Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[Angel4Truth]

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.

I actually quoted both entire verses literally with Strong's numbers. The link is right in what you quoted from me. You are who claimed luke omitted beloved, so of course that is what i was addressing.

You cant keep up with your own statements can you.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

The Bible doesn't say the sky is green. Why? Because the Bible speaks TRUTH. You're one of the folks who hope to besmirch God's word until it's nothing more than a book of words to be heard or rejected according to your own flawed understanding. You're working for the enemy. Plain and simple.

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.

So was Jacob Joseph's father or was Heli? You had quite a tantrum telling me I was dead wrong, and then you tuck tail when I showed you a verse that proved your mistake. Just fess up and admit you are a pretender....a wanna be minister of satan.

 

[Lon]

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.

I have been a Christian almost as long. I have studied hard all my life so your resistance is NOT appreciated. You are posturizing and as I said, being a simpleton for it. I've been in debate with stubborn people before, but if you don't listen and STOP studying, I've always thought those were no longer Bereans who WERE more noble BECAUSE they kept studying a thing out. The difference between you and I: I STILL study and read God's word and ALWAYS read what my opponent asks me to read. You? You are just bringing up dust from your file cabinet. Well, you'll always be indoctrinated then. Worse, I genuinely believe, those who stop studying are stagnant intellectually, spiritually, and in effective communication. I've out scripture quoted you about 10 to 1 and will continue to do so because I study. 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16

You don't even hold the scriptures to this esteemed level, as I do. You'd rather debate about their inspiration than ignore that and move on to what they 'mean.' After 55 years, you are stuck in milk. I've given you about every scriptural reason to rethink your poor position. Let me say it again so it sinks in, because this is the logical and ONLY end to this debate. Please pay attention:

You cannot know what a 'difference' in the scripture means. CANNOT. ALL you and I can know is that there is a difference. On top of that, you have NOT studied enough to know what the scriptures actually say of themselves. IOW, you've never come to cherish them verse by verse as I have. In fact, you can't! Yours has errors! Mine? They have some differences. Most of them, I can come up with good reasons why they are different. Some of them? :nono: Judas hanged himself and spilled his guts. I never knew what that meant. Unlike you, I didn't assume the verses were wrong, or one of them was. I rather assumed 1) there is a difference 2) I have no way of figuring it out, because I wasn't there 3) I 'can' come up with a logical explanation but it is 'my' guess. "Cursed is any man that hangs on a tree." During the Passover, no man was allowed to touch a dead body. Because of what Judas did, he'd have rotted there, hence, both would be accurate. Is that what happened? It at least seems the more reasonable than that somebody can't tell the difference between a hanging and committing seppuku :dizzy: Do you ever think through the further implications of your 'error' theory? It gets REALLY BAD and makes a lot of people out to be idiots. It is WAY better to try and give the scriptures the benefit of the doubt. After the logistics, it is also in keeping with scriptural revelation, that they are authoritative, to be studied, and to be followed where not one jot or tittle will disappear. I'm not sure if you realize it, after 55 years, but those are 'written' terms. I don't believe my 'translation' is without errors, though close after every correction, but I do believe these men conveyed truth perfectly. 2 Peter 1:21 (not just prophecy). -Lon

 

[2003cobra]

I actually quoted both entire verses literally with Strong's numbers. The link is right in what you quoted from me. You are who claimed luke omitted beloved, so of course that is what i was addressing.

You cant keep up with your own statements can you.

Does this mean you think there were two different voices?

Or does this mean you can’t decide between the two passages to decide what was said?

 

[2003cobra]

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.

I welcome your input.

Yes, I am positive.

 

[2003cobra]

Thank you for rejoining the discussion.

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.

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.

In the post you are quoting, I wrote:
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

...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.

I believe saying is implausible while saying it is not clearly an error is addressing it.

In all these comments, grouping was a short cut. If I have grouped you with some positions you find objectionable, I withdraw all related accumulations.

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?

If you think you know what instructions Jesus gave to the two disciples, feel free to share them. As I recall, only one person had the courage to take a stand. He indicated Jesus sent them for one animal and said Jesus only rode one animal. That is an admission that Matthew misquoted Jesus, an error.

If you think the question should never be altered in a debate forum with many pages, then I think you have not thought through the venue.

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.

We will have to disagree on the NRSV being scholastically inferior. Its editor, Bruce Metzger, was a preeminent scholar in textual criticism.

Nevertheless, that was unimportant. Even using the corrupted version of Luke that substitutes beloved for chosen, the errors of omission or addition persist.

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.

It is difficult to believe you can be serious on this point.

Every translation is clear. The lineage in Luke starts with Joseph and Joseph’s father.

They are just pretending the text says something different.

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.

Not at all.

Jesus either told them to bring one animal or two. At least one of the gospels must be misquoting Jesus, an error.

The voice from the cloud either had the longer quote, the shorter quote, or something else. At least one is misquoting the Father.

Joseph was either a descendant of Nathan or a descendant of Nathan’s brother Solomon. One of the genealogies must be wrong.

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.

Are you familiar with the other error in Matthew’s genealogies?

 

[2003cobra]

The Bible doesn't say the sky is green. Why? Because the Bible speaks TRUTH. You're one of the folks who hope to besmirch God's word until it's nothing more than a book of words to be heard or rejected according to your own flawed understanding. You're working for the enemy. Plain and simple.

Yes, there is great truth in the Bible.
There are some minor errors.

So was Jacob Joseph's father or was Heli? You had quite a tantrum telling me I was dead wrong, and then you tuck tail when I showed you a verse that proved your mistake. Just fess up and admit you are a pretender....a wanna be minister of satan.

Tantrum? Nope. Not on my part. I didn’t call anyone a lying pig or a minister of Satan.
And I did not blame the error on the Holy Spirit.

As to the father of Joseph, we don’t know. Luke and Matthew contradict each other on that question. And that is the point. There is an error in at least one of those gospels.

You have pretended Luke lists Mary’s lineage, so you have simply denied what the Bible says for your false doctrine.

 

[2003cobra]

I have been a Christian almost as long. I have studied hard all my life so your resistance is NOT appreciated. You are posturizing and as I said, being a simpleton for it. I've been in debate with stubborn people before, but if you don't listen and STOP studying, I've always thought those were no longer Bereans who WERE more noble BECAUSE they kept studying a thing out. The difference between you and I: I STILL study and read God's word and ALWAYS read what my opponent asks me to read. You? You are just bringing up dust from your file cabinet. Well, you'll always be indoctrinated then. Worse, I genuinely believe, those who stop studying are stagnant intellectually, spiritually, and in effective communication. I've out scripture quoted you about 10 to 1 and will continue to do so because I study. 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16

You don't even hold the scriptures to this esteemed level, as I do. You'd rather debate about their inspiration than ignore that and move on to what they 'mean.' After 55 years, you are stuck in milk. I've given you about every scriptural reason to rethink your poor position. Let me say it again so it sinks in, because this is the logical and ONLY end to this debate. Please pay attention:

You cannot know what a 'difference' in the scripture means. CANNOT. ALL you and I can know is that there is a difference. On top of that, you have NOT studied enough to know what the scriptures actually say of themselves. IOW, you've never come to cherish them verse by verse as I have. In fact, you can't! Yours has errors! Mine? They have some differences. Most of them, I can come up with good reasons why they are different. Some of them? :nono: Judas hanged himself and spilled his guts. I never knew what that meant. Unlike you, I didn't assume the verses were wrong, or one of them was. I rather assumed 1) there is a difference 2) I have no way of figuring it out, because I wasn't there 3) I 'can' come up with a logical explanation but it is 'my' guess. "Cursed is any man that hangs on a tree." During the Passover, no man was allowed to touch a dead body. Because of what Judas did, he'd have rotted there, hence, both would be accurate. Is that what happened? It at least seems the more reasonable than that somebody can't tell the difference between a hanging and committing seppuku :dizzy: Do you ever think through the further implications of your 'error' theory? It gets REALLY BAD and makes a lot of people out to be idiots. It is WAY better to try and give the scriptures the benefit of the doubt. After the logistics, it is also in keeping with scriptural revelation, that they are authoritative, to be studied, and to be followed where not one jot or tittle will disappear. I'm not sure if you realize it, after 55 years, but those are 'written' terms. I don't believe my 'translation' is without errors, though close after every correction, but I do believe these men conveyed truth perfectly. 2 Peter 1:21 (not just prophecy). -Lon

It seems these errors have quite unnerved you.

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I have been longer than you have. I do good works. I have been blessed by God. I lead a small group at church.

It is ironic that you pretend I have not studied because I don’t have the same simplistic and false views as you have.

It is nice that you admit there are differences (a euphemism for errors) that your cannot explain.

Are you familiar with the other error in Matthew’s genealogy?

 

[Lon]

It seems these errors have quite unnerved you.

And you are dishonest and displeasing to me and probably the Lord. How very unchristian of you to assert. Did GOD teach you that? :think:

I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

Not with ▲this▲ you're not. It was dishonest of you.

I have been longer than you have.

AND stagnant and not growing, so no big deal :noway:
It doesn't matter how many years you've NOT been growing in Him.
Try 'studying' and 'growing' in Him again. You've very few laurels to rest upon

I do good works.

▲This▲ is 'good' works??? Starting a thread that attempts to have people distrust scripture is a 'good' work? Causing inane disruptions with what you think in simplicity, is a 'work??????' :nono:

I have been blessed by God.

Great, but again, those laurels are mighty few.

I lead a small group at church.

As opposed to a large group? As I said, I'd never let you teach at my church (you couldn't anyway, your stance is against our church doctrine).

It is ironic that you pretend I have not studied

:think: Try getting a tutor? Just a thought, your time is obviously not well spent. Galatians 6:6

because I don’t have the same simplistic and false views as you have.

Ah :think: I see what you did there, you saw me say yours was simpleton and so you are emoting it back to me. :thumb: Noice!

It is nice that you admit there are differences (a euphemism for errors) that your cannot explain.

:chuckle: My left shoe is 'different' from my right shoe. For you? A euphemism for 'error' :rotfl:

a euphemism for error that your cannot explain

:mock: "your cannot explain" :chuckle:

Are you familiar with the other error in Matthew’s genealogy?

:mock: error

 

[2003cobra]

And you are dishonest and displeasing to me and probably the Lord. How very unchristian of you to assert. Did GOD teach you that? :think:


Not with ▲this▲ you're not. It was dishonest of you.


AND stagnant and not growing, so no big deal :noway:
It doesn't matter how many years you've NOT been growing in Him.
Try 'studying' and 'growing' in Him again. You've very few laurels to rest upon


▲This▲ is 'good' works??? Starting a thread that attempts to have people distrust scripture is a 'good' work? Causing inane disruptions with what you think in simplicity, is a 'work??????' :nono:
Great, but again, those laurels are mighty few.

As opposed to a large group? As I said, I'd never let you teach at my church (you couldn't anyway, your stance is against our church doctrine).


:think: Try getting a tutor? Just a thought, your time is obviously not well spent. Galatians 6:6



Ah :think: I see what you did there, you saw me say yours was simpleton and so you are emoting it back to me. :thumb: Noice!


:chuckle: My left shoe is 'different' from my right shoe. For you? A euphemism for 'error' :rotfl:

:mock: "your cannot explain" :chuckle:



:mock: error

I see you are still bothered by the errors, but your insults may help you vent. Perhaps after venting you will seek truth.

So, are you familiar with the other error in Matthew’s genealogy?

Are you aware that his claim of 3*14 generations is inconsistent with the Old Testament, that he skipped several generations recorded in Chronicles?

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

 

[Lon]

I see you are still bothered by the errors, but your insults are unseemly and reveal a lack of maturity.

Insults? No worse than your own and I think yours are worse. You can't think out of a paper bag and assume everybody else is just as bad. Be truthful, C's and C- in school, right? It shows.

So, are you familiar with the other orrer in Matthew’s genealogy?

You are mental. AMR just posted a book for you that has all of these 'supposed errors.' All of them. We have seen them all. There is nothing new under the sun. Worse? BRILLIANT men like Ravi Zacharias and

Norman Geisler have proved inerrancy and you, Mr. dishonest slouch, have never BOTHERED to study and find these two men, let alone Dr. Josh McDowell etc. etc. So, you are a dishonest charlatan with nothing but hot dry old air and bluster. lain:

Are you aware that his claim of 3*14 generations is inconsistent with the Old Testament, that he skipped several generations recorded in Chronicles?

Read Titus 3:9 You are ALSO disobedient. What did Paul say? Nope, not good enough for you baby-in-the-milk. Yes, I was aware. Nothing new under the sun. You can go sit in the back of the class now and put your head down in shame for your disobedience. Were YOU aware of Titus 3:9? :think: I don't think you were. You don't really know your scriptures and are a slackard when it comes to needed study. By your own admission, you are nowhere near a Berean. You can't even read about 2 minutes of Psalm 19 :noway:

I am pleased to expose your false teachings and disobedient controversies for what they are. Matthew 22:29 "You are in error because you do not understand the scriptures."

 

[2003cobra]

Lon writes:
Be truthful, C's and C- in school, right?

Nope, wrong again.

And yes, I know Titus 3:9. Being a Christian longer than you, I know many scriptures.

If you want to claim that Matthew and Luke wrote foolishness, that is up to you.

But I asked if you are aware that Matthew shipped several generations, so one of his counts of 14 generations is an error. Are you aware of that?

Or would you rather not talk about that either?

By the way, I did not watch your video. But I did read the words on the screen. Read Genesis 2, and you will see the words on the screen deny the text of Genesis 2. The second creation story says man was alone so God formed the animals. The animals weren’t just named in the second creation story. They were formed in it.

But that is beside the point, since the error in Matthew’s counting of the generations and skipping several is something it seems you would like to avoid addressing.

 

[Lon]

Lon writes:
Be truthful, C's and C- in school, right?

Nope, wrong again.

Not A's. You don't have that ability AND it is obvious. lain:

And yes, I know Titus 3:9. Being a Christian longer than you, I know many scriptures.

Isn't that cute. Read Psalm 19 yet? :think: I don't believe you. Not on your pathetic grades or your scripture reading.

I know, per fact, I've read them more than you have. NONE of them come to your mind, just what you are pulling from your 'error' cabinet you made 45 years ago when you were just a 5 year old Christian lain:

If you want to claim that Matthew and Luke wrote foolishness, that is up to you.

:chuckle: No, I'm saying your inane theory is foolish and that of a simpleton, NOT an A student. You crack me up. Grades show. Your writing mistakes alone show you were no A student. lain:

But I asked if you are aware that Matthew shipped several generations, so one of his counts of 14 generations is an error. Are you aware of that?

Yes. The problem: You are too thick to be taught. I can't even believe anybody would sit under you in a Sunday School class. I'd certainly not take your class. I'm smarter than you and I'd be painfully biting my tongue and complaining to the pastor about how inept you are. I'd have to leave the church if he wouldn't do something about it. I can't sit under simpleton ignorant instruction. Hate to say that, but facts are facts, you don't have the wherewithal.

Or would you rather not talk about that either?

You mean trounce your simpleton theology once again? I may grow tired of it. The sad thing? I've told you repeatedly AND PROVED that discrepancy doesn't equal error and CANNOT be shown to be. You? You ridiculously move along as if you can't understand the most simple and fundamental principles of logic and reasoning. And you are trying to tell me you didn't flunk a few classes? :nono: I don't believe it. What? Were you raised in a one room school house where they had to pass you because you were all below par? :idunno: Sorry to say that, but you just can't have passed my school classes. Wherever you did, is a shame and blight on education. You really are a simple thinker and CANNOT follow a logical conversation where you lost a long time ago. Well, I can just feel sorry for you and your ignorance, and I do. You are a joke and don't even know it. Your whole 'error' theory tells us how well you can actually think. Your tenacity shows you as uncorrectable and incorrigible. Were you this bad in school?

By the way, I did not watch your video.

I know. "Brilliant" is beneath you. More? You don't even know any of those names. That's the sad part. You are 35 years behind the times with this discussion. You've become the joke and the object lesson for stagnant and inept.

But I did read the words on the screen. Read Genesis 2, and you will see the words on the screen deny the text of Genesis 2. The second creation story says man was alone so God formed the animals. The animals weren’t just named in the second creation story. They were formed in it.

:doh: Are you really this thick? I'm sorry, you are not intelligent enough to talk to me. Buh bye. You are a complete waste of time in arrogant ignorant pride. Bye bye now :wave2:

* Look, I don't like being mean or blunt, but when someone who obviously has no ability AND no humility comes, there is only this left, and I must follow the scriptures Proverbs 26:5,4 I'm sorry to offend, but it isn't needlessly. You need to be silenced. You won't be, but I don't envision you being on TOL for long. As AMR said, you are here for the purpose of being a foil, an object lesson. You have a LOT of growing up to do in Christ. Sad commentary for an old man. -Lon

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I welcome your input.

Yes, I am positive.

Besides the Bible the next most important book is probably the dictionary, unless we can agree on what words mean then debating becomes bogged down in confusion. I'm not saying you are confused about words but if we can all agree on what the correct meaning is for each word we are using then this will help here. Therefore here are some meanings of the words being used in this debate, please add to them if you think of any more and then we could discuss how we better explain this topic:


Discrepancy
noun
an illogical or surprising lack of compatibility or similarity between two or more facts.


Contradiction
noun
a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"

a situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"

the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"


Error
noun
a mistake.
synonyms: mistake, fallacy, misconception, delusion; More
the state or condition of being wrong in conduct or judgement.



Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the original manuscripts of the Protestant Bible would be "without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

 

[2003cobra]

Lon writes
Not A's. You don't have that ability AND it is obvious.

It seems many falsehoods are obvious to you.

I understand you would rather insult me than discuss the next error on the list.

So, when I get time, I will lay out the error in more detail. Perhaps someone more confident in his or her ability to discuss it will step up.

 

[2003cobra]

Besides the Bible the next most important book is probably the dictionary, unless we can agree on what words mean then debating becomes bogged down in confusion. I'm not saying you are confused about words but if we can all agree on what the correct meaning is for each word we are using then this will help here. Therefore here are some meanings of the words being used in this debate, please add to them if you think of any more and then we could discuss how we better explain this topic:


Discrepancy
noun
an illogical or surprising lack of compatibility or similarity between two or more facts.


Contradiction
noun
a combination of statements, ideas, or features which are opposed to one another.
"the proposed new system suffers from a set of internal contradictions"

a situation in which inconsistent elements are present.
"the paradox of using force to overcome force is a real contradiction"

the statement of a position opposite to one already made.
"the second sentence appears to be in flat contradiction of the first"


Error
noun
a mistake.
synonyms: mistake, fallacy, misconception, delusion; More
the state or condition of being wrong in conduct or judgement.



Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the original manuscripts of the Protestant Bible would be "without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

Thanks, Watchman.

It is helpful to clarify terms.

The errors that I have pointed out do show the manuscripts we have do have errors, showing the Chicago Statement is false for the manuscripts we have.

For example, Matthew’s declaration of fact that Jesus told the disciples to bring two animals contradicts Mark and Luke’s declarations that Jesus told the disciples to bring one animal. That contradiction means at least one of the gospels has an error of fact.

People could say that the original manuscripts of Matthew have been altered and the text originally did not contradict Mark and Luke. There is no evidence for such a claim, and I doubt anyone will seriously raise that.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Thanks, Watchman.

It is helpful to clarify terms.

The errors that I have pointed out do show the manuscripts we have do have errors, showing the Chicago Statement is false for the manuscripts we have.

For example, Matthew’s declaration of fact that Jesus told the disciples to bring two animals contradicts Mark and Luke’s declarations that Jesus told the disciples to bring one animal. That contradiction means at least one of the gospels has an error of fact.

People could say that the original manuscripts of Matthew have been altered and the text originally did not contradict Mark and Luke. There is no evidence for such a claim, and I doubt anyone will seriously raise that.

Yes but to me that just goes to validate the scriptures as being genuinely made by people who have differing recollections of the events or of what they had heard. This is what always happens. As said it's when everything matches perfectly that is when we can know that collusion has taken place and a deception is being attempted.

 

[2003cobra]

The other clear error in Matthew’s genealogy

The other clear error in Matthew’s genealogy

Matthew wrote that there were 14 generations from David to the deportation. He listed the generations. He skips three generations, putting Uzziah in the place of Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah.

So either Matthew has an error in counting the generations or 1 Chronicles 3 has an error in listing the generations.

Matthew 1 And David was the father of Solomon by the wife of Uriah, 7 and Solomon the father of Rehoboam, and Rehoboam the father of Abijah, and Abijah the father of Asaph, and Asaph the father of Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat the father of Joram, and Joram the father of Uzziah, 9and Uzziah the father of Jotham, and Jotham the father of Ahaz, and Ahaz the father of Hezekiah...So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

1 Chronicles 3 The descendants of Solomon: Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son, 11 Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son, 12 Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son, 13 Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son,


1 Chronicles 3.....Matthew
Solomon............ Solomom
Rehoboam...........Rehoboam
Abijah.............Abijah
Asa................Asaph
Jehoshaphat........Jehoshaphat
Joram..............Joram
Ahaziah............missing from Matthew
Joash..............missing from Matthew
Missing from 1 Chronicles......Uzziah
Amaziah............missing from Matthew
Azariah............missing from Matthew
Jotham.............Jotham
Ahaz...............Ahaz
Hezekiah...........Hezekiah

Minor differences in the names aren’t errors. Claiming there were 14 generations when there were 17 generations is an error. Actually, Matthew also skips Jehoiakim, so his miscount is off by 4. But I don’t want to pile on right now.

This is another error which disproves the man-made doctrine of inerrancy. It is an insignificant and minor error from the perspective of the validity and credibility of scriptures. It is another proof that the doctrine of inerrancy is false.

 

[2003cobra]

Yes but to me that just goes to validate the scriptures as being genuinely made by people who have differing recollections of the events or of what they had heard. This is what always happens. As said it's when everything matches perfectly that is when we can know that collusion has taken place and a deception is being attempted.

I agree completely. We don’t have one witness, the Bible, to the resurrection. We have multiple witnesses.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I agree completely. We don’t have one witness, the Bible, to the resurrection. We have multiple witnesses.

Who here disagrees with this view? I'll have a go at them as well, but tomorrow now; I need my sleep. :nightall: