I don't find it highly likely. But it is hard to tell time in the greek language, since it is dead, and there are somethings which I have found which I didn't expect.
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
glorydaz
Well-known member
Frankly, I don't think any amount of research will save you from the pits of hell.
Lon
Well-known member
A concession then? Look, I looked at all of these answers and wrestled with this long ago. I'm satisfied completely that there is no discrepancy, only a 'seeming' one. As I said, God resolves these.
I've had a lot of these from young Christian kids who were trying to witness on atheist websites. By association, I assumed the same. I've no idea where you got it from, but don't let Satan in the door on these. :up:
No, no in fact, I did not. I suggested rather that you not listen to the father of lies. He comes through atheist websites and such. It doesn't matter where you picked up the doubt as to the fact that he is always questioning "did God REALLY say???" :think: It causes doubt in younger Christians, for which, doubters causing such will answer to God, because they cause little ones to stumble. So, as you were reading, why didn't you resolve the issue? Why did you 'assume' the text was wrong? :think:
Well and good. Always look for the answer. I believe the ones given are more than apt to keep one's faith strong in the integrity of scripture and God's conveyance to man. He, Himself, said He will preserve His words. Matthew 5:18 Psalm 111:8 1 Peter 1:25 Revelation 1:8
Your gnosticism only makes me laugh.
my comments in bold italic
Hoping to change the topic again, since you can’t explain the discrepancy between Luke and Mark?
Same event. Three different men reporting on the same event in their own words. :yawn:
So they are not words breathed by God — they are the words of fallible men.
Only you would be concerned about a person's "reputation". :chuckle:
I doubt you believe that.
Why not just start with Genesis?opcorn:
Hoping to change the topic again, since you can’t explain the discrepancy between Luke and Mark?
See the part in bold above? Reconsider it. You wrote:
So what did you do? You went to a pagan website that lazily said there was a contradiction.
That is a false accusation about me.
I understand you are saying that there is a “seeming” contradiction that God will resolve. The resolution is that we stop claiming inerrancy, a position the Bible never claims for itself.
Are you familiar with the work of Daniel Wallace of Daniel Theological Seminary?
You asked:
Why did you 'assume' the text was wrong?
I did not assume. They clearly contradict.
An honest reading shows that.
Lon
Well-known member
Luke 9:1-6 & 10:1-4;17-20
glorydaz
Well-known member
The answer is in the text, itself, but you are blind to it.
Why did Jesus say He sent them without shoes? Why didn't He say that in Luke 9:3?
Did He send them out barefooted? If that was the case, how could they wipe the dust off their sandals? One account has it and the other doesn't. Oh horrors!!!!!!!
Luke 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
Rather, Jesus told them to only take what they needed....not two coats, not an extra pair of sandals or money or brushes and combs or an extra pair of underwear. Take nothing for your journey would mean what would be required if they weren't stopping along the way at people's houses. This is not complicated.
You have one purpose here.... to attack the veracity of the Holy Scriptures.
glory falsely writes:
You have one purpose here.... to attack the veracity of the Holy Scriptures.
No, I have only pointed out that the man-made doctrine of inerrancy, a doctrine not found in scripture, is not consistent with the Biblical text.
It is the veracity of this doctrine which has been damaged.
You have one purpose here.... to attack the veracity of the Holy Scriptures.
No, I have only pointed out that the man-made doctrine of inerrancy, a doctrine not found in scripture, is not consistent with the Biblical text.
It is the veracity of this doctrine which has been damaged.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Yeah, Luke 9 was the twelve. And this was where He reminded the twelve.
Luke 22:35 And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Do note that Luke 10 is about the 70 going on a journey. The two texts I presented were about the twelve, and they state that explicitly.
So the introduction of the journey of the 70 is off topic.
Mark 6 He called the twelve and began to send them out two by two, and gave them authority over the unclean spirits. 8 He ordered them to take nothing for their journey except a staff; no bread, no bag, no money in their belts; 9 but to wear sandals and not to put on two tunics.
Luke 9Then Jesus called the twelve together and gave them power and authority over all demons and to cure diseases, 2 and he sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God and to heal. 3 He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic.
Luke 10 1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go.
glorydaz
Well-known member
No, you have refused to look at the FACT that the accounts were written by three different men as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. You have refused to look at how each man used the words in his account, and where he used those same words in his other writings.
My charge against you stands. You are here to attack the veracity of the Holy Scriptures, and that means you are working for the god of this world. :down:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh, I'm sure there are plenty of people here who seek to discredit God's written word. We live in a world of sin, and the god of this world will have his say. Congratulations on being his mouthpiece. :devil:
Lon
Well-known member
Speculation on my part, as I said, I've had many young Christians come to me, even here on TOL, come from an atheist website or two. It is the only case in which I've encountered this, so certainly I thought the same here. Accusation? :nono: Assumption. Okay, I'm wrong. Don't look for more than 'please forgive the confusion.' No harm was intended by the assumption. I was just incorrect, and not really something I gave a lot of thought to at that. Forgive the wrong assumption in passing.
It does too, both by application (such as Jesus quoting it VERBATIM) and by many instances, if you read your bible, of it declaring not a jot or tittle will be missing. Hebrews 4:12 And you'd add, 'except for a few minor discrepancies.'
Sorry, that is considered heresy, even by those who are not orthodox in this thread. Yes, I honestly think he knows more about 'theology' than the word of God. I went to the sister school to Dallas: Multnomah Bible Seminary.
That said, He has a view of inerrancy, just not the same. That said, Daniel Wallace is not on my 'esteemed' list. He cries about it but he signed off on the Chicago Statement of Faith, Dallas' stance on inerrancy:
Spoiler
Daniel Wallace assumes erroneously that all those of us who disagree with him are from a specific camp rather than convinced from scriptures. Again, he is too theology-headed and not scripturally-headed enough, but the above link goes a ways to help mend fences. He wasn't careful enough, if snippets could make such a stink as to make people think he didn't believe in inerrancy, he does. In some ways, he is trying to bridge a gap between Fundamental theology here in the U.S. and theology from the UK that isn't as caught up in inerrancy. I don't believe it can be done, at least not when fires like this are started. It caused him to be ostracized, and I think there is a fair amount of it being just. If you know him, you can pass this along. While he disagrees with you, he believe in inerrancy, he disagrees with me that it is a doctrine taught in scripture. In a sense, he is saying something akin to "the trinity is not expressed in scripture." Our disagreement is over his dichotomous error. He isn't thinking consistently. Inerrancy is both implicit AND explicit in scripture. He thinks it only 'implicit.'
A good number of Evangelicals question his tenure at Dallas. I'm not sure if Wallace signs off with the Chicago Statement of Faith, nor how Dallas handles that.
You are almost as arrogant as Daniel Wallace (he isn't that bad, but he does get uppity)? Nope. You are wrong. You will stand before God for it. It is clear in scripture.
Oh, I think you are 'honest' I just disdain the academics. I feel bad that you actually think this. It is logically untenable. See GloryDaz here too. I think if one would just READ scripture, they'd not be this poor in theology understanding:
Yes, I'm calling you both illogical and also claiming my scripture grasp is better. Sorry about that. -Lon
Last edited:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Well, as long as I can make the heathen laugh then my work here is done.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I'm not changing the topic. I'm doubling down on what I said already about each man describing the same event in his own words. You're the one that brought up how we had to worry about our "reputation". As if we're the ones who cares about our "reputation".
The context alone should tell you. But, of course, you haven't once mentioned the context. They were not to buy anything along the way or take anything extra like they would need for a long journey. I see it clearly stated in all the verses. You miss every clue in all three quotes. You can't blame that on me.
Lon writes;
Yes, I'm calling you both illogical and also claiming my scripture grasp is better. Sorry about that. -Lon
Yet you have elevated a doctrine not found in scripture to the status of prime doctrine. That is illogical, especially if you are even close to sola scriptura.
“grasp of scripture” is not a contest. Furthermore, since it took pages for you to come to admit that Mark and Luke contradict each other, your grasp of scripture is colored bias of your presupposition.
I offer this comment from Wallace, which I think applies to many posting here:
What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html
The slippery slope is making inerrancy a core doctrine.
And it is illogical to declare a core doctrine something that is not even mentioned in scripture.
Yes, I'm calling you both illogical and also claiming my scripture grasp is better. Sorry about that. -Lon
Yet you have elevated a doctrine not found in scripture to the status of prime doctrine. That is illogical, especially if you are even close to sola scriptura.
“grasp of scripture” is not a contest. Furthermore, since it took pages for you to come to admit that Mark and Luke contradict each other, your grasp of scripture is colored bias of your presupposition.
I offer this comment from Wallace, which I think applies to many posting here:
What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2006/03/interview-with-dan-wallace.html
The slippery slope is making inerrancy a core doctrine.
And it is illogical to declare a core doctrine something that is not even mentioned in scripture.