An interesting topic for another thread. Let me know if you start such a thread and need another participant.
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
An interesting topic for another thread. Let me know if you start such a thread and need another participant.
glorydaz
Well-known member
It's too bad I missed this one. Excellent response, AMR. :thumb:
Last edited:
I will number your comments and questions to assist in addressing them.
1) Two documents quoted Jesus. The quotes disagree. At least one is an error.
2) Of course you know I provided definitive sources, the only ones that you will accept: books of the Bible. Matthew disagrees with Mark and Luke. Three definitive sources; at least one misquotes Jesus.
3) Your statement is false and it misrepresents my presentation.
a) Wrong numbers are errors.
b) It is much more than numbers. In one gospel, Jesus told the disciples to take no staff, in another He told them they could take a staff, in a third He told them not to acquire a staff to take. Not numbers — different instructions. In one gospel, Jesus told the disciples to bring a colt. In another He told them to bring a donkey and a colt. Different, contradictory quotes. Not just numbers — errors.
4) This is a standard exaggeration people struggling against the facts to support their man-made traditions frequently use. I say repeatedly that there are a few insignificant errors that do not affect the authority or validity of scripture. Those failing to defend their false doctrine resort to fear mongering. ‘Full of errors’ is the trypical lie people hope to use in getting others to ignore their inability to explain the few insignificant errors.
5) Pointing out that the Bible itself is inconsistent with the way you have padded its resume with the false claim of inerrancy is discussing the doctrine of inerrancy. If it contradicts the evidence in the Bible, and it does, then you have failed.
6) Your claim that there must be an inerrant parallel source to disprove inerrancy is both wrong and ironic — it works against the doctrine of inerrancy. Why haven’t you seen that? Here it is simply (since you spent a post calling me a simpleton, this may be appropriate):
You claim the gospel attributed to Matthew is free of error. You claim the gospel attributed to Mark is free of error. They are parallel documents, both covering the same time and topic.
So we have two parallel and, according to your, inerrant sources that prove at least one has an error. Your own requirement has proved you, and the doctrine of inerrancy, wrong.
1) Two documents quoted Jesus. The quotes disagree. At least one is an error.
2) Of course you know I provided definitive sources, the only ones that you will accept: books of the Bible. Matthew disagrees with Mark and Luke. Three definitive sources; at least one misquotes Jesus.
3) Your statement is false and it misrepresents my presentation.
a) Wrong numbers are errors.
b) It is much more than numbers. In one gospel, Jesus told the disciples to take no staff, in another He told them they could take a staff, in a third He told them not to acquire a staff to take. Not numbers — different instructions. In one gospel, Jesus told the disciples to bring a colt. In another He told them to bring a donkey and a colt. Different, contradictory quotes. Not just numbers — errors.
4) This is a standard exaggeration people struggling against the facts to support their man-made traditions frequently use. I say repeatedly that there are a few insignificant errors that do not affect the authority or validity of scripture. Those failing to defend their false doctrine resort to fear mongering. ‘Full of errors’ is the trypical lie people hope to use in getting others to ignore their inability to explain the few insignificant errors.
5) Pointing out that the Bible itself is inconsistent with the way you have padded its resume with the false claim of inerrancy is discussing the doctrine of inerrancy. If it contradicts the evidence in the Bible, and it does, then you have failed.
6) Your claim that there must be an inerrant parallel source to disprove inerrancy is both wrong and ironic — it works against the doctrine of inerrancy. Why haven’t you seen that? Here it is simply (since you spent a post calling me a simpleton, this may be appropriate):
You claim the gospel attributed to Matthew is free of error. You claim the gospel attributed to Mark is free of error. They are parallel documents, both covering the same time and topic.
So we have two parallel and, according to your, inerrant sources that prove at least one has an error. Your own requirement has proved you, and the doctrine of inerrancy, wrong.
jsanford108
New member
Perfect. Works for me, and it is organized. Bravo.
Let's progress. See, we are getting places.
1.) For my first question, that of "how do you know Jesus is being misquoted," you submit that you have two documents quoting Jesus, and they disagree, thus one is in error. Great. So, how do you know which is correct and which is wrong?
2.) Great. Again, we seem to slightly agree, that the Gospel accounts are definitive sources. I would accept sources outside of the Bible, if they prove and support, definitively, that found in Scripture. But how do you know that these Gospel accounts are definitive sources?
Also, by your words, if three agree and one disagrees, then the one is in error, correct? Well, Lon, glorydaz, and myself agree that the Scriptures are inerrant. You disagree. By your submitted logic, then only one is in error.
3.) My statement is not a false representation. You have argued over numbers. "Which is right," being your charge, always on which numerical representation of an object is the correct command. Yes, a wrong number can be labeled as an error; but historically and scientifically, the addition or subtraction of a single digit is negligible when determining error. When I measure freshwater species of fish, the approximation of quantity is considered accurate within a certain acceptable limit, as long as quality of specimen remains intact. The quality of the passages which you use as basis for dispute remains intact, regardless of the [number] of staffs. Thus, my posit that you are arguing on [numbers] of staffs, is accurate; you are not arguing over the mission, nor point of the passage. So, what are you arguing about? Hint: the number.
For proof, let us simply leave out numbers, and see if instructions change: take _ staff vs take _ staff. Yes, you are arguing about the missing variable.
4.) Composition of a source affects the reliability of it. Multiple errors erodes the quality of reliability. This is widely agreed upon by scholars.
5.) If there are inconsistencies in the Bible, then it becomes questionable, no? But let us take this a step further. Recall my quote from the Letter to Timothy? How can Scripture be "God-breathed" (again, with the knowledge that at this time in history, "Scripture" referred to the OT), then how can it be inconsistent? Is God's breath inconsistent or containing errors?
6.) You say, "Your claim that there must be an inerrant parallel source to disprove inerrancy is both wrong and ironic — it works against the doctrine of inerrancy." I agree. It does work against the doctrine of inerrancy. That is why I am charging you with providing it. Such evidence would elevate your position above my own.
You then go on to say, "Here it is simply (since you spent a post calling me a simpleton, this may be appropriate):
You claim the gospel attributed to Matthew is free of error. You claim the gospel attributed to Mark is free of error. They are parallel documents, both covering the same time and topic....So we have two parallel and, according to your, inerrant sources that prove at least one has an error. Your own requirement has proved you, and the doctrine of inerrancy, wrong." I believe you are confusing me with another person, as I have not mentioned Matthew's Gospel account, that I know of. And I certainly haven't addressed you as a "simpleton." I think you are in error here.
Thus far, you keep using the Gospel accounts as definitive documents, yet claiming they contain errors. This logically means that you are relying on unreliable, erroneous documents, as a base of your faith; unless you can provide an alternate source for which you are basing your faith. This is why I asked if you believe in what Christ said/taught/did; He said that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles, which would include their composing of Gospel accounts, no? If He did this, and there are errors, it becomes the fault of the Holy Spirit. Are the Scriptures, thus the Holy Spirit, in error?
Lon
Well-known member
Hey kids, We were wrong! Cobra is right because he is so smart!
Hey kids, We were wrong! Cobra is right because he is so smart!
Cobra read this passage and says its a mistake. I looked. He is right, there were no staffs and suddenly, there are staffs!
Then? There was one donkey colt, and then there were two donkeys!
:doh:
How could I have missed it! He is right!
Wait, it gets better, What Cobra does next is suggest that this is proof 'poof' that the Bible has errors.
Here then is what he claims:
Mat 21:5 “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’”
Mat 21:6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them.
Mat 21:7 They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.
<Enter Mark and Luke>
"Now you know Matthew, there was only one colt."
"Oh yeah, I forgets! Ya know I all can't count too good. I don't know whys they had me collectin' taxes. Shucks, I cants even count!"
Next a staff then, poof, no staff!
"You know we were told not to bring a staff."
"Oh yeah, I forgets."
"No, you ruined the point of what we were doing, we were told explicitly not to, and you are saying some did!"
"Oh, you is right. I shor do hope someone smart, not like me, corrects this when they is writing it down."
***********************************************************************************************************************
And there, for the whole world to see, is Cobra's idiocy. He LITERALLY believes the disciples were mentally deficient and couldn't count or follow directs. LITERALLY.
Then? He has the AUDACITY to try and hock his snake oil among intelligent believers who think calling the disciples stoopit and ign'rant is ad hominem, NOT good bible study or conclusion.
:dizzy: :baby:
I shore wishes Cobra wuzzen so smart and I is so dumb!
Hey kids, We were wrong! Cobra is right because he is so smart!
Cobra read this passage and says its a mistake. I looked. He is right, there were no staffs and suddenly, there are staffs!
Then? There was one donkey colt, and then there were two donkeys!
:doh:
How could I have missed it! He is right!
Wait, it gets better, What Cobra does next is suggest that this is proof 'poof' that the Bible has errors.
Here then is what he claims:
Mat 21:5 “Say to the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.’”
Mat 21:6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them.
Mat 21:7 They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.
<Enter Mark and Luke>
"Now you know Matthew, there was only one colt."
"Oh yeah, I forgets! Ya know I all can't count too good. I don't know whys they had me collectin' taxes. Shucks, I cants even count!"
Next a staff then, poof, no staff!
"You know we were told not to bring a staff."
"Oh yeah, I forgets."
"No, you ruined the point of what we were doing, we were told explicitly not to, and you are saying some did!"
"Oh, you is right. I shor do hope someone smart, not like me, corrects this when they is writing it down."
***********************************************************************************************************************
And there, for the whole world to see, is Cobra's idiocy. He LITERALLY believes the disciples were mentally deficient and couldn't count or follow directs. LITERALLY.
Then? He has the AUDACITY to try and hock his snake oil among intelligent believers who think calling the disciples stoopit and ign'rant is ad hominem, NOT good bible study or conclusion.
:dizzy: :baby:
Worth even the third time. :up:
I shore wishes Cobra wuzzen so smart and I is so dumb!
Lon
Well-known member
No it is not. YOU implied in 'the context' of errancy. Worse, you simply were throwing heavy-weights around as if you were even in the same room with them. I don't care where you go with this after that. I had to read for depth because there is a whole slough of controversy because of stuff like this and YOU conflated the issue like a little girl gossip when he is trying to distance from the misrepresentations. You can have the last word on this one. I'm not willing to drag Dr. Wallace's name into this any longer. I'm satisfied with what I know about him and am a bit frustrated that gossips still drag his name through the muck.
I understand that you are embarrassed that you misread my posts and leaped to completely unjustified conclusions. But this reaction is unworthy of a Christian.
I never implied that Wallace abandoned inerrancy. All I wrote was that he considered making it a core doctrine an inappropriate “slippery slope.” And I quoted his own words as evidence.
If Wallace abandoned the doctrine of inerrancy, he would likely be ostracized from most of his circles and lose his job. I don’t know your situation, but it may be the same. This is serious encumbrance in seeking the truth.
If anyone is dragging his name through muck, it is you. My comments on his positions have been respectful and honest. I only asked if you knew about him and then quoted his words.
Your feigning righteous indignation without justification only discredits you. Perhaps you want to use this excuse to abandon the discussion because you do not want to address the next error. I hope that is not the case. Others have not gone as far in trying to defend their false doctrine, so I appreciate what you have done so far.
If anything I said concerning Wallace is inappropriate, feel free to post a quote of mine doing so. The fact that you did not is evidence of my honesty and correctness in this matter.
Lon writes:
You say, "Your claim that there must be an inerrant parallel source to disprove inerrancy is both wrong and ironic — it works against the doctrine of inerrancy." I agree. It does work against the doctrine of inerrancy. That is why I am charging you with providing it. Such evidence would elevate your position above my own.
I did. In the case of Jesus’ words on the staffs, I present two parallel and (according to you) inerrant sources: Mark and Luke.
In the case of Jesus’ words on the ride for the triumphal entry, I provided one parallel and (according to you) inerrant source (Matthew) against two parallel and (according to you) inerrant sources (Mark and Luke).
In the case of the Word of God from the cloud at the transfiguration, I provided three parallel and (according to you) inerrant sources. You haven’t even attempted to explain that error yet.
You say, "Your claim that there must be an inerrant parallel source to disprove inerrancy is both wrong and ironic — it works against the doctrine of inerrancy." I agree. It does work against the doctrine of inerrancy. That is why I am charging you with providing it. Such evidence would elevate your position above my own.
I did. In the case of Jesus’ words on the staffs, I present two parallel and (according to you) inerrant sources: Mark and Luke.
In the case of Jesus’ words on the ride for the triumphal entry, I provided one parallel and (according to you) inerrant source (Matthew) against two parallel and (according to you) inerrant sources (Mark and Luke).
In the case of the Word of God from the cloud at the transfiguration, I provided three parallel and (according to you) inerrant sources. You haven’t even attempted to explain that error yet.
Lon
Well-known member
Which is more intelligent, Cobra? To suggest that the disciples were simpletons, or to think, perhaps, they might have been interested in something else? Let me cut to the quick: You don't know. I don't know.
Do you know why there is a discrepancy? NO YOU DO NOT. Do I know why there is a difference? NO I DO NOT!
Further? NO HONEST PERSON could say there was a mistake because he CANNOT KNOW!!!
ALL he knows is there is a discrepancy. That is it, Cobra! You are being a simpleton! "Error" is an assumption, Cobra. YOUR assumption and it amounts to the disciples being retarded. Sorry. No. You are being a dufus. I realize other great men don't believe in inerrancy BUT YOUR example is a horrible one. Higher Criticism is largely associated with Germans from the 16-19th centuries. Other forms of criticism stemmed from this era and this type of questioning AND concluding. Now while I appreciate an honest inquiry into the text some of these become inane like the ones you've provided.
If you and I had this conversation before, on another forum, I like you and think you are an intelligent man but you've crossed a line here and aren't thinking straight or correctly. There is NO WAY you can bring up these two texts without casting grave doubts on the mental aptitude of the Apostles. NO Way. Further? You are asking 'us' to believe the Apostles cannot remember what they'd gone through. HOW IN THE WIDE WORLD, did Matthew not remember there was only one donkey!!!???? It is impossible Cobra! The intellectual integrity is to rather believe that something is different, and it MUST be purposeful. Me? At that point I'm trying to ask 'why' then, if it was purposeful. As I said, the text doesn't say AND I'm saying you took the low road because frankly: You CANNOT know this is a textual error. Read that again: You CANNOT know.
It is therefore a theological bias on your part. Worse, it makes it look like the Apostles were simpletons. It may have looked good to you on paper, but this is the height of the clown circus it becomes. Which of us, then, is employing the better intellectual process that has the higher road of integrity? Me and all the rest in this thread. You? :nono: Rethink your poor thinking, please.
Thank you. If this is you, I ask you to do the same because knowing you, you are every bit and more as prideful. A good thing? Yes. Pride is not always bad or poor. Rather, we need to not think 'more highly' than we ought. "As high as we ought?" I think so. I pray these words echo with you and help us both with our rightful and alternately wrongful, big heads, and perhaps at times, where we've been falsely humble. In a nutshell, the walk between pride and false humility is to assess our prowess exactly right. The more we are in Christ, the better. :e4e: -Lon
I'll forgo this and hope the above explains the 'why' very well. The short: You DON'T and CANNOT KNOW there is an error. CANNOT. CANNOT, Cobra! "CANNOT." You 'assume' it. YOU do. Worse, it is an assumption that causes a lot of damage to the texts as well as dumbs them down. I 'assume' the scriptures (and their writers) are better than I. You? You don't realize this, but you 'assume' you are better than they (yes you do, else you'd not 'assume' they made a dumb mistake like this).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha
The apocrypha has never been considered as scripture
To the op there are 66 books of scripture.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I don't think you're Evil Eye. You're like him. A deceiver. I think you're Sonnet. First you attacked the Gospel, and now you attack the Bible, itself. You haven't changed, so don't bother with some fake "profile".
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh the hypocrisy. :rotfl:
Lon
Well-known member
lain: 1) For one who's reading ability and keeping things straight, is shown as subpar, Cobra got this wrong (a mistake, perhaps a simpleton one at that?)
2) Rather than calling him a simpleton, I said his arguing amounts to calling us and the disciples 'simpletons.'
3) I then said such shallow theology is insufficient and simplistic and really beneath, even him (thus simpleton theology).
There is nothing quite like an otherwise intelligent guy trying to assert a less than intelligent propositions :Z (thus simpleton assertions).
I do believe implicitly that it is simpleton theology and beneath all of us, including him (making us all simpletons for it).
-Lon
meshak quote - "Jesus says to be simpleton."
1) For one who's reading ability and keeping things straight, is shown as subpar, Cobra got this wrong (a mistake, perhaps a simpleton one at that?)
2) Rather than calling him a simpleton, I said his arguing amounts to calling us and the disciples 'simpletons.'
3) I then said such shallow theology is insufficient and simplistic and really beneath, even him (thus simpleton theology).
There is nothing quite like an otherwise intelligent guy trying to assert a less than intelligent propositions :Z (thus simpleton assertions).
I do believe implicitly that it is simpleton theology and beneath all of us, including him (making us all simpletons for it).
-Lon
I understand your frustration with the scriptural text undermining your tradition of Biblical inerrancy.
The name calling doesn’t help your case, and if you are trying to make me angry, you may eventually see that shan’t happen. I am here to try to help you and others who have their faith in false doctrine, and I recognize the danger of deifying the Bible as too many do.
I never suggested that the disciples were simpletons. That is something you fabricated. I will note that the gospel attributed to Matthew is silent as to authorship in the text. Are you unaware of that?
So, if you are assuming that I attribute the errors in the gospel called Matthew to the Apostle Matthew himself, you are making a mistake. The gospel called “Matthew” was likely written or edited by those Matthew trained — and that would explain the multiple errors.
Mark was not one of the Apostles. Tradition (including Eusebius) say Mark got his information from Peter.
Luke was not one of the Apostles. He clearly states that he interviewed eyewitnesses. By the time he did those interviews, some of the stories had likely been embellished. We will get to a good example if you persist in trying to explain the minor, insignificant errors in the gospels. I reiterate that these errors do not discredit the Bible’s authority or validity; they do destroy the false doctrine of inerrancy.
John was an Apostle. And He wrote is gospel later, and it appears that he was aware of the other gospels in circulation. I know of no errors in the gospel of John.
So you will see me raise no errors from the only gospel clearly written by an Apostle.
Therefore your claim that I think the disciples were simpletons is groundless.
As to whether I know an error exists, any reasonable, honest person will agree that two documents quoting Jesus from the same event will say them same thing OR at least one has an error.
This picture of the table of contents of the 1611 KJV might help your;
http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=36
And if you look up the canon from the Council of Carthage of 396/7 that will be helpful too.
I haven’t attacked the Bible or the gospel. I have discredited a false, man-made doctrine about the Bible.
I did update my profile. It is not fake.
I don’t know Sonnet either. I am new to this forum.
1) For one who's reading ability and keeping things straight, is shown as subpar, Cobra got this wrong (a mistake, perhaps a simpleton one at that?)
2) Rather than calling him a simpleton, I said his arguing amounts to calling us and the disciples 'simpletons.'
3) I then said such shallow theology is insufficient and simplistic and really beneath, even him (thus simpleton theology).
There is nothing quite like an otherwise intelligent guy trying to assert a less than intelligent propositions :Z (thus simpleton assertions).
I do believe implicitly that it is simpleton theology and beneath all of us, including him (making us all simpletons for it).
-Lon
Jsanford, someone called me a simpleton. I am glad it wasn’t you.
I am new here and it is difficult to keep the people straight.
In addition, today I was helping keep my 9-month-old granddaughter and that was quite enjoyable but distracting.
I sincerely apologize for confusing you with someone else.
glorydaz
Well-known member
There are many "reasonable" people who have no spiritual discernment whatsoever. They fail to understand that the writers of the Gospel were each given a mission to testify what they had been given by the Holy Spirit, and it was totally different than what the others were given. You seem to think that God was in the business of having a bunch of men write a history book, and, by God, they'd better all say the exact same thing. :down: