Yes, we know you can’t explain the errors.
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Yes, we know you can’t explain the errors.
Since you did not answer my questions, admitted bible rejector/corrector/agnostic/mystic, and an admitted child of the devil, satanist......
....Neither do I tell you...(Matthew 21:27 KJV, Mark 11:33 KJV, Luke 20:8 KJV).
Romans 16:17 KJV -
No, I'm not. I'm denying it means what you claim it means. Fortunately your lack of understanding does not dictate what the Scripture reveals to the saints.
I know, why don't you start claiming David is Saul's son?opcorn:
1 Samuel 24:16 And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice, and wept.
Why don't you start claiming Jesus is the son of David instead of the Son of God?
So far we have verses that say He is the Son of God, the son of Joseph, the son of Mary and the son of David. What a quandary that must be for you. :sigh:
Matthew 20:31 And the multitude rebuked them, because they should hold their peace: but they cried the more, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David.
You know those verses you quoted are not presenting genealogies.
I am sure you know the difference, so you must be frustrated that you cannot explain the errors.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I have no idea what you're talking about. Are you talking about the verses I quoted?
glorydaz
Well-known member
No, but I am a bit frustrated that a grown man would continue to act like he's stupid.
It has to be an act of some sort. :troll:
You deny the plain language of Luke 3.
Don’t blame that denial on the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit Of God did not instruct you to deny what Luke wrote:
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,
Your frustration is from the fact that I present the fact that you don’t believe the Bible, while pretending you do.
glorydaz
Well-known member
We know you are a natural man devoid of any spiritual understanding.
Stick to hearing the Gospel being preached UNTIL you are saved, and then you can come discuss God's Holy Book.
Yes, I know that you have no answer.
I am hoping to decide that you should be honest and admit it.
Who do you think was the father of Joseph, Heli or Jacob?
glorydaz
Well-known member
Sonnet with a bonnet and a bib. :baby:
I am dealing with facts, while you are dealing in insults.
That is because the facts disagree with you and prove you wrong.
glorydaz
Well-known member
You aren't dealing with FACTS, at all. You're harping on one verse that you don't understand, while running like a little girl from this verse that says Jacob BEGAT JOSEPH.
Matt. 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
Are you embarrassed about not knowing what "begat" means?
Are you embarrassed because you can't admit that being a "son" applies to step children and sons in law?
Are you embarrassed that you've been shown for what you are.....a fake and a troll?
Chapter, verse, from the "pure and prefect word of God"(your words), where I am required to answer any/all questions, from anyone, especially from admitted bible correctors/rejectors/agnostics/mystics, and an admitted child of the devil, and admitted satanist, such as yourself?
Since you did not answer my questions, admitted bible rejector/corrector/agnostic/mystic, and an admitted child of the devil, satanist......
....Neither do I tell you...(Matthew 21:27 KJV, Mark 11:33 KJV, Luke 20:8 KJV).
I am embarrassed for you, that you would deny the text while claiming to revere it.
Another minor, insignificant error
Another minor, insignificant error
This is another minor, insignificant error.
It is insignificant for the validity of the good news of Jesus Christ.
It is significant in that this error, like the other five already detailed, prove the doctrine of inerrancy is false.
In the two passages below, there is an error:
1. Matthew specifically tells us that the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to him.
2. Luke specifically tells us that the centurion did not come to Jesus, sending friends and elders of the Jews to Jesus instead. The emissaries explained why the centurion did not come.
Either Matthew is correct and the centurion came himself or Luke is correct and the centurion did not come to Jesus. One has an error.
Matthew 8 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him 6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress." 7 And he said to him, "I will come and cure him." 8 The centurion answered, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, "Go,' and he goes, and to another, "Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, "Do this,' and the slave does it." 10 When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, "Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; let it be done for you according to your faith." And the servant was healed in that hour.
Luke 7 When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. 2 There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.” 10 Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.
Luke tells us in the first four verses that he investigated the matters later, interviewing eyewitnesses. The most plausible explanation is that the story had been exaggerated a little by the time Luke recorded it.
This is the sixth error that I have listed. After several errors, people who support the doctrine of inerrancy simply started saying that the text does not say what it actually says and regressed to personal insults. That is likely what they will do with this error. But this error is clearly there in the text.
God never promised us a perfect book.
And the gospel is more credible because we have multiple witnesses that testify to the essentials.
Another minor, insignificant error
This is another minor, insignificant error.
It is insignificant for the validity of the good news of Jesus Christ.
It is significant in that this error, like the other five already detailed, prove the doctrine of inerrancy is false.
In the two passages below, there is an error:
1. Matthew specifically tells us that the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to him.
2. Luke specifically tells us that the centurion did not come to Jesus, sending friends and elders of the Jews to Jesus instead. The emissaries explained why the centurion did not come.
Either Matthew is correct and the centurion came himself or Luke is correct and the centurion did not come to Jesus. One has an error.
Matthew 8 When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him 6 and saying, "Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress." 7 And he said to him, "I will come and cure him." 8 The centurion answered, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. 9 For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, "Go,' and he goes, and to another, "Come,' and he comes, and to my slave, "Do this,' and the slave does it." 10 When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, "Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. 11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, 12 while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13 And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; let it be done for you according to your faith." And the servant was healed in that hour.
Luke 7 When Jesus had finished saying all this to the people who were listening, he entered Capernaum. 2 There a centurion’s servant, whom his master valued highly, was sick and about to die. 3 The centurion heard of Jesus and sent some elders of the Jews to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. 4 When they came to Jesus, they pleaded earnestly with him, “This man deserves to have you do this, 5 because he loves our nation and has built our synagogue.” 6 So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent friends to say to him: “Lord, don’t trouble yourself, for I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. 7 That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you. But say the word, and my servant will be healed. 8 For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” 9 When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him, and turning to the crowd following him, he said, “I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Israel.” 10 Then the men who had been sent returned to the house and found the servant well.
Luke tells us in the first four verses that he investigated the matters later, interviewing eyewitnesses. The most plausible explanation is that the story had been exaggerated a little by the time Luke recorded it.
This is the sixth error that I have listed. After several errors, people who support the doctrine of inerrancy simply started saying that the text does not say what it actually says and regressed to personal insults. That is likely what they will do with this error. But this error is clearly there in the text.
God never promised us a perfect book.
And the gospel is more credible because we have multiple witnesses that testify to the essentials.
Lon
Well-known member
You might be more comfortable with your own kind: http://www.errancy.com/about/does-the-bible-teach-inerrancy/
At LEAST these are more honest than you: they clearly weigh the answers AND listen to them. Doesn't require a response, just a site you may feel more comfortable with AND learn from your betters who also believe the bible has errors. I don't academically agree with them, but at least they listen to answers instead of 'pretending.' I can't stand dishonest debate, which is why I've bowed out with you. Again, not trying to re-enter this conversation, just show you a place that does it more honestly where you might feel like you have your own crowd.
I understand you find my presence here uncomfortable.
It is never easy to see error in one’s long-held views.
Thanks for the link. I don’t frequent such sites normally. The errors I have seen were ones that I came across in my personal studies and studies in preparation for teaching a small group or Sunday School class.
Do you have any explanation for the error in the story of the centurion?
glorydaz
Well-known member
:blabla: :blabla: :blabla:
Lon
Well-known member
Yep. Not because you disturb my faith at all. I went to seminary and have been over and over these 'discrepancies.'
Most of them are rather simple. The website I posted, the inerrantists have good answers. It is an 'errancy' website, but at least they don't act like they were never answered. They give their stance with no bones, but they are not so bold as to declare victory 'as if.' To me? Just not honest, Cobra. You don't disturb us other than like the constant drip of a contentious wife. Know what I mean? It is from those scriptures I both know and quote, verbatim.
Just stop. Your trying to mind-read is very tiresome and unnecessary. Even if you 'could' win a debate this way, wouldn't it be a hollow victory when the Lord Jesus Christ is the needed goal? In the end, I trust those scriptures, even 'if' they had something supposedly wrong, because they are God's only instructions to us. We have no others. I will never waste my time arguing this much about what seems an error. They were never made for that purpose. I believe John W is right, if you are going about 'correcting' and wasting time overtly 'emphasizing' those corrections, you are pitting yourself above them. I have a fairly high IQ. There is no intellectual integrity lost in assuming differences emphasize, what else? --> Differences. That's it for me and the end. I am just not interested in pursuing what doesn't matter to me. I'd think a fellow like you would be satisfied enough that I can see those differences. Do you truly have to press that such is an error? Why? It makes no logical sense and as John W says, it causes people to lose faith IN those scriptures, right or wrong. I and John W believe they are right and correct. You don't. What do YOU win if you win this argument? Isn't the end result a people that can no longer trust their bible, but for a few of you that don't care? Why is this the debate you must win at all costs? It is, btw, costing you. Nobody is going to like you and you will continue to get 'demon' and 'satan' accusations because your line of questioning is what the serpent in the Garden used "Did God really say?" What is the point? What do you win? For us, we win a bible that people can rely on, even if they don't understand why a difference is there. Many of them, for us, reconcile. I already know they don't and won't for you. So? Where to next? You've entrenched, we on the opposite side, entrenched. You can't win without annihilating your opponent. Was that your intention on TOL? To make enemies? For what reason? For what purpose? You CAN'T win the 'trust in a bible with errors' debate. You can stalemate, but again, why? What is the point?
Right. For me, I keep looking until some answer shows itself. For me, the differences have reasons most of the times, and good ones. They have a better spiritual reason than 'just a mistake.' Jacob English for Ja'acob. from Hebrew. Heli is not Hebrew and so could be a Greek name equivalent, etc. You 'can' say a translation error. You 'cannot' say Luke error, however. You'd have no possible way to assert it because "Heli" isn't Jewish. What does that mean? It means you and I are stuck with a puzzle and you cannot go past that, without being incredibly theologically bent (without scripture reason or support). Oh, you'll argue that until you are blue in the face. I simply leave it lie. You don't like 'answers.' Okay. It isn't here to be 'your' answer. It is simply an example of you saying 'not answered' when clearly, you have been answered. You just don't 'like' the answer. Well and good because I don't care if you like it or not, just that you were answered meaningfully, and you were. Because you continue to say the opposite, I can't argue or carry on a conversation with you. I don't want my name dragged through your indoctrination fest however. If I were to make a statement about the thread, it'd look a LOT different than you posturing and would go something like this: "I believe differences in the Bible are legitimate and we shouldn't overlook them, but I don't believe we have the resources to figure out mistakes unless we have sufficient evidence that such is a problem in translation. That said, I believe it best to simply take these at face value and/or leave them for another day and proceed to get what God intends for us in these passages instead. Cobra finds these differently and I believe him wrong and quick to the accusatory rather than being studious. In the end, we both stand before our Maker for what we teach and say and are accountable for any good or ill effect of our words. Thus, I again say one should avoid fights over stuff like this. Scriptures are meant to be authoritative to our lives. Once we start correcting them instead of being molded by them, we are interfering with the Holy Spirit's work and authority in our lives. For this reason, though I believe in inerrancy, I try to avoid a fight with someone who is of a different opinion than mine because it draws out the worst in us, not the best, Imho. So let's leave it that I believe Cobra is wrong and that the default position, for the scriptures, is to believe in them and allow them to make and mold us into His image, such that an argument is, imho, the worst use of our time. He must go his own way, and I will go mine."
Yes. You 'assume' an error. There is no intellectual intelligent way to prove an error exists. Why would you insist on it? You really must listen to this one disagreement: You see a difference but have no way at all to assert it is there because of error. It 'cannot' be done. Pay attention to that. "Cannot" as in 'impossible.' No one with intellectual integrity (providing one is equipped with an intellect) could say anything but simply this: "There is a difference and we have no way of telling why it is there. We can but speculate."
The only thing anyone can assert is that there is a difference. You have no way of exploring what the actual is, so MUST rely on both passages. If you cannot figure out what is being said, you must move along because you have no way to question Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. You MUST be able to prove an accusation or it is simply an accusation. That is the difference between our theologies. Scripture tells us to not entertain an accusation without multiple witnesses. Guess what? None of us were there. We are all reading second hand. There is no way to tell if both happened, one happened, neither happened. It makes the 'best' sense simply to believe the passage and assume we don't have all the facts and information.
I'm not here to argue with you. We are simply discussing our difference and why it is exists and will continue to exist and to hopefully silence the vitriol like you have something you win if I 'lose.' :nono: Not true and not going to happen. Why then, again, do you insist? To shipwreck another's faith? Off of a "speculation of error" at best? That indeed is the best you can do. You haven't and worse, cannot prove the case for an error. It is literally impossible. I don't know if you get that. You don't seem to. I can't make you think or see. For him who has ears to hear... -Lon
Last edited: