The Harmonization in the Gospels - Dr. James White

For more information, please visit www.g3conference.com
In this video, Dr James White talks about the harmonization of the Gospels, a very important subject as it relates to the words of Jesus and the purpose of the Gospel writers as well.
This is evidently a resourceful information especially to those who are interested in the structures of the Gospels and the purpose of the Gospel writers as against the attacks from the skeptics..

[@silviomp]

Great lecture. Such a blessing to me.

[@jaredvaughan1665]

Great lecture

[@geno4god]

Amen brother!

[@scuzlol]

I just wanted to add that regarding Jeremiah 31:32, the BDB actually has an entry for the verb "ba'al" that is followed by bet+ as: בָּעַל loathe (sq. בְּ); Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 127. Which would bring its translation as "and I loathed them". It mentions corresponding Semitic words (Arabic) have that same root, meaning "to be disgusted": comparing Arabic بَعَلَ (baʿala) be disgusted Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 127. Just thought it was interesting.

[@AnHebrewChild]

This aligns with John Gill's comments on Hebrew 8:9 *and I regarded them not, saith the Lord;* the words in Jeremiah 31:32 are very differently rendered in our translation, "although I was an husband unto them": and so it becomes an aggravation of their sin of ingratitude, in not continuing in his covenant: in the margin it is rendered interrogatively, "should I have continued an husband unto them?" that is, after they had so treated him, no; as if he should say, I will not behave towards them as such; I will reject them, and disregard them. The Chaldee paraphrase is just the reverse of the apostle's translation, "and I was well pleased with them": some render them, "I ruled over them", as a lord over his servants, in a very severe manner. Others, observing the great difference there is between the Hebrew text, and the apostle's version, have supposed a different Hebrew copy from the present, used by the Septuagint, or the apostle, in which, instead of בעלתי , it was read either בחלתי , or געלתי ; but there is no need of such a supposition, since Dr. Pocock _f._ has shown that בעל , in the Arabic language, signifies to loath and abhor, and so to disregard; and Kimchi _g._ relates it as a rule laid down by his father, that wherever this Hebrew word is used in construction with ב , it is to be taken in an ill part, and signifies the same as בחלתי , "I have loathed"; in which sense that word is used in Zechariah 11:8 and so here, I have loathed them, I abhorred them, I rejected them, I took no care of them, disregarded them, left their house desolate, and suffered wrath to come upon them to the uttermost. _f._ Pococke Not. Miscell. in Port. Mesis, p. 9 (Edward Pococke: 17th cent Oxford orientalist, fellow) _g._ David Kimchi/Kimhi on Jer. xxxi. 32. & Sepher Shorashim, rad. בעל - (R. Kimchi: Hebrew grammarian, 12th/13th cent)

[@AnHebrewChild]

Mat24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Mrk13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. Luk21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. > In the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Mat18:16

[@avibenavraham]

The last point Dr White made about differences between masoretic and LXX readings was…interesting to say the least. Bringing up variants in psalms has nothing with the difference found in Jeremiah. The evidence shows that the Hebrew reading is more accurate

[@AnHebrewChild]

Which Hebrew? The Hebrew found in the DSS or the Masoretic Hebrew?

[@thomaspayne3347]

