Are there verses in the gospels which are exactly the same in the different gospels?

[xdisciplex]

http://www.carm.org/questions/Q.htm

In the English bible they are exactly the same but what about the original manuscripts?`Are they also the same in the manuscripts? I hope not because why should they have copied from each other when they were inspired?

And why do the gospels not all mention the same details and some mention details while others leave them out. What's the sense of this?

 

[Chemnitz]

Likely, unfortunately I do not have the resources handy to give a firm answer.

Can I ask does it really matter what source matterial the Gospel writers consulted when the end product is an inspired work of God. I mean, Luke goes as far as to say that the Gospel he penned is based on various accounts and sources.

I must say I have some serious issues with this Cairn fellow you quote as the proliferation of translations has not caused any serious damage to the faith of anybody that I know.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Chemnitz: //I must say I have some serious issues
with this Cairn fellow you quote as the proliferation
of translations has not caused any serious damage
to the faith of anybody that I know.//

Amen, Brother Mr. Chemnitz -- Preach it! :thumbs:

In fact, I dare say this:

"Behind the explosion of multiplied translations
there is the irresistible Will of God to preserve
the Bible as the Written Word of God." (non-Dr Ed Edwards)

 

[xdisciplex]

"Behind the explosion of multiplied translations
there is the irresistible Will of God to preserve
the Bible as the Written Word of God." (non-Dr Ed Edwards)

When did contradicting,different bible versions become a good thing?
Strange logic...

 

[ktn4eg]

Part of the key to understanding the various books of God's Word is (among other things) to determine both the purpose of that book and something about the background of that book's orginally-intended audience.

While all four Gospel books contain narratives of Christ's earthly life and ministry, each was written with somewhat of a different purpose in mind and to somewhat different orginal audiences.

Matthew was written to Jewish people with the purpose of demonstrating that Jesus is indeed the promised King (or Messiah) of the Jews.

Mark was written to Gentile people (especially Romans) to demonstrate that Jesus is the Servant of God.

Luke was written to Greek Gentiles to show them that Jesus is the "Son of Man" (i.e., that He was fully human).

John, which was probably written about A.D. 90 (some 30 - 35 after the other three Gospels), was primarily addessed to a more general audience of First Century Christians with the purpose of demonstrating that Jesus is the "Son of God" (i.e., that He was fully Diety).

While very few specific details in the life of Christ are recorded in all four Gospel accounts (and I know of none that are exactly word-for-word alike when relating such accounts), there are none that contradict each other.

Bottom Line: They were four books written by four different people for four different audiences with four different purposes yet all four are divinely inspired and fully accurate. They in no way contradict each other. All four, however, complement each other.

In order to get a better understanding of why Jesus Christ came unto this earth, you need to study all four of the Gospel accounts.

A good study Bible might help you in this pursuit (but even then you need to remember that while the books of the Bible are accurate and infallible, any man-made study Bible or other kind of Bible helps or commentaries are not infallible!).

Hope this helps you.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Amen, Brother Ktn4eg -- Preach it! :thumbs:

-------------------------------------

"Behind the explosion of multiplied translations
there is the irresistable Will of God to preserve
the Bible as the Written Word of God." (Baptist Ed Edwards)

 

[EdSutton]

Part of the key to understanding the various books of God's Word is (among other things) to determine both the purpose of that book and something about the background of that book's orginally-intended audience.

While all four Gospel books contain narratives of Christ's earthly life and ministry, each was written with somewhat of a different purpose in mind and to somewhat different orginal audiences.

Matthew was written to Jewish people with the purpose of demonstrating that Jesus is indeed the promised King (or Messiah) of the Jews.

Mark was written to Gentile people (especially Romans) to demonstrate that Jesus is the Servant of God.

Luke was written to Greek Gentiles to show them that Jesus is the "Son of Man" (i.e., that He was fully human).

John, which was probably written about A.D. 90 (some 30 - 35 after the other three Gospels), was primarily addessed to a more general audience of First Century Christians with the purpose of demonstrating that Jesus is the "Son of God" (i.e., that He was fully Diety).

While very few specific details in the life of Christ are recorded in all four Gospel accounts (and I know of none that are exactly word-for-word alike when relating such accounts), there are none that contradict each other.

Bottom Line: They were four books written by four different people for four different audiences with four different purposes yet all four are divinely inspired and fully accurate. They in no way contradict each other. All four, however, complement each other.

In order to get a better understanding of why Jesus Christ came unto this earth, you need to study all four of the Gospel accounts.

A good study Bible might help you in this pursuit (but even then you need to remember that while the books of the Bible are accurate and infallible, any man-made study Bible or other kind of Bible helps or commentaries are not infallible!).

Hope this helps you.

Although I might not agree with every single word quoted here, for the most part, at the very least, ktn4eg is right on target. And the NT writers were also "right on target" for the purposes the Holy Spirit intended.

12 For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth. 13 Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you, 14 knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me. 15 Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.
16 For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” 18 And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,[b] 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. (II Peter 1:12-20, NKJV text)

Note that Peter gave more credence to the "prophecy of Scripture", than he did to his own 'eyewitness' testimony. (And John's, for James 'the Great', was already dead, having been killed by Herod recorded in Acts 12:1-3)

Ed

 

[Ed Edwards]

When did contradicting,different bible
versions become a good thing?
Strange logic...

Sorry, child, but it seems like you are crying in
your own beer. Your question has no meaning
among adult Christ-ones.

By my authority as God's Favorite child,
I consider it Axiomatic:

'Bible Inerrancy' means that if one or more of us
find a 'contradiciton' between two parts of
one Bible or between two different Translations,
Versions, or Editions - it is the
problem of 'one or more of us' to figure it
out; IT IS NOT GOD'S FAULT.

-------------------------------------

"Behind the explosion of multiplied translations
there is the irresistable Will of God to preserve
the Bible as the Written Word of God." (Baptist Ed Edwards)

 

[Amy.G]

http://www.carm.org/questions/Q.htm
And why do the gospels not all mention the same details and some mention details while others leave them out. What's the sense of this?

It's questions and statements like this that really bother me about your posts. It doesn't seem to me that you have ever accepted the Bible as the actual word of God or you couldn't ask 'what's the sense in this?'. You talk about God's word as if it's just another book. And what's the sense in that?

 

[xdisciplex]

I am simply looking for answers and I don't understand why for example the part where JUdas kisses Jesus is not in the gospel of John. I mean why is a detail in one or more gospels and at the same time not in another gospel? This is what I don't understand. Somebody who reads all gospels at the same time and compares all scenes will definitely notice these differences and then think that the gospels simply aren't accurate and trustworthy. This is the problem. Why is that?

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

I don't see why one would jump to the conclusion that differences in detail equate to inconsistencies or errors. As other posters have pointed out, the various evangelists had specific audiences in mind, and exercised editorial license to report what they considered to be most appropriate for their purposes. The Fourth Gospel alludes to this when it says that of Jesus, many works could be written, but "these" are written that you may have life ... in other words, the selection has been made in order to communicate what is essential to understand and receive the gift of salvation. And so the Fourth Gospel, commonly called the Gospel of John, is quite different in emphasis, form, and detail from the Synoptics. But that does not mean contradiction! It means that they supplement one another.

To return to your query about whether some passages are identical .. yes, they are. Are you familiar with source theory concerning the Synoptic Gospels -- whereby it is thought (and this is by no means a unanimous opinion, but one that is prevalent) that Mark is the source Gospel, that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a framework, but both drew upon another source, called Q, and then each had his own sources? That helps to explain both similiarities and differences.

But, again, if there are differences, they are differences in detail, not contradictions, and certainly not differences that cause us to have doctrinal confusion.