Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
The Lord taught that we are accountable for the resources we have been given.
If you want to take a talent and bury it in the ground, I won’t be the one who judges your actions.
Funny, that is the very thing you used against me to say that I had confirmed that I believe Mark and Luke are false witnesses, which again, I never said: but you made that judgment according to your own opinion that Matthew contradicts Mark and Luke, and therefore, since you play God in your vain imagination, if anyone says they believe Matthew then according to your own private judgment they have confessed that they do not believe Mark and Luke. It is nothing more than a shell game in your mind. Again, you have never validated your opinion: and you did indeed condemn me for admitting that Matthew appears to speak of two donkeys. As I already said, it is time to stop playing games and put forth your entire argument: post all of the passages and exegete them: show us all where and why they supposedly contradict. This appears to be what your pals the Watcher and George where not able to understand or hear: I am demanding your thesis, your entire proposal, not a couple of scripture quotes. Lay it all out for us and let us hear the case, let us have a hearing, a trial, a court case, present all of your evidence since YOU are the accuser. The burden of proof is on you: not anyone else, for you are the accuser. Again, as Lon also said, "Innocent until proven guilty", and that is "the law of the land".
Until then: Case dismissed for lack of evidence or none at all. You lose.
Wick Stick
Well-known member
The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 40:8
Think you have that backwards. People perish more or less constantly.
Funny, that is the very thing you used against me to say that I had confirmed that I believe Mark and Luke are false witnesses, which again, I never said: but you made that judgment according to your own opinion that Matthew contradicts Mark and Luke, and therefore, since you play God in your vain imagination, if anyone says they believe Matthew then according to your own private judgment they have confessed that they do not believe Mark and Luke. It is nothing more than a shell game in your mind. Again, you have never validated your opinion: and you did indeed condemn me for admitting that Matthew appears to speak of two donkeys. As I already said, it is time to stop playing games and put forth your entire argument: post all of the passages and exegete them: show us all where and why they supposedly contradict. This appears to be what your pals the Watcher and George where not able to understand or hear: I am demanding your thesis, your entire proposal, not a couple of scripture quotes. Lay it all out for us and let us hear the case, let us have a hearing, a trial, a court case, present all of your evidence since YOU are the accuser. The burden of proof is on you: not anyone else, for you are the accuser. Again, as Lon also said, "Innocent until proven guilty", and that is "the law of the land".Originally Posted by 2003cobra
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.
Until then: Case dismissed for lack of evidence or none at all. You lose.
By the way, that is also why I mentioned that, if you feel you need to start a new thread, who is stopping you? But since God is not the author of confusion: please, one accusation per thread.
Thanks for input, daqq.
When you figure out what the words of Jesus to the two disciples He sent actually were, let me know.
Matthew 12 36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
Or, in the NRSV:
Matthew 12:36-37New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
36 I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
To call a follower of Jesus Christ a satanist seems worse than careless.
Zeke
Well-known member
Just wrongly perceived as historical, the need for it to be is the snafu causing die-vision over a lifeless mirage/image seen in the distant past as some oasis of truth.
genuineoriginal
New member
Do a search for all instances of the word in the Bible.
נָצַר - natsar H5341
- to guard, watch, watch over, keep
- (Qal)
- to watch, guard, keep
- to preserve, guard from dangers
- to keep, observe, guard with fidelity
- to guard, keep secret
- to be kept close, be blockaded
- watchman (participle)
- (Qal)
The word is frequently used for God watching over people and for people obeying God's instructions, as in these examples:
Psalm 31:23 23 O love the LORD, all ye his saints: for the LORD preserveth H5341 the faithful, and plentifully rewardeth the proud doer. |
Psalm 105:45 45 That they might observe his statutes, and keep H5341 his laws. Praise ye the LORD. |
"Them" in Psalms 12:7 is referring to the "faithful" mentioned in Psalms 12:1
genuineoriginal
New member
What does that even mean?
Zeke
Well-known member
Your historical interpretation of scripture (Galatians 4:24, Psalms 78:2) is what I AM calling a mirage! get it?.
genuineoriginal
New member
Scripture is history, parables, and prophecy.
Your efforts at allegorizing the historical parts is a mirage.
Lon
Well-known member
Er, nope. Good to see the first person I've met in my life whose first-drafts are gold though :noway:
Er, read just above. You DON'T like me and it shows. You are using 5 posts to tell me you about hate my guts.
All emoting imho. You've already said you don't like me or Daqq in thread. I imagine you don't like John W either. :think: I don't hate either you or Cobra. I don't 'like' talking to someone who cannot listen thus would generally avoid the both of you in real life. I would and have prayed for both of you. I can't do more than that and am comfortable leaving you both in God's hands. He knows what He does. Whether I've been a unprofitable servant, even.
On this, I'm simply saying for me to 'believe' the scriptures errant, I'd have to be a nonChristian. IOW, I couldn't unless I weren't a Christian. Such is the chasm. I love my Savior and I love His words and instructions and literally have nowhere else to go John 6:68 I love them. I'm not about to waste a minute worrying over this matter. These words are life. The chasm between? Insurmountable. Worse? I don't even want to! I have to wonder why anyone would.
Apology accepted. Upset? Offended? No. My concern was for you over the matter.
Er, you aren't a mindreader either buddy. You in fact, stink at it. Advice: Just stop?
Well, you are taking words to him and applying them to your own position, I reckon (also not a mindreader, but sometimes words show on the page and I am usually able to discern them). Again, apology is accepted. Again, it isn't necessary, I'm more concerned about the 'why's' of your posts.
Er, not what you are thinking. There is no tear, no anger outburst, nothing you'd call an 'emotion' this side of the screen.
Let's entertain your accusation for a moment, nevertheless: How 'would' I control my emotions better?? :think:
Why would you give this advice to someone on the net you've never met? :think:
Rather, I will tell you this: I read for comprehension and try to discern what I'm reading as well as try to give perspective
and yes, sometimes advice, but rarely. I am simply reading your comments and breaking them down into their parts, trying to make sense of them, comparing them to my world view, and giving you feedback. That is pretty much what conversation and debate on TOL consists of, at least for me.
Ah, see what you did there? You took my supposed 'digs' and turned it around and echoed it back to me, mostly unchanged.
It is a knee-jerk reaction I see OFTEN on TOL. I don't. I'm a better thinker than this. Comparison to one-up you back? :nono: it is just the content of this reading and my thoughts given back over the matter. All I am saying is, I don't tend to echo back the exact same thing said to me. Rather, I try and think where it came from and why it is there. Well, I said similar to you, so a knee-jerk reaction is to say it back to the person who said it. Again, I see it often on TOL. I'm not sure I understand it other than self-protection and reactionary impulsive.
You can go ahead and question my walk with Jesus, but it'd be BETTER if you contemplated what that might actually look like, getting to know me, and being of service. MOST of your post isn't helpful. Worse? I don't honestly think that you meant that it should. To me, it all looks like trying to put me in my proverbial place as well as an attempt at emotional manipulation. Mindreading? :nono: Just what all this looks like from my end.
Last edited:
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Unfortunately the excellent brain that Metzger possessed was clouded by an anti-Reformation, ecumenical mindset. For me, his reputation came crashing down when he fabricated a story about Erasmus out of thin air with regard to the Johannine Comma for the specific purpose of using his respected position to tarnish the reputation of the TR. (I think it is on page 101) This is not the kind of "expert" I would recommend to anyone. Basically he was a papist hiding in the traditional camp.
What you have quoted him to say is, at best, misleading. Erasmus' Greek text was completed a full 90 years prior to being used in the production of the KJV and went through revisions during that time that all but nullifies Metzger's comment. Metzger was not unaware of these details. He just decided he could misuse his scholarly influence.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Nope, just because God preserves those who love Him does not mean He has not preserved His own Word as is spoken of in the Psalm. His word and all His promises are still here, in spite of vain men who would do away with them.
genuineoriginal
New member
The idea of God "preserving" scripture is from a misunderstanding of a translation of the Bible.
God "keeps" His word by "preserving" the faithful, not by ensuring that nobody misquotes Him.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Nope, you're wrong. The word is what is being discussed...God's word as opposed to the words of the vain slanderers. From generation to generation, God's Word is preserved by God.
genuineoriginal
New member
I am not wrong.
The psalm is clearly about whether godly men (the faithful) will be cease to exist among mankind or whether God will preserve godly men (the faithful).
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. |
The words written in the Bible before and after the psalm was written have nothing to do with it.