Dear brother, unless you where a eye witness as to the original pin of each of the autographs of the Books of the New Testament, I must ask as to how you could you possibly know without a doubt that it was written originally in the Greek and without any other possible i.e. Hebbrew language as a witness? And disregard the witness of Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea, c. 260-339AD/CE. In whom the original manuscript of MattiYahu c. 50. Was inherited and quoted from? By Pamphilus who died in c. 310. In whom's hand relinquished it to him. And was vetted under Origen in whom a library hat was commenced containing this very said manuscript? Under the circumstances one would consider Eusebius at the least a key witness to this Hebrew manuscript. Mahaps you find this man to much a threat in that of the 17 times he quoted Mt.,28:19, that he quoted it as follows; "Go, ye and make disciplines of all nations in my Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you." Which falls in line with the rest of the N.T. as one finds only one Name in the baptism formula," Yahshua the Messiah." And brings the Scriptures back into harmony, as now also with the well known "Comma Johanneum," of 1john 5:7&8, as finally restored after 500 years of error. I pray that we endeavor as liken unto the Boreans, ever searching the word in truth and in light, for it is the truth that shall set us free. As we draw nearer to the great and dreadful "Day of Yah"! His Word shall be restored. Whether it's the aleph/taw=alpha/omega left out some 6,827 times from the Scriptures or the transliteration of Father His Son, the prophets, personages, and places? Who knows we might even start to fallow the Father's commands so we don't end up as told us in Mt.,7:21-23, and found as lawless and wanting. Also as our set-apart Father will have his sabboth restored as it is written in the prophet Yeshayahu (Isaiah),66:22,23. Who knows, maybe we will even repent, turn and be heald? As we cry out; "Blessed is he who is coming in the Name of Yahuah!" There is but only one Name under heaven by which we might be saved, as He has told us. That He came in his Father's Name, which is in fact, Yahushua /Yah our salvation. Shalom be unto you, R/S Glen barTron

[@thomaspayne3347]

P.S. There are 37 references made up of 33 verses in the N.T. as to the word baptize, of these there are 7 to whit actually give a Name directly or by infurance. These are as follows; Acts,2:38 ;8:16 ;10:48 ;19:5 ;22:16, Romans, 6:3, Galatians, 3:27,. And that Name is Yahushua ha Mashe'ach, better known to the English vanacular Jesus the Christ. Finial note: I have to date found 20 quote sources as in reference to the original intent of the verse, Mt.,28:19 and they reach the same conclusion? And that is that Mt, 28:19 was an addition as found in its current form in so many, many versions of so many bibles? In fact there is only one scripture that has attempted to remove and restore Mt.,28:19? And that would be the "One New Man" Bible. R/S Glen barTron

[@AnHebrewChild]

@@thomaspayne3347Yessir. See Hebraist Jean Carmignac on this subject.

[@jessegandy7361]

I'm ultimately thankful that The Gospel of John can be harmonized, but man it sure is one troublesome book!

[@reevertoun]

You should read Eye of the Beholder by Lydia Mcgrew if you haven't already.

[@michaeleashoo]

why does john 1:5 call YHVH "an it". for WHO'S LIGHT is the text speaking of? luke 2:15 calls Baby Jesus "this thing". can you write a sentence calling Jesus "this thing"? why does the 4 gospels use the words "this male" when writing about Jesus? should they not have written His Name? why did they not respect and honor our King in HEAVEN?

[@bradenhogan2]

As far as the Jeremiah 31:32 and Hebrews 8:9 problem… it isn’t really a problem unless you’re a skeptic. Let me explain why: Did Jesus Himself not quote uninspired and erroneous words from Pharisees, Scribes, and other uninspired sources in order to make inspired, theologically sound points? There are multiple examples of Jesus quoting/paraphrasing sayings and proverbs known in His day that supposedly didn’t come from God in order to make a theological point. The easiest example to cite is Matthew 5:43: “You have heard that it was said, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR (inspired quote) and hate your enemy (uninspired addition).” Does this mean that Jesus is in error? That these words, in the context of Matthew, aren’t inspired? Perhaps they weren’t inspired… until Jesus quoted them. Now, if Jesus is free to take uninspired additions to scripture in order to drive home a theological point, then are not the NT authors, speaking on behalf of and by inspiration of God, free to do the same? Of course this presents a problem for the unbeliever. So does Genesis 1:1. But it by no means threatens the believer’s convictions on the inspiration and inerrancy of scripture

[@AnHebrewChild]

Hebrews 8:8 introduces the words of verse 9 as words of the Scriptures - as the Lord speaking. Heb8:9 "For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold the days come, saith the Lord..." In Matthew 5:43, Jesus does not attribute the saying he quotes as from the Scriptures, but he says, "ye have heard that it hath been said." I agree with what you're saying, as far as it goes. However, as I see it, the two instances you cited are not equivalent. Btw, I'm not a skeptic. Furthest thing from it. :] Here, John Gill's comments on Hebrew 8:9 are an informative read: *and I regarded them not, saith the Lord* ; the words in Jeremiah 31:32 are very differently rendered in our translation, "although I was an husband unto them": and so it becomes an aggravation of their sin of ingratitude, in not continuing in his covenant: in the margin it is rendered interrogatively, "should I have continued an husband unto them?" that is, after they had so treated him, no; as if he should say, I will not behave towards them as such; I will reject them, and disregard them. The Chaldee paraphrase is just the reverse of the apostle's translation, "and I was well pleased with them": some render them, "I ruled over them", as a lord over his servants, in a very severe manner. Others, observing the great difference there is between the Hebrew text, and the apostle's version, have supposed a different Hebrew copy from the present, used by the Septuagint, or the apostle, in which, instead of בעלתי , it was read either בחלתי , or געלתי ; but there is no need of such a supposition, since Dr. Pocock _f._ has shown that בעל , in the Arabic language, signifies to loath and abhor, and so to disregard; and Kimchi _g._ relates it as a rule laid down by his father, that wherever this word is used in construction with ב , it is to be taken in an ill part, and signifies the same as בחלתי , "I have loathed"; in which sense that word is used in Zechariah 11:8 and so here, I have loathed them, I abhorred them, I rejected them, I took no care of them, disregarded them, left their house desolate, and suffered wrath to come upon them to the uttermost. _f._ Pococke Not. Miscell. in Port. Mesis, p. 9 (Edward Pococke: 17th cent Oxford orientalist, fellow) _g._ David Kimchi/Kimhi on Jer. xxxi. 32. & Sepher Shorashim, rad. בעל - (R. Kimchi: Hebrew grammarian, 12th/13th cent) blessings

[@lawrencestanley8989]

At about 7:20; I realize that the Apostles didn't have a "steno pad" per se, but F.F. Bruce has this to say... “The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not later than c. AD 60; *some of them may even be traced back to notes taken of our Lord's teaching while His words were actually being uttered…* We have then in the Synoptic Gospels, the latest of which was complete between 40-50 years after the death of Christ, material which took shape at a still earlier time, some of it even before His death, and which, besides being for the most part 1st hand evidence, was transmitted along independent and trustworthy lines.” F.F. Bruce, “The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?,” (Sixth edition, 1981, pp. 42-43)

[@seasonedapologist]

Thanks for the quotes..

[@zacdredge3859]

No offense to FF Bruce but it seems anachronistic to assume there was anyone taking notes at the sermons of Jesus given literacy wasn't all that common and the availability of writing materials was quite limited. It's more likely Jesus taught some things on multiple occasions and therefore the memory of them gets enforced in the minds of his close disciples through repetition. Then the events are those that stood out to them as having particular importance which are likely to be the ones they remember most clearly.

[@lawrencestanley8989]

@@zacdredge3859 You are merely making assertions based on opinion. Bruce was not.

[@gmac6503]

He's not a Dr and there is no harmonization except for apologists who pretzel-twist the verses.

[@GordonA-Jr]

You are simply wrong and ignorant of the person and the issue, clearly a bias that has clouded your view

[@gmac6503]

@@GordonA-Jr typical Calvinist apologist remark. Just name-calling and accusing the other person of being stupid like white does all the time whenever he mentions anybody that disagrees with him lol like I haven’t known white for many, many years when he used to go on the Aol debate rooms. Why is it so difficult to have a conversation with an apologist? Because they don’t know anything and all they know how to do is sling mud like their mentor White