Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[2003cobra]

I suppose you don't know that Matthew traced the paternal line of descent through Solomon, and Luke traced the maternal line through Solomon’s brother, Nathan.

Did you know Heli is Mary's father....not Joseph's?

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,​

As I told you, the legal and natural lines of decent were necessary to fulfil all prophecy. I also told you, this is not a "simple question" as you insisted.

There is more, but you aren't able to bear it.

I have heard that falsehood before. Every translation disagrees with you. They all say Joseph was the son of Heli.

So this false claim doesn’t work either.


Compare Translations for Luke 3:23
/ Compare Translations / Luke / Luke 3 / 23
Share Tweet Save
American Standard Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (ASV) And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli,

The Bible in Basic English
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (BBE) And Jesus at this time was about thirty years old, being the son (as it seemed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Common English Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (CEB) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. People supposed that he was the son of Joseph son of Heli

Common English Bible w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (CEBA) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. People supposed that he was the son of Joseph son of Heli

The Complete Jewish Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (CJB) Yeshua was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. It was supposed that he was a son of Yosef who was of Eli,

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (CSB) As He began [His ministry], Jesus was about 30 years old and was thought to be the son of Joseph, [son] of Heli,

The Darby Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (DBY) And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,

English Standard Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (ESV) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Good News Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (GNT) When Jesus began his work, he was about thirty years old. He was the son, so people thought, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

Good News Translation w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (GNTA) When Jesus began his work, he was about thirty years old. He was the son, so people thought, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

GOD'S WORD Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (GW) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began [his ministry]. Jesus, so people thought, was the son of Joseph, son of Eli,

Hebrew Names Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (HNV) Yeshua himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Yosef, the son of Eli,

Jubilee Bible 2000
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (JUB) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was <em>the son</em> of Heli,

King James Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

King James Version w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (KJVA) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Lexham English Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (LEB) And Jesus, [when he] began [his ministry], was himself about thirty years [old], being the son (as it was believed) of Joseph the [son] of Eli,

The Message Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (MSG) When Jesus entered public life he was about thirty years old, the son (in public perception) of Joseph, who was - son of Heli,

New American Standard Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NAS) When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

New Century Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NCV) When Jesus began his ministry, he was about thirty years old. People thought that Jesus was Joseph's son. Joseph was the sonn of Heli.

New International Reader's Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NIRV) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his special work for God and others. It was thought that he was the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.

New International Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NIV) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

New King James Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NKJV) Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

New Living Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NLT) Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.

New Revised Standard
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NRS) Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

New Revised Standard w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NRSA) Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

Orthodox Jewish Bible
Chapter Parallel
Lukas 3:23 (OJB) And Yehoshua himself was about shaloshim shanah, at the beginning of his avodas kodesh ministry, being the ben (as it was being thought of Yosef) ben Eli,

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (RHE) And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years: being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,

Revised Standard Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (RSV) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Revised Standard Version w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (RSVA) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

SBL Greek New Testament
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (SBLG) Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ

Third Millennium Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (TMB) And Jesus Himself had become about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

Third Millennium Bible w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (TMBA) And Jesus Himself had become about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

Tyndale
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (TYN) And Iesus him silfe was about thirty yere of age when he begane beinge as men supposed the sonne of Ioseph. which Ioseph was the sonne of Heli

The Webster Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (WBT) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was [the son] of Heli,

World English Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (WEB) Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Weymouth New Testament
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (WNT) And He--Jesus--when He began His ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (it was supposed) of Joseph, son of Heli,

Wycliffe
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (WYC) And Jesus himself was beginning as of thirty years, that he was guessed the son of Joseph, which was of Heli,


Pretending Heli is Mary’s Father is contrary to what the Bible says.

So, once again, you are pretending there is not an error by denying what the Bible actually says. Christians are called to more honesty than that.

 

[glorydaz]

I have heard that falsehood before. Every translation disagrees with you. They all say Joseph was the son of Heli.

So this false claim doesn’t work either.

Spoiler

Compare Translations for Luke 3:23
/ Compare Translations / Luke / Luke 3 / 23
Share Tweet Save
American Standard Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (ASV) And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli,

The Bible in Basic English
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (BBE) And Jesus at this time was about thirty years old, being the son (as it seemed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Common English Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (CEB) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. People supposed that he was the son of Joseph son of Heli

Common English Bible w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (CEBA) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his ministry. People supposed that he was the son of Joseph son of Heli

The Complete Jewish Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (CJB) Yeshua was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. It was supposed that he was a son of Yosef who was of Eli,

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (CSB) As He began [His ministry], Jesus was about 30 years old and was thought to be the son of Joseph, [son] of Heli,

The Darby Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (DBY) And Jesus himself was beginning to be about thirty years old; being as was supposed son of Joseph; of Eli,

English Standard Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (ESV) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Good News Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (GNT) When Jesus began his work, he was about thirty years old. He was the son, so people thought, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

Good News Translation w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (GNTA) When Jesus began his work, he was about thirty years old. He was the son, so people thought, of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

GOD'S WORD Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (GW) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began [his ministry]. Jesus, so people thought, was the son of Joseph, son of Eli,

Hebrew Names Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (HNV) Yeshua himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Yosef, the son of Eli,

Jubilee Bible 2000
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (JUB) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was <em>the son</em> of Heli,

King James Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (KJV) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

King James Version w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (KJVA) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed ) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

Lexham English Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (LEB) And Jesus, [when he] began [his ministry], was himself about thirty years [old], being the son (as it was believed) of Joseph the [son] of Eli,

The Message Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (MSG) When Jesus entered public life he was about thirty years old, the son (in public perception) of Joseph, who was - son of Heli,

New American Standard Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NAS) When He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli,

New Century Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NCV) When Jesus began his ministry, he was about thirty years old. People thought that Jesus was Joseph's son. Joseph was the sonn of Heli.

New International Reader's Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NIRV) Jesus was about 30 years old when he began his special work for God and others. It was thought that he was the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.

New International Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NIV) Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

New King James Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NKJV) Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli,

New Living Translation
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NLT) Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his public ministry. Jesus was known as the son of Joseph. Joseph was the son of Heli.

New Revised Standard
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NRS) Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

New Revised Standard w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (NRSA) Jesus was about thirty years old when he began his work. He was the son (as was thought) of Joseph son of Heli,

Orthodox Jewish Bible
Chapter Parallel
Lukas 3:23 (OJB) And Yehoshua himself was about shaloshim shanah, at the beginning of his avodas kodesh ministry, being the ben (as it was being thought of Yosef) ben Eli,

Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (RHE) And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years: being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, who was of Mathat,

Revised Standard Version
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (RSV) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Revised Standard Version w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (RSVA) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

SBL Greek New Testament
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (SBLG) Καὶ αὐτὸς ἦν Ἰησοῦς ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὶ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα, ὢν υἱός, ὡς ἐνομίζετο, Ἰωσὴφ τοῦ Ἠλὶ

Third Millennium Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (TMB) And Jesus Himself had become about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

Third Millennium Bible w/ Apocrypha
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (TMBA) And Jesus Himself had become about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was the son of Heli,

Tyndale
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (TYN) And Iesus him silfe was about thirty yere of age when he begane beinge as men supposed the sonne of Ioseph. which Ioseph was the sonne of Heli

The Webster Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (WBT) And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was [the son] of Heli,

World English Bible
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (WEB) Jesus himself, when he began to teach, was about thirty years old, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli,

Weymouth New Testament
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (WNT) And He--Jesus--when He began His ministry, was about thirty years old. He was the son (it was supposed) of Joseph, son of Heli,

Wycliffe
Chapter Parallel
Luke 3:23 (WYC) And Jesus himself was beginning as of thirty years, that he was guessed the son of Joseph, which was of Heli,

Pretending Heli is Mary’s Father is contrary to what the Bible says.

So, once again, you are pretending there is not an error by denying what the Bible actually says. Christians are called to more honesty than that.

All the translations were very dramatic....the translation I gave said the same. But, a son-in-law is also called a son. Read the OT and you'll see they have no word for son-in-law.

But, all it takes is a bit of looking, and what do we see? Do you know what the word "begat" means?

Matt. 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

:chew:

 

[Lon]

Actually, I just commented on what she wrote.

You thought you had answered? Which post number?

As I said before, you are no lawyer and this is worse than Don Quixote attacking a windmill. It is a guy with a home-made sword trying to attack a military base, by analogy. You do NOT have the wherewithal, either in ability or data, to prove guilt. I believe in innocence until guilty is proven. You CANNOT prove your allegations. They are just gossip and you are guilty of that gossip. You 'suspect' something you couldn't possible prove. In this case, as I told you, I 1) Give benefit of doubt: Innocent (inerrant) AND 2) Practice patience for that which is none of my business (I wasn't there, and neither were you, we aren't even witnesses). I treat the Bible the way it is intended: To read it, live by and be informed of what God expects of me. You then, when you could be extolling the virtues of God, are instead wasting it on something you are completely unable to deliver on. The ONLY thing you are doing is giving examples of difference. Difference does not mean 'error.'

A scene in New York where a purse snatcher takes a purse. In court, the kid on the street says the man was right behind Santa Claus. The man on the balcony said the man was right behind a train. The fella across the street says he saw nothing at all.

Question: Are two of them mistaken? No, that's just sloppy police work and that guy needs a senior investigator to take him under his wing.

"Santa Claus" was the Salvation Army bell-ringer. The Train was behind the robber, behind the Santa Claus, in front of the child.

I came at this as an investigator. You came at scriptures as an accuser. Check yourself.

 

[Lon]

I have heard that falsehood before. Every translation disagrees with you. They all say Joseph was the son of Heli.

So this false claim doesn’t work either.
.....

Pretending Heli is Mary’s Father is contrary to what the Bible says.

So, once again, you are pretending there is not an error by denying what the Bible actually says. Christians are called to more honesty than that.

Were you at LEAST honest enough to read a few commentaries or other works that address this BEFORE coming to TOL for any of this?
This guy does a good job, better than I'd have explained it BUT it was what I thought, long ago, when I first came to the text. What about you? WHY did you 'assume' it was a mistake instead? WHY!?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Would you like to answer what was actually said, the entire sentence or sentences?

I am looking for someone with sufficient courage of their convictions and sufficient integrity to answer rather than evade.

I did answer, and even broke it down in the post i linked to, in what you quoted, the same greek word used in matthew is used in luke and the entire context identical, meaning it should be translated the same, meaning beloved in both and so it is, except in poor translations like you chose like a cafeteria christian, taking only what YOU like instead of whats accurate.

Id give this one up, even simple scholarship, shows what youre saying, is false.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

-Would you like to answer what was actually said, the entire sentence or sentences?

I am looking for someone with sufficient courage of their convictions and sufficient integrity to answer rather than evade.

I was going through some minor, insignificant errors in the gospels — insignificant, that is, for those who do not embrace the doctrine of inerrancy — and I asked what was really said at the transfiguration. No one wanted to answer, as this was the third error that I had brought up,and the others were damaging to their view on inerrancy. So I thought a new thread might draw out an answer.

Thank you for your comments. You are certainly welcome to join us there.

http://theologyonline.com/showthread...ripture/page23

I am now asking about the genealogies. Matthew says Joseph was a descendant of David’s son Solomon while Luke says Joseph was a descendant of David’s son Nathan. Getting adherents to the doctrine of inerrancy to admit both cant be true is like pulling chicken’s teeth.

(I still would like to know why you are using Matthew, mark and Luke's account of the transfiguration regarding all this).

I would point out that Jesus only said the Old Testament was accurate:

John 10:35
The scriptures cannot be discredited.

The New Testament however is not as well endorsed by God as is the OT. There are allusions to it being very good:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

But that's not as good a ringing endorsement as Jesus gave the OT.

For instance in your Bible it says that John 7:53 to 8:11 are not included in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and John 6:4 is noted in two ancient Bibles as being missing from older manuscripts. I believe there are others too but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. The New Testament, just like the OT, has been through a war (and still is), over what should go in and stay out. Lines have to be drawn by fallible humans and so few errors here and there are to be expected. It all goes to adding to the fact that it isn't a text that has been colluded over. I believe the search for truth is stronger than the desire to deceive.

As for the genealogies I believe the Matthew account is Josephs line while Luke's is Mary's lineage.

 

[2003cobra]

All the translations were very dramatic....the translation I gave said the same. But, a son-in-law is also called a son. Read the OT and you'll see they have no word for son-in-law.

But, all it takes is a bit of looking, and what do we see? Do you know what the word "begat" means?

Matt. 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.​

:chew:

It sounds like you have no choice but to deny what the text says, since the man-made doctrine of inerrancy is more important to you than what the Bible actually says.

 

[2003cobra]

Lon, I see your 363 and note that you are using that to pretend you answered the question.

You didn’t.

Christians are called to more honesty than that.

 

[2003cobra]

Were you at LEAST honest enough to read a few commentaries or other works that address this BEFORE coming to TOL for any of this?
This guy does a good job, better than I'd have explained it BUT it was what I thought, long ago, when I first came to the text. What about you? WHY did you 'assume' it was a mistake instead? WHY!?

Lon, you ask me about reading a few commentaries.

Somehow you pretend it would be dishonest not too.

I have been a Christian for 55 years. I’ve read commentaries. I don’t have an obligation to take homework assignments.

If you can’t answer simple questions, just admit it — don’t try to send me off with busy work.

 

[2003cobra]

I did answer, and even broke it down in the post i linked to, in what you quoted, the same greek word used in matthew is used in luke and the entire context identical, meaning it should be translated the same, meaning beloved in both and so it is, except in poor translations like you chose like a cafeteria christian, taking only what YOU like instead of whats accurate.

Id give this one up, even simple scholarship, shows what youre saying, is false.

No, you did not answer. You only focused on the one word, beloved.

You did not say whether the longer quote was said or if it was the shorter quote.

 

[2003cobra]

(I still would like to know why you are using Matthew, mark and Luke's account of the transfiguration regarding all this).

I would point out that Jesus only said the Old Testament was accurate:

John 10:35
The scriptures cannot be discredited.

The New Testament however is not as well endorsed by God as is the OT. There are allusions to it being very good:

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

But that's not as good a ringing endorsement as Jesus gave the OT.

For instance in your Bible it says that John 7:53 to 8:11 are not included in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts and John 6:4 is noted in two ancient Bibles as being missing from older manuscripts. I believe there are others too but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet. The New Testament, just like the OT, has been through a war (and still is), over what should go in and stay out. Lines have to be drawn by fallible humans and so few errors here and there are to be expected. It all goes to adding to the fact that it isn't a text that has been colluded over. I believe the search for truth is stronger than the desire to deceive.

As for the genealogies I believe the Matthew account is Josephs line while Luke's is Mary's lineage.

Thank you for your input.

I have a high regard scriptures.

My posts here do not attack the scriptures in any way. Rather, my posts here point out that the false doctrine of Biblical inerrancy are inconsistent with the scriptures.

Do note that Jesus did not use the word “accurate,” and I am not trying to discredit the scriptures—only the false doctrine of inerrancy.

Also, the passage from 2 Timothy 3 is about the scriptures that Timothy had known from his youth, the Septuagint.

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.


Luke does present the genealogy to be that of Joseph.

 

[2003cobra]

Let’s recap so far

Let’s recap so far

In this thread pointing out that the text of the Bible does not support the false doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, four errors have been discussed so far.

1) Different instructions for a missionary journey
Those trying to defend inerrancy took the untenable position that the instructions were from two different missionary journeys


2) Different instructions on animals to for the triumphal entry
Those trying to defend inerrancy had no explanation for the misquoting of Jesus in at least one gospel. They did think Jesus only sent the disciples for one animal and that Jesus only rode one animal, meaning the error is in Matthew.


3) Different quotes of God from the transfiguration
Those trying to defend inerrancy reverted to inferior manuscripts to eliminate one error in Luke but could not explain the errors of omission or addition. If fact, no one would even write down what was actually said from the cloud. They apparently could not decide what was said.


4) Deciding whether Joseph descended from Solomon or Nathan
Those trying to defend inerrancy chose to deny what the text said, pretending Luke identified Joseph’s father-in-law rather that Joseph’s Father. Rewriting the Biblical text to eliminate an error is not eliminating an error.


While number 1 above is implausible, it is appropriate to call it not clearly an error. The other three are clearly errors with no remotely plausible resolution.

Perhaps it is time to go to the next error.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Thank you for your input.

I have a high regard scriptures.

My posts here do not attack the scriptures in any way. Rather, my posts here point out that the false doctrine of Biblical inerrancy are inconsistent with the scriptures.

Okay and I take it you were trying to show this with the 3 accounts of the Transfiguration?

 

[2003cobra]

Okay and I take it you were trying to show this with the 3 accounts of the Transfiguration?

Yes, see post 372.

It was the fourth error that I have listed in this thread. I have a few more.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ and was raised in churches that taught inerrancy. I read the scriptures and found that doctrine was false. I kept a strong faith in our Lord, but too many people abandon faith when they find that they have been taught that false doctrine. Our faith should not be based on a lie.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Yes, see post 372.

It was the fourth error that I have listed in this thread. I have a few more.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ and was raised in churches that taught inerrancy. I read the scriptures and found that doctrine was false. I kept a strong faith in our Lord, but too many people abandon faith when they find that they have been taught that false doctrine. Our faith should not be based on a lie.

I agree that there are errors in the NT but not with doctrine (a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group) the errors are simply differences in recollections of events or other's testimonies of events, which as said now several times only validates the accounts even more, as it shows there was no collusion but you seem 'hung up' on these differences which is a minor point really? Where as if you were saying there were contradictions then that would be more serious. Even though there are none of those. Why so much questioning about this? Is it to do with the fact you had inerrancy forced on you so much growing up?

 

[2003cobra]

I agree that there are errors in the NT but not with doctrine (a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group) the errors are simply differences in recollections of events or other's testimonies of events, which as said now several times only validates the accounts even more, as it shows there was no collusion but you seem 'hung up' on these differences which is a minor point really? Where as if you were saying there were contradictions then that would be more serious. Even though there are none of those. Why so much questioning about this? Is it to do with the fact you had inerrancy forced on you so much growing up?

We are in agreement.

Why the topic and insistence?

Lon, Glory, and some others are declaring the Bible absolutely inerrant in every detail. They make that a core doctrine. People sometimes put that claim as the first line in their statement of beliefs.

That kind of false statement can lead to people falling away from the faith.

Here is a helpful discussion from Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary:

What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.


https://bible.org/article/interview-daniel-b-wallace-textual-criticism

Having a false doctrine repeated to me from my early years may have increased my desire to help others not get caught in the same situation.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

We are in agreement.

Why the topic and insistence?

Lon, Glory, and some others are declaring the Bible absolutely inerrant in every detail. They make that a core doctrine. People sometimes put that claim as the first line in their statement of beliefs.

That kind of false statement can lead to people falling away from the faith.

Here is a helpful discussion from Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary:

What I tell my students every year is that it is imperative that they pursue truth rather than protect their presuppositions. And they need to have a doctrinal taxonomy that distinguishes core beliefs from peripheral beliefs. When they place more peripheral doctrines such as inerrancy and verbal inspiration at the core, then when belief in these doctrines start to erode, it creates a domino effect: One falls down, they all fall down. It strikes me that something like this may be what happened to Bart Ehrman. His testimony in Misquoting Jesus discussed inerrancy as the prime mover in his studies. But when a glib comment from one of his conservative professors at Princeton was scribbled on a term paper, to the effect that perhaps the Bible is not inerrant, Ehrman’s faith began to crumble. One domino crashed into another until eventually he became ‘a fairly happy agnostic.’ I may be wrong about Ehrman’s own spiritual journey, but I have known too many students who have gone in that direction. The irony is that those who frontload their critical investigation of the text of the Bible with bibliological presuppositions often speak of a ‘slippery slope’ on which all theological convictions are tied to inerrancy. Their view is that if inerrancy goes, everything else begins to erode. I would say that if inerrancy is elevated to the status of a prime doctrine, that’s when one gets on a slippery slope. But if a student views doctrines as concentric circles, with the cardinal doctrines occupying the center, then if the more peripheral doctrines are challenged, this does not have an effect on the core.


https://bible.org/article/interview-daniel-b-wallace-textual-criticism

Having a false doctrine repeated to me from my early years may have increased my desire to help others not get caught in the same situation.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

Okay, that makes sense. You're doing a good thing imo but I don't think the examples you are using is the best way to show it.

 

[2003cobra]

Okay, that makes sense. You're doing a good thing imo but I don't think the examples you are using is the best way to show it.

I am open to suggestions.

My experience has been the people who believe in inerrancy will deny any obvious fact if they think the Bible says something different. If the Bible declared the sky green, the inerrancy group would declare the sky green.

So the only way to reach them is to show where the Bible contradicts the Bible. Too often, they simply pretend the Bible says something other than what it actually says (look at the example of the genealogies: they deny the clear language of Luke and pretend that is Mary’s lineage) — but it is a start.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I am open to suggestions.

My experience has been the people who believe in inerrancy will deny any obvious fact if they think the Bible says something different. If the Bible declared the sky green, the inerrancy group would declare the sky green.

So the only way to reach them is to show where the Bible contradicts the Bible. Too often, they simply pretend the Bible says something other than what it actually says (look at the example of the genealogies: they deny the clear language of Luke and pretend that is Mary’s lineage) — but it is a start.

I thought you'd ask that, may be tomorrow now.

Are you sure they are just not saying there aren't any contradictions that mean the Bible is in error, just minor discrepancies that actually validate it.

 

[jsanford108]

In this thread pointing out that the text of the Bible does not support the false doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, four errors have been discussed so far.

I took a brief break from this, but continued to read the posts. Here, I would like to address the points made, solely for clarity.

1) Different instructions for a missionary journey
Those trying to defend inerrancy took the untenable position that the instructions were from two different missionary journeys

Actually, I was the only one, if I am not mistaken, that mentioned the possibility of another journey. Do I believe that is the case? No; but I simply say that it could be possible, as a means of demonstrating your inability to prove/disprove such a possibility.

Reviewing your posts, you never addressed this possibility. Yet here, you have grouped all defenders of inerrant attributes as being advocates of this possibility. I was the only one who mentioned it, and even then, it was just to highlight your inability to prove/disprove it.

2) Different instructions on animals to for the triumphal entry
Those trying to defend inerrancy had no explanation for the misquoting of Jesus in at least one gospel. They did think Jesus only sent the disciples for one animal and that Jesus only rode one animal, meaning the error is in Matthew.

I believe that the reason this point of yours was not addressed was not due to inability to explain, rather, your rejection of logical points made in relation to point 1.

Time and again, you rejected, dismissed, or ignores logical points and explanations for point 1. Once, you even altered your argument, changing the meaning of your question, to avoid evidence brought to your attention; which you denied doing, despite inerrant evidence of this action. So, why address point 2, given the manner of attention you gave in point 1?

3) Different quotes of God from the transfiguration
Those trying to defend inerrancy reverted to inferior manuscripts to eliminate one error in Luke but could not explain the errors of omission or addition. If fact, no one would even write down what was actually said from the cloud. They apparently could not decide what was said.

Actually, you used quotes from a translation that is scholastically inferior. Then, when you were called out on this, you began using parallel quotes from various versions. You are projecting your faulty translation quotation to other users. This would be the second time that you altered tactic, claimed you did not, then projected your own error onto opposing posters.

Also, several pieces of evidence were posited that disproved your claim relating to this particular event. Once again, you seemed to just dismiss or ignore these logical points.

4) Deciding whether Joseph descended from Solomon or Nathan
Those trying to defend inerrancy chose to deny what the text said, pretending Luke identified Joseph’s father-in-law rather that Joseph’s Father. Rewriting the Biblical text to eliminate an error is not eliminating an error.

Refer to comments regarding point 3, as they are pretty much the same as far as critique of your tactics.

Furthermore, your first translation, from which you quoted (usually a user's preferred version), is a translation which rewrites various verses, in order to align with the publisher's personal views/doctrines.

Also, glorydaz and Lon specifically addressed this point, providing evidence and logic which disproved your claim regarding this point. You just dismissed these points/evidence, rather than disproving them.

While number 1 above is implausible, it is appropriate to call it not clearly an error. The other three are clearly errors with no remotely plausible resolution.

Two of the other three were given plausible, logical explanations, with supporting evidence. You simply rejected or ignored these explanations, in favor of remaining in your personal view/(anti-)reality.

Perhaps it is time to go to the next error.

It is always fine to move forward in discussion. But what is the point of one is going to reject reason, substantiated by evidence and logic, who then alters queries, only to project their error onto opposition? It grows tiresome; lacking fruitful exchanges of ideas.



Sent from my iPhone using TOL