Identical chapters in the bible

leowls · Aug 9, 2018

Could you explain why are there 2 identical chapters in the bible? They are II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37. If someone is to say that is plagiarism how should I answer? That's because the 2 chapters are identical word for word and was supposedly written by 2 different writers.

Chinchilla · Aug 9, 2018

all prophecy is made by Holy Spirit , if two people wrote word for word in different time not knowing each other then it validates this as miracle

SkyWriting · Aug 9, 2018

leowls said:
Could you explain why are there 2 identical chapters in the bible? They are II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37. If someone is to say that is plagiarism how should I answer? That's because the 2 chapters are identical word for word and was supposedly written by 2 different writers.

There wasn't nuch to read in those days and to repeat what someone had written was like citing your sources, like we do today. It was considered a good thing.

leowls · Aug 9, 2018

Chinchilla said:
all prophecy is made by Holy Spirit , if two people wrote word for word in different time not knowing each other then it validates this as miracle

Hi I do not think the Holy Spirit work in this way. Both writers had different intellect, writing styles and vocabularies. If being identical is a sign of a miracle then the 4 gospels would be as well.

HTacianas · Aug 9, 2018

leowls said:
Could you explain why are there 2 identical chapters in the bible? They are II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37. If someone is to say that is plagiarism how should I answer? That's because the 2 chapters are identical word for word and was supposedly written by 2 different writers.

Remember that there is in fact no such thing as the bible. Bible literally means "library" and is a relatively modern construct. It is a collection of books.

Isaiah and 2 Kings were once two separate scrolls that were kept apart as individual books. One tells the story of Isaiah while the other tells the story of Hezikiah. They are both the same story.

At the time the scrolls were compiled and redacted, since the stories were the same, the redactor(s) may have harmonized them.

leowls · Aug 9, 2018

SkyWriting said:
There wasn't nuch to read in those days and to repeat what someone had written was like citing your sources, like we do today. It was considered a good thing.

Yes but Jeremiah (author of 2 kings) did not give any citation, was it because citation didn't exist back then and it was normal to copy text from other sources?

leowls · Aug 9, 2018

HTacianas said:
Remember that there is in fact no such thing as the bible. Bible literally means "library" and is a relatively modern construct. It is a collection of books.

Isaiah and 2 Kings were once two separate scrolls that were kept apart as individual books. One tells the story of Isaiah while the other tells the story of Hezikiah. They are both the same story.

At the time the scrolls were compiled and redacted, since the stories were the same, the redactor(s) may have harmonized them.

Probably but this worries me as there could be other copyists' errors in the bible waiting to be found. As a bible believing christian I believe the bible is perfect and is free from all sort of errors.

HTacianas · Aug 9, 2018

leowls said:
Probably but this worries me as there could be other copyists' errors in the bible waiting to be found. As a bible believing christian I believe the bible is perfect and is free from all sort of errors.

Protestants tend to be like that.

As for myself, I look at the bible and I believe it is "the word of God in the words

leowls said:
Probably but this worries me as there could be other copyists' errors in the bible waiting to be found. As a bible believing christian I believe the bible is perfect and is free from all sort of errors.

Protestants tend to be like that. Fair warning, don't go the way of Bart Erhman, who believed so strongly in the inerrancy of scripture that when he found his first copyist error he lost his faith.

As for myself, I could not agree stronger in any statement regarding the bible than this one by the Orthodox Church in America:

It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true.

I believe that the bible is the word of God, and there is nothing that will ever change that belief. But there are, as you mention, copyist errors, but also deliberate changes in the New Testament made by copyists. None of which were made for nefarious reasons, but only to enhance the points being made. For example, Matthew 12:40:

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus was not "in the heart of the earth" for "three days and three nights". He was in the heart of the earth for three days by Jewish reckoning, but not for three nights. Someone thought it sounded more dramatic to add "three days and three nights". The likely original was:

For as Jonas was in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth.

Another example that has been know since nearly the beginning is Matthew 23:35:

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Zechariah ben Barachias (Zechariah son of Barachias) was the author of the book of Zechariah but was not killed between the altar and the temple. Zechariah son of Jehoiada was.

None of these things, or any of the others, change the bible at all. They certainly don't change any of my beliefs.

bcbsr · Aug 9, 2018

leowls said:
Could you explain why are there 2 identical chapters in the bible? They are II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37. If someone is to say that is plagiarism how should I answer? That's because the 2 chapters are identical word for word and was supposedly written by 2 different writers.

There are lots of places where New Testament authors quote the Old Testament. I even quote the Bible doesn't mean we're plagiarizing.

gordonhooker · Aug 9, 2018

The Chicago referencing system or any other academic referencing system for that matter had not been invented yet...

Hank77 · Aug 9, 2018

HTacianas said:
Protestants tend to be like that.

As for myself, I look at the bible and I believe it is "the word of God in the words

Protestants tend to be like that. Fair warning, don't go the way of Bart Erhman, who believed so strongly in the inerrancy of scripture that when he found his first copyist error he lost his faith.

As for myself, I could not agree stronger in any statement regarding the bible than this one by the Orthodox Church in America:

It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true.

I believe that the bible is the word of God, and there is nothing that will ever change that belief. But there are, as you mention, copyist errors, but also deliberate changes in the New Testament made by copyists. None of which were made for nefarious reasons, but only to enhance the points being made. For example, Matthew 12:40:

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus was not "in the heart of the earth" for "three days and three nights". He was in the heart of the earth for three days by Jewish reckoning, but not for three nights. Someone thought it sounded more dramatic to add "three days and three nights". The likely original was:

For as Jonas was in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth.

Another example that has been know since nearly the beginning is Matthew 23:35:

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Zechariah ben Barachias (Zechariah son of Barachias) was the author of the book of Zechariah but was not killed between the altar and the temple. Zechariah son of Jehoiada was.

None of these things, or any of the others, change the bible at all. They certainly don't change any of my beliefs.

Protestant don't say that there aren't any errors in the scriptures we have today. What we say is that the scriptures as written by the original authors are inerrant and inspired by the Holy Spirit. We are aware that there are copyist errors and our commentators often point them out. For instance Matt. 23:35 that you mention.

Adam Clarke's Commentary
The national punishment of all the innocent blood which had been shed in the land, shall speedily come upon you, from the blood of Abel the just, the first prophet and preacher of righteousness, Heb_11:4; 2Pe_2:5, to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah. It is likely that our Lord refers to the murder of Zachariah, mentioned 2Ch_24:20, who said to the people, Why transgress ye the commandments of God, so that ye cannot prosper? Because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath forsaken you. And they conspired against him and stoned him - at the commandment of the king, in the court of the house of the Lord. And when he died, he said, The Lord look upon and require it: 2Ch_24:21, 2Ch_24:22.
But it is objected, that this Zachariah was called the son of Jehoiada, and our Lord calls this one the son of Barachiah. Let it be observed,......

Clarke goes on to give a few different possible explanations such as one person being called by two names, which was common among the Jews and then we see in the NT Peter called Simon, etc.
......
That Jerome says that, in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, it was Jehoiada, instead of Barachiah.
That Jehoiada and Barachiah have the very same meaning, the praise or blessing of Jehovah.

John Gill's Commentary speaks of a few suggestions but agrees that the two names same person theory is probably the correct one seeing Jerome found Jehoiada in the Hebrew Bible of the Nazarenes.

Note:Clarke was of the Wesleyan persuasion and Gill was a Calvinist.

Paidiske · Aug 9, 2018

OP, did you mean to put this thread in the Anglican forum?

leowls · Aug 9, 2018

Paidiske said:
OP, did you mean to put this thread in the Anglican forum?

Sorry I was really confused by the layout of the forum..can someone move this to an appropriate place?

leowls · Aug 9, 2018

HTacianas said:
Protestants tend to be like that.

As for myself, I look at the bible and I believe it is "the word of God in the words

Protestants tend to be like that. Fair warning, don't go the way of Bart Erhman, who believed so strongly in the inerrancy of scripture that when he found his first copyist error he lost his faith.

As for myself, I could not agree stronger in any statement regarding the bible than this one by the Orthodox Church in America:

It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true.

I believe that the bible is the word of God, and there is nothing that will ever change that belief. But there are, as you mention, copyist errors, but also deliberate changes in the New Testament made by copyists. None of which were made for nefarious reasons, but only to enhance the points being made. For example, Matthew 12:40:

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Jesus was not "in the heart of the earth" for "three days and three nights". He was in the heart of the earth for three days by Jewish reckoning, but not for three nights. Someone thought it sounded more dramatic to add "three days and three nights". The likely original was:

For as Jonas was in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth.

Another example that has been know since nearly the beginning is Matthew 23:35:

That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Zechariah ben Barachias (Zechariah son of Barachias) was the author of the book of Zechariah but was not killed between the altar and the temple. Zechariah son of Jehoiada was.

None of these things, or any of the others, change the bible at all. They certainly don't change any of my beliefs.

Thank you for your reply. Those subtle differences in wording are due to copyright issue. Yes they do not change the meaning of the text but it's important they substitute the original words with a closely related one. If they keep changing words (copyright issue again) here and there in the bible so as to appear different (so they can sell and make money), soon they will have a different one and that is dangerous.

gordonhooker · Aug 10, 2018

Hank77 said:
Protestant don't say that there aren't any errors in the scriptures we have today. What we say is that the scriptures as written by the original authors are inerrant and inspired by the Holy Spirit. We are aware that there are copyist errors and our commentators often point them out. For instance Matt. 23:35 that you mention.

Adam Clarke's Commentary
The national punishment of all the innocent blood which had been shed in the land, shall speedily come upon you, from the blood of Abel the just, the first prophet and preacher of righteousness, Heb_11:4; 2Pe_2:5, to the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah. It is likely that our Lord refers to the murder of Zachariah, mentioned 2Ch_24:20, who said to the people, Why transgress ye the commandments of God, so that ye cannot prosper? Because ye have forsaken the Lord, he hath forsaken you. And they conspired against him and stoned him - at the commandment of the king, in the court of the house of the Lord. And when he died, he said, The Lord look upon and require it: 2Ch_24:21, 2Ch_24:22.
But it is objected, that this Zachariah was called the son of Jehoiada, and our Lord calls this one the son of Barachiah. Let it be observed,......

Clarke goes on to give a few different possible explanations such as one person being called by two names, which was common among the Jews and then we see in the NT Peter called Simon, etc.
......
That Jerome says that, in the Gospel of the Nazarenes, it was Jehoiada, instead of Barachiah.
That Jehoiada and Barachiah have the very same meaning, the praise or blessing of Jehovah.

John Gill's Commentary speaks of a few suggestions but agrees that the two names same person theory is probably the correct one seeing Jerome found Jehoiada in the Hebrew Bible of the Nazarenes.

Note:Clarke was of the Wesleyan persuasion and Gill was a Calvinist.

I think that may be a little generalisation happening here. I agree that not all Protestants say that there are not any errors but some groups do say that I have actually heard it with my own ears.

Joy · Aug 10, 2018

MOD HAT ON

This Thread

From

Scripture,Tradition,Reason-Anglican & Old Catholic

To

Christian Scriptures

as This is a More Fitting Forum

for this subject

MOD HAT OFF

redleghunter · Aug 10, 2018

leowls said:
Could you explain why are there 2 identical chapters in the bible? They are II Kings 19 and Isaiah 37. If someone is to say that is plagiarism how should I answer? That's because the 2 chapters are identical word for word and was supposedly written by 2 different writers.

II Kings is a historical book and Isaiah is a prophetic book. One from the historian accounts and one from the personal account of Isaiah. Not plagiarism but corroborating evidence.

redleghunter · Aug 10, 2018

HTacianas said:
Remember that there is in fact no such thing as the bible. Bible literally means "library" and is a relatively modern construct. It is a collection of books.

Isaiah and 2 Kings were once two separate scrolls that were kept apart as individual books. One tells the story of Isaiah while the other tells the story of Hezikiah. They are both the same story.

At the time the scrolls were compiled and redacted, since the stories were the same, the redactor(s) may have harmonized them.

Is there any evidence of redactors? I thought that was a theory devoid of any concrete facts.

There is no evidence of redactions from the Qumran scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls).

redleghunter · Aug 10, 2018

leowls said:
Probably but this worries me as there could be other copyists' errors in the bible waiting to be found. As a bible believing christian I believe the bible is perfect and is free from all sort of errors.

A good source for further research:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/scripture-alone/

The above from RC Sproul is a video sermon. Below is the link to the book:

https://www.amazon.com/Scripture-Alone-Evangelical-Doctrine-Library/dp/1596380101

Here's more for your kit bag for research:

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org

Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)

The Institute for Creation Research

http://www.equip.org/article/facts-for-skeptics-of-the-new-testament/

Manuscript Evidence by David Hocking

Is the New Testament Text Reliable? | Stand to Reason

The Textual Reliability of the New Testament | John Ankerberg Show

http://www.cslewisinstitute.org/webfm_send/410

4. The Manuscripts Tell The Story: The New Testament Is Reliable

A Closer Look: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

The Earliest New Testament Manuscripts

Bible Menu

New Testament Manuscripts Copyright by Norman L. Geisler ppt download

The bearing of recent discovery on the trustworthiness of the New Testament : Ramsay, William Mitchell, Sir, 1851-1939 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

A Brief Sample of Archaeology Corroborating the Claims of the New Testament | Cold Case Christianity

New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship

https://www.bible-history.com/new-testament/timeline.html

Mark fragment Qumran: 7Q5: The Earliest NT Papyrus?

Matthew dating: Arguments for a pre-70 CE Dating of Matthew's Gospel

Early Gospels: The case for the early dating of the Gospels

NT documents: New Testament Documents – Date and Authorship

When Was the New Testament Completed?

Archeological Evidence - Evidences of the Bible

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ramsay/ramsay_gasque.pdf

Josephus and the Old Testament | Scriptures of the Jewish Bible - the Law, the Prophets and the Writings

Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, BOOK I, Whiston section 8 --Josephus

Book of Daniel scholarship: An Introduction to the Book of Daniel

Biblical timelines: Time Line Survey of Bible Events

Daniel DSS: New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls

Evidence external of historical Jesus Christ: Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Testimony of the Evangelists - Wikipedia

4. Jesus Feeds 5,000 People (Matthew 14:13-21; Mark 6:30-44; Luke 9:10-17; John 6:1-15)

The Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses: We Can Trust the Factuality of the Gospel, by Bob and Gretchen Passantino

The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice : Greenleaf, Simon, 1783-1853 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

Biblical Dead Sea Scrolls - Daniel 9 Daniel 9 fragments.

Not all may be in your OP wheelhouse of questions, but gives evidence of the reliability of manuscript evidence making up our Bibles today.

redleghunter · Aug 10, 2018

HTacianas said:
As for myself, I could not agree stronger in any statement regarding the bible than this one by the Orthodox Church in America:

It is the faith of the Orthodox Church that the Bible, as the divinely-inspired Word of God in the words of men, contains no formal errors or inner contradictions concerning the relationship between God and the world. There may be incidental inaccuracies of a non-essential character in the Bible. But the eternal spiritual and doctrinal message of God, presented in the Bible in many different ways, remains perfectly consistent, authentic, and true.

A solid statement. The above demonstrates the Holy Scriptures as the infallible Word of God.

Identical chapters in the bible

Active Member

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Franciscan tssf

Well-Known Member

Clara bonam audax

Active Member

Active Member

Franciscan tssf

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Similar threads