The curious case of John 5:4

[St. SteVen]

How helpful would it be to someone who is struggling over the issue of the reliability of scripture to be shown that Jesus himself believes they are reliable?

He has an opinion about the OT, but the NT didn't yet exist.

[

 

[Matthias]

He has an opinion about the OT, but the NT didn't yet exist.

[

Let us accept his “opinion” (he believes it is reliable, as it testifies about him; they should have believed the testimony) about the OT. Does he have or not have an opinion about the NT?

 

[Ritajanice]

So now that takes us back to “You, apparently, don’t know any who are, besides yourself.”

Never said that.,you did....I asked you the question also..who are the Born Again?

Please explain below.

so, apply the standard to yourself. When you do, what does it look like?

 

[Matthias]

Never said that.,you did.

The point is that my comment was about you, that by your own standard of measure you don’t know any who are his children. I graciously allowed that you know it about, but only about, yourself.

Please explain below.

so, apply the standard to yourself. When you do, what does it look like?

What is there for me to explain? I reject your standard. Was that previously unclear to you?

 

[Ritajanice]

The point is that my comment was about you, that by your own standard of measure you don’t know any who are his children. I graciously allowed that you know it about, but only about, yourself.

Once again, those are your words, not mine.

What is there for me to explain? I reject your standard. Was that previously unclear to you?

You reject what standard?

 

[Matthias]

Once again, those are your words, not mine.

I quoted your words (about only God knowing who his children are) and made the observation, which naturally follows, that you - since you aren’t God- don’t know any who are his children.

If only God knows (your standard) and since you aren’t God then you don’t know any who are his children.

You reject what standard?

Why did you ask me to apply the standard to myself if you didn’t know what the standard was?

 

[Ritajanice]

I quoted your words (about only God knowing who his children are) and made the observation, which naturally follows, that you - since you aren’t God- don’t know any who are his children.

If only God knows (your standard) and since you aren’t God then you don’t know any who are his children.

Sorry, still no idea what you are trying to say.

Why did you ask me to apply the standard to myself if you didn’t know what the standard was?

Again, no idea, what you are trying to say.with respect.

 

[Matthias]

You don’t know that, it is just your own opinion being voiced.only God knows who are his children.

I took the liberty of bolding your comment.

You don’t know any who are his children.

 

[Matthias]

Sorry, still no idea what you are trying to say.

Again, no idea, what you are trying to say.with respect.

I’ve tried to address that in post #568.

 

[Ritajanice]

I’ve tried to address that in post #568.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say still..with respect.

 

[Ritajanice]

I took the liberty of bolding your comment.

You don’t know any who are his children.

I don’t understand what you mean....do you know who Gods children are?

 

[Matthias]

I don’t understand what you mean....

“Only God knows who are his children.“ Those are your words. They express what you believe.

If it is true that only God knows who are his children then wouldn’t it also be true that you don’t know any who are?

do you know who Gods children are?

The Bible identifies many of them by name.

 

[Ritajanice]

“Only God knows who are his children.“ Those are your words. They express what you believe.

If it is true that only God knows who are his children then wouldn’t it also be true that you don’t know any who are?

Still not understanding.

The Bible identifies many of them by name.

Does it.

 

[Matthias]

Still not understanding.

I’m not sure how to say it any clearer. I’ll give it some thought and try again if I think of another way.

Does it.

Yes.

 

[GodsGrace]

@Matthias
I was going to reply to you but there are too many posts, it's late here,
and I'd like to devote attention to them, so....
tomorrow!
'night

 

[Matthias]

@Matthias
I was going to reply to you but there are too many posts, it's late here,
and I'd like to devote attention to them, so....
tomorrow!
'night

Have a pleasant and restful evening. God willing we’ll talk again tomorrow. Goodnight.

 

[Rockerduck]

The Peshitta Bible has John 5:4 in it.

 

[Aunty Jane]

my own issues with fundamentalism and biblical inerrancy are two:

1. I cannot believe the earth is only 6000 years old; things like carbon dating, archaeology, red-shift, fossil record, etc. rule against it. The Baptist church we went to when I was a teen was pretty adamant that I'm not even allowed to read Genesis 1 as beautiful poetry affirming God's good creation if I don't believe it to be literally true.

The Bible itself does not claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old. Humans made that calculation at a time when science was just beginning to understand what “life” was.

The Genesis account is an order of things within certain timeframes that are called “days”….in Hebrew the word translated “day” is the same meaning as we have in English…..one we may have overlooked. It can mean a 24 hour period, but that is not its only meaning.
When we speak of our grandfather’s “day”, is that a 24 hour period?
When we speak of the “dawn of a new era” is that a literal “dawn”?
The Hebrew word can mean a time of undetermined length.

Added to that is the expression “there was evening and morning” for each creative period.
In the Jewish counting of a “day”….it began at sundown and ended at sundown the following day.
So the day began in the “evening” but ended in the “morning”…the ‘dawn’ of a new “day”.
That is a 12 hour period not 24 hours.
This again suggests that these were not 24 hour days.

Genesis 1:1 is a statement all by itself…..and the following verse takes up the story of the planet’s preparation for habitation from day one to day six. The time period between those two verses may have been millions of years.

These creative periods do not have to be 24 hour “days”, in fact science proves that they could not be. The Earth itself is ancient as geologists know. What they do know to an extent is the order in which things came into being. They offer evolution as the explanation but the order is quite similar.
Also, the literal explanation does not fit in with extinct creatures which roamed the earth perhaps millions of years before mankind were created. There were no dinosaurs on the ark.

The Bible itself is not limiting the creation to just 6,000 years. A timeless God has no restrictions as to the time he took to get the earth ready for living things. He made sure that all was in readiness for plant life as well as “souls” (living, breathing creatures) to have all the life support that would be necessary for the proliferation of life, as well as its perpetual reproduction, so that all life would thrive and live out their intended purpose.

2. There are contradictions in the Bible, and the apologists perform all kinds of unnatural acts on the text itself to make the problem go away. My favorite example is, how did Judas Iscariot meet his end? Matthew says he hanged himself; Luke says he splattered in a fall. The venerable John MacArthur (for whom I once had great respect) offered this cockamamie story about the rope breaking in order to explain away the conflicting testimony. Plausible? WHY IS IT EVEN NECESSARY TO ADD TO THE TEXT? (Excuse me for shouting.)

What helps with the explanation is to know that Luke was a physician and he included details of a medical nature in his writings that the apostles did not. This helps to explain that the two accounts of Judas’ death are not contradictory. Luke added a medical detail that allows speculation as to why hanging himself may have ended in that result. I personally have no problem with minor details that really don’t matter in the big picture. None of it detracts from the Bible’s clear message.

I want to help those who have doubts, but in the case of your student, I may be the wrong person. Or, I may be the right person. I just don't know.

2 Tim 3:16-17….
”All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”
I like to use the Bible to explain itself….it is not contradictory in any of the really important aspects and minor detail are unimportant…..and since it was written by many ‘secretaries’ over such a long period of time, it’s internal harmony is proof of its divine authorship. No work by men could have produced the wisdom and knowledge contained in this book, and preserved it for thousands of years despite many attempts to destroy it.

 

[Matthias]

“All the data from every direction points to the same conclusion: that John 5:4 is probably not original to John’s gospel. Modern translators are wise to point these issues out to their readers.”

Was John 5:3 removed from modern Bibles? | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Explore Christian Apologetics, theology, and critical answers to today's questions about God, the Bible, and the Christian faith at Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry.

carm.org

Interested readers will have to evaluate the data and decide for themselves. I find it persuasive and agree with the author’s conclusion.

 

[Ritajanice]

So it is your testimony that you have no idea who God’s children are?

On this earth today..no...do you know who they are on the earth today?..the Born Again?