Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[daqq]

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.

Apparently you posted it also before reading my reply to his reply:

Obfuscate much? Lol, there are at least seven different ways to understand Psalm 12:6-7, and that is according to the grammar in the original text: and all of those ways are true in the manner in which each one may be read, and therefore all seven ways are acceptable. Moreover that is precisely what the surface text says in the overall context: the oracles(sayings) and words of the LORD are seven-times purified or tried, (do not bother asking me about the seventh because it is like unto a pearl of great price, and it would take too much to explain it here, and you are not prepared to accept it anyways). And that is the same problem you have with the Matthew statement and many other passages: for you imagine that your understanding of the sayings and words that are written is the only way to translate and understand them. There is not just only one way to hear the Word, for there are seven Spirits before the throne: and when the Son of Elohim speaks there be seven thunders who utter their voices. :chuckle:

 

[Zenn]

And this is correct. I have no faith in a book

No cult ever did.

Lon, purposefully cutting my post to make it mean something else is just plain perverted. I had thought you to be more honorable. I stand corrected. I now know your character and will likely just place you on ignore. (I doubt you have the wherewithal to apologize.)

And this is correct. I have no faith in a book whose contents was selected by Catholic Bishops (and a particular Catholic Bishop) back in 367 AD.

That said, there are many cults who place their faith in a book. Tell me you don't think the Mormons are a cult. They place great faith in their Book of Mormon. Tell me you don't think the JW's are a cult. They place great faith in their book called the Bible. And you've probably never heard of the Urantia book. Their cult has great faith in a book.

Baby/bathwater. Not ALL bishops were corrupt and to simply 'bin' bad with good is not a thinking proposition.

I said absolutely nothing about any Bishops being corrupt or not. You may wish to avoid Strawman fallacies. People with good grades don't do this.

The Catholic Church, which selected the contents of the New Testament, taught a soteriology that you disagree with. Why is your God more interested in publishing a book with the correct contents than he is in having souls actually saved? For God to ensure that these Catholics Bishops selected the correct books for you to worship (i.e. adore, venerate, cherish, whatever) while allowing these very same Bishops to wrongly teach people how to be truly saved, thereby letting people actually go to hell instead, is just ... malicious. You have a truly evil God if you believe this.

Next? We DON'T have the same bible :noway:
You don't seem to know much about the Reformation :think:

Well... since it would seem that you think you do, off the top of your head, how many books were in Martin Luther's Bible?

Zenn

PS: Bonus question. How many are in yours?

PPS: Triple bonus question. How many were in the 1611 KJV Bible?

PPPS: The Daily Double: What years were books removed from the KJV Bible?

PPPPS: I had better expectations of TOL. In the other forum in which I participated, cutting off a quote that resulted in changing its meaning would get you a three day ban. And that forum was run by an agnostic.

 

[glorydaz]

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

Why don't you show me where I said that..... :think:

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

I'm sure. He doesn't like a woman correcting him, either.

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".

I have no problem knowing that God's word is found in the Bible. You're the one who thinks it rolls trippingly off the tongues of men.

I would hope I don't go too long without talking about God's word.

It is my daily bread, and a part of the Armour of God. I don't go anywhere without it.

 

[Lon]

Since you are going to put me on ignore, you might want to just skip this one :e4e:

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.

:chuckle: Already know the word. Look in the mirror too!

Spoiler

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.)

Shoot, you just messed up your own assessment of me. :doh: (I thought you said you always win these things :nono: You aren't good at it, you are correct about that. I never believed you won everytime you challenged your teachers. Look at your record with me :yawn: (sorry, pedantry is correct, I'm a bit proud of my accomplishments "Teacher" is one antiquated definition of pedantry

Welcome to the boorish club. Yeah, you aren't THAT smart kid. After that? Proverbs 18:24 It was no bad thing to be accused of lain:

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.

Er, if you got an infraction for it, trying to skirt the rules AGAIN isn't a wise idea. See what I did? If you are intelligent, you have a vocabulary that can describe the situation where there is no doubt without ANOTHER infraction of the rules :doh: Keep working on it kid. You'll get there.

 

[Lon]

Uh... 110, 112?

(Now I'm curious.)
.

You haven't been here long enough.

 

[Lon]

Lon, purposefully cutting my post to make it mean something else is just plain perverted. I had thought you to be more honorable. I stand corrected. I now know your character and will likely just place you on ignore. (I doubt you have the wherewithal to apologize.)

The 'selection' of the book (rest of the quote) has NO bearing on what you've said. You have NO faith in it. It IS the contrast for thread.

That said, there are many cults who place their faith in a book. Tell me you don't think the Mormons are a cult. They place great faith in their Book of Mormon. Tell me you don't think the JW's are a cult. They place great faith in their book called the Bible. And you've probably never heard of the Urantia book. Their cult has great faith in a book.

:doh: Faith in the "B-I-B-L-E." Mormons? Barely know it. JW's? Rewrote their own. A rejection of this book is the mark of a cult. Adherence to another after that? Of course. Try to think a bit more. If you are anywhere near as intelligent as you claim, spend a bit more time 'thinking' and using what God has given you.

I said absolutely nothing about any Bishops being corrupt or not. You may wish to avoid Strawman fallacies. People with good grades don't do this.

:think:

selected by Catholic Bishops (and a particular Catholic Bishop) back in 367 AD.

Why do you? Why do you, gldz, have faith in Catholic Bishops?

That always puzzles me.

Zenn

:noway: and then:

The Catholic Church, which selected the contents of the New Testament, taught a soteriology that you disagree with. Why is your God more interested in publishing a book with the correct contents than he is in having souls actually saved? For God to ensure that these Catholics Bishops selected the correct books for you to worship (i.e. adore, venerate, cherish, whatever) while allowing these very same Bishops to wrongly teach people how to be truly saved, thereby letting people actually go to hell instead, is just ... malicious. You have a truly evil God if you believe this.

No, I'm not evil. You'd have to prove such. I'm not Catholic, but YOU just said If "I were" to this degree, "I'd" be evil. :noway:
Now, wouldn't you say "whatever is evil, is corrupt?" Lets revisit that 'perverted' marginalization first sentence of yours :think:

PPPPS: I had better expectations of TOL. In the other forum in which I participated, cutting off a quote that resulted in changing its meaning would get you a three day ban. And that forum was run by an agnostic.

I notice you've been itching to try and get me some sort of infraction for some reason. This one? :nono: (not the other one either). You'll have to 'learn' the rules here before you can play by them. This ISN'T that other forum. Simply looking for a clone? This ain't it. :e4e:

 

[glorydaz]

The 'selection' of the book (rest of the quote) has NO bearing on what you've said. You have NO faith in it. It IS the contrast for thread.


:doh: Faith in the "B-I-B-L-E." Mormons? Barely know it. JW's? Rewrote their own. A rejection of this book is the mark of a cult. Adherence to another after that? Of course. Try to think a bit more. If you are anywhere near as intelligent as you claim, spend a bit more time 'thinking' and using what God has given you.

:think:

:noway: and then:


No, I'm not evil. You'd have to prove such. I'm not Catholic, but YOU just said If "I were" to this degree, "I'd" be evil. :noway:
Now, wouldn't you say "whatever is evil, is corrupt?" Lets revisit that 'perverted' marginalization first sentence of yours :think:


I notice you've been itching to try and get me some sort of infraction for some reason. This one? :nono: (not the other one either). You'll have to 'learn' the rules here before you can play by them. This ISN'T that other forum. Simply looking for a clone? This ain't it. :e4e:

:first:

 

[daqq]

The 'selection' of the book (rest of the quote) has NO bearing on what you've said. You have NO faith in it. It IS the contrast for thread.


:doh: Faith in the "B-I-B-L-E." Mormons? Barely know it. JW's? Rewrote their own. A rejection of this book is the mark of a cult. Adherence to another after that? Of course. Try to think a bit more. If you are anywhere near as intelligent as you claim, spend a bit more time 'thinking' and using what God has given you.

:think:

:noway: and then:


No, I'm not evil. You'd have to prove such. I'm not Catholic, but YOU just said If "I were" to this degree, "I'd" be evil. :noway:
Now, wouldn't you say "whatever is evil, is corrupt?" Lets revisit that 'perverted' marginalization first sentence of yours :think:


I notice you've been itching to try and get me some sort of infraction for some reason. This one? :nono: (not the other one either). You'll have to 'learn' the rules here before you can play by them. This ISN'T that other forum. Simply looking for a clone? This ain't it. :e4e:

Lol, that's some fancy footwork, eh? Those Catholic Bishops were not, ehem, corrupt, but just teaching people the wrong way to be saved, and allowing people to go to hell, and moreover they were also, ehem, malicious, (but of course he did not actually say corrupt, lol).

 

[Zenn]

So you will recognize that αρτι ετελευτησεν is not as cut and dried as you falsely make it out to be,

Falsely? :AMR:

George, we are not discussing whether the meaning of the passages are similar or not. Their similarities have nothing to do with the Doctrine of Inerrancy. Inerrant doesn't mean "close enough" like in horse shoes, and yet that's what your authorities are saying.

#1)

...there is not nearly so much difference....(Craig Blomberg, vol. 22, The New American Commentary, 160.

You do realize that this source confirms that there IS a difference, even if it's "not nearly so much". Both Matthew and Mark are presenting factual accounts of an event, but each has Jairus saying different words. So which did he say? Matthew’s arti eteleutēsen? Or eschatos echei in Mark 5:23...? YOU don't know, and you can't say. In addition, Mr. Blomberg shows a lack of translation skill. His assertion "just came to the point of death" has the adverb αρτι describing the quality of the daughter's medical condition, whereas αρτι is an adverb meant to describe TIME. I gave you the link to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for αρτι (LINK). Did you even read it? The second word into the entry is EXACTLY, not 'almost' or 'near' or 'to the point of'. The point was crossed into. ετελευτησεν is in the Aorist Active Indicative to mean it happened. The Subjunctive mood would need to be written in order to indicate it might have happened (but he doesn't know). In addition, the phrase "to the point of death" changes the verb DIED into a noun, 'death'. Don't mess with the actual words of scripture to change their intent. (What is astonishing is that you don't seem to realize you are doing this... changing the words. Please let me know you see that Blomberg changed the verb into a noun.)

#2)

When the father left the child, she was at her last gasp; and he knew not whether to regard her now as dead or alive;... (R.C. Trench, 1949, pp. 107-108).

This is speculative commentary, it is not scripture. And the fact that one needs to resort to such speculation shows that a discrepancy actually exists which someone felt the need to address. An inerrant text would not have discrepancies, would it?

That's a very serious question. In your view, would an inerrant text have discrepancies?

#3)
Now your third quote is a bit puzzling, in that your citation is "Barnes, 1997" and yet Barnes (i.e. Albert Barnes) died in 1870. So... your citation fails. Not knowing which "Barnes" is referenced makes it difficult to know whether his translations skills are adequate. It would seem not. For your third quote to provide any substantive refutation, it would need to show that αρτι is used in the corpus as a "fluid descriptor". And yet as the link to the Liddell Scott shows (please go read it) the adverb αρτι is an exact modifier. It isn't fuzzy.

Adam Clarke mentions in his commentary on Matthew that it could be translated, “my daughter was just now dying”

No it can't. It can't be translated "just now dying" because as mentioned above, The verb ετελευτησεν was written with an aorist active indicative conjugation, and is not a participle. The verb just cannot be translated with an '-ing' ending. Whoever Clarke is, he should be seriously ashamed at this assertion and should take some refresher courses in basic translation. This is just more noise in the wind to try and convince people to change the words from what is exactly written.

This goes very well with ...

George, we're not selecting wine to go with fish. BUT. I did notice that the NKJV doesn't go very well with the KJV. Let's take a look at the two versions.

KJV 1900

While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.

NKJV

While He spoke these things to them, behold, a ruler came and worshiped Him, saying, “My daughter has just died, but come and lay Your hand on her and she will live.”

Yes, the KJV 1900 reads, "My daughter is even now dead". But it doesn't mean, "My daughter is BY now dead." This is likely why the NKJV chose a different rendering, "My daughter has just died." One cannot be more clear than this. His daughter just died.

Of course he said both!

Well, I guess we have Schrodinger's Jairus here. None of the gospel accounts have Jairus blabbering incoherently. YOU'RE MAKING THIS UP. And in the words of Lon, STOP IT.

The most natural explanation is this:
Jairus, having left his daughter near death's door, came and found Jesus and told Him that his daughter was sick, that when he left her she was near death, and by this time is "even now dead" (KJV).

Again, you're making this up. How can you not see that you are writing up your own gospel account here? Sure, I'll stick to my mantra... YOU are changing the words and cobbling together separate accounts to make up your own Bible version. You are changing the words (not to mention adding a crapload to the narrative) to fit your belief.

Shame on you.

A purile (sic) mind hopes that all words, in any language, have only one strict meaning. If I may ask, please tell me if this same word, used in these verses must reference "an actual instance in time" or a somewhat less strict period of time:

You know darn well, George, that NOW means now. αρτι is used in the New Testament 36 times, and the aktionsart clearly means... exactly then... "now". How do the verses you reference Not mean now? When your mom said, "Wash your hands now," she meant NOW, not when you're done watching cartoons.

Someone whose faith is based on a god who makes mistakes already has a fairy tale.

He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now (αρτι). (1Jn 2:9 KJV)

I never said God makes mistakes. But the people who wrote the New Testament texts did.

Zenn

PS: I'll help you out here. The accounts of Jairus in Matthew and Mark were never meant to convey a specific quotation but were in essence paraphrased narratives to begin with. And these were known to be paraphrased narratives because Koine Greek made no provision for quotation marks. If their accounts are similar enough, then no discrepancy of fact can be imputed.

Now (and yes, exactly now) the only question is does the above satisfy the Doctrine of Inerrancy (for this instance) as is understood and preached today. Unfortunately I think you have created your own "Doctrine of Inerrant Meaning" like you have created your own gospel account and have substituted this for the Doctrine of Inerrancy.

PPS: Why do you feel the need to use insults like 'puerile'? Makes you feel all high and mighty? (And please if you are going to use such a word, at least spell it correctly.)

 

[George Affleck]

(And please if you are going to use such a word, at least spell it correctly.)

You mean like horse shoes?

 

[Lon]

I start off a little strong, but I actually enjoyed a bit of this. Strong because I think you can posture a little less with George AND you, yourself, would/will enjoy the conversation if you do so. Just an idea.

Falsely? :AMR:

George, we are not discussing whether the meaning of the passages are similar or not.

George is.

Their similarities have nothing to do with the Doctrine of Inerrancy. Inerrant doesn't mean "close enough" like in horse shoes, and yet that's what your authorities are saying.

:think: He is saying 'if' you can reconcile, then you CANNOT insist on error. It is that simple. In some ways, do you just like the argument? * You basically undo all your arguments at the end here with suggesting direct and indirect quotes. See, this is why I think you are just friends with Cobra when you capitulate with us. Is it just a devil's advocate sort of thing that interests you? I know you are saying truth is more important, but I'm having a bit of a hard time reconciling that. * If it were me, I'd have just posted your last comment. I know I'm not you, just trying to figure out how you tick. :think:

#1)
You do realize that this source confirms that there IS a difference, even if it's "not nearly so much". Both Matthew and Mark are presenting factual accounts of an event, but each has Jairus saying different words. So which did he say? Matthew’s arti eteleutēsen? Or eschatos echei in Mark 5:23...? YOU don't know, and you can't say. In addition, Mr. Blomberg shows a lack of translation skill. His assertion "just came to the point of death" has the adverb αρτι describing the quality of the daughter's medical condition, whereas αρτι is an adverb meant to describe TIME. I gave you the link to the Liddell Scott Lexicon for αρτι (LINK). Did you even read it? The second word into the entry is EXACTLY, not 'almost' or 'near' or 'to the point of'. The point was crossed into. ετελευτησεν is in the Aorist Active Indicative to mean it happened. The Subjunctive mood would need to be written in order to indicate it might have happened (but he doesn't know). In addition, the phrase "to the point of death" changes the verb DIED into a noun, 'death'. Don't mess with the actual words of scripture to change their intent. (What is astonishing is that you don't seem to realize you are doing this... changing the words. Please let me know you see that Blomberg changed the verb into a noun.)

:doh:

"I went to the store."

"My daughter drove me to the market."

A) Different, yes? CONTRADICTION? :nono: B) "IF" there are two donkeys there is CERTAINLY one donkey, no?

#2)
This is speculative commentary, it is not scripture. And the fact that one needs to resort to such speculation shows that a discrepancy actually exists which someone felt the need to address. An inerrant text would not have discrepancies, would it?

So is 'assuming' an error too. I went to the market AND my daughter drove me.

That's a very serious question. In your view, would an inerrant text have discrepancies?

ONLY if you are a simpleton. ▲above▲ are two statements that are different YET both are correct. A simpleton won't understand that but focus on the two near completely different statements about going to the store. Don't be a simpleton (advice, not name-calling, I know I have to clarify from now on in thread ). Also, you tip your hand toward reconciliation at the end and so this is more advice for Cobra than you, I'd think. Those direct/indirect quotes are important.

#3)
Now your third quote is a bit puzzling, in that your citation is "Barnes, 1997" and yet Barnes (i.e. Albert Barnes) died in 1870. So... your citation fails. Not knowing which "Barnes" is referenced makes it difficult to know whether his translations skills are adequate. It would seem not. For your third quote to provide any substantive refutation, it would need to show that αρτι is used in the corpus as a "fluid descriptor". And yet as the link to the Liddell Scott shows (please go read it) the adverb αρτι is an exact modifier. It isn't fuzzy.

Er, "Now" isn't exact. "Now when I was young..." Hate to tell you, I was young before 'this' second for many years. TRY to think more, posture less. By the time you read this, I was younger. lain:

No it can't. It can't be translated "just now dying" because as mentioned above, The verb ετελευτησεν was written with an aorist active indicative conjugation, and is not a participle. The verb just cannot be translated with an '-ing' ending. Whoever Clarke is, he should be seriously ashamed at this assertion and should take some refresher courses in basic translation. This is just more noise in the wind to try and convince people to change the words from what is exactly written.

:rotfl: <sorry> "Says the guy who thinks the bible has errors." How do you know this isn't a 'small' mistake you advocate?? :noway: I can't make this stuff up!

Regarding the Greek, it 'can' be as Clarke says but more importantly (in my mind) is this could be Matthew commentary(indirect quote). "Jairus had said his daughter's life ceased." If an indirect quote, you cannot assume an error (you cannot anyway). With a good head on your shoulders, you should be conceding a bit here, he is trying to show that 'error' can certainly be held suspect.

George, we're not selecting wine to go with fish. BUT. I did notice that the NKJV doesn't go very well with the KJV. Let's take a look at the two versions.

KJV 1900

NKJV

Yes, the KJV 1900 reads, "My daughter is even now dead". But it doesn't mean, "My daughter is BY now dead." This is likely why the NKJV chose a different rendering, "My daughter has just died." One cannot be more clear than this. His daughter just died.

