PDA

View Full Version : Inerrancy of Scripture



Johnny
April 14th, 2005, 04:37 PM
Why is it that the Bible is considered inerrant by Christians? I'm a Christian struggling with the concept of inerrancy. I've been told that it is a matter of faith, and I would agree. However, I cannot find the reason we have that faith. What is the basis for that belief? It seems like a bunch of people just got together and said "ok let's believe this".

I've heard 2 Timothy 3:16 often quoted, which says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Two points about this verse:

(1) What exactly is inspiration? I was always taught that every single word was almost dictated in some sort of divine manner. Inspiration doesn't really mean that though. An inspired work doesn't always reflect the original inspiration. One can be inspired by God to write about God, but it is still a human writing. Do Christians honestly believe that God guided their hand down to the dotting of the i and crossing of the t?

(2) Scripture, as Timothy knew it, was essentially the Jewish writings of the OT. Further, we do not have all the books in our Old Testament that were considered Jewish scripture. Thus, I don't now that it is intellectually honest to attribute that verse to the modern scripture.

Further, it seems that our modern Bible was decided on by a group of guys a few hundred years after Christ died. Some books they rejected, others they kept. Are we to believe that they were also inspired by God to "make the right decision"?

God bless,
John

Johnny
April 14th, 2005, 04:43 PM
I seem to have implied that Timothy wrote 2 Timothy. Apologies. If I recall correctly it was Paul. I can't find the edit button to change it.

Mr. Coffee
April 14th, 2005, 05:23 PM
Hi Johnny,

The docrine of inerrancy is logically inherent in the doctrine of inspiration.

And over a period of time a set of writings were generally recognised as unique.

"Also, this is why we constantly thank God, because when you received the message about God that you heard from us, you welcomed it not as a human message, but as it truly is, the message of God, which also works effectively in you believers." (1Thes. 2.13)

Agape4Robin
April 14th, 2005, 05:56 PM
Why is it that the Bible is considered inerrant by Christians? I'm a Christian struggling with the concept of inerrancy. I've been told that it is a matter of faith, and I would agree. However, I cannot find the reason we have that faith. What is the basis for that belief? It seems like a bunch of people just got together and said "ok let's believe this".

I've heard 2 Timothy 3:16 often quoted, which says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Two points about this verse:

(1) What exactly is inspiration? I was always taught that every single word was almost dictated in some sort of divine manner. Inspiration doesn't really mean that though. An inspired work doesn't always reflect the original inspiration. One can be inspired by God to write about God, but it is still a human writing. Do Christians honestly believe that God guided their hand down to the dotting of the i and crossing of the t?

(2) Scripture, as Timothy knew it, was essentially the Jewish writings of the OT. Further, we do not have all the books in our Old Testament that were considered Jewish scripture. Thus, I don't now that it is intellectually honest to attribute that verse to the modern scripture.

Further, it seems that our modern Bible was decided on by a group of guys a few hundred years after Christ died. Some books they rejected, others they kept. Are we to believe that they were also inspired by God to "make the right decision"?

God bless,
John
Hi Johnny-
The greek translation for the word used in 2Tim 3:16; inspiration in this context is theopneustos. Literally translated "divinely breathed". This would show God having an active role in determining scripture instead of a passive role. God was not the muse. Jesus, Himself was the Word and the scriptures continue to "breathe" new life into many men and women today....2000 years later. How amazing is that!!

As far as the inerrancy issue goes, when we take original manuscripts (of any sort) and translate them into another language, misunderstandings are common. I recommend a Strong's Exhaustive Bible Concordance....you will be amazed at what you will learn.

Turbo
April 14th, 2005, 06:34 PM
Hello, Johnny! Welcome to TOL. My material on the Old Testament is kind of long, so I'll save the New Testament material for a follow-up post.

The Old Testament

If you believe that Jesus is God the Son, then you should have no trouble believing that the Old Testament (which is made up of three sections: the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings) is God's authoritative word, because Jesus affirmed it:


Then He said to them, "These are the words which I spoke to you while I
was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in
the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms* concerning Me. " And He
opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Luke
24:44-45

*Here Christ used "the Psalms" to refer to "the Writings." It's a Hebrew figure of speech in with the beginning of something is used to refer to the whole. Likewise, sometimes "the Law" is used to refer to five books of Moses, but sometimes it is used to refer to the enter Old Testament, since it is the first section. It's similar to when we might refer to an author's "bestselling title" when we're actually talking about his "bestselling book."

And as if that weren't enough...

I've emboldened places where Christ refers to Old Testament Scripture authoritatively, and I've italicized where He has quoted a specific passage.



And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" Matthew 19:4-5 (also Mark 10:6-8)

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:27

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Genesis 2:24



"And as it was in the days of Noah, so it will be also in the days of the Son of Man: They ate, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. " Luke 17:26-27



Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." - John 8:58

Then Moses said to God, "Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, "What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM." And He said, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" Exodus 3:13-14
[See Genesis for the story of Abraham. Note also that Exodus cites the six-day account of creation (Exodus 20:11), and that Jesus credits Moses as the author of Genesis, since it is one of the books of "the Law of Moses." (Luke
24:44)]



Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven. But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living." Matthew 22:29-32 (also Mark 12:24-26)

"But even Moses showed in the burning bush passage that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord 'the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'" Luke 20:37

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God. And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed. Then Moses said, "I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn."
So when the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses!"
And he said, "Here I am."
Then He said, "Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground." Moreover He said, "I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God… Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: 'The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.'" Exodus 3:1-6, 15



But when the Pharisees heard that He had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. Then one of them, a lawyer, asked Him a question, testing Him, and saying, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?"
Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 22:34-40 (also Mark 12:28-34; Luke 10:25-28)

"You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength." Deuteronomy 6:5

"You shall not hate your brother in your heart. You shall surely rebuke your neighbor, and not bear sin because of him. You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." Leviticus 19:17-18



Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."
He said to Him, "Which ones?"
Jesus said, "'You shall not murder,' 'You shall not commit adultery,' 'You shall not steal,' 'You shall not bear false witness,' 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Matthew 19:16-19

"Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God is giving you.
"You shall not murder.
"You shall not commit adultery.
"You shall not steal.
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." Exodus 20:12-16 (also Deuteronomy 5:16-20)

[Leviticus 19:17-18 referenced again]



Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying, "Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread."
He answered and said to them, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God"-- then he need not honor his father or mother.' Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:

'These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips,
But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, "Hear and understand: Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man." Matthew 15:1-11 (also Mark 7:5-16)

[Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 5:16 referenced again]

"And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:17 (see Deuteronomy 21:18-21 for more detail and clarification.)

Therefore the Lord said:
"Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths
And honor Me with their lips,
But have removed their hearts far from Me,
And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men," Isaiah 29:13



But He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?"
And He said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath." - Mark 2:25-28

And the priest answered David and said, "There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread, if the young men have at least kept themselves from women."
Then David answered the priest, and said to him, "Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in effect common, even though it was consecrated in the vessel this day."
So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread which had been taken from before the LORD, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away. 1 Samuel 21:4-6



Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news of Him went out through all the surrounding region. And He taught in their synagogues, being glorified by all.
So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:
'The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.'"
Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, "Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing." So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, "Is this not Joseph's son?" Luke 4:14-22

"The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me,
Because the LORD has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn," Isaiah 61:1-2a



And He said to them, "When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?"
So they said, "Nothing."
Then He said to them, "But now, he who has a money bag, let him take it, and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. For I say to you that this which is written must still be accomplished in Me: 'And He was numbered with the transgressors.' For the things concerning Me have an end." Luke 22:35-56

"Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"
In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled."
Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled. Matthew 26:53-56

Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors Isaiah 53:12



Jesus said to them, "Have you never read in the Scriptures:
'The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD's doing,
And it is marvelous in our eyes'?" Matthew 21:42 (see also Mark 12:10)

The stone which the builders rejected
Has become the chief cornerstone.
This was the LORD's doing;
It is marvelous in our eyes. - Psalm 118:22-23



"I do not speak concerning all of you. I know whom I have chosen; but that the Scripture may be fulfilled, 'He who eats bread with Me has lifted up his heel against Me.'" John 13:18

Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted,
Who ate my bread,
Has lifted up his heel against me. Psalm 41:9



Then the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, "Hosanna to the Son of David!" they were indignant and said to Him, "Do You hear what these are saying?"
And Jesus said to them, "Yes. Have you never read,
'Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants
You have perfected praise'?" Matthew 21:14-16

Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants
You have ordained strength,
Because of Your enemies,
That You may silence the enemy and the avenger. Psalm 8:2

Turbo
April 14th, 2005, 06:48 PM
The New Testament

The Gospels

The fiery whirlwind from Ezekiel 1, the wheels from Ezekiel 10, and the throne from Revelation 4 each have four faces:
A lion - symbolic of royalty / a king
An ox (Ezekiel 1), a calf (Revelation 4), or a cherub (Ezekiel 10) - symbolic of a servant
A man - representing a man. (No mystery there.)
An eagle - symbolic of deity

The four canonized gospels present Christ from each of these perspectives, which is especially apparent by the genealogies they record:
Matthew - Christ as king, son of David. His genealogy is traced to Abraham, the father of the nation of Israel. His lineage is traced from David to Joseph, who is not His natural father, but the one from whom He inherited the throne.
1:1 A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:

Mark - Christ as a servant. A servant's genealogy is not considered important, and no genealogical information is given in Mark.

Luke - Christ as the Son of Man - His genealogy is recorded from Adam, the first man, through David to Mary, his natural mother. (Luke 3:23-38)

John - Christ as God - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God... And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." John 1:1, 14

The traditional order of the Gospels seems to be based on the order the faces of the throne are named in Revelation 4:7.

1 & 2 Peter, 1, 2, & 3 John, Revelation

The apostles (Peter and John) were chosen and given authority by Christ himself during his Earthly ministry. Their ability to perform miracles was a sign of their legitimate authority, as had been with the prophets and Jesus before them.


Paul’s epistles

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, also claimed to be chosen and trained directly by Christ, but it was about a year after the resurrection. He insisted that he did not receive his teachings from men, but rather through direct revelation.


Galatians 1
But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb and called me through His grace, to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. Galations 1:11-17

Peter affirmed Paul’s epistles as Scripture in his second Epistle:

and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 2 Peter 3:15-16


James’ epistle

James, Jesus’ (half-)brother, became the leader of the church in Israel and apparently replaced the apostle James (John’s brother) who was killed (Acts 12:2). Paul counted him as one of the apostles:

But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:19

Acts of the Apostles

Acts was written by Luke: a doctor, a Gospel writer, and a great historian who was apparently trusted by the apostles. His account is very important, bridging the gap between the Gospel story and the launch of Paul’s unique ministry and message.


The Epistle to the Hebrews and Jude’s Epistle

The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is unknown. Therefore I cannot validate the author’s authority, per se. But it points out how the symbolism of the priesthood and sacrifices of the Old Covenant pointed to Christ. It is consistent with the rest of the Scriptures and was apparently accepted as Scripture, despite the fact that the author’s identity is a mystery.

Jude was another of Christ’s (half-) brothers, but I don’t know why exactly his epistle is considered to be inspired.

Paul did write that “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God” in 2 Timothy 3:17, and I know that was one of Paul’s later epistle. It may be that Hebrews and Jude were written (and generally recognized as inspired) when Paul wrote 2 Timothy. But I don't know for certain.

Turbo
April 14th, 2005, 07:25 PM
Why is it that the Bible is considered inerrant by Christians? I'm a Christian struggling with the concept of inerrancy. I've been told that it is a matter of faith, and I would agree. However, I cannot find the reason we have that faith. What is the basis for that belief? It seems like a bunch of people just got together and said "ok let's believe this".Biblical faith is not "blind" but rather it is based upon substantive evidence. I highly recommend that you read Clete's posts in the thread Faith vs. Reason (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=711889#post711889).


I've heard 2 Timothy 3:16 often quoted, which says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Two points about this verse:

(1) What exactly is inspiration? I was always taught that every single word was almost dictated in some sort of divine manner. Inspiration doesn't really mean that though. An inspired work doesn't always reflect the original inspiration. One can be inspired by God to write about God, but it is still a human writing. Do Christians honestly believe that God guided their hand down to the dotting of the i and crossing of the t?You mean as if the authors were used like mindless puppets? No, I don't think that's how it worked. (Some Christians surely do though.)

I think the authors may have been similar to administrative assistants. In some cases they may have taken God's dictation word-for-word whether or not they understood why God was saying what He was saying. In other cases the authors may have written reports based on communications with under His supervision. Either way, the result is that Scriptures are authoritave and true.


(2) Scripture, as [Paul] knew it, was essentially the Jewish writings of the OT. But Paul began his epistle to the Galatians by claiming that he received what he was saying through direct revelation from Christ. And Peter referred to Paul's epistles as scriptures in 2 Peter 3:15-16. So it's not as if the New Testament authors weren't aware that new scriptures were being written.


Further, we do not have all the books in our Old Testament that were considered Jewish scripture.How do you know that?


Further, it seems that our modern Bible was decided on by a group of guys a few hundred years after Christ died. Some books they rejected, others they kept. Are we to believe that they were also inspired by God to "make the right decision"?They affirmed and made record of what was already accepted among believers since these books were written. And as I showed in my previous post, there are good reasons that the books that are in there are in there.

aikido7
April 14th, 2005, 09:40 PM
"Scripture is inerrant."

Is our understanding of Scripture inerrant as well? How do biblical contradictions negate the power of Christ? Why does Jesus die on the day before Passover in John, while in the other gospels he is crucified on Passover? Why is the sign posted above Jesus' body on the cross is quoted differently in all four accounts?
What is the main difference between the Jesus of the four gospels and the Christ of Paul?

Mr. Coffee
April 14th, 2005, 10:00 PM
A7,

Where are you going with the Q about Jesus and Paul? (There are answers about the other things and they aren't hard to find). Just focus on th Jesus and Paul question before the thread explodes into some kind of apologetics Hydra.

Johnny
April 15th, 2005, 09:36 AM
Thank you all for your responses, they were very informative.


How do you know that?I first learned about it in a Judaism class I took last year.


They affirmed and made record of what was already accepted among believers since these books were written. And as I showed in my previous post, there are good reasons that the books that are in there are in there.I just have a problem with a bunch of people deciding what was inspired and what wasn't inspired. There are many books in the Bible that never claim to be inspired but are included anyways. That has always just seemed a bit dubious to me.

Thanks again for your responses!

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 09:54 AM
Not to be a bummer here, but how does one reconcile the "infallibility" of scripture with the obvious discrepancies in things like the geneological records (i.e. Matthew intentionally leaving out some names to achieve the perfect 14-14-14 effect). Or the two different versions of the David and Goliath story (in one, David was a harp player for Saul, in the other, the first day Saul and David met was the day he slew Goliath). If ALL scripture is inspired and thus innerrant, can two contradictory accounts both be correct?

Granite
April 15th, 2005, 09:57 AM
Or Matthew saying that "according to the prophets" he will be called a Nazarene?

The entire verse is a total invention on Matthew's part.:think:

Hmmm...

servent101
April 15th, 2005, 10:00 AM
Johnny
I just have a problem with a bunch of people deciding what was inspired and what wasn't inspired. There are many books in the Bible that never claim to be inspired but are included anyways. That has always just seemed a bit dubious to me.

Regardless of what this or that group of people say is inspired or not - one has to determine for oneself if what is Written is Inspired... those who try to force people to accept that this or that, and only this or that is inspired, ten years later find out they are surrounded by a bunch of idiots, and their lives may as well of been thrown away.

I always remember the time, place and circumstance in which the Scriptures were Written in, and if anything seems a little strange, it is usually the "way" whatever seems a bit strange, had to be Spoken to those who were listening - For example, Jesus saying that He is the Only way to the Father - to those people in that time and place, within their isolated geographical location - YES it was, but do not get me wrong, no one who is Spiritual denies the Christ - though the Only Way being used to discredit all other Scriptures is definitely rejected by those who are Spiritual.


With Christ's Love

Servent101

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 10:01 AM
Or Matthew saying that "according to the prophets" he will be called a Nazarene?

The entire verse is a total invention on Matthew's part.:think:

Hmmm...
Not to mention Matthews invention of the virgin birth because he couldn't stomach the thought of the Messiah being of Moabite descent.

Mr. Coffee
April 15th, 2005, 10:30 AM
Or Matthew saying that "according to the prophets" he will be called a Nazarene?

The entire verse is a total invention on Matthew's part.:think:

Hmmm... The Messiah is referred to a "the branch" in Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:5; and probably Zechariah 3:8; 6:12. The consonants in the word "branch" are identical to those in "Nazarene" (the Hebrew Scriptures were originally written without consonants). In Matthew's culture, the similarity would be considered meaningful.

No doubt this won't pass muster in Granite's Rules Of Authentic Prophecy, but we'll get over it just fine.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 10:35 AM
The Messiah is referred to a "the branch" in Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:5; and probably Zechariah 3:8; 6:12. The consonants in the word "branch" are identical to those in "Nazarene" (the Hebrew Scriptures were originally written without consonants). In Matthew's culture, the similarity would be considered meaningful.

No doubt this won't pass muster in Granite's Rules Of Authentic Prophecy, but we'll get over it just fine.
Maybe so, but nobody has yet to tell me why two "infallible" geneologies which disagree are both "infallible".

Zakath
April 15th, 2005, 10:39 AM
The Messiah is referred to a "the branch" in Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:5; and probably Zechariah 3:8; 6:12. The consonants in the word "branch" are identical to those in "Nazarene" (the Hebrew Scriptures were originally written without consonants). In Matthew's culture, the similarity would be considered meaningful. Begging the question, of course, of whether the gospel attributed to Matthew was actually written in Hebrew or Aramaic and not originally written in Greek; in which case the point does not stand.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 10:40 AM
Begging the question, of course, of whether the gospel attributed to Matthew was actually written in Hebrew or Aramaic and not originally written in Greek; in which case the point does not stand.
Wow, good point. Why didn't I think of that?

Zakath
April 15th, 2005, 10:41 AM
Maybe so, but nobody has yet to tell me why two "infallible" geneologies which disagree are both "infallible".
This one has been discussed in (painful) detail here on TOL before but I believe the threads have been "pruned" to free up server space.

Zakath
April 15th, 2005, 10:42 AM
Wow, good point. Why didn't I think of that?
Don't know... you can steal it though! :thumb:

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 10:43 AM
This one has been discussed in (painful) detail here on TOL before but I believe the threads have been "pruned" to free up server space.
I'm sure it has been discussed... was a reasonable answer ever given?

Zakath
April 15th, 2005, 10:45 AM
I'm sure it has been discussed... was a reasonable answer ever given?
As I was one of the major discussants, I can say that I never thought any of the explanations provided were particularly convincing, or even held up under scrutiny.

I find that most discussions of inerrancy end up with either a round of name-calling or a bit of pious sniffing and a comment like, "The Holy Spirit has to make it clear to you. Since you're a non-believer you obviously don't understand."

Mr. Coffee
April 15th, 2005, 10:48 AM
Begging the question, of course, of whether the gospel attributed to Matthew was actually written in Hebrew or Aramaic and nohave beent originally written in Greek; in which case the point does not stand.But the name of the town--as it was called by native Nazarenes--would have been known by Matthew.

servent101
April 15th, 2005, 10:56 AM
Zakath
I find that most discussions of inerrancy end up with either a round of name-calling or a bit of pious sniffing and a comment like, "The Holy Spirit has to make it clear to you. Since you're a non-believer you obviously don't understand."

I find that the Bible is as inerrant as the Book needs to be, to the people to whom it was Written - in time, place and circumstances, the development of the people's psychie being the primary catalyst in understanding what is Written... hope I have never come across as piously sniffy , or name-calling, or saying your a non-believer.

As far as I think, from what I have seen, you are a Child of God Zakath, you try to overcome evil with Good, you seem to try to keep the peace and all in all, seem very moral - so to me, your on the path that leads to eternal life, even if for a short time, what you perceive as the means to deduce the concept of God, is null in void, this is just a few short years in what is an eternity, and eventually you will find the "means to construct an opinion" that is satisfactory to your intelligence (in my opinion anyways) concerning the Nature of God, or as you put it, the Deity.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 10:57 AM
As I was one of the major discussants, I can say that I never thought any of the explanations provided were particularly convincing, or even held up under scrutiny.

I find that most discussions of inerrancy end up with either a round of name-calling or a bit of pious sniffing and a comment like, "The Holy Spirit has to make it clear to you. Since you're a non-believer you obviously don't understand."
I don't mean to be a pain in your butt Zakath, but I'm honestly curious. How does one defend the obvious differences?

Zakath
April 15th, 2005, 11:01 AM
But the name of the town--as it was called by native Nazarenes--would have been known by Matthew.
But no scripture has ever been found in either Masoretic or Septuagint versions to serve as the basis for the author of Matthew's gospel's "citation".

Secondly, to my admittedly limited knowledge, not a single published translation of the NT cites your verses as support for Matthew's spurious quote. It is not unreasonable that, after 1500 years of translating, someone on a translation team would have entered such an explanation as a footnote at least. The fact that no such reference exists leads me to believe that it is not quite as much of an "open and shut case" as you might like to believe.

Zakath
April 15th, 2005, 11:14 AM
I don't mean to be a pain in your butt Zakath, but I'm honestly curious. How does one defend the obvious differences?Well, I certainly don't... :chuckle:

Dozens of apologetic volumes, totalling many times the length of the entire bible, have been written to attempt reconcile the errors in the allegedly infallible Judeo-Christian scriptures. I'd suggest you might avail yourself of one. I could suggest Gleason Archer's An Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties which runs close to 500 pages. Many skeptics and freethinkers who are on the fence about the validity of the Christian Bible have crossed the line into skepticism after reading such collections of "how it could have been" tactics. :D

Alternately you could check out the Web. I might suggest The Secular Web (www.infidels.org) and do a search for "genealogy".

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 11:17 AM
Well, I certainly don't... :chuckle:

Dozens of apologetic volumes, totalling many times the length of the entire bible, have been written to attempt reconcile the errors in the allegedly infallible Judeo-Christian scriptures. I'd suggest you might avail yourself of one. I could suggest Gleason Archer's An Encyclopedia of Biblical Difficulties which runs close to 500 pages. Many skeptics and freethinkers who are on the fence about the validity of the Christian Bible have crossed the line into skepticism after reading such collections of "how it could have been" tactics. :D

Alternately you could check out the Web. I might suggest The Secular Web (www.infidels.org) and do a search for "genealogy".
Thank you. Just what I was looking for.

Granite
April 15th, 2005, 11:27 AM
The Messiah is referred to a "the branch" in Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:5; and probably Zechariah 3:8; 6:12. The consonants in the word "branch" are identical to those in "Nazarene" (the Hebrew Scriptures were originally written without consonants). In Matthew's culture, the similarity would be considered meaningful.

No doubt this won't pass muster in Granite's Rules Of Authentic Prophecy, but we'll get over it just fine.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Matthew was pointing to a very specific town (which had a lousy reputation). He didn't say that the messiah would be called "the branch." Try again.

Granite
April 15th, 2005, 11:28 AM
But the name of the town--as it was called by native Nazarenes--would have been known by Matthew.

Although there is doubt if it even existed in Jesus' day...and it certainly did not exist when the "prophecy" was written, if written at all.

Mr. Coffee
April 15th, 2005, 11:34 AM
But no scripture has ever been found in either Masoretic or Septuagint versions to serve as the basis for the author of Matthew's gospel's "citation".

Secondly, to my admittedly limited knowledge, not a single published translation of the NT cites your verses as support for Matthew's spurious quote. It is not unreasonable that, after 1500 years of translating, someone on a translation team would have entered such an explanation as a footnote at least. The fact that no such reference exists leads me to believe that it is not quite as much of an "open and shut case" as you might like to believe.The citation is an allusion to the word "branch" in the scriptures I posted.

Jerome (340-420 AD): "We may explain that it is found in Isaiah rendered to the strict letter of the Hebrew. 'There shall come a Rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Nazarene shall grow out of His roots.'
"

Granite
April 15th, 2005, 11:36 AM
I have to ask why translators the world and ages over have insisted on using "Nazarene" here when "branch" would suffice and be a lot clearer (not to say more accurate).

Hmmmm...

Mr. Coffee
April 15th, 2005, 11:39 AM
Sorry, that dog don't hunt. Matthew was pointing to a very specific town (which had a lousy reputation). He didn't say that the messiah would be called "the branch." Try again."Nazarene" sounds like "branch". That was the whole point of the earlier post. The verse has been exegeted this way since antiquity.

Mr. Coffee
April 15th, 2005, 11:41 AM
I have to ask why translators the world and ages over have insisted on using "Nazarene" here when "branch" would suffice and be a lot clearer (not to say more accurate).

Hmmmm...They wanted to hear you play the kazoo.

Caledvwlch
April 15th, 2005, 11:44 AM
"Nazarene" sounds like "branch". That was the whole point of the earlier post. The verse has been exegeted this way since antiquity.
So in other words, they had the choice between "Nazarene" and "branch" and they picked "Nazarene" because it backed up their dogma.

Granite
April 15th, 2005, 11:47 AM
"Nazarene" sounds like "branch". That was the whole point of the earlier post. The verse has been exegeted this way since antiquity.

This is the problem: the Bible means what it says until it doesn't.

Again, for the sake of narrative clarity, these guys could have saved the trouble and just called him "the branch."

http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh013.htm

Interesting discussion--Leithart himself admits that it's not possible to know which prophecy (if any existed) Matthew specifically had in mind.

Zakath
April 15th, 2005, 12:18 PM
"Nazarene" sounds like "branch". That was the whole point of the earlier post. The verse has been exegeted this way since antiquity.
Interesting. It would have been more convincing if Jesus actually was from Nazareth. Doesn't Matthew also say he wasn't from Nazareth, but Bethlehem?

IMO the Nazareth reference seems to be an attempt to reconcile the problem that Jesus' alleged birthplace was not his "city of origin", but someplace else.

He was born in Bethlehem and should have been referred to as a "Bethlehemite", but the Jesus of the gospels was commonly referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth".

Ultimately, if he's not from Nazareth, then exegeting that way has little relevance...

It also sound's like we've got a "dueling prophecies" issue here... (which is one possible reason behind the historically undocumented "slaughter of the innocents...flight to Egypt...return to Nazareth scenario).

Granite
April 15th, 2005, 02:00 PM
Considering that the context of the passage is Jesus' birthtown and not his messianic characteristics it would SEEM, at first glance, that the "prophecy" referred to his town of birth/residence/origin.

Of course, as Zakath points out, considering Nazareth was NOT his birthtown, this might be a matter of confused authorship and a very moot point.

Mr. Coffee
April 15th, 2005, 11:22 PM
I honestly don't see what the problem is here. Born in Bethlehem; from Nazareth.

I was born in Maine and the family moved to Virginia when I was five. I lived there until I was 21, and I think of Virginia as the place where I'm from.

Back to Nazarene/branch. He's called the Nazarene because that's where he's from (in the sense given above). Nazarene and branch have the same consonantal skeleton and Matthew is engaging in a kind of reverent wordplay. I'm baffled by the quibbles this is getting. I'm done with this topic.

logos_x
April 16th, 2005, 12:38 AM
A Practical Introduction to Inductive and Deductive Reasoning

http://www.christianlogic.com/articles/logic_comes_in_two_flavors.htm

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 07:10 AM
Some people just refuse to "get it". They are over thinking it. :confused:
I was born in New yourk, but grew up in Florida.
This is not rocket science! Sheesh! :doh:

Granite
April 16th, 2005, 01:03 PM
Hey Il, before you take your ball and go home...

First of all, some theologians who agree with your exegesis might be useful, as opposed to making yourself look like just any old Christian who interprets the Bible at will.

Secondly, does it strike anybody as odd that even IF what he says is true, the Bible continues to be translated using the word "Nazarene" here as opposed to "branch"? Did everyone else just get it wrong?:think:

billwald
April 16th, 2005, 01:07 PM
First, Paul's "Pastorals" were probably written after his death.

Second, "The Messiah is referred to a "the branch" in Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:5; and probably Zechariah 3:8; 6:12," how do we know that these verses are not referring to George Washington?

billwald
April 16th, 2005, 01:16 PM
Third, an inerrext text is useless without inerrant understanding. For all I know, my calculus text was inerrant but I twice flunked the course and changed majors.

Agape4Robin
April 16th, 2005, 01:31 PM
Third, an inerrext text is useless without inerrant understanding. For all I know, my calculus text was inerrant but I twice flunked the course and changed majors.
I'm surprised. :rolleyes:

Lovejoy
April 16th, 2005, 07:55 PM
Not to mention Matthews invention of the virgin birth because he couldn't stomach the thought of the Messiah being of Moabite descent.
I am surprised by that comment. I thoughth the virgin birth was pretty well laid out in Isaiah.

Mr. Coffee
April 16th, 2005, 11:48 PM
Hey Il, before you take your ball and go home...

First of all, some theologians who agree with your exegesis might be useful, as opposed to making yourself look like just any old Christian who interprets the Bible at will.

Secondly, does it strike anybody as odd that even IF what he says is true, the Bible continues to be translated using the word "Nazarene" here as opposed to "branch"? Did everyone else just get it wrong?:think:Re theologians, I've quoted Jerome already. You jumped all over me in the No Longer A Chistian thread because I quoted from other people, and now you switch gears, because you must have taken a blood oath somewhere to be cranky and annoying no matter what someone is saying.

The word "Nazarene" is used as a synonym of "branch", to show their similarity. Jesus is called a Nazarene, or Netzer, "the branch", because he's from Natzareth, so called because of the many plants ("netzers") that grow there. Jesus fulfills the prophecies in Isaiah 11 by being a descendant of David and a Nazarene.

aikido7
April 17th, 2005, 10:03 AM
Again, before we get too self-righteous and faux humble, we need to ask the question:

IF WE ARE TO DEMAND SCRIPTURE BE INERRANT, DOES THAT ALSO MEAN THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE IS ALSO INERRANT?

This seems to me that this is a fair and relevant question here.

The Doctrine of Inerrancy (or the political Doctrine of Infallibility) seems based on the notion that only particular interpreters have been granted the only correct interpretations by divine right and light. But if these interpreters have the only correct interpretation, then they, too, must be equally ijnspired if their interpretations are to be infallible.

And if their interpretations are infallible, then we must share their inspriation. And their infallibility--if we are to perfectly understand their interpretation.

Now it seems we are in a chain of endless sequence in which everybody who pretends to understand must participate in the original inspiration to be part of the chain.

And as of today, there are at least 130,000 established sects that call themselves Christian. And most of these, I'll wager, see themselves as the only TRUE Christians.

Sometimes the back-and-forth discussions on these threads seem to bear out this difference of opinion. If the text is truly inerrant and everything in it that is written down is to be taken as historical fact, then of what earthly use is "faith"?

I just find it best to admit that our knowledge is limited and open-ended. And that means that it is subject to modification and that we have derived it not by preistly authority, but by the hard work of study and learning. This admission will at least put us all on a level playing field and makes a dialogue and sharing of ideas possible....

I am surprised by that comment. I thoughth the virgin birth was pretty well laid out in Isaiah.
I am of the opinion that the virgin birth speaks more to the importance of Jesus than to the physical biology of Mary.

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 12:43 PM
Again, before we get too self-righteous and faux humble, we need to ask the question:

IF WE ARE TO DEMAND SCRIPTURE BE INERRANT, DOES THAT ALSO MEAN THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE IS ALSO INERRANT?

This seems to me that this is a fair and relevant question here.

The Doctrine of Inerrancy (or the political Doctrine of Infallibility) seems based on the notion that only particular interpreters have been granted the only correct interpretations by divine right and light. But if these interpreters have the only correct interpretation, then they, too, must be equally ijnspired if their interpretations are to be infallible.

And if their interpretations are infallible, then we must share their inspriation. And their infallibility--if we are to perfectly understand their interpretation.

Now it seems we are in a chain of endless sequence in which everybody who pretends to understand must participate in the original inspiration to be part of the chain.

And as of today, there are at least 130,000 established sects that call themselves Christian. And most of these, I'll wager, see themselves as the only TRUE Christians.

Sometimes the back-and-forth discussions on these threads seem to bear out this difference of opinion. If the text is truly inerrant and everything in it that is written down is to be taken as historical fact, then of what earthly use is "faith"?

I just find it best to admit that our knowledge is limited and open-ended. And that means that it is subject to modification and that we have derived it not by preistly authority, but by the hard work of study and learning. This admission will at least put us all on a level playing field and makes a dialogue and sharing of ideas possible....

I am of the opinion that the virgin birth speaks more to the importance of Jesus than to the physical biology of Mary.
I don't entirely understand the last comment. I, too, assume that that it is more about Jesus than Mary, which is why I think she did finally have children with Joseph. I don't think she had had sex prior to having Jesus though. I also believe, though, that God wanted it that way so there would be another miracle to testify to the nature and identity of Christ.

aikido7
April 17th, 2005, 02:21 PM
I suppose we could mention many things in the Bible and discuss whether or not they should be taken "inerrantly." I would like to focus on the topic of inerrant revelation.

(I will address your point in private, Lovejoy. Or--you can start a thread on the virgin birth. That should keep the discussion in relative focus and I'm sure we will have plenty of company discussing the topic!)

Lovejoy
April 17th, 2005, 02:23 PM
That's fine, aikido. I never know where these threads are going, and I certainly appreciate efforts to keep them on topic!

Mr. Coffee
April 17th, 2005, 03:45 PM
If the text is truly inerrant and everything in it that is written down is to be taken as historical fact, then of what earthly use is "faith"?Personal trust. It means don't stake your happiness on the things of the world.

And by revealing truths about His nature and saving work, God gives a friendly challenge to stubborn sinners: will we accept the authority of facts or will we proudly cling to our lies, as if truth is something we can create ourselves. The latter is freedom of conscience run amok, and the historical irony is that that was Protestantism's gift to the West.
And as of today, there are at least 130,000 established sects that call themselves Christian. And most of these, I'll wager, see themselves as the only TRUE Christians.I've had a fair amount of contact with other believers across denominational boundaries, and I'd say that the kind of hard core exclusivism you describe is rare.

There is no scandal in a diversity of views on things like baptism or church polity. If Presbyterians baptise their infants on the premise that baptism is new covenant circumcision, and if other groups link baptism with conversion, neither side is saying that the other folks don't believe in Jesus. Both sides have something important to say in the reasons they give. Most Christians don't believe that secondary issues are the stuff of anathemas.

Aimiel
April 17th, 2005, 04:21 PM
I would suggest that a Christian who reads his Bible ask God to witness to The Truth of The Gospel on the inside of them, as we're told He will. The Holy Ghost will give assurance to the believer as they read, you just have to make yourself sensitive to Him. The Testimony of Jesus is The Spirit of Prophecy.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

This 'more sure Word of Prophecy' that the apostle spoke of is The Holy Ghost, and He will share His Testimony with anyone who seeks Him for It.

