Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[Lon]

I was sure you could not resolve the error. I just wanted to see if you would try.

Kind of a cocky fellow. If this is a sock from a previous username, sorry about this but all the posts in this thread by you need a solid challenge because you are well over your paygrade and ability. This is part of my degree and I'm well aware of why we have a canon and why we believe scriptures are infallible and inspired. You are a relativist (meaning truth is not ultimate and is whatever you decide it is, without the benefit of the entire body, councils, or God because 'nothing is inspired' and a liberal theologian). I came from a liberal relative truth church. I hated it. It was never about God, always about man (social gospel) and whatever truth he could come up with on his/her own, without God's help. I really despised that. They functionally ousted God. Jesus told the liberal Samaritans that Salvation was of the Jews. He told them their 'relative' ideas of 'truth' were wrong and further, told them they could not worship God as true believers, without worshipping Him in Spirit AND Truth (objective not relative). IOW, it was both and they were out of balance. Jesus also claimed the Pharisees (not all Jews) were without Spirit. Nobody gets past the Lord Jesus Christ's standards. It is because of this, and because I deem your response very Samaritan-ish, that I feel it necessary to interject. -Lon

Are you aware that early church writers considered many writings outside the canon inspired?

Not like you are thinking. All truths are God's and thus anything He conveys is 'inspired" but there is a collection of Evangelicals that all agree what these terms mean and you, a loner, don't "get" to redefine. Not even with quotes from Origen. I'm well aware of and have read most of the church fathers.

Here Jesus quotes scripture not in the canon.

:nono: The pertinent (the quote) IS in scripture. You are kicking against accepted terms and ideas. While you seem to employ a bit of education and understanding, you are one of those guys that thinks your own thoughts on these matters is more important and holds more weight by virtue of your lone (ranger) self. :nono: Some Anglicans and other nominal Christians (yes, and sorry, true, you and they seek to undermine God's authority, cannot be done).

Hawkins, and what of this lost book?

1 Kings 11:41 NRSA
https://www.biblestudytools.com/nrsa/1-kings/11-41.html
41 Now the rest of the acts of Solomon, all that he did as well as his wisdom, are they not written in the Book of the Acts of Solomon?

Not necessarily 'inspired' however. You make a few rookie assumptions.

I have noticed that people sometimes tend to pad the resume of the Bible, imagining it to be infallible and defining every word in it to be the Word of God. The Bible never made those claims for itself.

You are a naïve hack. Sorry, you are just ignorant to say such a thing. I don't know what they taught you where you went to school, but this is beyond amateur on your part. You studied a little and then managed to pontificate into erroneous error. Look: There are Trinitarians, Urantians, Modalists, and other cults represented in this thread, every-last-one-of-them disagrees with you. You need to listen more, pontificate a LOT less. lain:

We are to love and follow the Lord.

Yeah, but if you discount His truth, His Word, His revelation, then it is just the Cobra-show with you making it up and pontificating 'what you think' rather than what is true.

Do you still maintain that Jesus quoted the OT in John 7?

:doh: He said it. Are you STILL trying to argue the point as if you are brilliant? What is the point? Do you often have a hidden back-slap in your repertoire for decent debate? Why are you tossing out his thought here? Just to prove your own point and heighten your own platform and supposed prowess? :idunno: Some of this kind of thing never makes sense to me. Why not listen a little before going off half-cocked, and half-learned?

Two things to consider:
1) The Greek compound word godbreathed does not necessarily mean that God breathed the words. A compound word is not defined by its two roots. Are you aware that the early church fathers considered many non-canonical writings inspired.

Spoiler

2) if you will take a thorough look at the passage from 2 Peter, you will see that it is not about scripture in its entirety. It refers to the prophecies of scripture spoken by people when moved by the Holy Spirit.

It is important to know scripture, and it is also important to recognize what it really says and claims about itself.

The first chapter of Luke provides an excellent example:
Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

Luke says he decided to write the gospel. It was not a divine revelation—it was the result of his thorough investigation. That is why there are minor, insignificant differences in the details between Luke and the other gospels. If God had breathed every word into Luke’s pen, there would be no factual differences between the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke).

This is really part of the modern 'relativism' philosophy and poor theology. If you want to walk down it, you'll walk it alone or with a few other compromisers of truth. Again, I came from this kind of wishy-washy 'truth is what I make it' liberal mess and admit I hated it. I didn't hate the pastors or people, I hated what they were doing. They were compromising truth for lies. "If" you are a big enough of a man to stand and be corrected, I'll walk through inspiration and canonization AND why it is necessary to understand scriptures as uncompromisingly coming from God infallibly. If not, this is the wall of separation. No Christian who walks in both Spirit and Truth, can walk down that path with you. You'll walk it alone and/or with wishy-washy types who will not listen to God. As for me and my house Joshua 24:14-16

 

[God's Truth]

If you get to the point that you can admit that “take no staff” means “take no staff,” rather than “don’t take two staffs,” let me know and we can continue the discussion.

Luke 9:3 He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic.

Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

 

[2003cobra]

Lon, I could address all of your post, but it is late. So now I will just ask you to defend one of your claims and ask you another question.

You wrote about John 7:
The pertinent (the quote) IS in scripture.


What scripture was Jesus quoting?
As the scripture has said, "Out of the believer's heart (literally, belly) shall flow rivers of living water.' "

Please quote the scripture from the OT that says that.

And, secondly, what did Jesus actually say: “take no staff” or “take a staff?
Either Mark or Luke, or both, misquoted Jesus.

There are more minor, insignificant errors we can discuss. I have only listed one of several. They do not affect the reliability or authority of the Bible, but they do eliminate the credibility of the doctrine of inerrancy.

By the way, I am not, as you claimed, discounting God’s Truth, only a man-made doctrine not found in scripture. Have a good evening.

 

[2003cobra]

Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

I got a picture in my mind last night of you trying to enter a courthouse through the metal detector with an AR15. You are shouting “But the sign says “no guns” and I only have one!

American Standard Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (ASV) And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.

The Bible in Basic English
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (BBE) And he said to them, Take nothing for your journey, no stick or bag or bread or money, and do not take two coats.

Common English Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (CEB) He told them, "Take nothing for the journey—no walking stick, no bag, no bread, no money, not even an extra shirt.

Common English Bible w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (CEBA) He told them, "Take nothing for the journey—no walking stick, no bag, no bread, no money, not even an extra shirt.

The Complete Jewish Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (CJB) He said to them, "Take nothing for your trip -- neither a walking stick nor a pack, neither bread nor money; and don't have two shirts.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (CSB) "Take nothing for the road," He told them, "no walking stick, no traveling bag, no bread, no money; and don't take an extra shirt.

The Darby Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (DBY) And he said to them, Take nothing for the way, neither staff, nor scrip, nor bread, nor money; nor to have two body-coats apiece.

English Standard Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (ESV) And he said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.

Good News Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (GNT) after saying to them, "Take nothing with you for the trip: no walking stick, no beggar's bag, no food, no money, not even an extra shirt.

Good News Translation w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (GNTA) after saying to them, "Take nothing with you for the trip: no walking stick, no beggar's bag, no food, no money, not even an extra shirt.

GOD'S WORD Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (GW) He told them, "Don't take anything along on the trip. Don't take a walking stick, traveling bag, any food, money, or a change of clothes.

Hebrew Names Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (HNV) He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey -- neither staffs, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats apiece.

Jubilee Bible 2000
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (JUB) And he said unto them, Take nothing for <em>your</em> journey: neither staves nor provision bag, neither bread, neither money, neither have two coats apiece.

King James Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (KJV) And he said unto them,Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

King James Version w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (KJVA) And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

Lexham English Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (LEB) And he said to them, "Take along nothing for the journey--neither a staff, nor a traveler's bag, nor bread, nor money, nor to have two tunics apiece.

The Message Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (MSG) He said, "Don't load yourselves up with equipment.

New American Standard Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (NAS) And He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not even have two tunics apiece.

New Century Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (NCV) He said to them, "Take nothing for your trip, neither a walking stick, bag, bread, money, or extra clothes.

New International Reader's Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (NIRV) He told them, "Don't take anything for the journey. Do not take a walking stick or a bag. Do not take any bread, money or extra clothes.

New International Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (NIV) He told them: “Take nothing for the journey—no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra shirt.

New King James Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (NKJV) And He said to them, "Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have two tunics apiece.

New Living Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (NLT) “Take nothing for your journey,” he instructed them. “Don’t take a walking stick, a traveler’s bag, food, money, or even a change of clothes.

New Revised Standard
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (NRS) He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic.

New Revised Standard w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (NRSA) He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic.

Orthodox Jewish Bible
Chapter Parallel
Lukas 9:3 (OJB) And Rebbe Melech HaMoshiach said to them, Take nothing for the journey, neither walking stick nor a schnorrer’s (beggar’s) sack nor lechem nor kesef, nor an extra kaftan.

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (RHE) And he said to them: Take nothing for your journey, neither staff, nor scrip, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats.

Revised Standard Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (RSV) And he said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.

Revised Standard Version w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (RSVA) And he said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two tunics.

SBL Greek New Testament
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (SBLG) καὶ εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτούς · Μηδὲν αἴρετε εἰς τὴν ὁδόν, μήτε ῥάβδον μήτε πήραν μήτε ἄρτον μήτε ἀργύριον, μήτε ἀνὰ δύο χιτῶνας ἔχειν.

Third Millennium Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (TMB) And He said unto them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor pack, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

Third Millennium Bible w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (TMBA) And He said unto them, "Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor pack, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

Tyndale
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (TYN) And he sayd to them: Take nothinge to sucker you by ye waye: nether staffe nor scripe nether breed nether money nether have twoo cootes.

The Webster Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (WBT) And he said to them, Take nothing for [your] journey, neither staffs, nor bag, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

World English Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (WEB) He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey -- neither staffs, nor wallet, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats apiece.

Weymouth New Testament
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (WNT) And He commanded them, "Take nothing for your journey; neither stick nor bag nor bread nor money; and do not have an extra under garment.

Wycliffe
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (WYC) And he said to them, Nothing take ye in the way, neither a staff, nor scrip, neither bread, nor money [+And he saith to them, Take ye nothing in the way, neither rod, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money], and neither have ye two coats.

Young's Literal Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 9:3 (YLT) And he said unto them, `Take nothing for the way, neither staff, nor scrip, nor bread, nor money; neither have two coats each

 

[patrick jane]

Hi Evil Eye !!! Phony

 

[God's Truth]

I got a picture in my mind last night of you trying to enter a courthouse through the metal detector with an AR15. You are shouting “But the sign says “no guns” and I only have one!

I gave you scripture that plainly says do not bring STAFFS, plural.
Are you EE?

 

[2003cobra]

I gave you scripture that plainly says do not bring STAFFS, plural.
Are you EE?

I don’t know what you mean by EE.

Perhaps Lon or AMR can explain to you that Luke 9:3 quotes Jesus as telling multiple disciples not to bring staffs, meaning no disciple is to bring a staff.

I would hope if they have dedicated a large part of their life to the study of the scriptures that they would have the integrity to honestly explain that verse. I hope I am not too optimistic in assessing their characters.

You can see from the list in post 124 that translators contradict your misunderstanding.

 

[2003cobra]

Hi Evil Eye !!! Phony

He may not be being phony. He may be just misled and so blinded by a man-made doctrine that he has heard for many years that he can’t honestly read Luke 9:3

 

[Lon]

Lon, I could address all of your post, but it is late. So now I will just ask you to defend one of your claims and ask you another question.

You wrote about John 7:
The pertinent (the quote) IS in scripture.


What scripture was Jesus quoting?

Two points 1) other sources were often quoted AND while they were not scriptures themselves, the 'quote' is. Why? Because God included them in His book.

As the scripture has said, "Out of the believer's heart (literally, belly) shall flow rivers of living water.' "

2) A few scripture quotes are not verbatim. There are several reasons. One is that Hebrew is a broad language. Sometimes the LXX is quoted and other times, Hebrew directly. See here (and look here and other places like it often before posting in threads?)

Please quote the scripture from the OT that says that.

There are several listed in the link. Have you ever heard "Out of Egypt, I called my Son?" It is a 'partial quote of scripture.' While you may not like it, you are opinionating here. Most scholars believe either Isaiah or Ezekiel was the source. For me? Both are good indications: Look at the context of the Lord Jesus' statement, figure it out, and then you'll at LEAST know the OT context of the quote. IOW, the promise of Messiah was well before the NT and only someone who thinks God is disshelveld would try to correct God here. There is absolutely no mistake on John's part nor the Lord Jesus Christ's. Amateurs, liberal theologianw, pagans, and atheists often attack the word of God as if it were full of errors. :nono: Nope. Incorrect. Psalm 23:5 and see the crossreferences from other Psalms as well.

And, secondly, what did Jesus actually say: “take no staff” or “take a staff?
Either Mark or Luke, or both, misquoted Jesus.

Several answers all, as far as I'm concerned, better than attacking the word of God. Such is 'you' being a corrector rather than receiver of truth. Sorry, that's the only option. You are saying no below, but your immediate jump that the 'text is wrong' is against such a notion. I always 'look' for the answer. You? You assumed the text must be wrong. One answer is that these men were sent out more than once. As AMR has said, another is that only one was taken, not two, thus the prohibition was against taking extra things. If you READ the actual text, trying to understand it instead of 'correcting' it, you'd understand his and other's point: They were specifically told not to bring extra things because the Lord had a purpose. IF you discern that purpose, then the apparent discrepancy disappears. Why? Because instead of being pithy "Oh did God REALLY say....?" you, I, they become bible followers instead. Which are you? Bible follower or Bible corrector? I do work at resolving most discrepancies but I've also learned to trust God when I can't. THAT isn't up to me, it is up to God and I've found He eventually has made those clear to me as I faithfully continue reading His Word and trusting it is true. Those who don't are stuck in the "man-made" conundrum world you speak of at the end of this repost.

There are more minor, insignificant errors we can discuss.

:nono: No, there aren't. That's a fact.

I have only listed one of several. They do not affect the reliability or authority of the Bible, but they do eliminate the credibility of the doctrine of inerrancy.

Nope. It's foolish to say so and completely untenable. If the scripture aren't inerrant, you have NO way of knowing or following God. YOU become the center of your supposedly Christian walk. Colossians 1:17 John 15:5 I COULD NOT refute you with scripture if they were not infallible. The Lord refuted Satan with Scriptures. You are frankly, ignorant of God's statements concerning His Words. Jesus READ the scriptures in the Temple and never said 'this passage is written incorrectly.' Never. Imho, that makes your version a heinous lie or the statement of someone who really hasn't read his/her bible very often. I've read and re-read it. I know it is infallible. As I said, this is a large part of my background. There is no way you can trust God if ANYTHING about Him is fallible, including what He chose to convey.

By the way, I am not, as you claimed, discounting God’s Truth,

Yes you are. Genesis 3:1 You JUST asked that.

only a man-made doctrine not found in scripture

Meditate on Psalm 19 today.
2 Peter 1:19-21 John 17:17 Matthew 4:4 If the Bible is not infallible, then it cannot be the word of God (In Him is NO darkness at all, none) and you are left to your own devices, following your own way. Many cults have done the same, declaring 'their' books scripture instead, full of lies.
You have not logically walked far down this road, but it is untenable for any bible-believing Christian. It can't be done. While I hate to say it, many liberals who call themselves Christians, are not at all. If I can keep you far from it, I'll believe this thread is profitable and has a significant reason for existing. You NEED corrected on this else you have nothing to stand on. Proverbs 14:12 John 6:68 Don't ever listen to or be persuaded by fools my friend. No scripture has any errors. 1 John 1:5 1 Peter 2:22 In Him -Lon

 

[2003cobra]

Lon, thank you for admitting that the quote of scripture from John 7 is not found in the OT. It would have been better if you had done the right thing and admitted there is nothing close to it in the OT.

And thank you for making it clear that you have no explantion of the difference between The instructions of Jesus in Mark and Luke. Your claim that they were specifically told not to “being extra things” is, of course, false in the matter of staffs and Luke. In Luke, Jesus tells them not to bring a staff. What is really interesting here is your desire to defend the man-made doctrine of inerrancy even if you must deny what the Bible says to do it.

You asked me whether I was a “bible follower” or a “Bible corrector.” This is very telling: it reveals that you have elevated the Bible and put it in the place of Jesus.

Jesus told us to follow Him. You have replaced Him with a book.

You call the Bible, in it’s entirety, the Word of God, making a claim not found in scripture. John identifies Jesus as the Word. Again, you have replaced Jesus with a book.

I read what Luke actually says. You are pretending to correct it to match Mark and Matthew.

Consider these things. Yes, the scriptures are valuable and authoritative and our second best source of information and guidance, second to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in our lives.

I was hoping you would address Luke 9:3 in a manner that honored the scripture and what it actually says, even if that honoring threatened a man-made tradition. But it seems you choose your tradition of man over rightly dividing the word of truth. Please reconsider.

 

[2003cobra]

By the way, Lon, if you are going to claim there are no errors in the Bible, you should be able to explain Luke 9:3 and how it differs from Mark’s account.

When we have really discussed that one, there are more we can discuss.

But first I have a question: is your faith in our Lord Jesus Christ strong enough to hold onto when you realize the traditions of man that you have been taught were wrong?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No scripture has any errors.
In Him -Lon

This one is tampered with.

Rev 2:13
13I know where you live, where the throne of Satan sits. Yet you have held on to My name and have not denied your faith in Me, even in the day My faithful witness Antipas was killed among you, where Satan dwells.

It should read in the days of Herod Antipas wherein my faithful were martyred.

Was no dude named Antipas that got cooked in a brazen cow.

 

[God's Truth]

I don’t know what you mean by EE.

Perhaps Lon or AMR can explain to you that Luke 9:3 quotes Jesus as telling multiple disciples not to bring staffs, meaning no disciple is to bring a staff.

I would hope if they have dedicated a large part of their life to the study of the scriptures that they would have the integrity to honestly explain that verse. I hope I am not too optimistic in assessing their characters.

You can see from the list in post 124 that translators contradict your misunderstanding.

Luke 9:3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

You are trying desperately to hang onto your mistake about the scripture.

The scripture says plainly not to bring staffs.

You argued falsely before about the scripture saying don't bring a staff, and you change it up when you are faced with the truth instead of accepting the truth and admitting that you are wrong.

So which is it? You said the scripture said don't bring 'a' staff.

Now you say the scripture says don't bring staffs.

In Luke 9:3 does the scripture say not to bring BAGS, or a bag? You said 'staffs' refers to the many people, but why not 'bags' instead of 'bag'.

Do you think that they were told not to wear shoes too, or do you think they were told not to brig extra shoes?

You have shown that your integrity is not good.

 

[God's Truth]

He may not be being phony. He may be just misled and so blinded by a man-made doctrine that he has heard for many years that he can’t honestly read Luke 9:3

That makes someone blinded? That is not what the Bible says what causes people to be blinded.

 

[God's Truth]

You can see from the list in post 124 that translators contradict your misunderstanding.

There is still a translator that said 'staves'.

You can't claim the Bible is flawed, but maybe some translators sometimes are?

You are still the one in error about what you say about the written Word. Can you admit that?

 

[God's Truth]

If you get to the point that you can admit that “take no staff” means “take no staff,” rather than “don’t take two staffs,” let me know and we can continue the discussion.

Luke 9:3 He said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money—not even an extra tunic.

You speak about many different translations, but this is the one you used.

So tell me why you argue the 'staves' in the scripture I used is for everyone's staffs but it does not say bags, plural?

You can't change it up to your liking.

 

[2003cobra]

There is still a translator that said 'staves'.

You can't claim the Bible is flawed, but maybe some translators sometimes are?

You are still the one in error about what you say about the written Word. Can you admit that?

It is difficult to watch you make this error repeatedly.

I will try to help you more.

Jesus spoke to a group of disciples and told them:
“Don’t bring staffs, money, bread, not even an extra shirt.”

And you pretend a disciple thought: He said staffs, plural, so I can bring one.

Suppose you are chaperoning a school field trip, and the leader says:
Don’t bring guns, money, bread, or even an extra shirt.

Does that mean you can bring one gun?

In the interest of helping you recognize your error, I have provided this example.

I find it shameful that others let you persist in this error with no comment. Are they really that afraid of looking at what the scriptures actually say?

 

[God's Truth]

It is difficult to watch you make this error repeatedly.

I will try to help you more.

Jesus spoke to a group of disciples and told them:
“Don’t bring staffs, money, bread, not even an extra shirt.”

And you pretend a disciple thought: He said staffs, plural, so I can bring one.

Suppose you are chaperoning a school field trip, and the leader says:
Don’t bring guns, money, bread, or even an extra shirt.

Does that mean you can bring one gun?

In the interest of helping you recognize your error, I have provided this example.

I find it shameful that others let you persist in this error with no comment. Are they really that afraid of looking at what the scriptures actually say?

So don't bring a bag or don't bring bags?

You are a dishonest person and I will not discuss with you anymore.

Try to humble yourself or wrath from God awaits you, so says the scriptures.

 

[jsanford108]

On your second paragraph in post 95, I think you have confused inspiration with canonicity. The church fathers considered many writings inspired but not in the canon. Origen (whom AMR quoted a likely revised Roman Catholic writing from), for example, considered many other writings inspired. For a list of 7, see:
http://ntcanon.org/Origen.shtml

Inspiration was never a criterion for canonicity.

On the second paragraph, the 382 document from Rome is quite disputed as to authenticity. That is why it is rarely referred to.

You really did not answer my question 1. I would appreciate an answer. Luke clearly contradicts Mark, doesn’t it? No just a rounding or judgment issue: Luke says Jesus said “take no staff” and Mark says Jesus said take a staff.

I have read your answer to my second question and do not see an answer there. I do not see why how logic dictates the scriptures must be inerrant. I know it would be nice if they were. It only takes one error to prove the doctrine of inerrancy is false. And I have presented one. I can present more, but one is enough.

You have argued for reliability of the scriptures. They are reliable. The minor, insignificant error in either Luke or Mark, showing that they are not perfect in every detail, does not damage their reliability but it does invalidate the doctrine of inerrancy.

This might be helpful:

“II. INSPIRATION AND THE CANON
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”

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.

If I may be so bold, I daresay that I did answer your questions. In fact, I even numbered them appropriately. Alas, I shall answer them again, though, in order to progress.

1.) The exact numbers/listing of "staffs" does contradict, however, the text contextually does not. The inclusion of "a staff" does not render the alternate account false. Context is key. Such a tiny discrepancy on exact figures is attributable to the gathering of eye-witness testimony on specific quotations.

2.) It is reasonable to conjecture that the reason you failed to see an answer to your second question is because it disproves your position. But, let us tackle that a step at a time, as it appears that you are unable to grasp the full extent of it in one post (not trying to be condescending, but you seemed to overlook answers without providing reasons that such answers did not adequately fulfill your inquiry).

When discussing the canon of Scripture as "inspired," or "inerrant," we must begin by agreeing on terminology. "Inspired" should come with connotative meaning; that the text is authored by a fallible human, guided by the Holy Spirit. "Inerrant" should come with denotative meaning; the text is free from theological error, thus incapable of being wrong.

Now, let us progress with the knowledge that three criteria are fulfilled. First, that as a historical text, the New Testament is substantiated by other documents of its time, alluding to the reasonable conclusion that the events contained therein are accurate and really occurred. Second/third, that internal and external evidence that alludes to authorship, composition, and events detailed, is accurate and reliable. Thus, let us conclude that the Scriptures are indeed reliable as accurate historical texts. Do we agree on this?

Next, who do you say that Jesus is?

If you can answer these two questions, I can progress in illustrating how logic dictates that the Scriptures are Truth, divinely inspired, and inerrant.

(Not to be rude, but you can dispense with quotes from Dr. Metzger. He is unreliable when it comes to historical context. He argues from a predisposed position that disagrees with actual history. If you carefully read through his commentaries, you will see that quite often his points and arguments are eisegesis, rather than exegesis.)

 

[2003cobra]

Jsanford, let’s take it a step at a time.
You wrote:
1.) The exact numbers/listing of "staffs" does contradict, however, the text contextually does not. The inclusion of "a staff" does not render the alternate account false. Context is key. Such a tiny discrepancy on exact figures is attributable to the gathering of eye-witness testimony on specific quotations.


Do you deny that the text in Luke says Jesus told the disciples not to bring a staff?

Or do you text in Mark says they can bring a staff?

Which one is it — we’re the disciples forbidden from bringing a staff or was bringing a staff allowed?

Your clear answer will help clarify your position.

I will answer your questions in the next post.