A question other than KJVO (II Corinthians)

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by ScottEmerson, Dec 9, 2003.

  1. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Today, while studying for a Bible study I led, I was doing research on Paul's letters to the Corinthians. Some interesting things that I read that make a lot of sense that I thought we could discuss.

    1. Paul actually wrote four letters to the Corinthians, that we know of.
    2. The first letter is lost and is mentioned in I Corinthians 5:9. It was probably a short letter.
    3. The second letter was what we know of as I Corinthians.
    4. The third letter is seen begins in II Corinthians 10. It is a stern letter from Paul to the church.
    5. The fourth letter (the last written by Paul) is more encouraging in nature, and is seen from II Corinthians 1-9. Several verses in the first part of II Corinthians indicate this.

    Has anyone heard this? What do you guys think? It makes a lot of sense to me.

    SEC
     
  2. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    That gets my vote. 4 for 4. Wherever you heard that from, that guy is as warped as I am!
     
  3. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think it's not true, because that would make the Bible deceptive. 2nd Corinthians is presented as one letter, so it *is* one letter.
     
  4. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    Read II Corinthians 2:1-11. That passage sure sounds as if it comes AFTER the last part of the book. Especially note verse 3 and 4, where Paul states that his previous letter was written from great distress and anguish. I Corinthians doesn't seem to fit that mold, but II Corinthians 10-13 sure does.

    Even the break between chapters 9 and 10 indicate that it's a different book all together.

    Anyone else care to input?
     
  5. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is the Bible inerrant in its presentation of history?
     
  6. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know if anyone has a problem with Jeremiah which switches back and forth through history. That doesn't make that book any less true. Why should it be so with I Corinthians?
     
  7. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jeremiah is not presented as a single, real, historical letter. 2 Corinthians is. If 2 Corinthians is in reality a patchwork of Paul's letters, then at best the Bible presents a misleading view of actual history.
     
  8. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think that it does, because the actual verses are pretty easy to understand regarding the disappointing visit that Paul makes in the second chapter of II Corinthians. Do you have a better explanation of the facts found within the text of the book?
     
  9. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any confusion regarding 2 Corinthians is due to our limited understanding and knowledge. I could invent stories to help explain any difficulties we might have, but I don't think that would be profitable, especially if it served in any way to cast doubt on the Bible's inerrant presentation of history.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe paul wrote AT LEAST four letters to the Corinthians, and most likely, several more to the churches mentioned in Scripture. As God is the final Arbiter of His own word, HE decided what would make Scripture & what wouldn't.

    I would say that some of Paul's letters were of a mundane nature such as recommending someone for office, financial advice, personal greetings, etc. & therefore didn't become Scripture, nor was there any effort to their recipients to preserve them.

    BTW, while doing a study about Jehoiachin, the fact that there was at least one other set of chronicles of the kings of Israel and of Judah written, that didn't become Scripture, became apparent to me.
     
  11. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see how an errant position of history is shown with II Corinthians being two different books. I also don't see how, especially with the actual verses found in the text, it is such an invention to see that II Corinthians was actually two different letters. Perhaps our understanding of II Cor as one book is because of our limited knowledge and understanding.
     
  12. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see how an errant position of history is shown with II Corinthians being two different books. I also don't see how, especially with the actual verses found in the text, it is such an invention to see that II Corinthians was actually two different letters. Perhaps our understanding of II Cor as one book is because of our limited knowledge and understanding. </font>[/QUOTE]Scott, does our Bible present 2 Corinthians as 1 letter or two? For example, are there two introductions and closings, or only one?

    If there were two letters, then someone edited them together to appear as one. But that's impossible, since the Bible is inerrant in its history - the Bible would be falsely presenting a letter that never existed in reality, passing itself off as a real, actual letter sent by the Apostle Paul.

    Either 2 Corinthians is a real, historical letter or the Bible is not inerrant when it comes to presenting history.
     
  13. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Is our Bible EVIL for calling First Corinthians FIRST, when it is without quesiton, the SECOND letter? Of course not.

    Or calling the letter to the Laodiceans by the title "Ephesians"?

    Or the Gospel of Peter by the title "Mark"?

    These were simply accepted by the churches over the centuries as a way to label the various books of the Bible.

    It does NOT throw any negative on the contents, the accuracy, the message.

    This is a non-issue.
     
  14. timothy 1769

    timothy 1769
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    1,323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
    Is our Bible EVIL for calling First Corinthians FIRST, when it is without quesiton, the SECOND letter? Of course not.

    1st Corinthians is the first - contained in the Bible. For all we know, Paul wrote dozens of letters to the Corinthians, before, after, and in between our 1st and 2nd Corinthians.

    Or calling the letter to the Laodiceans by the title "Ephesians"?

    Strange, my Bible has:

    Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:

    I believe it.

    Or the Gospel of Peter by the title "Mark"?

    More interesting. The Gospel of Mark doesn't claim to be written by Mark, so who can say for sure?

    These were simply accepted by the churches over the centuries as a way to label the various books of the Bible.

    It does NOT throw any negative on the contents, the accuracy, the message.

    This is a non-issue.


    It's also not the issue we're discussing. I don't really care what the books/letters are called, I DO take issue with the idea that a letter presented in the Bible as a real, historical letter somehow isn't really.

    The Bible presents 2nd Corinthians as one, real historical letter sent by the real, historical Paul to the real, historical Corinthians. If that somehow isn't the case, the Bible is flawed in its history.
     
  15. ScottEmerson

    ScottEmerson
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2002
    Messages:
    3,417
    Likes Received:
    0
    I just don't see how this is the case. In our 21st century way of thinking, we may find fault in it, but perhaps the early Christians didn't see that combining the two letters posed a problem with the historical accuracy of the letter. We have to be able to put different glasses on, I think.


    Hey, Dr. Bob - talk more about Peter writing the book of Mark. That'd be an interesting discussion.
     

Share This Page

Loading...