okay, let proceed to scientific facts:

after the flood during Noah's time, according to the bible, God said that He will place a rainbow in the sky as a sign that He will not submerge the earth into water again (no more flood).

Did you see the error in that passage?


Thanks

Jewel wrote:okay, let proceed to scientific facts:

after the flood during Noah's time, according to the bible, God said that He will place a rainbow in the sky as a sign that He will not submerge the earth into water again (no more flood).

Did you see the error in that passage?


Thanks

what error?

Please state your attack on the scripture and the passage.

Hello Yidda,

maybe Jewel wants to say : God created the rainbow only after he had flooded the earth.
Am I right Jewel?

see my interpretation on the story of Noah: here: my site

Shad wrote:Hello Yidda,

maybe Jewel wants to say : God created the rainbow only after he had flooded the earth.
Am I right Jewel?

the attack is foolish,

The rainbow existed before Noah and the Flood. But after the Flood, by the decree of God to Noah, the rainbow has a new meaning. Similarly, water had a new meaning when Jesus established the Sacrament of Baptism. Suffering and death had a new meaning when Jesus died for our salvation.

Yidda wrote:

the attack is foolish,

The rainbow existed before Noah and the Flood. But after the Flood, by the decree of God to Noah, the rainbow has a new meaning. Similarly, water had a new meaning when Jesus established the Sacrament of Baptism. Suffering and death had a new meaning when Jesus died for our salvation.

actually, you just answered my question, there are hundreds, thousands of rainbows before noah, yet your bible says that God put a rainbow in the sky as a sign that he will not flood the earth again.

you seem to imply that it is not a literal rainbow, what rainbow was that then?

Jewel wrote:

actually, you just answered my question, there are hundreds, thousands of rainbows before noah, yet your bible says that God put a rainbow in the sky as a sign that he will not flood the earth again.

you seem to imply that it is not a literal rainbow, what rainbow was that then?

{9:13} I will place my arc in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the pact between myself and the earth.

This reference to rainbows as arcs in the sky calls to mind the ark of Noah. And it calls to mind the subsequent ark of the Covenant, which held the tablets of the Ten Commandments. And it calls to mind the Virgin Mary, who is the ark of the New Covenant. She will appear in the sky, just as the Book of Revelation says, in the last days, as a further sign of the covenant between God and man.

Yidda wrote:

{9:13} I will place my arc in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the pact between myself and the earth.

This reference to rainbows as arcs in the sky calls to mind the ark of Noah. And it calls to mind the subsequent ark of the Covenant, which held the tablets of the Ten Commandments. And it calls to mind the Virgin Mary, who is the ark of the New Covenant. She will appear in the sky, just as the Book of Revelation says, in the last days, as a further sign of the covenant between God and man.

well, that's a new info for me; arc and ark wow!


Thanks sister!

Yung old english lang talaga problema ko kaya di ko sya masyadong getz minsan.