Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

The error that I pointed out did not concern the number of animals that were riden.

I pointed out that at least one gospel misquotes Jesus in His Words to the two disciples he sent to find and bring the animal(s).

So it is not a case of adding details. It is a case of contradiction.

I will do the same just to help daqq:

Matthew 21:2
saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.


Mark 11:2
saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here.

Can you spot the difference daqq?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Doesn't matter. You and I do not like each other so latching onto whatever off-hand comment and building a vitriol is nowise out of the park for my expectation. I'll leave you with George. He seems to speak your language and I have no patience with you nor this position. I disagree with George and Dr. Wallace and think such can be and often is a damning heresy. It is for poor, Zeke. You? :idunno: George has hope for you so, again, I leave you in his capable hands.

I think you you have a difficult time separating debating the subject from the person. If you could achieve that then you would not have these problems you describe.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Your theory carries a domino effect that would have me an unbeliever at the end. -Lon

Your faith seems weak, perhaps if it were stronger this thread would not make you so upset. imho.

 

[daqq]

I will do the same just to help daqq:

Matthew 21:2
saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.


Mark 11:2
saying to them, "Go to the village ahead of you, and just as you enter it, you will find a colt tied there, which no one has ever ridden. Untie it and bring it here.

Can you spot the difference daqq?

Lol, that is still not what I asked for.
And since when does "difference" equal "error"?
You and George need to take George's advice and "Please pay attention." :chuckle:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Lol, that is still not what I asked for.
And since when does "difference" equal "error"?
You and George need to take George's advice and "Please pay attention." :chuckle:

I never said 'difference = error'. The differences show a lack of collusion, Any apparent errors (or contradictions) I believe are actually just parts of the Bible that can be understood using more complex Biblical rules. But initially one could be forgiven if they thought they were contradictions.

BTW who is this other George? Or are you saying George is not following his own advice?

 

[Zeke]

Oh, I love truth. As I've told you several times 'inerrancy' is simply a good 'assumed' position because it is Christian. Someone who comes to the text to 'be instructed' doesn't turn around and try to 'accuse' it. It simply isn't done. One is more interested in 'following' than correcting. It is, as I've said, a bit like you enumerating and insisting that your wife isn't perfect. "Yeah? Doesn't look loving to me." If love 'believes all things' and "hardly notices wrong" then one enumerating isn't a lover. So, when scripture says to do something and we don't do it? To me: Sin. Problem. I have a good mind, so I'm well able to see these. Unlike you, I set them aside and have simply trusted God. I don't know 'why' the difference is there. Most times, as I've said, they reconcile later.

Oh, you do have 'correction' on your scripture reading docket of course, and that is why I worry. Zeke? Missing the Savior BECAUSE of this 'error' assumption. United Methodists? Yeah, same. They've missed the Savior. If you 'assume' the scriptures are authoritative, 'seemingly'errant is WAY on the back-burner (as it always sits with me). So no, your position is, imho, the presuppositional and presumptuous one. For me? I CAN'T be that fellow. I'm smart, but not self-willed and self-appointed. Faith and trust means it isn't warranted or appropriate. There is no place for us to BE instructed but there. It wouldn't matter 'if' you were correct, it is still inappropriate discussion imho. You can do NOTHING about it, unless you'd rewrite the scriptures in your own image (as I said, all things 'errant' lead to poor ends, imho.
Close enough for the matter imho, though I don't recall your post where you talked about students. I estimate your 'actual' position to be worse, in fact, so giving you benefit of a lesser wouldn't have been a disservice. Until now, I actually thought better of you. You are off following rumors and wives' tales of any old conspiracy theory out there. I've seen them and hold little to no stock. Your theory carries a domino effect that would have me an unbeliever at the end. As George said, only those who have no stake (non-Christian and weak) would be swayed by such. There is no Christian on TOL that would or could entertain such. We follow the words therein, we don't correct them. -Lon

Ole Lon the mind reader gets things all mixed up about what ole Zeke believes so assumption is his best friend.
I don't believe the image or a sign is real like tradition has made you believe, you wouldn't except a photo or painting as the actual substance being portrayed unless it's a biblical image then it becomes alive. You like to play the others haven't met your image an in that assumption in my case you are correct, I no longer think like you do about signs and images you idolize that have no power except deception.

Parables told in allegorical stories is double trouble for the traditional image followers fussing over colts and donkey when there is the bigger problem that has you bowing to a god/person/image outside your kingdom Luke 17:20-21, 1Cor3:16, and you even have a degree in idol worship, impressive.