It wasn't a 2nd Aorist but I see what you mean. Aorist by itself doesn't mean 'completion.' The word means 'died' but it can also mean 'at deaths door.' As I've said prior, we can't just 'translate' word for word if idioms are used. If one is, we'd have no way of knowing. To me? That's why it is better to simply not assume 'we' know what is going on if there is a discrepancy. We have NO WAY of chasing it down.

Well, I guess we have Schrodinger's Jairus here. None of the gospel accounts have Jairus blabbering incoherently. YOU'RE MAKING THIS UP. And in the words of Lon, STOP IT.

:e4e:

Again, you're making this up. How can you not see that you are writing up your own gospel account here? Sure, I'll stick to my mantra... YOU are changing the words and cobbling together separate accounts to make up your own Bible version. You are changing the words (not to mention adding a crapload to the narrative) to fit your belief.

At this point, I'd suggest he's brainstorming possibility. If it doesn't work, that's fine. We don't want our thoughts to do injustice to Him or the scripture. Thankfully, neither your nor my 'assumption' is gospel. For me, "inerrancy" is an assumption based off of 'authority.' In a nutshell it is this: I don't 'get' to question management. That doesn't mean I don't notice what you notice, too. What it means is that I can't let that stop me from having these words authoritative in my life. In addition, God's Word IS somewhere today AND He has promised it'd not be messed with. Let me entertain your though for two seconds: "If" there were 1% error in the bible, it still means 99% is "The Word of God." If you can't go even that far, then your problem isn't inerrancy, it is its authority over your life.

Shame on you.

Don't be harsh. He is giving you what he is reading, not just what he is thinking. You can go ahead and break down each of the quotes, but try not to bash George for what you disagree with. Speak to the issue more than the person
(I have a REALLY hard time doing that if someone doesn't meet me halfway in conversation BECAUSE then the conversation is over anyway).

You know darn well, George, that NOW means now. αρτι is used in the New Testament 36 times, and the aktionsart clearly means... exactly then... "now". How do the verses you reference Not mean now? When your mom said, "Wash your hands now," she meant NOW, not when you're done watching cartoons.

:think: "Now there were shepherds in the fields watching their flocks by night..." (also covered above, "now" doesn't always mean 'this second' and it isn't exact, ESPECIALLY with a people who had no idea what a minute, second, or likely an hour (they were checking sun dials and such) were.

He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now (αρτι). (1Jn 2:9 KJV)

I never said God makes mistakes. But the people who wrote the New Testament texts did.

Zenn

Agree they made mistakes, the question, however, is whether they did so when writing the gospels and letters. You 'intimate' they couldn't and didn't. It is a 'human' expectation, not a 'spiritual' expectation. Any nonChristian already assumes there are errors.

*
PS: I'll help you out here. The accounts of Jairus in Matthew and Mark were never meant to convey a specific quotation but were in essence paraphrased narratives to begin with. And these were known to be paraphrased narratives because Koine Greek made no provision for quotation marks. If their accounts are similar enough, then no discrepancy of fact can be imputed.

Uh oh....we 'think' alike? :noway: I was pleasantly surprised. You could have posted this first. It would have been better and gracious imho.

Now (and yes, exactly now) the only question is does the above satisfy the Doctrine of Inerrancy (for this instance) as is understood and preached today. Unfortunately I think you have created your own "Doctrine of Inerrant Meaning" like you have created your own gospel account and have substituted this for the Doctrine of Inerrancy.

Uh oh, I missed it, just now, which isn't your now, but my now. How can "Now" be that inexact???? :noway: (I think you get the point)

PPS: Why do you feel the need to use insults like 'puerile'? Makes you feel all high and mighty? (And please if you are going to use such a word, at least spell it correctly.)

Did I mention pedantry means 'teacher' (Of COURSE you'd accuse us of it! We are!)? :e4e: -Lon

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Thanks to George for answering the Genealogies question:

Matthew's account is not a genealogy intended to prove descent. It is a theological statement of the genesis of a nation waiting for the Messiah. It covers the period from Abraham to the birth of Christ divided into 3 sections of 14 representing 6 sections of seven generations, of which the seventh section is the Sabbath rest into which those who are the true Israel of God can enter as a result of the birth of the Messiah.

Matthew is keenly aware that Jesus' only Father is not Joseph and that he need not prove that Jesus is in the lineage of any of these men. The proof of this, among other things, is that after all these 'begats' he changes his language completely in Matt 1:16KJV and does not use the word.

Another hint that this is not intended to be exact is in Matt 1:17KJV. It is to be noted that only in the first set of 14 is the word "all" (πᾶς) utilized. Perhaps this is a recognition this set alone was exactly correct.

I hope this helps clear up this stumbling block for you.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Thanks to George again for answering the one donkey or two question:

If I ask you to go to the store and buy me a Snickers bar and a box of toothpicks, and tomorrow I tell someone that you bought me a Snickers bar, am I right or am I wrong?

Leaving out information in a narrative does not negate the validity of the narrative. The most important part was the colt, as is the Snickers bar - yum!

Both the *** and the colt were brought to Jerusalem. Jesus had to ride a foal that had never been ridden. The best way to bring the colt to Jerusalem was to lead it by its parent. Someone rode the donkey and trailed the colt. Perhaps Jesus rode the colt into Jerusalem while it was still being led by its parent. There is nothing in the narratives or the prophecy that would prohibit this. It should be said that the colt could have been used to carry burdens or pull a load but not yet trained to accept commands from a rider. It would be a good thing, then, if another animal that it trusted, led it. A young male horse or donkey can be called a colt up until it is 2-3 years old.

Zech 9:9KJV tells us not just that the Messiah will ride an *** into Jerusalem but that it will be a foal that has never been ridden. What better way to fulfill this prophecy than to bring the father/mother along with the same markings for observers to determine the relative ages and pedigree of the colt.

(I am deliberately not addressing the sex of the parent donkey as it is of no consequence to the story)
(No idea why the proper English word for donkey which is *** is blanked out by TOL. Not my doing)

It's very simple, in my opinion.

He told them to go and bring both animals. Matthew, however, only tells us that He requested the colt. His omission of the the other animal does not make what he records wrong; only incomplete.

In Matt 9:18KJV ff Matthew condenses the episode about Jairus' daughter and then again about the woman with the issue of blood.
Luke gives a lot more detail Luke 8:41KJV ff but we do not suggest there is an error simply because Matthew gives less information.

I am reminded of John 21:25KJV. Undoubtedly both Luke and Mark would have left out some details as well.

But your question is a different one. Your question is: Which one of the two things Jesus is recorded as saying, did He, in fact, say?
Could He have said;

"Loose them both and bring them to me. Bring the colt which has never been ridden that I may enter Jerusalem to fulfill prophecy and bring the other one to lead it."

In this case both Matthew and Luke would have recorded correctly different aspects of the same command.

I agree that, up until now, his attitude and questions have been reasonable and that others are simply not understanding his questions or giving straightforward answers. But there comes a time to assess motivation for discussions. The 'error' mantra, in the face of reasonable solutions, suggests an agenda that rules his reasoning abilities. My faith is always renewed after looking at the real evidence surrounding these so-called errors.

About the two donkeys...

I highly doubt that Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem was ever intended to be a display of horsemanship, even by Zechariah. This is borne out by Zech 9:10KJV which explains the significance of Jesus' lowly entry as King in the same vein as Zech 4:6KJV. It was the ushering in of a new era which would exclude might and power and where Jesus laid claim to Jerusalem without a physical battle.
And I think that the reason the Holy Spirit moved Luke and Mark to record their accounts differently than Matthew was to direct our attention to the amazing specificity of the Zechariah prophecy whereas Matthew had a theological reason. A hyper-literal interpretation forces us to think He was riding two animals at once, or, at least one after the other. But the "and" can also simply designate the introduction of a modifying clause describing the same animal. Zech 9:9KJV Zech 9:9NKJV

The Matthew account tells us that they spread their garments on the two animals. It says that Jesus sat on their garments, not that He sat on two animals at once. And it is not necessary to conclude that He needed to sit on each and every garment that was offered in order to say that He sat on their garments. If we want to get that literal, then why not suggest His disciples took off all their clothes and participated in a naked procession? I think the colt on which Jesus rode was tied to the mature animal which was able to successfully lead it, being led itself by human hand.

It is true, isn't it, that God allows us the freedom to either allow God to speak for Himself, or bring our baggage along to gum up the works. He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. I am convinced that when God speaks He doesn't make mistakes.

Zechariah is talking about the one and the same animal that Jesus rode into Jerusalem; the colt.

Matthew is talking about both the colt and the mother that was brought to calm the colt.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Thanks to daqq for answering where the altar of incense was in the temple question.

Here is an account from Chapter 16, (The Day of Atonement), of "THE TEMPLE - ITS MINISTRY AND SERVICE", (Alfred Edersheim), which goes into some detail about the duties if the chief priest in the great day. There is another account I am aware of but cannot remember where it comes from, (perhaps Josephus?), where it was said that the most difficult duty of the chief priest in this day was carrying the incense and the censer into the Most Holy place because he actually had to have two hands, (plural), full of incense and therefore was required to carry the censer under his armpit into the Most Holy place, (a task so difficult that the potential fill-ins and those who might be chief priest one day had to rigorously train for this duty). However when I went back to this account it was not the one I thought it was, but it makes the point concerning the censer clear enough, for it states that the one used in the great day, (Yom Kippurim), was larger and therefore different from a regular censer.

---

THE TEMPLE - ITS MINISTRY AND SERVICE, excerpt Ch. 16 (Alfred Edersheim)
The Confession of Sin and the Sacrifice
With this presentation of the scape-goat before the people commenced the third and most solemn part of the expiatory services of the day. The high-priest now once more returned towards the sanctuary, and a second time laid his two hands on the bullock, which still stood between the porch and the altar, to confess over him, not only as before, his own and his household's sins, but also those of the priesthood. The formula used was precisely the same as before, with the addition of the words, 'the seed of Aaron, Thy holy people,' both in the confession and in the petition for atonement. Then the high-priest killed the bullock, caught up his blood in a vessel, and gave it to an attendant to keep it stirring, lest it should coagulate. Advancing to the altar of burnt-offering, he next filled the censer with burning coals, and then ranged a handful of frankincense in the dish destined to hold it. Ordinarily, everything brought in actual ministry unto God must be carried in the right hand- the incense in the right and the censer in the left. But on this occasion, as the censer for the Day of Atonement was larger and heavier than usual, the high-priest was allowed to reverse the common order. Every eye was strained towards the sanctuary as, slowly bearing the censer and the incense, the figure of the white-robed high-priest was seen to disappear within the Holy Place. After that nothing further could be seen of his movements.

The Mercy-seat
The curtain of the Most Holy Place was folded back, and the high-priest stood alone and separated from all the people in the awful gloom of the Holiest of All, only lit up by the red glow of the coals in the priest's censer. In the first Temple the ark of God had stood there with the 'mercy-seat' over-shadowing it; above it, the visible presence of Jehovah in the cloud of the Shechinah, and on either side the outspread wings of the cherubim; and the high-priest had placed the censer between the staves of the ark. But in the Temple of Herod there was neither Shechinah nor ark- was empty; and the high-priest rested his censer on a large stone, called the 'foundation-stone.' He now most carefully emptied the incense into his hand, and threw it on the coals of the censer, as far from himself as possible, and so waited till the smoke had filled the Most Holy Place.

---

It very well could be that this censer was not kept in the Most Holy place until after the events of 2Chr 26:19, when king Uzziah went into the secondary sanctuary to burn incense with it in his hand. He may have picked it up from inside the secondary sanctuary as it may have been kept by the altar of incense, (we simply do not know because the text never tells us, at least as far as I know). If this is the case then it seems only logical that this very event and this very time would be when and why they began to keep it behind the veil in the Most Holy place. You probably do not need me to expound those passages I quoted from the Septuagint, (they surely speak of the censer and use the same word as I highlighted), for you can get the meaning from pretty much any English translation but especially in that case from the Brenton English translation of the Septuagint, (bible.hub, etc.). I'll post the Brenton:

2 Chronicles 26:19 LXX Brenton English Translation
19 And Ozias was angry, and in his hand was the censer [το θυμιατηριον - G2369 - Heb 9:4] to burn incense in the temple: and when he was angry with the priests, then the leprosy rose up in his forehead before the priests in the house of the Lord, over the altar of incense [επανω του θυσιαστηριου των θυμιαματων].

"το θυμιατηριον" is most definitely "the censer", (not just "a censer"). Moreover what is used here for the altar of incense at the end of the statement is not the same word but the word for an altar, (G2379 θυσιαστηριον).

In the Ezekiel passage there can be no mistaking how the same word is used for censer: but this time it speaks not of "the censer" but the smaller common censers held by the priests and Levites, (showing even more positively that this word was indeed used for both censers and "the censer").

Ezekiel 8:11 LXX
11 και εβδομηκοντα ανδρες εκ των πρεσβυτερων οικου ισραηλ και ιεζονιας ο του σαφαν εν μεσω αυτων ειστηκει προ προσωπου αυτων και εκαστος θυμιατηριον αυτου ειχεν εν τη χειρι και η ατμις του θυμιαματος ανεβαινεν

Ezekiel 8:11 LXX Brenton English Translation
11 And seventy men of the elders of the house of Israel, and Jechonias the son of Saphan stood in their presence in the midst of them, and each one held his censer [G2369 θυμιατηριον - Heb 9:4] in his hand; and the smoke of the incense went up.

I was just thinking that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Tabernacle so I may have been wrong about it not being kept behind the veil: we simply have no way of knowing as far as I know. Moreover there are some who object to what has been presented because of other reasons, which we need not bring up here, for either way, saying that Heb 9:4 is erroneous is entirely off the table, and that was really the overall point brought up here by the accusers to begin with. The Septuagint clearly uses the same word from Heb 9:4 to describe a censer in at least two places, (two witnesses), even if there may be other places where the same word might have been used for the altar of incense.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Thanks once more to George for shedding light on trying to answer what Jarius actually said, although there are clearly differing accounts but this seem perfectly normal and only adds weight to the fact there was no collusion.

So you will recognize that αρτι ετελευτησεν is not as cut and dried as you falsely make it out to be, I will quote those who know. Perhaps you will be illuminated. Miracles do happen after all.

Adam Clarke mentions in his commentary on Matthew that it could be translated, “my daughter was just now dying”.
This goes very well with the KJV rendering Matt 9:18KJV.

Of course he said both! He undoubtedly said many things that are not reported. That's the whole point. Begging, pleading, sobbing. And they were likely contradictory at the time. Given that a distraught father, who so lowered himself from his religious position to seek out a miracle worker, was desperate to say anything to save his daughter, how is it you can't take into consideration that his frantic and varied explanations likely went on for many minutes?
Because you are sticking to your mantra.

Much more than what each author decided to record most certainly transpired during this episode. Thinking of any of them as exact and exhaustive reporting is where you get it wrong. These are brief summaries.

Jairus was most likely irrational. Recording part of that irrational behavior by one witness and another part by another witness does not create a contradiction in the scriptures. It simply points out the contradiction of feelings in the heart of Jairus and the words that poured out of him.

The most natural explanation is this:
Jairus, having left his daughter near death's door, came and found Jesus and told Him that his daughter was sick, that when he left her she was near death, and by this time is "even now dead" (KJV).

A purile mind hopes that all words, in any language, have only one strict meaning. If I may ask, please tell me if this same word, used in these verses must reference "an actual instance in time" or a somewhat less strict period of time:

John 2:10KJV, John 13:7KJV, Gal 1:10, Matt 3:15KJV

Someone whose faith is based on a god who makes mistakes already has a fairy tale.

 

[Zenn]

Look at this devious drivel.
It just oozes out of him.

Does this kind of name calling help you feel better about yourself?

Are you now saying like Lon that you are Jesus to have permission to name call?

Do you seriously believe that such behaviour lies within the aegis of "love your enemy" (cf. Mat. 5:44)?

Vilification of another person, reducing him or her to a subhuman stature, in order to elevate oneself or one's position and beliefs is an all too common rationalization of the carnal mind.

Zenn

PS: (The Nazi's were way better at it than you, though.)

 

[Zenn]

What a crock. God answers prayers. He does not use men as healers or raisers of the dead.

(Act 3:6 KJV) Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

Where did Peter and John pray for this fellow's healing? :AMR: They didn't. They were going to pray, but never got to the temple. Instead Peter commanded the healing, and I don't think the words "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" is a magic spell required to be repeated.

(Act 9:40 KJV) But Peter put them all forth, and kneeled down, and prayed; and turning him to the body said, Tabitha, arise. And she opened her eyes: and when she saw Peter, she sat up.

And where does this text say that Peter "prayed for Tabitha" to arise? Rather, he commanded her to. αναστηθι (ARISE) is in the Imperative mood. It is a command. Peter spoke a command to the body, not to God. What I find astonishing is that when I mentioned Walter's return from the dead in a rather offhand manner, NONE of you, absolutely no one, even expressed any serious curiosity to understand what might have happened. Y'all just dismissed the possibility or unleashed a flurry of astonishment, doubt and unbelief. (According to your faith be it unto you.)

He speaks to us through His word, not the tongues of men who would crow and boast of their mighty deeds.

'Crow' ... 'boast', neither of which I did, are words people use to rationalize their dismissal, their doubt and unbelief... words used to justify the fact that absolutely nothing of divine power happens around them.

The Law of faith precludes boasting, so I scoff at your claims ...

Yes. Indeed. You scoff quite a lot. This seems to be sword you use quite often.

There is no intermediary between the saints and their great God....certainly not any man of the flesh. Boast away evil doers. We see who you are.

And yet your own Bible says there is a mediator between the saints and their great God. (And a man at that.)

(1Ti 2:5 KJV) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

I am continually amazed at how people can deceive themselves into thinking they honor and venerate a text as holy writ and yet create all sorts of rationalization for why they don't need to embrace the text as it is actually written.

God weeps.

Zenn

 

[Zenn]

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).

daqq,

When a father terrorizes his children we call this child abuse. I do wonder if this is why you use the word abuse so often.

Some of the passages now understood because of a single event in my walk:
...
And I do not care whether or not anyone believes me.

How can we believe anything one way or another when nothing was posted about this 'single event'? The implcation is that you died, had some kind of vision-terror, and then came back to life to finally get 'saved'. But "we all know" that coming back from the dead is impossible. Right? :idunno:

God's blessing to you,
Zenn

PS: (And neither do I care whether or not anyone belives me about an event I've said nothing about either.)

 

[Zenn]

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.

Why do you add in the words "seven holy" to the text?

Why do you change the word מֵאמַר (mê'mar) to "mem-ra"?

What's the Strong's number for this word Memra?

Zenn

PS: It actually isn't Hebrew, and it actually isn't in the Bible is it.

 

[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”]

Strong's (sigh), the bane of true scholarship. Since you wish to ignore a real lexicon, I'm not even sure God can help you.

Zenn