Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

2003cobra

New member
No. I don't.

A member of the congregation. My point is you aren't a spokesman for errant theology any way.
The errant theology is the one that falsely claims inerrancy of the scriptures. I agree that I am not a spokesman for errant theology. You are filling that role in this thread.

No. Get this part right. For ANYBODY but you, my answers, our answers work and satisfy the need.
You gave no answer.
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.


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:

Still pretending you explained the error in Matthew that states all the generations from David to the deportation were 14, when there were actually 18?
 

2003cobra

New member
Here is the error no one will even try to explain.

Angel4truth did copy and paste an explanation of why someone though Jehoiakim was missing. The person who originated the supposed explantion apparently did not notice that three more generations were missing.
Matthew wrote that there were 14 generations from David to the deportation. He listed the generations. He skips three generations, putting Uzziah in the place of Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah.

So either Matthew has an error in counting the generations or 1 Chronicles 3 has an error in listing the generations.

Matthew 1 And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah...So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

1 Chronicles 3 The descendants of Solomon: Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, 11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, 13 Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son,


1 Chronicles 3.....Matthew
Solomon............ Solomom
Rehoboam...........Rehoboam
Abijah.............Abijah
Asa................Asaph
Jehoshaphat........Jehoshaphat
Joram..............Joram
Ahaziah............missing from Matthew
Joash..............missing from Matthew
Missing from 1 Chronicles......Uzziah
Amaziah............missing from Matthew
Azariah............missing from Matthew

Jotham.............Jotham
Ahaz...............Ahaz
Hezekiah...........Hezekiah

Minor differences in the names aren’t errors. Claiming there were 14 generations when there were 17 generations is an error. Actually, Matthew also skips Jehoiakim, so his miscount is off by 4. But I don’t want to pile on right now.

This is another error which disproves the man-made doctrine of inerrancy. It is an insignificant and minor error from the perspective of the validity and credibility of scriptures. It is another proof that the doctrine of inerrancy is false.
Lon, this is clearly an error in Matthew and disproves your false doctrine of inerrancy.

Of course, there were other errors I mentioned earlier and I have more to present but you gave up trying to explain the errors.

God never promised us a perfect book.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Here is the error no one will even try to explain.

Angel4truth did copy and paste an explanation of why someone though Jehoiakim was missing. The person who originated the supposed explantion apparently did not notice that three more generations were missing.

Lon, this is clearly an error in Matthew and disproves your false doctrine of inerrancy.

Of course, there were other errors I mentioned earlier and I have more to present but you gave up trying to explain the errors.

God never promised us a perfect book.

Matthew never promised a complete list of names.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
I think that might be an overstatement, Watchman.

We know that Jesus said the scriptures cannot be discredited. Expanding that to inerrancy is a extension of what was actually said, isn’t it?

Lon would like to extend the statement by inferring infallibility of the New Testament too. That would require that the canon also be infallibly set. How Lon thinks he can reconciled an infallible canon with the fact that his canon has only been in use for 200 or so years is curious.

Well that's between you two. What I can assert is yes, the textual context is clear both Jesus and the religious leaders Jesus was arguing with both believed the Hebrew scriptures were accurate and without error. Many of the religious Jews of today would say the same, just like Christians do.
 
Last edited:

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
I think that might be an overstatement, Watchman.

We know that Jesus said the scriptures cannot be discredited. Expanding that to inerrancy is a extension of what was actually said, isn’t it?

Lon would like to extend the statement by inferring infallibility of the New Testament too. That would require that the canon also be infallibly set. How Lon thinks he can reconciled an infallible canon with the fact that his canon has only been in use for 200 or so years is curious.

Well that's between you two. What I can assert is yes, the textual context is clear both Jesus and the religious leaders Jesus was arguing with both believe the Hebrew scriptures were accurate and without error. The religious Jews of today would say the same.
 
Last edited:

2003cobra

New member
Matthew never promised a complete list of names.
Wrong again, but thanks for finally trying.

Matthew said all the generations from David to the deportation were 14. That was not true.
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.


He said 14 were all the generations, and he listed them, and he missed 4.

An error that disproves the false doctrine of inerrancy.
 
Last edited:

2003cobra

New member
Well that between you two. What I can assert is yes, the textual context is clear both Jesus and the religious leaders Jesus was arguing with both believe the Hebrew scriptures were accurate and without error. The religious Jews of today would say the same.

There is an alternate view: that Jesus did not come to correct the view of people on every matter. He did not correct their views on science and history. He had the more important missions, one of which was to show them the Father through his love and mercy and reveal a God who could be called Father. It was a radical change.

So we can’t know what Jesus thought about the scriptures other than what He told us. He said they can’t be annulled or discredited. He never called them inerrant. He never even called them complete, and He quoted a scripture not found in the Old Testament.
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
There is an alternate view: that Jesus did not come to correct the view of people on every matter.

Okay.

He did not correct their views on science and history.

When did anyone ever talk about these subjects for Him to correct them?


He had the more important missions, one of which was to show them the Father through his love and mercy and reveal a God who could be called Father. It was a radical change.

Actually Jesus only spoke about love on 6 occasions, which represents less than 1% of His ministerial teaching. He taught on other subjects that that were much more important. The most important subject that he taught on, over half of the time, was about His coming Kingdom.

So we can’t know what Jesus thought about the scriptures other than what He told us.

You set up your own theology then you believe it. That's not how it works. You either Believe what is written or you don't; 'The scriptures cannot be discredited':

discredit
verb
past tense: discredited; past participle: discredited

1. harm the good reputation of.
"his remarks were taken out of context in an effort to discredit him"

2. cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable.


He said they can’t be annulled or discredited. He never called them inerrant. He never even called them complete, and He quoted a scripture not found in the Old Testament.

You are discrediting what the NT says Jesus said.
 

2003cobra

New member
Okay.

When did anyone ever talk about these subjects for Him to correct them?
Jesus knew their views. If He had wanted to correct their views on history and science He could have raised the topics.

Actually Jesus only spoke about love on 6 occasions, which represents less than 1% of His ministerial teaching. He taught on other subjects that that were much more important. The most important subject that he taught on, over half of the time, was about His coming Kingdom.
Could you go through the math that led to the 1%?

Jesus gave them a new command: that they love one another.

And, if you are defining speaking about love as the only times He taught on love, then I think you have missed the point. Love is more action than words.

You set up your own theology then you believe it. That's not how it works. You either Believe what is written or you don't; 'The scriptures cannot be discredited':

discredit
verb
past tense: discredited; past participle: discredited

1. harm the good reputation of.
"his remarks were taken out of context in an effort to discredit him"

2. cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable.
The people who set up the doctrine of inerrancy created their own theology. That doctrine is not found in the Bible.

You are discrediting what the NT says Jesus said.
No, I am pointing out that you are interpreting the passage. Jesus said the scriptures can’t be discredited. You are rewording it to say the scriptures are inerrant. Isn’t that making up your own theology?
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

Well-known member
Jesus knew their views. If He had wanted to correct their views on history and science He could have raised the topics.

Well there were any number of subjects that were not aired before Jesus but it can be safely assumed that the most important ones were recorded in the Gospels. Technically science was not even a subject then unless you consider philosophy a science, and that is mentioned in Paul's writings at least. Being religious I really don't think it was something that the religious leader paid any mind to. As for the Hebrew history I think there was little argument in that regard.

Could you go through the math that led to the 1%?

Take the 6 times Jesus talked about love, divide it by the number of separate other things Jesus talked about and times it by 100.

Jesus gave them a new command: that they love one another.

And, if you are defining speaking about love as the only times He taught on love, then I think you have missed the point. Love is more action than words.
Of course but we're talking about His Teachings

The people who set up the doctrine of inerrantcy created their own theology. That doctrine is not found in the Bible.

Is this what you're referring to:

Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

inerrant
adjective
incapable of being wrong.

Where as:

discredit
verb
past tense: discredited; past participle: discredited

1. harm the good reputation of.
"his remarks were taken out of context in an effort to discredit him"

2. cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable.

It's hard to tell the difference to be honest; Like geese or goose? Semantics hey..


No, I am pointing out that you are interpreting the passage. Jesus said the scriptures can’t be discredited. You are rewording it to say the scriptures are inerrant. Isn’t that making up your own theology?

I'm not sure if I am doing that TBH. I can't say that I have enough esoteric knowledge of semantics to make an informed enough comment, to decide if the two terms are different enough to warrant my or anyone's disregard for either argument.

I knew when I came on this thread it wasn't my cuppa tea. :coffee:
 

2003cobra

New member
Well there were any number of subjects that were not aired before Jesus but it can be safely assumed that the most important ones were recorded in the Gospels. Technically science was not even a subject then unless you consider philosophy a science, and that is mentioned in Paul's writings at least. Being religious I really don't think it was something that the religious leader paid any mind to. As for the Hebrew history I think there was little argument in that regard.



Take the 6 times Jesus talked about love, divide it by the number of separate other things Jesus talked about and times it by 100.


Of course but we're talking about His Teachings



Is this what you're referring to:

Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Protestant Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

A formal statement in favor of biblical inerrancy was published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society in 1978.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

inerrant
adjective
incapable of being wrong.

Where as:

discredit
verb
past tense: discredited; past participle: discredited

1. harm the good reputation of.
"his remarks were taken out of context in an effort to discredit him"

2. cause (an idea or account) to seem false or unreliable.

It's hard to tell the difference to be honest; Like geese or goose? Semantics hey..




I'm not sure if I am doing that TBH. I can't say that I have enough esoteric knowledge of semantics to make an informed enough comment, to decide if the two terms are different enough to warrant my or anyone's disregard for either argument.

I knew when I came on this thread it wasn't my cuppa tea. :coffee:

Jesus used the word love in 19 separate verses in the gospel of John alone. Are you sure about the numbers?
 

Lon

Well-known member
Thread summary position

Thread summary position

There are excellent websites and posts in this thread regarding inerrancy. This is a summary of much of my conversation in thread. Inerrancy is the default and faith position. "Errant" theology is the 'attacking' position AGAINST God and His disciples:

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:
 

2003cobra

New member
I will summarize what you wrote, Lon:
I can’t explain the errors you pointed out, so I am going to call them discrepancies and declare my undying, illogical allegiance to a man-made teaching not found in scripture. I don’t care if it is wrong or not, because I am more dedicated to my tradition than to truth. It doesn’t matter that making it a core doctrine may turn immature believers away from the gospel; what I learned in preschool class from the flannelgraph board is more important than growing in grace and knowledge.
 
Top