What is the difference between "testimony" and "bear witness"? I'd like to hear your definitons.
Now let me ask you what the Greek word is in each verse. What did the original writer use? Did he use "testimony" or "bear witness"?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The contradiction with the Christology
- Thread starter Askjo
- Start date
What is the difference between "testimony" and "bear witness"? I'd like to hear your definitons.
Now let me ask you what the Greek word is in each verse. What did the original writer use? Did he use "testimony" or "bear witness"?
The Bible doesn't contradict itself. If you disagree, then obviously you'll find contradictions.
wfdfiremedic
New Member
What is your feeling in regards to James vs Paul? Do they preach contradiction? I should say, do they contradict each other? If i were to take simple sentences from each of them, I could probably prove contradiction in most peoples' eyes.
I personally don't believe that one can take a sentence out of the bible and then compare it to another sentence. I am sure I could find numerous contradictions if I did such. It is meant to be read in context. Just as, I can prove any doctrine I feel by taking a single passage out for proof.
I personally don't believe that one can take a sentence out of the bible and then compare it to another sentence. I am sure I could find numerous contradictions if I did such. It is meant to be read in context. Just as, I can prove any doctrine I feel by taking a single passage out for proof.
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
It seems Askjo trots this one out ever so often. Here's an example from about 3 years ago--
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=40172&highlight=bear+witness+testimony&page=3
I guess it never gets old.
Last edited by a moderator:
The context is found in Luke 11:23 because it matches with Matthew 12:30.
Are these words same meaning?
Agreed! The God-speaking CANNOT contradict itself. Therefore God CANNOT lie. God is NOT the author of confusion.
Look at NIV -- one word in 2 ways still contradicts itself. When you stand on the divided ways, Your whole body CANNOT go on BOTH ways, but you need someone to cut off your whole body by using a machine saw and divide your whole body. Your right side of your whole body with one leg on the right way and your other side with one leg on the left way. Deny the contradiction here?
Look at the KJV -- 2 different words in 2 ways do not contradict themselves. One word on one way and other word on other way -- the solution.
Yes, John 5 and John 8 have the same word in Greek
marturia, means witness, testimony and record.
Context shows that there is no error, just changing the word to another word with the same meaning doesn't solve a contradiction. Context, context context shows there is not a contradiction.
The Greek word is not what I talked about. What do I talk about is the English meaning as seen in # 27.
Obviously.
Exactly, but you accuse him of doing just that. God used the same word in these two verses, and you are arguing he contradicted himself.
No it doesn't, not in different contexts.
I deny the relevance. You are getting really desperate to use something like this that has no correspondence to the issue.
No version contradicts itself.
Listen, Askjo, as you have been conclusively shown, there is no contradiction here. God used the same word (look it up, or ask someone who knows Greek). I am telling you, with no fear of contradiction, that God used the same word. Therefore, you are charging God with contradiction, and that is very problematic. I would call it some others things (which it is), but the yahoos would come out of the woodwork claiming personal attacks.
You are the one accusing God of contradiction. You are the one accusing God's word of error. That needs to stop immediately. This is a place for Bible-believers, not for those who don't believe it. If you refuse to change, you should reconsider your participation here.
So if the modern versions use the same English word, they have a contradiction, but if God uses the same Greek word, that's ok...
The words in the KJV mean the same thing, it is the context that keeps it from a contradiction. Have you studied synonyms yet? They are words that have the same meaning.
http://thesaurus.com/browse/record
Synonyms of record
almanac, annals, archive, archives, chronicle, comic book, diary, directory, document, documentation, entry, evidence, file, history, inscription, jacket, journal, legend, log, manuscript, memo, memoir, memorandum, memorial, minutes, monument, note, paper trail, register, registry, remembrance, report, script, scroll, story, swindle sheet, testimony, trace, track record, transcript, transcription, witness, writing, written material
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Yes they were, and I'm sure you've been shown this before.
From Webster's 1828 English Dictionary --
WITNESS, n.
1. Testimony; attestation of a fact or event.
If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. John 5.
2. That which furnishes evidence or proof.
Laban said, this heap is a witness between me and thee this day. Genesis 31.
3. A person who knows or sees any thing; one personally present; as, he was witness; he was an eye-witness. 1 Peter 5.
4. One who sees the execution of an instrument, and subscribes it for the purpose of confirming its authenticity b his testimony.
5. One who gives testimony; as, the witnesses in court agreed in all essential facts.
With a witness, effectually; to a great degree; with great force, so as to leave some mark as a testimony behind. He struck with a witness. [Not elegant.]
WITNESS, v.t.
1. To see or know by personal presence. I witnessed the ceremonies in New York, with which the ratification of the constitution was celebrated, in 1788.
2. To attest; to give testimony to; to testify to something.
Behold, how many things they witness against thee. Mark 15.
3. To see the execution of an instrument, and subscribe it for the purpose of establishing its authenticity; as, to witness a bond or a deed.
WITNESS, v.i.
1. To bear testimony.
The men of Belial witnessed against him, even against Naboth. 1 Kings 21.
2. To give evidence.
The shew of their countenance doth witness against them. Isaiah 3.
Last edited by a moderator:
franklinmonroe
Active Member
Askjo, it is to your shame that you do not study the 17th century language of the KJV.
From Webster's 1828 English Dictionary --
TEST'IMONY, n. [L. testimonium.] A solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact. Such affirmation in judicial proceedings,may be verbal or written, but must be under oath. Testimony differs from evidence; testimony is the declaration of a witness, and evidence is the effect of that declaration on the mind, or the degree of light which it affords.
1. Affirmation; declaration. These doctrines are supported by the uniform testimony of the fathers. The belief of past facts must depend on the evidence of human testimony, or the testimony of historians.
2. Open attestation; profession.
Thou for the testimony of truth hast borne
Universal reproach.
3. Witness; evidence; proof of some fact.
Shake off the dust under your feet, for a testimony against them. Mark 6.
4. In Scripture, the two tables of the law.
Thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. Ex.25.
5. The book of the law.
He brought forth the king's son--and gave him the testimony. 2 Kings 11.
6. The gospel, which testifies of Christ and declares the will of God. 1 Cor. 2. 2 Tim.1.
7. The ark. Ex.16.
8. The word of God; the Scriptures.
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple Ps.19.
9. The laws or precepts of God. "I love thy testimonies." "I have kept thy testimonies."
10. That which is equivalent to a declaration; manifestation.
Sacrifices were appointed by God for a testimony of his hatred of sin.
11. Evidence suggested to the mind; as the testimony of conscience. 2 Cor.1.
12. Attestation; confirmation.
TEST'IMONY, v.t. To witness. [Not in use.]
From Webster's 1828 English Dictionary --
TEST'IMONY, n. [L. testimonium.] A solemn declaration or affirmation made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact. Such affirmation in judicial proceedings,may be verbal or written, but must be under oath. Testimony differs from evidence; testimony is the declaration of a witness, and evidence is the effect of that declaration on the mind, or the degree of light which it affords.
1. Affirmation; declaration. These doctrines are supported by the uniform testimony of the fathers. The belief of past facts must depend on the evidence of human testimony, or the testimony of historians.
2. Open attestation; profession.
Thou for the testimony of truth hast borne
Universal reproach.
3. Witness; evidence; proof of some fact.
Shake off the dust under your feet, for a testimony against them. Mark 6.
4. In Scripture, the two tables of the law.
Thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. Ex.25.
5. The book of the law.
He brought forth the king's son--and gave him the testimony. 2 Kings 11.
6. The gospel, which testifies of Christ and declares the will of God. 1 Cor. 2. 2 Tim.1.
7. The ark. Ex.16.
8. The word of God; the Scriptures.
The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple Ps.19.
9. The laws or precepts of God. "I love thy testimonies." "I have kept thy testimonies."
10. That which is equivalent to a declaration; manifestation.
Sacrifices were appointed by God for a testimony of his hatred of sin.
11. Evidence suggested to the mind; as the testimony of conscience. 2 Cor.1.
12. Attestation; confirmation.
TEST'IMONY, v.t. To witness. [Not in use.]
Last edited by a moderator:
windcatcher
New Member
In issues like this... first one brings his own beliefs to the table: In this case... though the question is about a seemingly appearance of contradiction found in the Scripture..... the real issue is 'does God contradict Himself': However a person has come to his own decision and belief about this, he either has his mind already made up (in which case it is not likely to be changed) OR he does not know God and is in need of answers concerning God's attributes..... and must also define his(this person with the questions) own limitations concerning weakness in understanding. If one believes that God does not contradict himself.... then the issue is not with God but with our understanding of His Word or the question of whether what we received as 'The Word' is preserved without error.
A problem will always exist for the person who comes to these questions with a question about the integrity of God: Also with a question concerning the preservation of the truth of the scriptures: Before one can truly go forward... these of necessity must be accepted, or at least axiomized within their mind as a 'given' before one can move on. To move on means a person has to be able to question their OWN understanding and be willing to submit (to the authority of God and the scriptures)... or else they are accepting their own superiority over both God and the scriptures and remain in the bondage of their own darkness and (without even acknowledging it) the limitations of their own understanding.
Second, as we are all dependant on the truth of the Book which tells us about God, he is questioning two verses which appear in direct comparison to have a contradiction..... but do they?
Already very well explained in this thread that there is no contradiction, still the person bringing this question to the table is not satisfied? Why? Not because the words change... because they do not, but because of his own dependence on his own understanding in this particular matter:
It may help Askjo to first consider that the divisions of the Bible into Chapters and verses is a convienence of modern developement to assist us in finding reference and study. The original autographs would not have these verses separated from the context of the content in which they are presented.
Therefore, in this and all other instances of Askjo's Bible Study, whereupon he comes to what seems to him to be contradictions.... he must look at the context.... of what is being taught, to whom, for what purpose, excetra.
In John 5, Jesus is presenting a legal defense before Jews who have accused him. Their authority is the Law of Moses: His authority comes directly from God: Their jurisdiction and the limits of their understanding are based upon what they've been taught concerning the scriptures: He identifies directly with the Father in authority (make that author) and to the Father's will. Under the Law of Moses, a testimony (witness, evidence, etc.) is not established as fact without 3 witnesses: Jesus presents these three...... the testimony of John, the demonstration of the Father's authority in the power and works performed by Jesus, and the Scriptures which tell of him. Under their accusation, his merely giving testimony of himself (that is, his declaration of authority without evidence to His authority) was not sufficient under their law to accept as truth his identity and authority, which was the question. [Interestingly, in the same unbroken passage of scripture, Jesus examines the hypocrisy of his accusers: They willingly accept each other's word (on their own testimony without proof) as being whoever and whatever they say they are and do honor each other without proof or question (like 'I'm John Smith's daughter', and 'this is my title of authority in such and such town'), yet they deny and question His authority even when the power of his works gives undeniable evidence.]
In the same book of John, a later chapter (8), a different context: Examine it, Askjo, and see the full unbroken context of it: Jesus makes a statement and the Pharisees accuse him of bearing record of himself, and (upon that evidence) they accuse him of being a liar: In his response, Jesus asserts what should have been obvious to them (but wasn't because of their blindness and presupposition), that even though he bears record (testimony) of himself, it is true (i.e., no lie or un-truth [which begs the question..... if a persons is telling about himself....is it the self-report WHICH IS evidence of a lie? or can a person be stating the truth EVEN THOUGH it is a self-report?]). Then he exposes relationships which has to do both with his certainty of His being who He represents Himself to be..... and the relationship of His accusers for their darkness in understanding because of their [lack of] relationship to being who they represent themselves to be.
Context is everything to both passages.... and, even in comparing the two verses, they are not identical in statement nor meaning.
I hope this expository is complete enough to give you more interest and courage to examine the Word, Askjo, and develop all confidence in its truth. Until you come to this confidence in its truth, these issues, which may seem like 'contradictions', but which are not, will be a mole-hill turned into a mountain blocking you from fully accepting all the treasures God has placed in his Word for you. May the Spirit of God speak to you through His Word and bring you into a true understanding of all the goodness that He desires for you.
:godisgood:
raying:
A problem will always exist for the person who comes to these questions with a question about the integrity of God: Also with a question concerning the preservation of the truth of the scriptures: Before one can truly go forward... these of necessity must be accepted, or at least axiomized within their mind as a 'given' before one can move on. To move on means a person has to be able to question their OWN understanding and be willing to submit (to the authority of God and the scriptures)... or else they are accepting their own superiority over both God and the scriptures and remain in the bondage of their own darkness and (without even acknowledging it) the limitations of their own understanding.
Second, as we are all dependant on the truth of the Book which tells us about God, he is questioning two verses which appear in direct comparison to have a contradiction..... but do they?
Already very well explained in this thread that there is no contradiction, still the person bringing this question to the table is not satisfied? Why? Not because the words change... because they do not, but because of his own dependence on his own understanding in this particular matter:
It may help Askjo to first consider that the divisions of the Bible into Chapters and verses is a convienence of modern developement to assist us in finding reference and study. The original autographs would not have these verses separated from the context of the content in which they are presented.
Therefore, in this and all other instances of Askjo's Bible Study, whereupon he comes to what seems to him to be contradictions.... he must look at the context.... of what is being taught, to whom, for what purpose, excetra.
In John 5, Jesus is presenting a legal defense before Jews who have accused him. Their authority is the Law of Moses: His authority comes directly from God: Their jurisdiction and the limits of their understanding are based upon what they've been taught concerning the scriptures: He identifies directly with the Father in authority (make that author) and to the Father's will. Under the Law of Moses, a testimony (witness, evidence, etc.) is not established as fact without 3 witnesses: Jesus presents these three...... the testimony of John, the demonstration of the Father's authority in the power and works performed by Jesus, and the Scriptures which tell of him. Under their accusation, his merely giving testimony of himself (that is, his declaration of authority without evidence to His authority) was not sufficient under their law to accept as truth his identity and authority, which was the question. [Interestingly, in the same unbroken passage of scripture, Jesus examines the hypocrisy of his accusers: They willingly accept each other's word (on their own testimony without proof) as being whoever and whatever they say they are and do honor each other without proof or question (like 'I'm John Smith's daughter', and 'this is my title of authority in such and such town'), yet they deny and question His authority even when the power of his works gives undeniable evidence.]
In the same book of John, a later chapter (8), a different context: Examine it, Askjo, and see the full unbroken context of it: Jesus makes a statement and the Pharisees accuse him of bearing record of himself, and (upon that evidence) they accuse him of being a liar: In his response, Jesus asserts what should have been obvious to them (but wasn't because of their blindness and presupposition), that even though he bears record (testimony) of himself, it is true (i.e., no lie or un-truth [which begs the question..... if a persons is telling about himself....is it the self-report WHICH IS evidence of a lie? or can a person be stating the truth EVEN THOUGH it is a self-report?]). Then he exposes relationships which has to do both with his certainty of His being who He represents Himself to be..... and the relationship of His accusers for their darkness in understanding because of their [lack of] relationship to being who they represent themselves to be.
Context is everything to both passages.... and, even in comparing the two verses, they are not identical in statement nor meaning.
I hope this expository is complete enough to give you more interest and courage to examine the Word, Askjo, and develop all confidence in its truth. Until you come to this confidence in its truth, these issues, which may seem like 'contradictions', but which are not, will be a mole-hill turned into a mountain blocking you from fully accepting all the treasures God has placed in his Word for you. May the Spirit of God speak to you through His Word and bring you into a true understanding of all the goodness that He desires for you.
:godisgood:
raying:
Last edited by a moderator: