Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[daqq]

It was many pages ago that those who embrace the doctrine of inerrancy gave up trying to reconcile the errors in the text.

And I think the points that needed to be made have been made.

So, if anyone wants to continue the discussion of inerrancy and actually discuss what the scriptures say, pm me and we can start a new thread.

Thanks for the discussion!

Oh, and for those of you who think God no longer does miracles, that error brings its own punishment.

I am reminded of Mark 6:
He left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 Then Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.” 5 And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. 6 And he was amazed at their unbelief.

You take offense at the Almighty God who is not what you expect, and you will not see the deeds of power that would be available if you only believed.

You are not yet in the generation where you will be able to see the (supernal) signs.
Mat 12:39-45, Mat 16:4, Mrk 8:11,12

 

[George Affleck]

Here is the passage from Matthew:
And as he sat at dinner in the house, many tax collectors and sinners came and were sitting with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?" 12 But when he heard this, he said, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 Go and learn what this means, "I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners." 14 Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, "Why do we and the Pharisees fast often, but your disciples do not fast?" 15 And Jesus said to them, "The wedding guests cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? The days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. 16 No one sews a piece of unshrunk cloth on an old cloak, for the patch pulls away from the cloak, and a worse tear is made. 17 Neither is new wine put into old wineskins; otherwise, the skins burst, and the wine is spilled, and the skins are destroyed; but new wine is put into fresh wineskins, and so both are preserved.” While he was saying these things to them, suddenly a leader of the synagogue came in and knelt before him, saying, ‘My daughter has just died; but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live.’ And Jesus got up and followed him, with his disciples… When Jesus came to the leader’s house and saw the flute-players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, ‘Go away; for the girl is not dead but sleeping.’ And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl got up. [Matthew 9:13-19, 23-25 (NRSV)]

Jesus wasn’t dealing with the throng in Matthew’s version, as you wrote.
In Matthew’s version, Jesus was still teaching and not already on his way to the house of Jairus when the Word came that the girl had died.
In Matthew’s version, the initial conversation between Jesus and Jairus described the girl as dead.

So your version contradicts Matthew.

You are not obligated to me to see it. You may consider that you have an obligation to truth.

No, if I viewed incompleteness as error I would be wrong.
Incompleteness is not what I pointed out.
I pointed out contradictions, mutually exclusive versions of the facts.

Jesus either left to heal the sick girl and it was learned on the journey that the girl had died OR Jesus left after hearing the girl was already dead. It can’t be both ways.

Cobra,


Thanks for not being deceitful like Zenn.


To answer your comments;


1. Jesus was dealing with a 'throng' this day as he always was. Matt 9:10KJV records many sitting and eating. During this episode His garment was touched by a woman and he asked who it was that touched Him. The disciples replied Mark 5:31KJV. This is the same woman, the same day, the same incident. Matthew omits mentioning the 'throng'. Does Matthew's omission mean that, if I am talking about Matthew's account, I cannot reference information supplied in the other accounts? I stand by my assertion that Jesus was dealing with crowds.


2. Jesus can be teaching and on his way to Jairus' house at the same time. This is not as impossible as you suggest. It is more natural, however, to assume that Jesus had not formally concluded His time of teaching when Jairus arrived where Jesus was. This does not mean, however, that he immediately ran up to Jesus and interrupted Him. He could easily have had to talk to the disciples first and/or wait his turn. The details that Matthew is giving is not exhaustive; they do not necessarily have to follow immediately one upon another. They can (and often are with Matthew) be highlights considered important only to him.


You are basing your view of these proceedings according to a wooden, inflexible interpretive rule that you suppose is reasonable. It is not. There is more than one possible solution to harmonizing this account. I have alluded to one or two. Some even say that Matthew's account is not Jairus at all; and there is much to support that. There are likely others I am not aware of.

3. Matthew's version does not necessarily describe the girl as being dead. Please see my reply to Zenn at post 2326.

My defense is to show reasonable doubt about your allegation that the gospels cannot be harmonized on the issue of Jairus' daughter. If you are honest with yourself you will admit that I have done that.

Blessings,
George

 

[Lon]

It was many pages ago that those who embrace the doctrine of inerrancy gave up trying to reconcile the errors in the text.

"And now its time for Cobra's editorial, the part of the thread where Cobra comes out and makes a silly song..."

And I think the points that needed to be made have been made.

"...the part of the thread, where Cobra thinks something he has done 'was needed...'" :nono:

So, if anyone wants to continue the discussion of inerrancy and actually discuss what the scriptures say, pm me and we can start a new thread.

"...the part of the thread where Cobra takes his ball where no one will play by his made-up rules, and goes home..."

Thanks for the discussion!

"...the part of the thread where Cobra tries to finally play nice, but it is probably too late..."

Oh, and for those of you who think God no longer does miracles, that error brings its own punishment.

"...the part of the thread where Cobra shows he cannot listen carefully nor hear what people are ACTUALLY saying, but rather, that what his itching ears (demonstrably in thread) want to hear..." 2 Timothy 4:3? :think:

I am reminded of Mark 6:
He left that place and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. 2 On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, “Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! 3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?” And they took offense at him. 4 Then Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.” 5 And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. 6 And he was amazed at their unbelief.

"...the part of the thread, where Cobra finally has scripture come to mind but ONLY over what the voices are telling him in his head, NOT what was said in the thread..." :doh:

You take offense at the Almighty God who is not what you expect, and you will not see the deeds of power that would be available if you only believed.

"...the part of the thread where Cobra says he is not charismatic, but believes everything a charismatic believes..."

 

[Lon]

Cobra,

My defense is to show reasonable doubt about your allegation that the gospels cannot be harmonized on the issue of Jairus' daughter. If you are honest with yourself you will [have to] admit that I have done that.

Blessings,
George

:BRAVO: ( Emphasis mine) :up:

 

[Zenn]

Don't shoot down his friendship so quickly, he's come to your defense a few times and clearly over his care (and perhaps agreement as well) for you.

Show one post where I put friendship over truth.

And I'll show you one post where I called Cobra's discrepancy in Hebrews a potential translation error.

Zenn

PS: And with regards to your numerous emotional fits about the "rules" you might want to look up the word pedantry.

 

[Zenn]

Again, you misread what I said.

I cannot help it if you cannot say what you mean. I can only deal with the words you actually write. Please tell me you understand this to be true.

I did not say that experience comes before the scripture or even that experience comes before understanding the scripture: I only spoke of certain things,...

daqq, be honest. (And read the quotes.) You NEVER used the word certain. You most certainly did Not speak of "certain things...".

The things I know from the scripture I know from having first experienced them myself: and only then did the Master show them to me in the Word, (otherwise I would never have understood them).

1) You said "The things I know from the scripture...". You did Not write... "CERTAIN things I know..." did you. :AMR: So don't be accusing me of misreading what you wrote, for that's exactly what you wrote. You wrote about "the things (you) know from scripture." And even if you think the word "certain" to be self-evident (as if I'm supposed to add in words to what you write), you are still presenting a situation where experience came before these "certain things" or you "would never have understood them". (Though I will admit curiosity as to what this experience was. Start a new thread to describe them, and let me know. I will read it.)

2) You directly said "having first experienced them..." 'First' actually MEANS 'come before'. Read your post again. Read what you actually wrote, instead of what you think you meant. (Go ahead, I'll wait.)

3) "and ONLY THEN" were you shown them in the Word (by which you mean BIBLE) "otherwise (you) would never have understood them". Since American English has all but eliminated the use of the formal 'one', it would seem I must ask... Is this YOU? Are you saying that only daqq "would never have understood them" or are you speaking of believers in general, that "otherwise one would never have understood them"?

You clearly and directly stated that if not for such experience you would not have understood. So I'm not misreading what you write, and if you meant something else than what you did write, you should admit this.

... therefore essentially call God a liar because you do not understand His Word.

I quite understand that 'Word' does not mean 'Bible'. And God understands this too. Nobody in their right mind when reading these texts ~2000 years ago would replace 'Word' with 'Bible'. The words 'Rhema' and 'Logos' are written in the New Testament to mean the Word of God, not 'Biblos'. The only Bibles the New Testament speaks about are:

1) The Bible of the genealogy of Jesus (Mat 1:1)
2) The Bible of Moses (Mar 12:26)
3) The Bible of Esaias (Luk 3:4)
4) The Bible of Psalms (Luk 20:42; Act 1:20)
5) The Bible of the prophets (Act 7:42)
6) The Bible of Life (Php 4:3; Rev 3:5; Rev 13:8; Rev 20:15; Rev 22:19)

And that's it. The New Testament NEVER refers to itself as a Bible. I would REALLY encourage you to use the New Testament's vocabulary in the correct manner.

Moreover I was a believer for nearly thirty years before I even began to understand things the way I do now.

And one would hope it doesn't take another thirty years before you begin to explain them well.

I may respond to the rest later, if I can, or maybe not,

Don't worry, I know you won't because you have no answer.

(it isn't worth arguing about spiritual things with someone who does not even believe at least all of the "canonical" scripture).

Why should anyone believe the canon that the Catholic Bishops put together back in the 300's AD if they are not Catholic? (And I KNOW you have no response for that.)

Zenn

 

[daqq]

I cannot help it if you cannot say what you mean. I can only deal with the words you actually write. Please tell me you understand this to be true.

daqq, be honest. (And read the quotes.) You NEVER used the word certain. You most certainly did Not speak of "certain things...".



1) You said "The things I know from the scripture...". You did Not write... "CERTAIN things I know..." did you. :AMR: So don't be accusing me of misreading what you wrote, for that's exactly what you wrote. You wrote about "the things (you) know from scripture." And even if you think the word "certain" to be self-evident (as if I'm supposed to add in words to what you write), you are still presenting a situation where experience came before these "certain things" or you "would never have understood them". (Though I will admit curiosity as to what this experience was. Start a new thread to describe them, and let me know. I will read it.)

2) You directly said "having first experienced them..." 'First' actually MEANS 'come before'. Read your post again. Read what you actually wrote, instead of what you think you meant. (Go ahead, I'll wait.)

3) "and ONLY THEN" were you shown them in the Word (by which you mean BIBLE) "otherwise (you) would never have understood them". Since American English has all but eliminated the use of the formal 'one', it would seem I must ask... Is this YOU? Are you saying that only daqq "would never have understood them" or are you speaking of believers in general, that "otherwise one would never have understood them"?

You clearly and directly stated that if not for such experience you would not have understood. So I'm not misreading what you write, and if you meant something else than what you did write, you should admit this.

I quite understand that 'Word' does not mean 'Bible'. And God understands this too. Nobody in their right mind when reading these texts ~2000 years ago would replace 'Word' with 'Bible'. The words 'Rhema' and 'Logos' are written in the New Testament to mean the Word of God, not 'Biblos'. The only Bibles the New Testament speaks about are:

1) The Bible of the genealogy of Jesus (Mat 1:1)
2) The Bible of Moses (Mar 12:26)
3) The Bible of Esaias (Luk 3:4)
4) The Bible of Psalms (Luk 20:42; Act 1:20)
5) The Bible of the prophets (Act 7:42)
6) The Bible of Life (Php 4:3; Rev 3:5; Rev 13:8; Rev 20:15; Rev 22:19)

And that's it. The New Testament NEVER refers to itself as a Bible. I would REALLY encourage you to use the New Testament's vocabulary in the correct manner.

And one would hope it doesn't take another thirty years before you begin to explain them well.

Don't worry, I know you won't because you have no answer.

Why should anyone believe the canon that the Catholic Bishops put together back in the 300's AD if they are not Catholic? (And I KNOW you have no response for that.)

Zenn

I already explained myself and what I meant after having made the first statement. I did not mean it the way you took it. Overcome it, (that is, get over it, in daqq-enese, lol). As for your Catholics and the Bible statement AMR already gave an answer to that question long ago. I do not think you were yet here in this thread, (neither yet was I but I went back and read some of the early pages), so I will go see if I can dig it up and put a link at the bottom of this post.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Zenn
Why should anyone believe the canon that the Catholic Bishops put together back in the 300's AD if they are not Catholic? (And I KNOW you have no response for that.)

See AMR's Reply#91

 

[daqq]

I cannot help it if you cannot say what you mean. I can only deal with the words you actually write. Please tell me you understand this to be true.

daqq, be honest. (And read the quotes.) You NEVER used the word certain. You most certainly did Not speak of "certain things...".

1) You said "The things I know from the scripture...". You did Not write... "CERTAIN things I know..." did you. :AMR: So don't be accusing me of misreading what you wrote, for that's exactly what you wrote. You wrote about "the things (you) know from scripture." And even if you think the word "certain" to be self-evident (as if I'm supposed to add in words to what you write), you are still presenting a situation where experience came before these "certain things" or you "would never have understood them". (Though I will admit curiosity as to what this experience was. Start a new thread to describe them, and let me know. I will read it.)

2) You directly said "having first experienced them..." 'First' actually MEANS 'come before'. Read your post again. Read what you actually wrote, instead of what you think you meant. (Go ahead, I'll wait.)

3) "and ONLY THEN" were you shown them in the Word (by which you mean BIBLE) "otherwise (you) would never have understood them". Since American English has all but eliminated the use of the formal 'one', it would seem I must ask... Is this YOU? Are you saying that only daqq "would never have understood them" or are you speaking of believers in general, that "otherwise one would never have understood them"?

You clearly and directly stated that if not for such experience you would not have understood. So I'm not misreading what you write, and if you meant something else than what you did write, you should admit this.

Here is a single example from a single catastrophic event:

2 Corinthians 5:8-11 KJV
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.^(2Cor12:2-5)
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.

Indeed, the KJV has it right, terror is the correct understanding of φοβος in this statement: and this I know, (but for nearly thirty years I knew not, though I had read this passage many times and wondered over it).

Some of the passages now understood because of a single event in my walk:
Gen 15:12, Dan 10:7-9, John 8:56, Acts 2:15-21, Acts 9:3-7, 2Cor 12:2-5, Heb 12:6-8.

And I myself had nothing to do with it: the glory is to the Father and His Son.
And I do not care whether or not anyone believes me.

 

[Zenn]

Worse? I was reported for nothing I actually did NOR had in mind :noway: On top of that? I don't believe that word is a cuss word :noway:

I'VE BEEN REPORTED FOR MENTIONING PASSING GAS!!! Which I didn't even do!!! :doh: Good news? I'm beginning to empathize a bit with Trump. :noway: I CAN'T make this stuff up!

Hey, I know what you mean. I was reported for using the word bee-you-tee-tee instead of 'behind' and I certainly didn't think that was a cuss word.

Go figure.

Zenn

PS: BTW the Monty Python and the Holy Grail reference wasn't all that obtuse. Given the irreverence of Monty Python perhaps ... ah, who knows.

 

[daqq]

Hey, I know what you mean. I was reported for using the word bee-you-tee-tee instead of 'behind' and I certainly didn't think that was a cuss word.

Go figure.

Zenn

PS: BTW the Monty Python and the Holy Grail reference wasn't all that obtuse. Given the irreverence of Monty Python perhaps ... ah, who knows.

Lol, if it was not you, and it was not Cobra, then it is pretty clear who it was.
Vengeance is Mine, says the Most High, (dear Watcher, lol).

 

[Zenn]

It's actually kind of you to suggest he might not be very smart, because the fact is his spirit is evil.

As you said, evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Zenn

PS: I'm beginning to see why Town Heretic has you on ignore.

PPS: If you keep calling the Bible 'God's Word' you will Never understand what the Bible actually means about 'God's Word' (Both of them). Nor will all your little thank you cronies. You have destroyed the meaning of God's Word (both of them) by changing the definition to 'Bible'. I bet you can't make 10 posts without using the phrase "God's Word" when you mean Bible. Then again, allow me to rephrase. I bet you can't make 10 consecutive posts where you say "Bible" when you mean "Bible".

 

[Zenn]

Just about everyone can tell you, say within 15 points what my IQ is.

Uh... 110, 112?

(Now I'm curious.)
.

 

[Zenn]

Truth be told, if you really knew my position, you would have a field day with what I know to be true about the Memra-Logos-Word.

daqq, a simple serious question. Do you consider the Targums to be scripture?

Zenn

Both you and Zenn ... like to say that you believe it was not Matthew himself but "some disciples of his" who wrote the Matthew account ...

I never said this. You are now lying, and you should correct this mistake if you have any honor.

 

[daqq]

I never said this. You are now lying, and you should correct this mistake if you have any honor.

You have not said that too? If not then I do apologize, but I do know that Cobra has been saying it, and keeps repeating it. However your accusation of lying is false; I certainly was not lying, which concerns the intentional misrepresentation of what someone else has said, which you and Cobra have continually practiced in this thread for all to see. By saying that I am lying you are judging intent of the heart: I did not intentionally try to misrepresent what you have said, it was simply erroneous for having made an incorrect assumption.

 

[daqq]

daqq, a simple serious question. Do you consider the Targums to be scripture?

It is not a simple question because it depends on your meaning of "scripture", which I think you say, simply means "writings", correct? If I answer no, because most here have a different meaning for "scripture" than you do, most here will agree but you will likely turn it on me by saying that scripture just means writings. If I answer yes, according to your meaning of scripture which is simply writings, most here will disagree because they have a different view of the meaning of the word "scripture" than you do. Define your terms: do you mean to ask me, "Do you consider the Targums to be writings?", or do you mean to ask me, "Do you consider the Targums to be holy writ?" The answer to the first is yes, they are writings. The answer to the second is no, they are not holy writ.

 

[daqq]

Originally Posted by daqq
Memra-Logos-Word.

daqq, a simple serious question. Do you consider the Targums to be scripture?

It is not a simple question because it depends on your meaning of "scripture", which I think you say, simply means "writings", correct? If I answer no, because most here have a different meaning for "scripture" than you do, most here will agree but you will likely turn it on me by saying that scripture just means writings. If I answer yes, according to your meaning of scripture which is simply writings, most here will disagree because they have a different view of the meaning of the word "scripture" than you do. Define your terms: do you mean to ask me, "Do you consider the Targums to be writings?", or do you mean to ask me, "Do you consider the Targums to be holy writ?" The answer to the first is yes, they are writings. The answer to the second is no, they are not holy writ.

Daniel 4:13-17
13 I saw in the visions of my head upon my bed, and behold, a Watcher and an holy One descended from the heavens:
14 He cried aloud, and said thus, Hew down the tree, and cut off his branches, shake off his leaves, and scatter his fruit: let the beasts get away from beneath it, and the fowls from his branches:
15 Nevertheless leave the stump of his roots in the earth, even with a band of iron and brass in the tender grass of the field; and let it be wet with the dew of heaven,^{(Esau-man, Gen27:39)} and let his portion be with the beasts in the grass of the earth:
16 Let his heart be changed from that of a man, and let the heart of a beast be given unto him,^(Dan7:4) and let seven times-strokes pass upon him.^{(Lev16:14-17, Rev15:1-8)}
17 This sentence is by the decree of the ^{(seven holy)}Watchers, and the mandate by the Memra of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the Most High rules in the dominion of men, and gives it to whomsoever He will, and sets up over it the humblest of men.

 

[Zenn]

I did offer up some of the more important aspects, (imho), which were again ignored, and those points were, for one, the word amphodon in the Mark passage, (αμφοδον, Mark 11:4, which can either mean "the parting of two ways", or "the place where two ways meet", or even "the circle of the meeting of the ways", [like a city-center or town square]).

The two of you have no clue ...

Well at least I know how to use a dictionary.

αμφοδον just means 'street' (LINK). and is used only once in the New Testament and twice in the LXX.

Are you really suggesting that אַרְמוֹן means street and not palace? :AMR:

Regardless, though, what does this have anything to do with the fact that there was only one colt? Okay, the colt was tied up at the street, and not kept in the garage, but how does this explain anything with regards to Matthew's two animals?

I get it. You're upset this was ignored because you believe it to be one "of the more important aspects, (imho)". And yet, it's really just irrelevant. To be honest, though, if you didn't direct your 'aspect' to me, I probably didn't read it.

BUT. I am curious where you got the alternate definition "the circle of the meeting of the ways" from.

Zenn

 

[daqq]

BUT. I am curious where you got the alternate definition "the circle of the meeting of the ways" from.

Zenn

Cannot be explained at this point as it may in that sense pertain to the land of Chavilah, (Edenic typology of the heart from the very beginning, the land wherein is the good gold, and the bdolach-manna-word, and the shoham-stones of the ephod-breastplate of the Kohanim which is worn upon the heart, which typology and symbolism would first need to be expounded and then also believed by the hearer in order to proceed, lol).

G297 ἀμφότερος amphoteros (am-fo'-te-ros) adj.
(in plural) both.
[comparative of amphi “around”]

PS ~ Think in terms of words like amphitheater and "Amphipolis", (Acts 17:1).

 

[Zenn]

Here is one of my positions illustrating your and Zenn's dilemma:

Psalm 12:6-7
6 The oracles of YHWH are pure oracles: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 You shall keep them, O YHWH, You shall preserve them from this generation unto olam.

Psalm 12:6-7
6 The oracles of YHWH are pure oracles: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 You shall keep them, O YHWH, You shall preserve us from this generation unto olam.

Psalm 12:6-7
6 The oracles of YHWH are pure oracles: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 You shall keep us, O YHWH, You shall preserve us from this generation unto olam.

Psalm 12:6-7
6 The words of YHWH are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 You shall keep them, O YHWH, You shall preserve them from this generation unto olam.

Psalm 12:6-7
6 The words of YHWH are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 You shall keep them, O YHWH, You shall preserve us from this generation unto olam.

Psalm 12:6-7
6 The words of YHWH are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 You shall keep us, O YHWH, You shall preserve us from this generation unto olam.

Well daqq, I guess if one repeats it to oneself enough times one will get the impression one understands it. However....

One of the problems I find most people have is "Invisible Words". You repeated Psalm 12:6-7 SIX times, and I bet that each and every time, the invisible words up inside your head were saying...

"The Bible of YHWH is pure..."

Zenn

PS: I posted this before reading Cobra's reply. Interesting.

 

[Zenn]

Whenever you submit your work for review, your teacher gives you a grade based on what you've done. There is no way this is A material.

You a teacher?

Don't quit your real day job.

Zenn

(So was that an 'A' for a slam? I'm not too good at these things like you.)