 

[George Affleck]

Lol, that is still not what I asked for.
And since when does "difference" equal "error"?
You and George need to take George's advice and "Please pay attention." :chuckle:

Daqq,

The reason the error perception exists is because two different gospel writers record Jesus' words as saying two mutually exclusive things. It is alleged that it is impossible to harmonize these two statements. He must have said one thing or the other but could not have said both. It is the recording of Jesus' words that is at issue. Had they not both claimed to record accurately the very words of Jesus, there would be no reason to assume an error has occurred in the writings.

Cobra maintains that this shows that scripture can be in error and, therefore, the scriptures are not, technically, inerrant. This is a technical assertion, not a devotional or salvific one.

I addressed this by suggesting in post 1278 what Jesus' conversation could have looked like so that both of these writers could still be technically correct. It was not accepted as a reasonable solution.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I accept that and believe that it was just the colt He rode with the mother along side to keep the colt calm, but doesn't this support an error by Matthew:

Berean Study Bible
Matthew 21:7 They brought the donkey and the colt and laid their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/21-7.htm

Or am I being 'hyper-literal'.

(reminds me of the term hyper-grace)

You are incorrectly diagramming the sentence in question. As has been noted, the last "them" in the passage is the cloaks, not the animals.

AMR

 

[Wick Stick]

Any apparent errors (or contradictions) I believe are actually just parts of the Bible that can be understood using more complex Biblical rules.

Because clearly the most complex solution is the most likely. :chuckle:

 

[john w]

Good to hear from you, first swearing has no effect on me, you could call me a c-nt all day long but it won't affect my quest for truth in a debate. second I don't necessarily uphold any 'books/scrolls' without some 'discrepancy'. I do believe some are better than others however. I mean John is near the top on my list say, while say the gospels of Hebrews would be way down on the list.

Drawing a line and saying these books are good and the rest are bad is a very poor way of grading the various (thousands of) religious texts. Each one has good and bad information contained within them. They are all good for learning something even if that is to learn that there is nothing worth learning in any given book. Crossing it off the list as it were.

So now where do you stand on this issue? Can you dig?

As I predicted..........Watch the dance, dodge ball.....Watch...

Where can we get a copy of the scriptures that are "inspired of God?"

 

[2003cobra]

Oh, I love truth. As I've told you several times 'inerrancy' is simply a good 'assumed' position because it is Christian. Someone who comes to the text to 'be instructed' doesn't turn around and try to 'accuse' it. It simply isn't done. One is more interested in 'following' than correcting. It is, as I've said, a bit like you enumerating and insisting that your wife isn't perfect. "Yeah? Doesn't look loving to me." If love 'believes all things' and "hardly notices wrong" then one enumerating isn't a lover. So, when scripture says to do something and we don't do it? To me: Sin. Problem. I have a good mind, so I'm well able to see these. Unlike you, I set them aside and have simply trusted God. I don't know 'why' the difference is there. Most times, as I've said, they reconcile later.

Oh, you do have 'correction' on your scripture reading docket of course, and that is why I worry. Zeke? Missing the Savior BECAUSE of this 'error' assumption. United Methodists? Yeah, same. They've missed the Savior. If you 'assume' the scriptures are authoritative, 'seemingly'errant is WAY on the back-burner (as it always sits with me). So no, your position is, imho, the presuppositional and presumptuous one. For me? I CAN'T be that fellow. I'm smart, but not self-willed and self-appointed. Faith and trust means it isn't warranted or appropriate. There is no place for us to BE instructed but there. It wouldn't matter 'if' you were correct, it is still inappropriate discussion imho. You can do NOTHING about it, unless you'd rewrite the scriptures in your own image (as I said, all things 'errant' lead to poor ends, imho.
Close enough for the matter imho, though I don't recall your post where you talked about students. I estimate your 'actual' position to be worse, in fact, so giving you benefit of a lesser wouldn't have been a disservice. Until now, I actually thought better of you. You are off following rumors and wives' tales of any old conspiracy theory out there. I've seen them and hold little to no stock. Your theory carries a domino effect that would have me an unbeliever at the end. As George said, only those who have no stake (non-Christian and weak) would be swayed by such. There is no Christian on TOL that would or could entertain such. We follow the words therein, we don't correct them. -Lon

You are a perpetual source of amazement, Lon.

1) You elevate a doctrine not found in scripture to an essential, and declare disagreeing with your view a damning heresy!

2) You declare that you worship a book!

3) You say an entire mainstream Protestant denomination has “missed the Savior!”

4) Your main objection to someone recognizing that there are some minor, insignificant errors in the Bible seems to be that you think you need an inerrant text to spread the gospel. God is not so weak that we must deny the obvious truth to help Him.

It is amazing.

 

[2003cobra]

As I predicted..........Watch the dance, dodge ball.....Watch...

Where can we get a copy of the scriptures that are "inspired of God?"

Inspiration is not the topic. It is inerrancy. Inspiration never implies inerrancy; inspiration was not a criterion for canonicity; the church fathers considered other writings inspired.

 

[2003cobra]

:yawn: opcorn: :chuckle:

EDIT: Hmmm, four hours and no response, not even an acknowledgment:

Originally Posted by daqq View Post
I removed your comments concerning other so-called errors, (so-called by yourself), because we, or at least myself and others, are still speaking about one topic, the Triumphal Entry and how many donkeys were there...





Even though the scripture Accuser is back here posting in this thread.

EDIT: Alas, all have gone, and no response. Parting is such sweet sorrow, as the parting of the two ways at Amphodon, (Mark 11:4, lol), for the natural man ever chooses the door which faces him to his left, thinking it to be to his right. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit: and those who walk according to the flesh do mind the things of the flesh, but those who walk according to the Spirit mind the things of the Spirit. To be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is Life and Peace: for the carnal mind is enmity against Elohim, for it is not subject to the torah-teachings of Elohim, neither indeed can it be. Those who walk according to the flesh cannot please Elohim.

The number of donkeys is not the topic. The words of Jesus, and how the Savior was misquoted, is the topic.

I am gone for hours, playing with grandchildren. One is at my feet now. Sometimes I post between protective runs.

 

[2003cobra]

Daqq,

The reason the error perception exists is because two different gospel writers record Jesus' words as saying two mutually exclusive things. It is alleged that it is impossible to harmonize these two statements. He must have said one thing or the other but could not have said both. It is the recording of Jesus' words that is at issue. Had they not both claimed to record accurately the very words of Jesus, there would be no reason to assume an error has occurred in the writings.

Cobra maintains that this shows that scripture can be in error and, therefore, the scriptures are not, technically, inerrant. This is a technical assertion, not a devotional or salvific one.

I addressed this by suggesting in post 1278 what Jesus' conversation could have looked like so that both of these writers could still be technically correct. It was not accepted as a reasonable solution.

Well said, thanks

 

[2003cobra]

George, I thought I posted this excerpt last night. It is from page 100 of the second edition of Bruce Metzger’s book on the text of the New Testament.

As would be expected from such a procedure, here and there in Erasmus’ self-made Greek text are readings which have never been found in any known Greek manuscript – but which are still perpetuated today in printing of the so-called Textus Receptus of the Greek New Testament


https://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Tes...ords=Text+of+the+New+Testament+second+edition

I don’t think I paid that much for my copy years ago.

 

[john w]

Inspiration is not the topic. It is inerrancy. Inspiration never implies inerrancy; inspiration was not a criterion for canonicity; the church fathers considered other writings inspired.

I did not address you, devil child. Sit.

 

[2003cobra]

As I predicted..........Watch the dance, dodge ball.....Watch...

Where can we get a copy of the scriptures that are "inspired of God?"

I did not address you, devil child. Sit.

This may help you, John W:

“It will have been noticed that in the preceding discussion concerning criteria used by early Christians in discerning the limits of the canon, nothing was said concerning inspiration. Though this silence may at first sight seem to be strange, the reason for it arises from the circumstance that, while the Fathers certainly agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments were inspired, they did not seem to have regarded inspiration as the ground of the Bible’s uniqueness. That is, the inspiration they ascribe to the Scriptures was only one facet of the inspiring activity of the Holy Spirit in many aspects of the Church’s life.7 For example, while Clement of Rome speaks of the sacred Scriptures (here referring to the Old Testament) as ‘true and given through the Holy Spirit’ (lxiii. 2), the author of the Epistle to Diognetus writes for his own part to his correspondent: ‘If you do not offend this grace, you will learn what the Word (λόγος) talks about through those through whom he wishes to talk, when he pleases. For whatever we have been moved painstakingly to utter by the will of the Word that commands us, it is out of love for the things revealed to us that we come to share them with you’ (xi. 7–8). Among the writings of Eusebius there is a sermon attributed to the Emperor Constantine; whether or not this attribution is correct, the preacher clearly does not consider inspiration to be confined only to the Scriptures. He begins his sermon with the prayer, ‘May the mighty inspiration of the Father and of his Son … be with me in speaking these things’ (Orat. Const. 2).
Not only do early ecclesiastical writers view themselves to be, in some degree at least, inspired, but also others affirm, in a rather broad sense, the inspiration of their predecessors, if not their contemporaries. In a letter that Augustine addressed to Jerome, the bishop of Hippo goes so far as to say (Epist. lxxxii. 2) not only that Jerome has been favoured with the divine grace, but also that he writes under the dictation of the Holy Spirit (Spiritu Sancto)—which may seem to be rather strong hyperbole applied to the often irascible Jerome. That Gregory the Great enjoyed the reputation of being inspired is easier to understand than is the case of Jerome, and Gregory’s biographer, Paul the Deacon, describes how the Holy Spirit, ‘under the form of a dove whiter than snow’, would explain to him the mysteries of Scripture (Vita S. Gregorii, 28).
That the early Church saw the inspiration of the Scriptures as but one aspect of a much broader activity of inspiration is clear from the use made of the word θεόπνενστος (‘divinely inspired’). This word, which is used in the affirmation that ‘all Scripture is given by inspiration of God’ (2 Tim. iii. 16), is chosen by Gregory of Nyssa in referring to his brother Basil’s commentary on the first six days of creation as an ‘exposition given by inspiration of God … [admired] no less than the words composed by Moses himself (Hexaemeron, proem.). The same word is used also in a synodical epistle from the Council of Ephesus to describe the council’s condemnation of Nestorius as ‘a decision given by inspiration of God’. Indeed, a still later writer even describes the epitaph on the grave of Bishop Abercius ‘as a commemorative inscription inspired of God’ (Vila Abercii 76). Thus, the Fathers do not hesitate to refer to non-Scriptural documents as ‘inspired’, a circumstance showing that they did not consider inspiration to be a unique characteristic of canonical writings. (See p. 211 n. 6 above.)
The same impression is conveyed when we examine patristic usage of the designation ‘non-inspired’. While the Fathers again and again use the concept of inspiration in reference to the Scriptures, they seldom describe non-Scriptural writings as non-“inspired. When, in fact, such a distinction is made, the designation ‘non-inspired’ is found to be applied to false and heretical writings, not to orthodox products of the Church’s life. In other words, the concept of inspiration was not used in the early Church as a basis of designation between canonical and non-canonical orthodox Christian writings.
In short, the Scriptures, according to the early Fathers, are indeed inspired, but that is not the reason they are authoritative. They are authoritative, and hence canonical, because they are the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends.”

Excerpt From
The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance
Bruce M Metzger
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/the-canon-of-the-new-testament/id806791592?mt=11
This material may be protected by copyright..

Pages 192-194 of the iBooks edition


(Emphasis is mine)

 

[john w]

This may help you:....spam...

This may help you: I am not addressing you, devil child. Get saved, satanist.

 

[genuineoriginal]

"Them" in Psalms 12:7 is referring to the "faithful" mentioned in Psalms 12:1, not to the "words" mentioned in Psalms 12:6.

No, it's not.

Yes, it is.

Nope, he's speaking of God's words. Simple rules of grammar should tell you that, if you must ignore the content.

The words of the LORD are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.
You shall keep them, O LORD,
You shall preserve them from this generation forever.

"Them" in Psalms 12:7 is referring to the "faithful" mentioned in Psalms 12:1

Psalm 12:1,7 1 Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.​

This is confirmed in other psalms.

Psalm 31:23 23 O love the Lord, all ye his saints: for the Lord preserveth the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer.​

Psalm 97:10 10 Ye that love the Lord, hate evil: he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked.​

Psalm 145:20 20 The Lord preserveth all them that love him: but all the wicked will he destroy.​

The Lord does not preserve "words", He preserves people.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Again-Chapter, verse, that asserts that a translation cannot be scripture.

You seem to be the only one objecting to calling translations "scripture".
I proved that it is common to call translations "scripture".

Again-Prove what language(s) the "originals" were written.

Historical evidence shows that the original scriptures were primarily written in Hebrew and Greek and some in Aramaic.
Are you claiming that the historical evidence was faked?