Why would you think perfection is a requirement for the documents?
this makes perfect sense.
Why would you think perfection is a requirement for the documents?
I never claimed that. Does your scripture condemn telling lies?
Lon writes;
since you are a bit dense,
Lon, I think your insults reflect
Lon writes;
since you are a bit dense,
Lon, I think your insults reflect the fact that I am speaking truth to you and you cannot refute the errors that I have raised against your false doctrine of inerrancy. I have other errors to discuss but you won’t address the last one I mentioned at all.
If Matthew made the error of claiming that all the generations from David to the deportation are 14, while the OT lists 18, how can you deny that is an error?
God never promised us a perfect book, and the good news of the gospel did not require perfect communications. When Peter preached at Pentecost and many came to salvation, Peter was inspired but not inerrant. God has always used imperfect people and the scriptures detail their imperfections. Why would you think perfection is a requirement for the documents?
He has to accept God's words and you do too, or you get the MKUltra treatment
Lon writes;
since you are a bit dense,
Lon, I think your insults reflect the fact that I am speaking truth to you and you cannot refute the errors that I have raised against your false doctrine of inerrancy. I have other errors to discuss but you won’t address the last one I mentioned at all.
Get a grip and read a commentary for a change. A good many of them explain this VERY well. It was what I already decided. Matthew was not an ignoramus as you intimate. He was a Jew who knew exactly what he was talking about. You? A "gentile" correcting him? Go for it, but YOU look foolish, not Matthew. You ALREADY know these answers. Why in the wide-world would you persist unless you are dense (didn't get it or remember the first time) OR contentious (which is unbecoming of a believer). Neither are acceptable qualities of a believer. I avoid you and will do so again, simply because it is a 'go nowhere' discussion. You are entrenched. I'm entrenched. I believe you a simpleton for it, or worse. That is the best this discussion will ever produce. That being the case, I don't want to drag either of us into a pointless debate. You are stuck. I'm convinced.If Matthew made the error of claiming that all the generations from David to the deportation are 14, while the OT lists 18, how can you deny that is an error?
Incorrect. He said not ONE of His words would pass away. Worse for you? He said "jot" or "tittle." Both are 'graphe' terms. You lost before you started. Sorry, there is an insurmountable wall between you and I. Unlike a colleague like Dr. Daniel Wallace, I DO believe it is an essential doctrine BECAUSE it leads to one trusting in themselves to 'figure things out.' I was part of the United Methodist Church and saw first-hand where errancy went. It went back to the theme and message of the Judges: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes, because there was no King in Israel (and they weren't reading and following scripture).God never promised us a perfect book
Wholly disagree. It leaves us posturing and a wall that cannot be scaled between us.the good news of the gospel did not require perfect communications.
Nope, else God lies. The wall will NEVER be scaled. The divide between us cannot be torn down. It is either/or. This isn't that website.When Peter preached at Pentecost and many came to salvation, Peter was inspired but not inerrant.
God has always used imperfect people and the scriptures detail their imperfections.
Because He promises His words will not disappear, Matthew 24:35 gives curses to any who would add or take away from them, Matthew 5:18 and says we must live by them Matthew 4:4Why would you think perfection is a requirement for the documents?
He has to accept God's words and you do too, or you get the MKUltra treatment
What's MKUltra stand for?
Never mind I googled it.
Always with a bit a humour; it keeps the pot from boiling over.
Er, yes you did:I never claimed that. Does your scripture condemn telling lies?
"Inventing" is lying and yes, you certainly did say it. She isn't the one lying. I've actually got a couple of others in just this thread of you intimating or saying they lied in addition. You dance where angels fear to kneel and you WILL stand (fall on your face) before God for all of this. You are pompous, presumptuous, not well-read, and ignorant asserting things well beyond your ability, saying one of the Apostles (Matthew) lied, etc. YOU are tied to YOUR doctrine AND as I've posted from several sources, OUTSIDE of Christianity according to CARM and GotQuestions. I disagree with Dr. Wallace and agree with many other men that this is an important doctrine and your very life can depend on it. It does with many liberal churches I've been in. They second-guess God on everything to their eternal shame and they will come before the judgement seat over it, as will you.I should add, I think if you study this further you may find that both animals are the focus in the gospel attributed to Matthew due to the fallible writer or writers misunderstanding of the prophecy.
Matthew 21 When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, "Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, just say this, "The Lord needs them.' And he will send them immediately. " 4 This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, 5 "Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey."
The misunderstanding did not exist in the mind of Mark, Luke, or John, so they did not invent a second animal to fit the prophecy.
Who here disagrees with this view? I'll have a go at them as well, but tomorrow now; I need my sleep. :nightall:
All of Evangelicals and fundamentalists disagree. They weren't 'wrong.' Worse? You nor Cobra 'COULD' cogently suggest it. A discrepancy NEVER intimates that something is a mistake, just that something 'else' or 'different' ALSO happened. THAT is the honest assessment. Error? Sorry, no, that is an assumption that NONE but God could substantiate and He hasn't and wont.
I DO believe accusation, without substantiation (and there isn't and CANNOT be), is a sin. It is an accusation without warrant that God says never to entertain. It is also legally, against the law where we 'presume' innocence barring proof. IOW, inerrancy IS the default position and it HAS to be because 'errancy' is a 'supposed' position. It is gossip. Hearsay. There is no possible way to get to the bottom of discrepancy because we can't ask them, and because that is a FACT, we don't and simply believe 'inerrant' unless/until proven guilty/errant. Can't be done. Discrepancy, then, is nothing but a 'puzzle we have that always has pieces missing.' We can guess, but most of us are for the 'defense' (God and the disciples/Apostles). It is VERY odd seeing someone who claims to love God and His disciples/Apostles, yet play the prosecution. It certainly doesn't look 'pro' God, His men, or His words at that point. I have no idea why 'guilty because I, an amateur judge, say so.' THAT doesn't ever make sense and seems against God very God, to me. :idunno:
Lon, glory falsely that I claimed that the scriptures “are filled with contradictions.”Er, yes you did:
I quoted him as credible to evangelicals.Um, even Dr. Wallace, whom you quote as credible, 'credibly' disagrees with you. Learn to think. You don't. I don't like arguing with you, because you are one of the pew sitters in the congregation, nobody of consequence. I have studied all of this and you are indoctrinated and opinionated, even against Dr. Wallace :noway:
If you had an explanation, you would have presented it already.Get a grip and read a commentary for a change. A good many of them explain this VERY well. It was what I already decided. Matthew was not an ignoramus as you intimate. He was a Jew who knew exactly what he was talking about. You? A "gentile" correcting him? Go for it, but YOU look foolish, not Matthew. You ALREADY know these answers. Why in the wide-world would you persist unless you are dense (didn't get it or remember the first time) OR contentious (which is unbecoming of a believer). Neither are acceptable qualities of a believer. I avoid you and will do so again, simply because it is a 'go nowhere' discussion. You are entrenched. I'm entrenched. I believe you a simpleton for it, or worse. That is the best this discussion will ever produce. That being the case, I don't want to drag either of us into a pointless debate. You are stuck. I'm convinced.
I suppose there are some people who cannot trust God except under the condition that He gives them a perfect Bible. That is a weakness in faith, but it is better to keep your faith even if a delusion is needed.Incorrect. He said not ONE of His words would pass away. Worse for you? He said "jot" or "tittle." Both are 'graphe' terms. You lost before you started. Sorry, there is an insurmountable wall between you and I. Unlike a colleague like Dr. Daniel Wallace, I DO believe it is an essential doctrine BECAUSE it leads to one trusting in themselves to 'figure things out.' I was part of the United Methodist Church and saw first-hand where errancy went. It went back to the theme and message of the Judges: Everyone did what was right in their own eyes, because there was no King in Israel (and they weren't reading and following scripture).
Your theory that God made Peter infallible in his preaching is not a teaching of scripture.Nope, else God lies. The wall will NEVER be scaled. The divide between us cannot be torn down. It is either/or. This isn't that website.
Beautiful passage. Never claims to be about the Bible in its entirety.:sigh: Psalm 19 King James Version (KJV)19 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,
5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.
6 His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.
7 The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. lain:
8 The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes.
9 The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.
10More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb.
11 Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward.
12 Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret faults.
13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.
14 Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O Lord, my strength, and my redeemer.
You didn’t quote the passages because they do not support your claims.Because He promises His words will not disappear, Matthew 24:35 gives curses to any who would add or take away from them, Matthew 5:18 and says we must live by them Matthew 4:4
Everybody but you call scriptures 'the word of God.' Acts 11:1, 1 Thessalonians 2:13 John 17:17 1 Timothy 4:5 Psalm 12:6
If they are “simpleton problems,” why can’t you explain them? Matthew said all the generations from David to the deportation were 14, yet there were 18.It is a pointless discussion. I can post scripture after scripture and website after website that firmly believe errancy doctrine is not Christian.
You made up your mind long ago and nobody will shake you. You cannot shake me with simpleton 'apparent' problems. I'm not at all perplexed. That is you. I long ago realized "I" was the one that needed to learn, be corrected, not the scriptures. You? You placed yourself above them. I'll NEVER go there. Sorry. There is a chasm between you and I and I'm not even willing to cross it. It has absolutely no appeal to me whatsoever.
You persist in making false claims about the Bible and you pretend to be able to reconcile errors that have no reconciliation.What is the point of this conversation? None. You simply questioning all over again for the umpteenth time what you are befuddled by, and I am not. There is NO POINT to this but contention. Not my joy in life. Our conversation is pointless and fruitless.
You confirmed glory’s falsehood that I claimed the scriptures “are filled with contradictions.”I DO believe accusation, without substantiation (and there isn't and CANNOT be), is a sin.
I don’t think Lon will agree with the last two sentences.I think we may agree? I think there may be confusion with in this debate caused by semantics? My posistion is that the differences in the gospel accounts only add to validity of the scriptures as people have differing recollections of the events or of what they had heard. This is what always happens. As said it's when everything matches perfectly that is when we can know that collusion has taken place and a deception is being attempted.
However, there are some issues with the New Testament, for instance it says that John 7:53 to 8:11 are not included in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and John 6:4 is noted in two early Bibles as being missing from older manuscripts. I believe there are others too but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. The New Testament, just like the OT, has been through a war (and still is), over what should go in and stay out. Lines have to be drawn by fallible humans and so a few errors here and there are to be expected. It all goes to adding to the fact that it isn't a text that has been colluded over. I believe the search for truth is stronger than the desire to deceive.
I would also point out that Jesus only said the Old Testament was accurate:
John 10:35
The scriptures cannot be discredited.
The NT has no such endorsement by God as far as I am aware. The NT is just man's account of who they believed was the OT's Messiah.
I don’t think Lon will agree with the last two sentences.
I do think we need to be careful with our interpretation of John 10:35.
Lon may read “The scriptures cannot be discredited” as “Everything in the canon I use is infallible, not one single error.”
I don’t think we need to exaggerate what Jesus said. And we should note passage in John 10 is not Jesus giving a teaching on scripture. He was debating the religious establishment.
No, Jesus was saying that as a way of confirming that He and the religious leaders he was arguing with, both agreed the scriptures (Old Testament) were without error.
No. I don't.I am certain you know you mischaracterized my statements.
A member of the congregation. My point is you aren't a spokesman for errant theology any way.And as for a being a pew sitter, you are wrong again.
No. Get this part right. For ANYBODY but you, my answers, our answers work and satisfy the need. Simply to say you are the one loner among us that it doesn't? Doesn't make a lick of difference. Your fingers are in your own ears. As I said, a pointless discussion. We are postured, and believe so according to scriptures and faithfulness to God. You aren't. End of discussion. There is NO meeting of minds. It is obvious. It is a complete waste of time.If you had an explanation, you would have presented it already.
You fail at bluffing.
I suppose there are some people who cannot trust God except under the condition that He gives them a perfect Bible. That is a weakness in faith, but it is better to keep your faith even if a delusion is needed.
Your theory that God made Peter infallible in his preaching is not a teaching of scripture.
Beautiful passage. Never claims to be about the Bible in its entirety.
You didn’t quote the passages because they do not support your claims.
If you are trying to substitute the word “Bible” for “His Words,” then you have failed to make your case at all.
You have probably heard many preachers hold up the Bible and shout “This is God’s Word.” Remember to earnestly study the scriptures to see what they really say: the Bible never claims to be, in its entirety, the Word of God.
Perhaps you have not serious thought about this.
If they are “simpleton problems,” why can’t you explain them? Matthew said all the generations from David to the deportation were 14, yet there were 18.
You persist in making false claims about the Bible and you pretend to be able to reconcile errors that have no reconciliation.
Again, YOU claim errors. I claim you have NO POSSIBLE LOGICAL ability to assert even out of the gate. It is anti-intellectual, anti-intuitive, gossip, and without giving any benefit of doubt whatsoever. Again, your problem. I'm really not willing to walk down this road with you there is no fruit to it. No honor to the Lord Jesus. It is infighting for your pet doctrine. I don't want it or need it. You clearly don't want mine. We are done. Granted it leaves me with a large impression of you in not too kind of light. It's a bummer. I'll let God sort that out. I can't argue with cultists or minority views. You are all stuck in them and there is no road back I've ever found. I can pray for you, as we part ways, but it is you in the great need of rebuke and the seat of correction in those prayers.Lon writes:
You confirmed glory’s falsehood that I claimed the scriptures “are filled with contradictions.”
Substantiate that accusation or repent.
I did say there were some minor, insignificant errors.
That is not what you falsely accused me of doing.
Nope. We disagree on this as well. I don't water down to 'make God acceptable.' I refuse to compromise but only where grace allows. It doesn't here. Yeah, yeah, I know, you disagree. I don't care. We aren't sharing a meeting of minds. We are pointlessly talking about what I intelligently am convinced of. I don't care that you won't be moved. I've CLEARLY shown you CANNOT assert fallible scriptures. You can't. Your attempt is probably as poor to me, as my theology is to you. Good. We are done. :wave:Your demand of inerrancy makes it difficult for unbelievers to come to the saving grace of Jesus Christ.