Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

Irrelevant (1 1/2 years). How kind of you to question it. You read Greek do you? If so, you'd know, beyond doubt, I translated it correctly. I KNOW I did.

:baby:


:troll:



Why not, as close as you are capable, that much is sure. Why? Because you are questioning "My" translation (yup, all mine, nice try).



:rotfl: (sorry, my wife even, asks me why I chuckle when talking to you, I can't help it, you are so ignorant it either must be fodder for laughter or a sad state of not laughing because your ignorance actually DOES hurt you).

Read the above again. It is a quote OF a quote, OF a quote. It is sad you don't know what that means. Likely, it is not Wallace's own view (it isn't, he says so later :doh: ). He is talking about another's view. Wallace himself, (AND FROM YOUR VERY LINK!!!) Says that John likely adopted the language of the scriptures and thus, it shows in his vocabulary, NOT poor Greek, but an affinity with the scriptures! :doh: PLEASE stop. This kind of shoddy work is only hurting you worse (genuine, not a mean thump). Be a learner. Become a Berean. -Lon

In that 1.5 years of Greek training, you did not learn that context is important?

As for Revelation, you didn’t comment on the real issue—that the Greek in Revelation is poor.

Didn’t you make a comment about God choosing the words?

Now you are referring to Wallace saying John chose the words.

What is your real position on this? Did people write the Bible using their own words, or did God choose the words?

 

[2003cobra]

Watchman, I will add that the Oxford Annotated NRSV note for Zech 9:9 say:
Doneky, colt, in the style of Hebrew parallelism, a single animal (as in Gen 49.21; Jon 12.14-15) is meant here. In the New Testament, Mt 21.5-7 misunderstands and assumes two animals are meant...

Apparently you missed post 1021.

The NET Bible translation helps too.

 

[daqq]

"And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door."?

What does that have to do with the price of cheese?

Ask the blind one who was trying to force himself and his will upon me. :chuckle:

After four times he still could not perceive that I had answered him.
If the light that is in you be darkness: how great is that darkness.

 

[daqq]

By the way, daqq intentionally rejected the context, both before and after “bring to me,” and translated the passage inconsistently with the context.

That shows he values his tradition more than he values the scripture.

Please see my above statements and posts: I did no such thing. You rejected what is written in Zec 9:9, which lays out the context for you, as not applying to the context in the Matthew passage. You are apparently so arrogant that you are willing to tell yourself that you understand the Zechariah statement while the author of Matthew did not.

 

[Lon]

In that 1.5 years of Greek training, you did not learn that context is important?

As for Revelation, you didn’t comment on the real issue—that the Greek in Revelation is poor.

It is REALLY hard to explain things to you. Wallace disagreed it was 'poor.' I do too.

Didn’t you make a comment about God choosing the words?

AND a quote of O.T. reference would make for trying to 'preserve' His perfect intent. IOW, like the KJV, a 'word for word' translation may not be someone's idea of the 'best' English, yet it is standard for Shakespeare etc. It influences our English and we've adapted English to it's expression.

Now you are referring to Wallace saying John chose the words.

What is your real position on this? Did people write the Bible using their own words, or did God choose the words?

The words themselves, are 'moved along' by the Spirit. Different discussion in my mind. George touched on this a bit and it was well written and important. Suggestion? Read him again. This is important.
We both believe in inerrancy. He says, because these words are NOT man's, but God's. For me? 2 Peter 1:21 are not just prophecies, but must/necessarily be the words they wrote of God as well OR the ONLY thing we'd have would be the Holy Spirit for truth. Romans 10:14

 

[2003cobra]

:doh: There you go. It is TOO easy: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK MATTHEW was wrong??? Because two others' don't (supposedly) agree with him? :doh:



:doh: Zechariah 9:9 PLEASE THINK! ...


...If it is Matthew, he was there, no? Think more. It ISN'T likely he was misread for this. There surely is a different reason, OR AT LEAST he MUST be given that! You can't 'assume' error. That IS what you are doing. You PROVE it (if not misspoken) in your next sentence:


There it is. Opinions are nice. Facts they do not make.


Compounds? As in covering a lie? :think: What can you possibly mean?


Ridiculous. Matthew 4:4 You'd have me next loving the Father more than the Son or some such nonsense.

I'll say this again. I know you CANNOT be convinced of it, but it is STILL MY stance and firmly: You CANNOT know if such is an error or not.
"C-A-N-N-O-T" (means there is not enough information for us to know) "KNOW" (empirically, provably, beyond ALL doubt).

That means, we BOTH assume something from our presupposition every time we come to the text. You've already said you 'assume' that men cannot write perfectly without mistake and assume they are always there. I simply 'assume' from intelligent deductive reasoning, that I 'cannot know' for certain what the deal is. OFTEN times I'd not known Hebrew custom when I couldn't figure something out. I didn't know 'how' Jonah could be living and breathing inside a fish for 3 days, etc. etc. FACTS and information allowed me to come to a suitable, educated, latter conclusion.


No he did not. All he said is what I said "Bring it to me" is a completely congruent AND contextually viable translation. ONLY a COMPLETE adherence to suppositional theology would dismiss it.

Three disagree with Matthew.

Look more closely at Zech 9.9, as you are making the same misreading as the writers of Matthew.

Matthew 4.4 refers to words that proceed out of the mouth of God. The scriptures never claim to proceed, in their entirety, out of the mouth of God.

Of course we can know there is an error. Two gospels or parts of scripture giving mutually exclusive versions of events means at least one has an error. Either the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus or he did not. Either Joseph was the descendant of Nathan or of Solomon. Either Jesus told the Apostles to take a staff or not to take a staff. Either there were 14 or 18 generations from David to the deportation. And I could go on.

Denying the truth and pretending errors don’t exist only makes you look dishonest.

“Bring it to me” is inconsistent with the command to go find two things. That is why no translation says bring it.

 

[2003cobra]

Please see my above statements and posts: I did no such thing. You rejected what is written in Zec 9:9, which lays out the context for you, as not applying to the context in the Matthew passage. You are apparently so arrogant that you are willing to tell yourself that you understand the Zechariah statement while the author of Matthew did not.

I did reject Zech 9.9. See post 1102.

Inserting “it” after bring following instructions to go find two things is inappropriate. That is why no published translation commonly available matches your translation. They either say “bring to me” or “bring them to me.”

No translators agree with you.

 

[2003cobra]

Ask the blind one who was trying to force himself and his will upon me. :chuckle:

After four times he still could not perceive that I had answered him.
If the light that is in you be darkness: how great is that darkness.

And I still don’t think you have answered, but I think you have dug your heels in and will not answer.

Do you want me to ask again?

 

[2003cobra]

It is REALLY hard to explain things to you. Wallace disagreed it was 'poor.' I do too.


AND a quote of O.T. reference would make for trying to 'preserve' His perfect intent. IOW, like the KJV, a 'word for word' translation may not be someone's idea of the 'best' English, yet it is standard for Shakespeare etc. It influences our English and we've adapted English to it's expression.


The words themselves, are 'moved along' by the Spirit. Different discussion in my mind. George touched on this a bit and it was well written and important. Suggestion? Read him again. This is important.
We both believe in inerrancy. He says, because these words are NOT man's, but God's. For me? 2 Peter 1:21 are not just prophecies, but must/necessarily be the words they wrote of God as well OR the ONLY thing we'd have would be the Holy Spirit for truth. Romans 10:14

By the way, it appears you did not read all the text from Wallace. Your statement about it is wrong.

Linguistic Difficulties. Grammatical solecisms in Revelation abound! “The writer seems on the surface to be unacquainted with the elementary laws of concord. He places nominatives in opposition [sic] to other cases, irregularly uses participles, constructs broken sentences, adds unnecessary pronouns, mixes up genders, numbers and cases and introduces several unusual constructions. That the grammatical usages of this book differ from those of the Gospel would seem to be demonstrated beyond doubt. But the real problem is whether one mind could adopt these different usages.”15

 

[Lon]

Denying the truth and pretending errors don’t exist only makes you look dishonest.

You've a REALLY vitriolic underhanded way of saying things. "Pretending" is without any kind of foundation for starters. "Looking" dishonest? I avoid the appearances of evil. This is but another unfounded accusation. I 'can' alternatively, show your education hasn't served you (or you it).

“Bring it to me” is inconsistent with the command to go find two things. That is why no translation says bring it.

:doh: "You will find a donkey, 'with' a colt. Bring it." Not only that, as I said, there is no direct indirect quote you could call foul upon. Whatever the circumstance, you STILL don't know. YOU (and I), frankly, weren't there. You cannot know the exact circumstance therefore are VERY ill equipped to ascertain what went down that day. I know for a fact, that eyewitnesses are incredibly better than your and my second-hand news.

 

[2003cobra]

You've a REALLY vitriolic underhanded way of saying things. "Pretending" is without any kind of foundation for starters. "Looking" dishonest? I avoid the appearances of evil. This is but another unfounded accusation. I 'can' alternatively, show your education hasn't served you (or you it).

:doh: "You will find a donkey, 'with' a colt. Bring it." Not only that, as I said, there is no direct indirect quote you could call foul upon. Whatever the circumstance, you STILL don't know. YOU (and I), frankly, weren't there. You cannot know the exact circumstance therefore are VERY ill equipped to ascertain what went down that day. I know for a fact, that eyewitnesses are incredibly better than your and my second-hand news.

You don’t seem to mind that no translation agrees with you and daqq.

You don’t seem to mind that you and daqq misunderstood Zech 9.9.

 

[2003cobra]

Well, I am clocking out for tonight. Tomorrow is Six Flags with the grandkids.

I think we may have to buy a Honda to all be in one accord.

 

[Lon]

By the way, it appears you did not read all the text from Wallace. Your statement about it is wrong.

Linguistic Difficulties. Grammatical solecisms in Revelation abound! “The writer seems on the surface to be unacquainted with the elementary laws of concord. He places nominatives in opposition [sic] to other cases, irregularly uses participles, constructs broken sentences, adds unnecessary pronouns, mixes up genders, numbers and cases and introduces several unusual constructions. That the grammatical usages of this book differ from those of the Gospel would seem to be demonstrated beyond doubt. But the real problem is whether one mind could adopt these different usages.”15

:doh: See that little '15' there? It means 'said Guthrie' whom Wallace said he largely disagrees with.

I really cannot help you much any more. Your brain is simply not ready for this

Wallace, BEFORE quoting Guthrie, set out to dismantle everything Guthrie said:

On almost every front, Guthrie has overstated his case.

AFTER that quotation he then said this:

We believe he wrote the Gospel in the 60s. Thirty years later, after shepherding the flocks in Asia Minor, John’s very language could easily have been strongly impacted by the scriptures he proclaimed. This would be akin to an old preacher using the King James Version all his life. By the time he is old he hardly knows the modern idioms! In the Revelation there are as many as 460 allusions to the OT, though not one direct, formal quotation. It is, in fact, our conviction that these very allusions often, if not normally, picked up the original syntax of the OT passage he was employing, even though such syntax would now be discordant with the context of his own writing (cf. 1:4-5, etc.). Much of this was intentional; much of it was not. But as John aged, biblical language became part of the very fabric of his own linguistic structure.

You don’t seem to mind that no translation agrees with you and daqq.

You don’t seem to mind that you and daqq misunderstood Zech 9.9.

I didn't say such. YOU intimated I made that mistake. :nono: Both are reading comprehension errors, yours.

 

[daqq]

I did reject Zech 9.9. See post 1102.

Inserting “it” after bring following instructions to go find two things is inappropriate. That is why no published translation commonly available matches your translation. They either say “bring to me” or “bring them to me.”

No translators agree with you.

That does not keep me from the truth. If only you knew how many things "none of the translators agree with me" on: and yet in most all of those things I can either prove them wrong with the scripture and in some cases show how they are bold faced liars who had the truth and blatantly ignored it because of paradigm-mindset, (Matthew 11:10 quoting Exodus 23:20a being one of those cases). However, as I said to your pal Watchman: what you do in your house is between you and the Master, but in my house there is peace and light, the light of the truth, in the Messiah.

 

[daqq]

No, they did not bring two because ονος, (donkey), is used for both male and female depending on the context. There is another word also found in the Septuagint version of Zec 9:9, (υποζυγιον), which is found in Mat 21:5 but it is neuter and simply means "a beast of burden", (of any kind). The following passage from the Septuagint uses ονος for a male donkey, (according to the context), showing that it can be used either way:

Exodus 13:11-13 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
11 And it shall come to pass when the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land of the Chananites, as he sware to thy fathers, and shall give it thee,
12 that thou shalt set apart every offspring opening the womb, the males to the Lord, every one that opens the womb out of the herds or among thy cattle, as many as thou shalt have: thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord.
13 Every offspring opening the womb of the *** [ονου - donkey] thou shalt change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it: every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem.

By the context one may see that it is fairly clear a male donkey is intended. The Matthew text therefore follows on to read just as it was laid out in the Prophet Zechariah from the passage as previously quoted:

Zechariah 9:9
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon a he-donkey, even upon a colt, the son-foal of a she-donkey.

Matthew 21:7 W/H
7 ηγαγον την ονον και τον πωλον και επεθηκαν επ αυτων τα ιματια και επεκαθισεν επανω αυτων

Matthew 21:6-7
6 And the disciples went, and did even as Yeshua directed them:
7 [they] brought the donkey, even the colt, and put their garments upon them: and he sat thereon.

Or it could be understood this way also:

7 [they] brought the donkey, even the colt, and put their garments thereon: and he sat thereon.

??? I dunno for sure . . . :idunno:

However the donkey and the colt are the same: but "them" and "thereon", (αυτων), highlighted in the above must mean that the donkey and the colt have two different supernal meanings and understandings which fulfill multiple things, (Gen 49:11?), though they are the same. Perhaps it is something like the difference between a scarlet robe, (Mat 27:28), and a purple robe, (Mrk 15:17-20, Jhn 19:2-5)? But are we going to call that difference an error? Maybe you, but not me: it is just something more to search out in the Word as far as I am concerned.

After looking a little deeper I will say that it could very well be that the gender of the donkey(s) does not matter at all: for Jerusalem of above is our mother-covenant, (Gal 4:22-27), and has all kinds of symbolic and allegorical significance, (for instance "new Jerusalem" of the Apocalypse would thus be the symbolism of the new covenant and "daughter of Zion-Jerusalem" in the allegory-analogy). Moreover Jerusalem is typed as a wild donkey in Jer 2:23,24 and the daughter of Zion and daughter of Jerusalem has hoofs, (of brass), in Mic 4:13, (again here the scripture speaks of the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem as the same, Mic 4:8, just as in Zec 9:9). The Master already had the new covenant during his ministry according to Yohanan:

John 3:27-31 KJV
27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
30 He must increase, but I must decrease.
31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

The Testimony of the Messiah is the new covenant, and his Testimony he received from the heavens, from above, (from the Father without measure, Jhn 3:34), and he that has the bride is the groom: the bride therefore is the new covenant which descends from the heavens, (as in the Apocalypse, it is deep symbolism). However the new covenant is actually a renewed covenant, and thus the old or primary is the new when it is interpreted through the new revelation of Messiah given to us in his Testimony in the Gospel accounts: in other words they are the same, the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, but understood through the Testimony of Messiah with new "spiritual eyes" given to us through the Testimony of the Messiah. This can be seen in the accounts of the last Seder where there are two of the multiple cups mentioned: Messiah passes not one but two cups around to his disciples, one during the meal and one afterwards, (mentioned in Luke). The first cup is the confirmation of the primary covenant "for many", (Dan 9:27, Mat 26:28 ASV, Mrk 14:24 ASV, Luk 22:17 ASV), while the second cup after the meal is the new covenant, ("shed for you", it is private, personal, and individual, Luk 22:20 ASV). So it may be that the Matthew 21 passage speaks in these terms, that is, Zion-Jerusalem of above, and the daughter of Zion-Jerusalem, (both covenants: one donkey "accustomed to the yoke", and one young-new donkey, regardless of gender because it speaks of heavenly cities, lol).

Galatians 4:22-26
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

These things very well could be . . .
I have much more to study now: thank you Cobra, (sincerely).

 

[Lon]

I have judged no one. Judgment entails sentencing. You will stand before Jesus, not me, for judgment.

:doh: Do you realize THAT is a judgement? Good grief! Wrong, incidentally, we stand before the bema seat, both of us. Me? Jesus stands in my place. You are a weird sort of guy, more interested in old cars.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

By the way, when you understand those four generations that way you effectively eliminate the former error of the false doctrine of "generational curses" which was taught in ancient times because of a misunderstanding of those passages which I quoted from the Torah, (Exo 20:5, Exo 34:7, Num 14:18, Dt 5:9). For Moses, according to Dt 24:16, cannot be teaching "generational curses", but must be intending something else. The Prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel must have picked up on this and that is the reason for them both mentioning the proverb, one of which occurrences was also quoted in the same post with the above Torah passages, here, (Eze 18:1-4), while Jeremiah mentions the same proverb once again in the same new covenant language which I previously referenced in what you responded to, (Jer 31:29-31). It can really only make sense one way: there be four "generations" to the first "age" of a man. Elohim will use them, (like four "beasts of man"), to bring about the destruction of the "old man", (beastly carnal nature), which is not for evil but for our own good, (Jer 31:27,28).

Cool.

I've never put any stock in generational curses.
I've had enough of the Holy Spirit over the years to know when something didn't ring true. Even though I didn't have complete truth of some things.
I've even had him give me glimpses and because where I was at in my generation completely screwed around backward what he showed me.
Gonna stop there for now.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Perhaps you still did not fully understand my answers. The debate has been raging for nearly two thousand years just as you yourself said: I do not need to give you my full canon, it is mine, what you do in your house is between you and the Master. I will not be answering to you, or a church organization, or anyone else besides the Judge, and you will not be answering to me.

:chuckle:

So your personal canon is a secret, the Bible warns us not to be part of, or start a secret organisation. Even if you never intend to recruit others to your cult, for that what it is, you are nether-the-less forming an Anti-God and Anti-Christian structure.

Why not humble yourself and open up to other Christians about you peculiar cannon, the wealth of knowledge on here can help you to learn more about whether the books you have selected are holy or not and why. Either way you must pray and be careful what you do with what you personally believe as to which books are holy.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

:nono: I'm the one that hung the jury and will not vote guilty. Innocence until proven guilty is the rule.
ANY shadow of doubt and you can no longer vote guilt. You'd be a biased juror on this and "couldn't" be even picked.
Forgive: Imho, you are wrongfully opinionated, as is Cobra.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and for you, or anyone to trying to stifle that right shows an intolerant totalitarianism that dislikes debating and the learning that comes from debating, although I don't think you are like that.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Watchman said I'm more with Cobra than against his pointing out these 'discrepancies'. I find them interesting and helpful in learning new things that support the validity of the Bible. They are there for our benefit I beleive. To try and ignore them or say they are there to test our faith is a mistake. I try to only fear God, where as I do not fear questioning words written in a book (by imperfect men) that have been translated several times and for which the originals are lost and where the oldest surviving fragments don't all match up perfectly either. I am making a right judgement as Jesus taught us to do.

Lon said: I'm the one that hung the jury and will not vote guilty. Innocence until proven guilty is the rule.
ANY shadow of doubt and you can no longer vote guilt. You'd be a biased juror on this and "couldn't" be even picked.
Forgive: Imho, you are wrongfully opinionated, as is Cobra.

Lon then also said: I think Watchman partly right: a puzzle to figure out and wonder about.

Now I'm not sure what your saying? Are you for or against accepting there are discrepancies that are also useful in learning more about scripture and God etc?