Hi Ken Great talk/video. I'm glad you mention the fact that paraphrasing was used. Another good example of this what the centurion said i.e. ' this was a righteous man' or ' this was truly a son of God'. Now if we know that paraphrasing happens, then how can we trust the accuracy of verses like 'before abraham was, I am' or 'I and the father are one'? The rational position would be that we cannot be sure exactly what was said due to the effects of translation from aramaic, paraphrasing in recording and the inherent inaccuracies that creep in with oral traditions.
this is the most helpful one of these i have found so far... so thanks :) also, just wondering... why isn't god inspiring people what to say a breech of these peoples free will?
If Matthew and Mark both came from a common source, then why not canonize the common source and not bother with Matthew and Mark? The so-called Synoptic Problem is simply a ruse by corrupt man to cast doubt on God's Word.
Because they have NEVER found the "Quelle document", it is only hypothesized and has been "reconstructed", aka best guess of what it was based on Matthew and Luke
THANKS. ORIGINAL WAS WRITTEN IN HEBREW MATTHEW GOSPELS AS ANCIENT SCHOLARS ALL AGREE. THEN MARK IS FIRST GREEK VERSION FOR THE ROMAN WORLD. GREAK MATTHEW IS MARK WITH MORE BECAUSE IT IS TRYING TO EMULATE ( NAME SAKE) ORIGINAL THE HEBREW VERSION... LUKE IS WRITTEN IN GREEK AS ORIGINAL. THAT'S WHAT LUKE DID FOR GENTILES FROM DISCIPLES. ALSO ORIGINAL JOHN IS WRITTEN IN ARAMAIC.... GOOD VIDEO. P.S. GIVE UP YOUR BELIEFS AS WELL AND FOLLOW THE TRUTH/EVIDENCE !!!!!!!!!!
Actually it is NOT accepted by the majority of scholars that Matthew was first written in Aramaic, though we DO have more than enough evidence to say otherwise. It is only a small amount of scholars currently pushing the Matthew narrative being older than the rest... Karen King, Dale Martin, Bart Ehrman would all disagree with your comments, some of the big hitters in biblical scholarship. James Taber and Nehemia Gordon along with a SMALL few others would agree with you as they are pushing the Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew.
Hi Ken
Great talk/video.
I'm glad you mention the fact that paraphrasing was used.
Another good example of this what the centurion said i.e. ' this was a righteous man' or ' this was truly a son of God'.
Now if we know that paraphrasing happens, then how can we trust the accuracy of verses like 'before abraham was, I am' or 'I and the father are one'?
The rational position would be that we cannot be sure exactly what was said due to the effects of translation from aramaic, paraphrasing in recording and the inherent inaccuracies that creep in with oral traditions.
GOOD AND SIMPLE SO THAT ANY LAY PERSON CAN UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU
Great video, really helpful.
But i believe that not all of the gospels were written in greek.
There are of course theories of an original Matthew in Aramaic.
a lucid exposition suitable for the layperson.
this is the most helpful one of these i have found so far... so thanks :)
also, just wondering... why isn't god inspiring people what to say a breech of these peoples free will?
i liked the bit at the end when we got to see him exit the powerpoint
Thanks alot
can I get a pdf
If Matthew and Mark both came from a common source, then why not canonize the common source and not bother with Matthew and Mark? The so-called Synoptic Problem is simply a ruse by corrupt man to cast doubt on God's Word.
Canonization took place long after Q was forgotten.
@@kenschenck The existence of Q is pure speculation.
@@christianpatriot7439 it is speculation and many scholars dont agree with the theory, but it does come from an interpretation of evidence.
@@kenschenck Why wouldn't the common source be oral tradition?
Because they have NEVER found the "Quelle document", it is only hypothesized and has been "reconstructed", aka best guess of what it was based on Matthew and Luke
The idea that Mark is an abridgement makes no sense.
THANKS. ORIGINAL WAS WRITTEN IN HEBREW MATTHEW GOSPELS AS ANCIENT SCHOLARS ALL AGREE.
THEN MARK IS FIRST GREEK VERSION FOR THE ROMAN WORLD.
GREAK MATTHEW IS MARK WITH MORE BECAUSE IT IS TRYING TO EMULATE ( NAME SAKE) ORIGINAL THE HEBREW VERSION...
LUKE IS WRITTEN IN GREEK AS ORIGINAL.
THAT'S WHAT LUKE DID FOR GENTILES FROM DISCIPLES.
ALSO ORIGINAL JOHN IS WRITTEN IN ARAMAIC....
GOOD VIDEO.
P.S. GIVE UP YOUR BELIEFS AS WELL AND FOLLOW THE
TRUTH/EVIDENCE !!!!!!!!!!
Using capslock makes you look like a crazy person, but what you said is actually a fairly accurate summary of church tradition.
Actually it is NOT accepted by the majority of scholars that Matthew was first written in Aramaic, though we DO have more than enough evidence to say otherwise. It is only a small amount of scholars currently pushing the Matthew narrative being older than the rest... Karen King, Dale Martin, Bart Ehrman would all disagree with your comments, some of the big hitters in biblical scholarship. James Taber and Nehemia Gordon along with a SMALL few others would agree with you as they are pushing the Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew.