Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Another Error
Another Error
Did Matthew misquote Jesus, or did Mark and Luke misquote Jesus?
Did Jesus tell the disciples to bring one animal or two?
Matthew 21:1 When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, just say this, "The Lord needs them.' And he will send them immediately. "
Mark 11:1 When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, "Why are you doing this?' just say this, "The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.' "
Luke 19:29 When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, 30 saying, "Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31 If anyone asks you, "Why are you untying it?' just say this, "The Lord needs it.' "
This error is unimportant and insignificant to the credibility of the gospel, but it does discredit the doctrine of inerrancy.
Either Jesus told them to bring two animals (as Matthew declares), or Jesus told them to bring one animal (as Mark and Luke declare).
Another Error
Did Matthew misquote Jesus, or did Mark and Luke misquote Jesus?
Did Jesus tell the disciples to bring one animal or two?
Matthew 21:1 When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, just say this, "The Lord needs them.' And he will send them immediately. "
Mark 11:1 When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, "Why are you doing this?' just say this, "The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.' "
Luke 19:29 When he had come near Bethphage and Bethany, at the place called the Mount of Olives, he sent two of the disciples, 30 saying, "Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here. 31 If anyone asks you, "Why are you untying it?' just say this, "The Lord needs it.' "
This error is unimportant and insignificant to the credibility of the gospel, but it does discredit the doctrine of inerrancy.
Either Jesus told them to bring two animals (as Matthew declares), or Jesus told them to bring one animal (as Mark and Luke declare).
glorydaz
Well-known member
I love the way we see the personalities of the writers come through, all the while trusting the veracity of the Scripture, itself.
Clearly, Matthew is talking about their taking nothing extra for an extended stay. This journey was different in that they would stay at people's houses. They didn't need to take extra coats or shoes or staffs. They wouldn't need to buy anything along the way or after they arrived.
Matthew 10:10
Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
If one doesn't put these verses all together, he can find something to challenge. We see the same thing with the crucifixion....and the resurrection. There is a reason the word of God is our food and drink. It's like the manna from heaven which needs to be eaten before the day is done. Day in and day out. How realistic would it be if all the writers repeated the same thing verbatim? Each man has his own style of writing....the things that are brought to his mind by the Spirit as he set pen to paper.
I find it disgusting when people come along and claim God is not able to keep that which He's committed for our LIFE and spiritual health. Keep up the good work, Lon. The battle is right here.
Lon
Well-known member
:doh: It isn't an error. In one, the 'colt' was what was needed for the prophecy SO the mother of the colt was not mentioned (brought, but not mentioned). You think THAT is an error!??? :doh: If you persist, I'll have no hope. As I said "I" can put out fires all day. Do you EVER read commentaries when you can't find answers? No? Just say "Ah, another scripture error" and move on? Look, the Brits do this all the time. You see the mess they are in. The only dying churches are these liberal ones. Sure, they are Protestant, but they are attacking their own book and allowing the authority of the Bible to be dismissed and watered down. Daniel Wallace says the same thing (but again doesn't agree that scripture is errant, he doesn't, but is inconsistent). He is wrong in this: if scriptures are wrong in a little place, then they are wrong in the bigger ones too. That is the UK error and why they lost congregations. They began having to explain EVERYTHING away, and it was easy BECAUSE they were already doing it in the little things. Jesus said he who is faithful the little things will be entrusted with bigger things, and those who were unfaithful in little things, even those would be taken away. The house churches in the UK are growing, slowly. The big compromising ones, are dying out. Wallace has a love for those liberals, and admits to it being the huge change in his life. He allowed his love for people to interfere and cloud clear thinking. We cannot 'emote' our way to God. That is 'why' I despised the liberal church: People were doing their own thing and neglecting the word of God. The REASON I knew God's word was authoritative, and every jot nor tittle would pass away, was because internally, and externally, deductively and inductively, God's word will not and cannot pass away. I expect someone who doesn't faithfully read his/her bible to have problems. If I were to write a requirement for all faculty at a Christian college it would be that they read their whole bible at the very least, once every two years. Every seminary that went liberal, Princeton, Yale, Harvard, went that way by compromising truth and dedication to God as necessary for employment and poor accountability to ensuring it.
Lon
Well-known member
The real crime: Neither of you are regularly reading the bible. A prediction, but either you are not reading it, or nothing is sinking in.
No. I never did. Do you understand why GloryDaz calls this a deception? Do you understand why 'your' conclusion is rejected? Nobody but you thinks this, E.E. Question: Do you REALLY think this, or is it just a lame debate employment? It doesn't work on me. Anybody else do you think? :nono: It doesn't work. You can keep it up, but you are just making it up in your own head. Do we want to deal in make-believe or realities? My grasp of scripture is sufficient. As I said, I settled this long ago. You have to live with what you settle for. Are you content trying to believe I think there is a discrepancy? Okay, there is, but only because the disciples were sent out many times and to many different places. I used to go out door-to-door EVERY weekend. One time, when it was sunny, I didn't bring a coat. Another time, I did. Do YOU think that I've conveyed a mistruth here? :think: Your conundrum and mine are entirely different. I deal with scriptures appropriately. What "I" can say is that we both have very different opinions. I can also say 'mine' are indeed informed by scripture. John 5:38,39
You CANNOT read these two verses and believe them if you don't believe in inerrancy. I'm sorry, you and Daniel Wallace are illogical and wrong. Flat out. No other way. You (and he by his own concern for family and admission) are compromising truth. You can't get beyond that when you begin questioning. Literally this: If you don't have scriptures to stand on, you literally have nothing to stand on in Christ. I appreciate the man that says "Jesus loves me" in simple faith, but that man should not be a teacher. He has given up study and learning for emoting in Christ. As I said fine, but he has compromised his ability to teach when he has nothing to stand on. I'd never be able to sit under a man that didn't believe Scriptures were infallible. EVERYTHING in his class would be opinions of men. He'd have nothing at all to stand on. I realize the Spirit guides us, but then we have no need of a teacher. That guy has nothing to offer me that I don't already have. Acts 17:11
It is part and parcel to scripture
lain: I disdain Wallace's comment and he'd have had trouble with me in class. I'd have questioned him on his every presupposition, AND one that was started by thinking his great uncle or such, a UK professor was going to hell. That said, and again, Wallace does believe in inerrancy. He doesn't believe it an essential doctrine. I came from a church where inerrancy wasn't essential. Those people are left to their own devices. "If" they know the Savior, it is hard to tell. The end result of this is the same accusation you pointed: Gnosticism because they have no 'scripture' to rely upon. it is a sad church. I had to leave the death and ruin behind. I'm sorry Wallace seeks to try to tie them in, rather than to reach them. Imho, he has compromised truth for it. I'd love to talk to him one day and 'straighten him out.' He doesn't seem to be that tangible and seems to complain a lot. A few have called for his resignation, just not those at Dallas. I would not take a class by him OR he'd wish I hadn't. I'd challenge him about every day and see if he truly believed what he has said: that he, himself needed to be less dogmatic. RomanWhat bible have you been reading??????? John 17:17 Matthew 4:4;5:18;10:19-20 Luke 4:4 Psalm 12:6 Proverbs 30:5,6 I'm convinced Bart Erdmann's problem wasn't inerrancy, it was that he stopped reading the bible and communing with his Savior. If it continues? Worse 1 John 2:19
I ask again, what BIBLE are you READING? Are you ACTUALLY reading it????
jsanford108
New member
Okay, Cobra, let us review.
Did I avoid the question? No. In fact, let us check, just to be sure. According to post 88 (yours)
My Response; Post 95: "I see the difference between many accounts. Not just the exact wording, but even the numbers of people present at given events." This is what is called "affirmation." So, my answer is that yes, there are contradictions in the numbers.
Your reply, Post 101:
My Response; Post 139: "The exact numbers/listing of "staffs" does contradict, however, the text contextually does not."
Again, My Response; Post 152: "I am not disagreeing that there are two different "numbers" of staffs being represented."
This makes three times I replied in the affirmative that the two verses list different numbers of staffs.
Notice, in your post, #140, you change the question slightly, asking which account is true. So, you altered the question. Then, you kept repeating your altered question, with the charge that I never answered. See the contradiction on your part? By altering the question, you changed it completely. So, I answered your first question, which was "is there a contradiction." But when you saw my response, you realized that your question was pointless, because contextual information was more important than a simple number representation. So then you changed the question around slightly, giving it a different meaning, then insisted that I had not answered.
But alas, let us move on. Which account is true (your new question)? I say both.
Now, you say that anyone who cares for the truth cares about the numbers of staffs. So which is it? How many staffs were the Apostles told to carry? Go ahead and answer your own question.
When you have time, go ahead and answer mine from post 157:
Yes, I believe what Christ said, taught, and did — to the extent we know what He said taught and did.
We don’t know many of the fine details.
We don’t know whether he said “don’t take a staff” or “do take a staff.”
We don’t know whether He told two disciples “bright two animals” or “bring one animal” for the triumphal entry.
Do you think you know those two things?
We don’t know whether Jesus cast the demons out of two demoniacs dwelling in the tombs (as told in Matthew) or one demoniac (as told in the other gospels).
I have my opinions about those minor errors in scripture.
These minor details have no affect on the overall message of God for mankind. They do mean we don’t have certainty on the details. They do eliminate the doctrine of inerrancy, unless it is loosened to say that the overall message is inerrant and there are errors in details.
You asked me how many staffs the Apostles carried. My question was not about what they carried. My question was about the words of Jesus. We can’t know with certainty what Jesus told them. I expect Luke is wrong and Mark is right. Luke wrote later, and at least one other story appears to have been embellished over time (before Luke did the investigation he describes in the first 4 verses of his gospel).
What do you say? Do you know with certainty what Jesus told them? Did he tell them not to take a staff or did He say they could take a staff?
There seem to be two positions here, let me know if you see it differently:
1) The inerrant, God-breathed Word of God misquoted Jesus in either Mark or Luke about the staffs and misquoted Jesus about the animals for the triumphal entry in either Matthew or Mark and Luke.
Or
2) Men of God were inspired to write the story of Jesus and they did an excellent but imperfect job. And God, as He always has done, has used the imperfect work of people for great good.
You wrote:
Which account is true (your new question)? I say both.
To claim it is true that Jesus told them “don’t take a staff” and it is true that Jesus told them “take a staff” can only be true if they were two separate journeys. I doubt you believe that, but you can cling to that if you like.
What about the triumphal entry? Are you claiming both versions are true there too?
We don’t know many of the fine details.
We don’t know whether he said “don’t take a staff” or “do take a staff.”
We don’t know whether He told two disciples “bright two animals” or “bring one animal” for the triumphal entry.
Do you think you know those two things?
We don’t know whether Jesus cast the demons out of two demoniacs dwelling in the tombs (as told in Matthew) or one demoniac (as told in the other gospels).
I have my opinions about those minor errors in scripture.
These minor details have no affect on the overall message of God for mankind. They do mean we don’t have certainty on the details. They do eliminate the doctrine of inerrancy, unless it is loosened to say that the overall message is inerrant and there are errors in details.
You asked me how many staffs the Apostles carried. My question was not about what they carried. My question was about the words of Jesus. We can’t know with certainty what Jesus told them. I expect Luke is wrong and Mark is right. Luke wrote later, and at least one other story appears to have been embellished over time (before Luke did the investigation he describes in the first 4 verses of his gospel).
What do you say? Do you know with certainty what Jesus told them? Did he tell them not to take a staff or did He say they could take a staff?
There seem to be two positions here, let me know if you see it differently:
1) The inerrant, God-breathed Word of God misquoted Jesus in either Mark or Luke about the staffs and misquoted Jesus about the animals for the triumphal entry in either Matthew or Mark and Luke.
Or
2) Men of God were inspired to write the story of Jesus and they did an excellent but imperfect job. And God, as He always has done, has used the imperfect work of people for great good.
You wrote:
Which account is true (your new question)? I say both.
To claim it is true that Jesus told them “don’t take a staff” and it is true that Jesus told them “take a staff” can only be true if they were two separate journeys. I doubt you believe that, but you can cling to that if you like.
What about the triumphal entry? Are you claiming both versions are true there too?
I failed to see how they contradict with each other. That's actually the nature of true human witnessing. Have you been to a court and listen how the different witnesses describe one same scenario?
The Bible is about how the various eye witnesses delivered their human testimonies upon the inspiration of God. They won't be broken in terms of accounts of human witnessing. However it by no means says that you can expect the different accounts of testimonies to be supernaturally not from humans.
jsanford108
New member
Let's start with this. How do you know what Christ said, taught, and did?
I don't know everything. I never claimed to. The difference between us is that I know with certainty where to place my faith and trust.
But these things matter, according to your post, 158. So, shouldn't we need to know?
See, how your first post contradicts this most recent one. You say, these things matter, but then say, "These minor details have no affect on the overall message of God for mankind." Which is it? Do they matter or not?
We will get to inerrant doctrine, once we follow down the path of believing what Christ said/taught/did. Trust me. That is my goal.
I agree. Your question was not about what they carried, just the specific number. Then, you changed it to which is better to believe. At least here, you say that you think Mark is correct in his numbering, and not Luke. Glad we can move on.
Wait, let us go back and review what you said: "These minor details have no affect on the overall message of God for mankind." So, why continue to ask about it?
How do you know there was just one journey?
I am not a hedon or heathen. The name is about the 7th moon being a sabbath day despite not being the 7th day of the week.
Last edited:
If you believe these are just the fallible testimony of honest people, then you can expect them to differ some.
If you believe the witnesses are speaking the inerrant, God-breathed Word of God, would you expect them to contradict each other?
You honestly don’t see how they contradict?
Person 1: He said “go get two animals and bring them to me.”
Person 2: He said “go get one animal and bring it to me.”
If you won’t see the contradiction, I certainly can’t compel you to.
No, that's not what I meant to say. It is the nature of human witnessing instead!
A 3 different eye witnesses saying respectively that an event happens in 8:30am, 8:35am and 8:40am. They all can be valid testimonies not because their testimonies are fallible, instead that's exactly the nature of what human witnessing is!
Another example, if 10 reporters are sent to a large scale war, with all of them reporting the same death toll of, say, 23763. What do you say, how possible that it is a false testimony instead?
I will put my comments in bold italics
We agree. The gospel accounts can differ and can have minor errors because fallible people wrote them.
The lack of redaction and the lack of “getting the story straight” only adds to the credibility of the gospels.
If someone claimed those three eyewitnesses presenting different time of the events on the witness stand were all speaking the inerrant, God-breathed Word of God and their stories contradict each other, that someone claiming God is speaking will have no credibility.
Lon
Well-known member
Nope. My position is that there is NO error. Discrepancy? Sure. There is a difference. The colt is the scriptural focus. The mother of the colt is NOT the focus in one telling. No error. Discrepancy resolved. If you are not accurate with words, could it be you equate 'discrepancy' with error??? Words are important.
Lon
Well-known member
Yes I did. I'm not sorry. I 'asked' a question. The EASY problem solving is simply to say 'yes' or 'no' not generally demand an apology. Interestingly, Cobra demanded the same thing :think: Do you 'see' why I might 'ask' if the account is the same? :think:
So you cannot admit that one or more of the gospels misquotes Jesus in recording this event?
Both quotes can’t be accurate. One is a misquote, an error.
I understand that you cannot admit the error without your man-made doctrine collapsing. What I don’t know is why your commitment to the man-made doctrine is greater than your commitment to truth among brothers.