Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[glorydaz]

It is not me who fears errors. My faith is not based on a perfect Bible. That is a foundation of sand. My faith is in the Holy One of God, Jesus the Messiah.

Ha, you can't know Him or anything about Him without Scripture. You're a LIAR.

 

[Lon]

Still working on this, I have become convinced Daniel Wallace is misrepresented by those of errant persuasion.
Dr. Wallace is an inerrantist

Spoiler

https://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy
I won’t get into the details of how inerrancy (in America at least) has been filtered through the grid of Scottish Common Sense Realism, as that would take us far afield from the main objective here. Suffice it to say that many evangelicals believe that without an inerrant Bible we can’t know anything about Jesus Christ. They often ask the question, “How can we be sure that anything in the Bible is true? How can we be sure that Jesus Christ is who he said he was, or even that he existed, if the Bible is not inerrant?”
We are not asked to take a leap of faith in believing the Bible to be the Word of God, or even to believe that it is historically reliable; we have evidence that this is the case.
B.B.Warfield
Now if this doctrine is to be assailed on critical grounds, it is very clear that, first of all, criticism must be required to proceed against the evidence on which it is based. This evidence, it is obvious, is twofold. First, there is the exegetical evidence that the doctrine held and taught by the Church is the doctrine held and taught by the Biblical writers themselves. And secondly, there is the whole mass of evidence—internal and external, objective and subjective, historical and philosophical, human and divine—which goes to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as doctrinal guides. If they are trustworthy teachers of doctrine and if they held and taught this doctrine, then this doctrine is true, and is to be accepted and acted upon as true by us all. In that case, any objections brought against the doctrine from other spheres of inquiry are inoperative; it being a settled logical principle that so long as the proper evidence by which a proposition is established remains unrefuted, all so-called objections brought against it pass out of the category of objections to its truth into the category of difficulties to be adjusted to it. If criticism is to assail this doctrine, therefore, it must proceed against and fairly overcome one or the other element of its proper proof. It must either show that this doctrine is not the doctrine of the Biblical writers, or else it must show that the Biblical writers are not trustworthy as doctrinal guides.
Now, I must quickly add: I am an inerrantist.

"Now, I must quickly add: I am an inerrantist." - Dr. Daniel Wallace

He also counters that Dallas is not heading toward emergent theology. It is helpful to keep reading when rumors are flying. Dr. Daniel Wallace has done much work in the way of Inerrant theology. I encourage anybody in thread to re-read him or read him for the first time. I'm frustrated with him, that his name is being dragged, yet again, through the proverbial mud. Granted too, Cobra E.E. wasn't trying to malign Dr. Wallace, but was indeed under the false impression that Dr. Wallace believed in errancy. He does not.

 

[Lon]

That is because some misguided soul taught Ehrman the false doctrine of inerrancy.

:nono: Else "SCRIPTURE" isn't true. 1 John 2:19 is the REASON. You definitely are more of an open theist than you'd like to think of yourself: one where you are in control and God is not. Psalm 40:1-3 Romans 14:4; 8:58

He might still be a Christian if someone had not presented the teachings of man as a position of God.

:nono: It was arguing with unbelievers about these very things that caused him problems. He spent more time on academics than actually knowing the Savior. See the above scriptures. Dr. Daniel Wallace, btw, debated Eerdman OVER inerrancy. The KJV-only crowd got a hold of some of Dr. Wallace's comments and took those out of that particular debate to make it look like he wasn't an inerrantist. He is adamant on his site that he is very much an inerrantist. Read it. I come to inerrancy similarly by both the high and low road, as he calls it. I'm happy to have been corrected by Dr. Wallace over your erroneous idea that he isn't an inerrantist. I 'think' some of his grace toward those who aren't inerrantists is good. Dr. Wallace, for instance, has a lot of grace toward Bruce Metzger who is not an inerrantist. It is also, perhaps, that grace, that allows for confusions such as is seen in this thread.

Because this false doctrine was a core doctrine of his, his faith crumbled when the foundation was found to be a lie.

:nono: When your own reading skills and study integrity are in question in thinking Wallace believed the scriptures are errant, then of course you are nobody to go to determine if something more important has errors. Why? Because YOU made the first error. It is SAFER to assume you also make one here. I'm pretty much on page with Dr. Wallace. I may not be as gracious to those who do not espouse inerrancy that I'd have one speak at a conference of mine (not sure how I would cast that vote). At any rate, while I can live with the disagreement, I'm very adamant that you are wrong on this. Disfellowshipping? No, but I'll ever beat the inerrancy drum specifically because scripture does. I stand by my convictions that those who believe in errancy, really haven't read their bibles enough. I realize some of you might contest such, but I'm fairly committed to my attitude that the Bereans had it right AND were 'more noble.' Scripture, which I believe, says so.

I see you continue to avoid the question of whether Jesus told the two disciples to bring one animal or two.

:chuckle: Sorry. Ahem...<cough>... Go ahead, tell me again how I 'avoid' your question... lain:
I'll say this again: Listen more, speak less. This is wrong. Because you are NOTED now for making mistakes like with Dr. Daniel Wallace, then I, we, you can assume you make them again and so I'll be looking for those logical disconnects like here.

While you are beating one of your kids (by analogy) I'm enjoying their stories the SAME way I enjoy all 4 gospels. Sorry one of those naught disciples messed it up for you. While you are off beating kids and Apostles, I'm not even remotely bothered. So, yeah, I guess correct, Phillip, but I'm not 'avoiding' I'm leaving you to fret and beat kids while I 'enjoy' and look for ways I can be more like my Lord. See the difference?
How many donkeys did Jesus ride into Jerusalem, Phillip? :think: How many did He need? You keep thinking there is a mistake. Forgive me for thinking you a simpleton for it AND for making it a big deal.

You wrote:
I disdain the thinking that men are smarter than God

You seem to think your position is God’s position.

Because I think I'm smarter than these others? Yeah, guilty. I'm arrogant. I really work on it, but I generally KNOW I make less mistakes than others in academic circles any more. Some of it comes with degrees, some with the GPA along with it, some of it when I find those with PhD agree with me too (or I with them).

I wonder if you realize how inappropriate and wrong that is

Luke wrote that the Bereans were more noble because of their study prowess. Inappropriate? Well, they probably had big heads the rest of their lives. Scripture recorded that they did something others did not. Yes, I've a big head for my study habits. "Scripture" calls it more noble. You not liking it? That green-eyed monster may be more inappropriate than having a bit of pride in being scripturally studious and diligent AND know it.

You have declared the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God. The Bible never claims that.

Your friend, Dr. Wallace, in the same link I've given, said he proved you were wrong in his paper, that 2 Timothy 3:16 proves that the Bible claims that. Interesting, no?

Did Jesus tell the two disciples to bring one animal or two? If you don’t know, admit it.

Okay, let me turn it around: "IF" I don't know, THEN you don't know either. By THAT token, NEITHER OF US could know if it were true or false, only what our trust is, in the word of God. To me? One. How many did Jesus ride? One. "Oh, what about the second one?" What about it Phillip? He didn't ride it. It ISN'T part of this story other than incidental. One donkey. You: Mistake. Me: Nope.

You wrote:
Question for you: Matthew 4:4 Can you live without the word of God? Is it possible?

I think you have a misunderstanding of the term “Word of God.” The Word of God is the Message of God, and it is the message that gives eternal life. The term “Word of God” is not interchangeable with “Bible.” There is no scriptural justification for that error.

Actually, the term Word of God means:
1) The Message of God for mankind
2) A message from God or
3) The Message of God incarnate, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World.
Pretending it means Bible is the source of many errors.

lain: Matthew 4:4 was/is clear and you are quite wrong. Read it, Phillip. READ IT.

Now answer, having read and been corrected and informed: Can you live without the word of God? Easy question. ODDLY, for someone who says I haven't answered, you didn't here. That is, you answered from a wrong assumption. Again, now that you have been corrected, can you live without the word of God? What is 'written?' :think:

 

[Lon]

No it isn't since you already have the many errors which you are afraid of.

He doesn't equate them but I 'think' he has to believe that scripture is infallible in 'most' conveyances, else he'd have no way of knowing if he were following God or not. To me? A slippery untenable slope. I've met a few of the UK Christians who do not believe in inerrancy. I disagree with them that this isn't an essential doctrine. It is and I think while some may not fall off the edge and are my brothers and sisters in Christ, I yet adamantly disagree with them AND it is a huge part of the problem with the death of European Christianity. They allowed man to weigh in his/her 'thoughts' and thus, they elevated other things over scriptures and essentially started losing as utmost priority, the Savior those scriptures espouse. John 5:39 "They (the scriptures) speak of me! (Jesus)" IOW, to have them is to have Jesus. The promise of the Spirit is the same: To put His 'words' inside of us. How do you check? --> Bible.

 

[2003cobra]

Yes, it is. You just doubt God is able to keep that which He inspired to last long enough to complete it's work until the Day of the Lord. That's simply unbelief...no matter what you try to cloak it in.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:​

Back to the old, failed argument that recognizing God did not do something means a lack of belief in God’s power?

I have already dealt with that earlier.

Inspiration does not imply or impart perfection.

John 20 21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."


Jesus, God Incarnate, breathed on the Apostles, giving them authority and mission. He did not give them perfection. God has always used the imperfect to do His work, and His ability to work through imperfect people brings greater glory to Him.

 

[glorydaz]

Back to the old, failed argument that recognizing God did not do something means a lack of belief in God’s power?

It is a lack of belief in God's power.

If you attack God's word, you attack God's power to save, to give life, to convict, teach, etc.

I have already dealt with that earlier.

Inspiration does not imply or impart perfection.

John 20 21 Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." 22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."


Jesus, God Incarnate, breathed on the Apostles, giving them authority and mission. He did not give them perfection. God has always used the imperfect to do His work, and His ability to work through imperfect people brings greater glory to Him.

You have a lot of gall to think you dealt with the issue with that sloppy attempt. God's work is not God's word. The Apostles didn't require "inspiration" for their work. :readthis:

You can't talk your way out of your lack of faith in God's ability to keep His word available to mankind until He returns in all His Glory. I do find it telling that you dropped the charge that the scripture is not the word of God. But....I didn't expect anything else from such as you.

You've dropped whatever argument and evidence you are unable to refute. That's what's "OLD AND FAILED".

 

[2003cobra]

You can't parse this one away. It's evident....exactly as it's written.

The sword of the Spirit is the word of God. The subject is the ARMOUR OF GOD. If you diagram the sentence, you'll see sword (of Spirit)/ is/ word (of God).

I gave you the example Jesus gave Himself, "It is written". He quoted Scripture (using it as a sword). The Holy Bible is SCRIPTURE. The fact that you reject that obvious proof is concrete evidence of your bias on this issue.

You seem to still think Word of God = Bible. That is not a claim of scripture.

As long as you keep reading “Word of God” and immediately mistranslate it to “Bible in its entirety,” you will stay confused.

 

[2003cobra]

Still working on this, I have become convinced Daniel Wallace is misrepresented by those of errant persuasion.
Dr. Wallace is an inerrantist

Spoiler

https://bible.org/article/my-take-inerrancy
I won’t get into the details of how inerrancy (in America at least) has been filtered through the grid of Scottish Common Sense Realism, as that would take us far afield from the main objective here. Suffice it to say that many evangelicals believe that without an inerrant Bible we can’t know anything about Jesus Christ. They often ask the question, “How can we be sure that anything in the Bible is true? How can we be sure that Jesus Christ is who he said he was, or even that he existed, if the Bible is not inerrant?”
We are not asked to take a leap of faith in believing the Bible to be the Word of God, or even to believe that it is historically reliable; we have evidence that this is the case.
B.B.Warfield
Now if this doctrine is to be assailed on critical grounds, it is very clear that, first of all, criticism must be required to proceed against the evidence on which it is based. This evidence, it is obvious, is twofold. First, there is the exegetical evidence that the doctrine held and taught by the Church is the doctrine held and taught by the Biblical writers themselves. And secondly, there is the whole mass of evidence—internal and external, objective and subjective, historical and philosophical, human and divine—which goes to show that the Biblical writers are trustworthy as doctrinal guides. If they are trustworthy teachers of doctrine and if they held and taught this doctrine, then this doctrine is true, and is to be accepted and acted upon as true by us all. In that case, any objections brought against the doctrine from other spheres of inquiry are inoperative; it being a settled logical principle that so long as the proper evidence by which a proposition is established remains unrefuted, all so-called objections brought against it pass out of the category of objections to its truth into the category of difficulties to be adjusted to it. If criticism is to assail this doctrine, therefore, it must proceed against and fairly overcome one or the other element of its proper proof. It must either show that this doctrine is not the doctrine of the Biblical writers, or else it must show that the Biblical writers are not trustworthy as doctrinal guides.
Now, I must quickly add: I am an inerrantist.

"Now, I must quickly add: I am an inerrantist." - Dr. Daniel Wallace

He also counters that Dallas is not heading toward emergent theology. It is helpful to keep reading when rumors are flying. Dr. Daniel Wallace has done much work in the way of Inerrant theology. I encourage anybody in thread to re-read him or read him for the first time. I'm frustrated with him, that his name is being dragged, yet again, through the proverbial mud. Granted too, Cobra E.E. wasn't trying to malign Dr. Wallace, but was indeed under the false impression that Dr. Wallace believed in errancy. He does not.

I don’t know who EE is. Why do you keep calling me that?

You are in error about my impression of Wallace. I never took a position on his position other than to quote him as saying elevating inerrancy to a core doctrine is a slippery slope.

You either misread my post or read things into it that never were there.


You wrote:
When your own reading skills and study integrity are in question in thinking Wallace believed the scriptures are errant...
How ironic that your misreading of my post led you to claim I took a position that I did not take.

You wrote:
Because you are NOTED now for making mistakes like with Dr. Daniel Wallace
It was your mistake about me, not mine about Wallace.

I note you finally answered the question about what Jesus actually told the disciples:
To me? One.

So you recognize Matthew misquoted Jesus. That is an error. So your doctrine of inerrancy fails.
Thanks
I really do appreciate your answering. That shows more courage than just about anyone else posting here!

You even went so far as to add:
How many did Jesus ride? One.

Thanks for expanding.
Did you know Matthew 21 disagrees with you?
The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.


With that determination, tomorrow I will bring up another error.

 

[2003cobra]

Lon, you wrote:
Now answer, having read and been corrected and informed: Can you live without the word of God? Easy question. ODDLY, for someone who says I haven't answered, you didn't here.

I did answer. I will look back and find the post.

I answered in post 234, with this:

I think you have a misunderstanding of the term “Word of God.” The Word of God is the Message of God, and it is the message that gives eternal life. The term “Word of God” is not interchangeable with “Bible.” There is no scriptural justification for that error.

Actually, the term Word of God means:
1) The Message of God for mankind
2) A message from God or
3) The Message of God incarnate, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World.
Pretending it means Bible is the source of many errors.


So the Message of God, the Word of God, gives eternal life. We cannot have life without it.

If you are reading the terms “Word of God” and Bible as interchangeable, then you will be misled and will mislead.

John 3 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

the Word of God, Jesus Christ, is the source of eternal life.

 

[glorydaz]

You seem to still think Word of God = Bible. That is not a claim of scripture.

As long as you keep reading “Word of God” and immediately mistranslate it to “Bible in its entirety,” you will stay confused.

Scripture is the word of God. Jesus quoted scripture which is the sword of the Spirit (word of God).

This is so simple and yet, you refuse to see. :think:


Could it be that your pride is so invested you're blind to the truth?

1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.​

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

[Lon]

I don’t know who EE is. Why do you keep calling me that?

You are in error about my impression of Wallace. I never took a position on his position other than to quote him as saying elevating inerrancy to a core doctrine is a slippery slope.

You either misread my post or read things into it that never were there.


You wrote:
When your own reading skills and study integrity are in question in thinking Wallace believed the scriptures are errant...
How ironic that your misreading of my post led you to claim I took a position that I did not take.

Nope. You mentioned him as if he weren't an inerrantist. You were wrong. We never got to the point where we discussed his position on 'errantists.' He isn't one. You are ALSO wrong that he doesn't think inerrancy is important. He simply does not want it to be a point of another not being a Christian and gave the example of his uncle, who not being an inerrantist, he felt was still a saved believer. That does not mean part of the same church. Your position, iow, is not evangelical or fundamental nor orthodox. That position is yours alone.

Because you are NOTED now for making mistakes like with Dr. Daniel Wallace
It was your mistake about me, not mine about Wallace.

Yep.

I note you finally answered the question about what Jesus actually told the disciples:
To me? One.

So you recognize Matthew misquoted Jesus. That is an error. So your doctrine of inerrancy fails.
Thanks

I note you are happy with simpleton. What do I mean? You don't listen and have no idea how to study and answer scripture and should never be permitted to teach a class because you just aren't teacher material. How is that? "Simple" enough for you?

So, instead of jumping to 'your' simpleton conclusions, listen: there are no 'quotation' marks in the Greek. Matthew records finding two donkeys.
That's it. "Your" discrepancy problem is "YOUR discrepancy problem, not mine. You are the simpleton jumping to 'conclusions.' Me? I'm more of a berean than you are and not at all satisfied with inane.

I really do appreciate your answering. That shows more courage than just about anyone else posting here!

Sure. Welcome. TOTALLY different than what you 'simplistically' suppose though, no? :think:
My theology isn't 'simplistic' and I abhor the short simpleton smug answers. I believe 'higher' criticism is lower than actually being a good berean and studying the text.
To me, initially, it appears you are a simpleton very happy with your 'first' inclination instead of actual STUDYING a matter out. Okay, you are committed to your simplistic theology. I'm not. Where do we go from here?

You even went so far as to add:
How many did Jesus ride? One.

Thanks for expanding.
Did you know Matthew 21 disagrees with you?

Yes. "IF" you are a simpleton. Hurt? I don't intend it to. I INTEND to make you think beyond your crass and inane 'assumptions.'

The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.

:sigh: Do you know the difference between Greek and translations? "they sat him, there upon." lain:

With that determination, tomorrow I will bring up another error.

Sure, everybody but you is seeing me put them out one by one. Why not put out another so I can prove you don't know what you are talking about and are into simpleton theology? :dizzy: Go ahead. It amounts to you being stubborn with no prowess. Sorry.

 

[glorydaz]

I don’t know who EE is. Why do you keep calling me that?

Why do you assume it's a person? :toad:



Because you do the same thing EE always does. You keep asking the same thing over and over as if you hadn't been answered. You totally ignore the responses you get, and double down on your statement as if it hadn't been responded to. You are too invested in your point of view.....so invested that you act a bit unhinged. :chew:

 

[Lon]

Lon, you wrote:
Now answer, having read and been corrected and informed: Can you live without the word of God? Easy question. ODDLY, for someone who says I haven't answered, you didn't here.

I did answer. I will look back and find the post.

I answered in post 234, with this:

I think you have a misunderstanding of the term “Word of God.” The Word of God is the Message of God, and it is the message that gives eternal life. The term “Word of God” is not interchangeable with “Bible.” There is no scriptural justification for that error.

Actually, the term Word of God means:
1) The Message of God for mankind
2) A message from God or
3) The Message of God incarnate, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World.
Pretending it means Bible is the source of many errors.


So the Message of God, the Word of God, gives eternal life. We cannot have life without it.

If you are reading the terms “Word of God” and Bible as interchangeable, then you will be misled and will mislead.

John 3 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. 16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

the Word of God, Jesus Christ, is the source of eternal life.

:doh: You are happy with 'simpleton.' It isn't a desirable trait. READ Matthew 4:4 and TRY AGAIN! You are being a simpleton, ignorant, and nowhere near a Berean. TRY and figure out my point. It is EASY. READ Matthew 4:4. Did you ever meet me halfway and read Psalm 19? Nope, you like simpleton and are no Scripture reader. Who do you 'think' is winning this debate? You? :think: I REALLY want you to learn something in this thread. If not, we can both go our separate unmoving ways, but I'm convinced I'm doing this the Berean way and you are not. -Lon

 

[Lon]

You seem to still think Word of God = Bible. That is not a claim of scripture.

As long as you keep reading “Word of God” and immediately mistranslate it to “Bible in its entirety,” you will stay confused.

:nono: This is your 'simpleton' construct. Even Dr. Wallace disagrees with you on this. Who else you got? Anybody with a PhD? :think:

 

[SabathMoon]

It is not me who fears errors. My faith is not based on a perfect Bible. That is a foundation of sand. My faith is in the Holy One of God, Jesus the Messiah.

And the error of the trinity doctrine. God has words not just one word.

 

[2003cobra]

Lon writes:
Nope. You mentioned him as if he weren't an inerrantist.


Lon, I never implied that at all. Go back and read my post. I asked if you were familiar with him, you said yes, then I quoted him saying that putting inerrancy as a core doctrine is a slippery slope.

You have backed away from saying I misread him and was wrong about his position. You have now acknowledged that is false.

Now you have gone part of the way but not all the way to truth.

How do you think I mentioned him as if he weren't an inerrantist.
???

Show me the post. I knew his position. I never misrepresented it. Don’t call your error in reading a sin on my part. This is not honorable.

 

[2003cobra]

Why do you assume it's a person? :toad:



Because you do the same thing EE always does. You keep asking the same thing over and over as if you hadn't been answered. You totally ignore the responses you get, and double down on your statement as if it hadn't been responded to. You are too invested in your point of view.....so invested that you act a bit unhinged. :chew:

Maybe EE had as much trouble getting straight answers as I do.

Well, I am not EE. When I get a chance I will fill out my profile to help clarify. I don’t have much time today to do that, as my wife and I must leave shortly to pick up a grand baby for the day.

 

[2003cobra]

Lon writes:
Sure, everybody but you is seeing me put them out one by one.

I am sure that you would like to think that, but the simple fact is that you say Jesus told them to bring one animal (as did Mark and Luke) and Matthew says Jesus told them to bring two animals.

So there is an error.

It is too late to deny it.

For that matter, the whole foundation of your attempt to explain the error was that the second animal was unimportant to the story and just came along for the journey. And you said Jesus rode only one animal.

Yet I quoted Matthew as saying Jesus rode both. So your foundation was sand.

So you declared Matthew in error on two counts: he misquoted Jesus concerning the number of animals he told them to get AND on the number of animals Jesus rode.

 

[2003cobra]

Words of the Father

Words of the Father

Let’s move to another error, this one from the transfiguration.

What did the Father actually say from the cloud?

Matthew 17:5 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/matthew/17-5.html
5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, "This is my Son, the Beloved; with him I am well pleased; listen to him!"

Luke 9:35 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/luke/9-35.html
35 Then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!"

Mark 9:7 NRS
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrs/mark/9-7.html
7 Then a cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud there came a voice, "This is my Son, the Beloved; listen to him!"


Three different versions of the real Word of God.

If the texts are the inerrant, God-breathed, Word of God, these would all be the same.

Since they are multiple witnesses of the events written by fallible people, they differ.

 

[jsanford108]

I speculate that is because you know that it is illogical to rely on errant source material.

On the contrary, it is illogical to think we have perfect source material.
It has already been shown that the gospels misquote Jesus

How do you know that Jesus is being misquoted?

You keep making definitive statements, without providing a definitive source.

You wrote that you “trust the inerrant nature of scripture.” Since there are errors, your trust is in a myth from an man-made tradition not found in scripture.

How do you know there are errors? Thus far, you haven't shown any errors, just numerical discrepancies, of +/- 1. Historically and scientifically, that is not enough to label as "error."

You asked me how I know who Jesus is. I already told you: multiple witnesses. Isn’t that how we know anything about history?

Multiple witnesses. Sure. But, if you have a book full of errors, then the source cannot be trusted. So, you are trusting an erroneous source, meaning you can't be certain of anything.

You ask me if “numerology errors render the entire Bible errant.” No, misquoting Jesus renders the doctrine of inerrancy a lie. If the words of Jesus are wrong, that is an error. It cannot be entirely error free if there are errors.

But how do you know there are errors? The only way to deduce errors is to compare against a proven error-free source.

How do you know that Jesus is being misquoted? Again, you keep making definitive statements without an error-free source.

Did Jesus tell the disciples to bring one animal or to bring two animals? Which gospel misquotes Jesus?

Why do you keep on using numerical discrepancies of literally +/- 1? Why do you not just address the real topic, which is inerrant doctrine? Unless you can provide solid proof, historically and scientifically, of a parallel source, free of error, then you are relying on erroneous documents; thus, you cannot accept beliefs based on the material as "Truth."