Has anyone done the Chronological Bible study? I'm doing this in a group, using Tyndale's "The One Year Chronological Bible", NLT version. It has been one of the best, most productive studies I've ever undertaken. One thing I've noticed, however, is that by lumping several passages from different books of the Bible, it really flags up the inconsistencies. These are not doctrinal differences, just simple ones, such as the pig story having one demon-possessed man (Mark 5: 1-2 and Luke 8: 27) versus two men (Matt 8:28) or Jesus explicitly instructing his disciples to take (Matt 10:10 and Luke 9:3) or not take a walking stick (Mark 6:8). Just wondered if anyone else has found this interesting and, if so, troubling at all? It's not troubling me, at least so far, since it's nothing contradicting doctine. Thanks for comments I can take back to the group.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Bible Study Chronological Bible study?
- Thread starter JaneH
- Start date
It's not troubling because of several reasons:
1. That kind of natural detail is irrelevant to the truth we need for salvation. Therefore it is a logical fallacy to claim that because there are inconsistencies that the Bible can't be God's word. The truth is found as much in the context of scripture as in the words.
2. Any set of eyewitness accounts given in court will have inconsistencies between them because of the nature of human viewpoints (note viewpoints, not opinions). It is the nature of witnesses, and the jury can still find the truth even among differences in accounts.
3. Inconsistencies are likely caused by people trying to include historical detail decades after the fact. People will have inconsistent memories about the events. Therefore, this is to be expected, and is not anything to be concerned about. The fact that the essential truths and statements of Christ were preached and quoted many times until then give us the confidence that the NT is accurate for the truth leading to salvation.
Incidentally, chronological Bibles are the "best guess" of the author, and there are differing opinions as to the chronology. Therefore, at best it helps us to better understand the history of it, since it is not an absolute.
TD
Truthfrees
Member
these different accounts jive imo
Truthfrees
Member
There is no inconsistency within the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Matthew and John were Disciples of Christ and were eyewitnesses of Christ as they were taught by Him. Mark and Luke were not part of the 12 Disciples and had no eyewitness accounts, but relied on others to teach them.
Matthew's Gospel was written in around A.D. 58-68 before the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.
Mark's Gospel was possibly written around A.D. 55-65, but definitely before 70 A.D.
Luke's Gospel was possibly written sometime after 70A.D. The date of this Gospel depends on that of Acts since this was the first volume. Suggested dates for the book of Acts written by Luke ranges from A.D. 62 to the middle of the second century.
John's Gospel was written between A.D. 60-90.
Mark was taught by Peter as his mother Mary had a large home that was used as a meeting place for believers in Jerusalem. Peter taught there often. Mark was more directed to a Roman readership. This may be why Mark omitted a number of items that would not have been meaningful to the Gentiles like genealogy of Christ, fulfilled prophecy, references to the Law and certain Jewish customs that are found in the other Gospels. Mark interpreted Aramaic words (3:7; 5:41; 7:34; 15:22) and used a number of Latin terms in place of their Greek equivalents (4:21; 6:27; 12:14, 42; 15:15, 16, 39)
Luke was not an eyewitness of the events in his Gospel. He relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses and written sources, 1:1-4. He carefully investigated and arranged his material and presented it to Theophilus. Luke translates Aramaic terms with Greek words and explains Jewish customs and geography to make his Gospel more intelligible to his original Greek readership
Matthew's Gospel was written in around A.D. 58-68 before the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.
Mark's Gospel was possibly written around A.D. 55-65, but definitely before 70 A.D.
Luke's Gospel was possibly written sometime after 70A.D. The date of this Gospel depends on that of Acts since this was the first volume. Suggested dates for the book of Acts written by Luke ranges from A.D. 62 to the middle of the second century.
John's Gospel was written between A.D. 60-90.
Mark was taught by Peter as his mother Mary had a large home that was used as a meeting place for believers in Jerusalem. Peter taught there often. Mark was more directed to a Roman readership. This may be why Mark omitted a number of items that would not have been meaningful to the Gentiles like genealogy of Christ, fulfilled prophecy, references to the Law and certain Jewish customs that are found in the other Gospels. Mark interpreted Aramaic words (3:7; 5:41; 7:34; 15:22) and used a number of Latin terms in place of their Greek equivalents (4:21; 6:27; 12:14, 42; 15:15, 16, 39)
Luke was not an eyewitness of the events in his Gospel. He relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses and written sources, 1:1-4. He carefully investigated and arranged his material and presented it to Theophilus. Luke translates Aramaic terms with Greek words and explains Jewish customs and geography to make his Gospel more intelligible to his original Greek readership