Everglaze
April 17th, 2005, 04:30 PM
God's word is perfect, it has no errors. We humans who read can misinterpret what we read though.

What Moses wrote, what Apostle Paul wrote...what any of the authors of the Bible wrote...it was all recordings of the events and accounts.

Basically, what Jesus taught...boom, included. What happened to this prophet and that prophet? Boom, included. If there were any errors or "false/unnecessary" things, they would've been left out or not even passed as God's word. The way I see it, it's like authors assembling an anthology...to have it correct, you need an editor. Well? Who's more perfect than God? That's all.

aikido7
April 17th, 2005, 05:03 PM
God's word is perfect, it has no errors. We humans who read can misinterpret what we read though.

Amen!

BillyBob
April 17th, 2005, 05:05 PM
God's word is perfect, it has no errors. We humans who read can misinterpret what we read though.


I guess that's how Aikido justifies being a commie.....

BillyBob
April 17th, 2005, 05:06 PM
Hey Aikommie, I see you have 4 Red Squares!! :noway:


:darwinsm:

aikido7
April 17th, 2005, 05:22 PM
The way I see it, it's like authors assembling an anthology...to have it correct, you need an editor. Well? Who's more perfect than God? That's all.
Have you ever gone into a Christian bookstore to buy the Bible? Today there are a multitude of versions and translations. And even before the advent of Christian bookstores there were several "Bibles"--each one the revealed word of a different and separate Christian sect.

You can't change the fact that all copies of the Bible were made by hand before the invention of the printing press in about 1450. So they consequently contain mistakes, mistranslation and inaccuracies.

Whether you like it or not, there aren't any fragments of any of the New Testament books older than about 125 AD.

And there are no copies of any Christian scriptures that can be dated to a time before 200 AD.

And there are no copies of the Hebrew Bible older than 200 years before Jesus' birth.

We can't change these facts. Only new discoveries can alter them.

Aimiel
April 17th, 2005, 06:36 PM
You can't change the fact that all copies of the Bible were made by hand before the invention of the printing press in about 1450. So they consequently contain mistakes, mistranslation and inaccuracies.No mistakes, mistranslation or inaccuracies in the KJV.
Whether you like it or not, there aren't any fragments of any of the New Testament books older than about 125 AD.Why would that change anything? The ones that we have are accurate.
And there are no copies of the Hebrew Bible older than 200 years before Jesus' birth.

We can't change these facts. Only new discoveries can alter them.Or, as in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, verify the authenticity of what we have, to the letter, every jot and tittle.

aikido7
April 17th, 2005, 07:39 PM
You are misinformed on all three counts. You might read some more about the formation of the canon, the art of translation and the history of biblical interpretation.

Sadly, you probably will not....

billwald
April 17th, 2005, 09:35 PM
"I would suggest that a Christian who reads his Bible ask God to witness to The Truth of The Gospel on the inside of them, as we're told He will."

I have had several Mormons tell me the same thing about God and the BoM.

One problem is caused by failing to differentiate between the Gospel (Good News) and the "Then what you do is . . . .
The Gospel is that God solved the sin problem by sending Jesus who died for our sins. All the rest is secondary stuff that sells books.

logos_x
April 17th, 2005, 11:54 PM
The letter of Scripture is a veil just as much as it is a revelation; hiding while it reveals, and yet revealing while it hides.—Andrew Jukes

It is impossible to enslave mentally or socially a Bible-reading people. The principles of the Bible are the groundwork of human freedom. -- Horace Greeley

The foibles, inconsistencies and humanness (of the Bible) all the more show us that the letter of the Scripture is not to be enthroned as an idol to be worshipped of itself. The letter will always kill. It is the spirit which God has breathed into his holy instrument, the spirit of his high Logos, this Word, that transmits its life to all those who obey it. –Michael Phillips

The value of the Old Testament may be dependant on what seems its imperfection. It may repel one use in order that we may be forced to use it in another way—to find the Word in it…to re-live, while we read, the whole Jewish experience of God’s gradual and graded self-revelation, to feel the very contentions between the Word and the human material through which it works. –C.S. Lewis

One of the dangers from which the Church should pray to be delivered is idolatry of the letter of Scripture. The letter exists for the spirit, not the spirit for the letter. Literalism is the grave in which spiritual religion is buried. The New Testament is a book which is to be spiritually interpreted. James M. Campbell

If we move in the direction of biblial absolutism ("the religion of the Book"), how can we escape turning the New Testament into a Christian Torah and the gospel into a new law? Once we do that, religious fascism with all its sectarian ugliness cannot be far away. Far better a mistaken Christian (a heretic) who has somehow caught the Spirit of Christ, than an orthodox Protestant who thinks that the Spirit is mediated to him through the letter of correct theology. --Robert D. Brinsmead

The Bible in itself is not the Word of God. The Word of God is a person (John 1:1). Neither does the Bible have life, power or light in itself any more than did the Jewish Torach. These attributes may be ascribed to the Bible only by virtue of its relationship to Him who is Word, Life, Power and Light. Life is not in the book, as the Pharisees supposed, but only in the Man of the book (John 5:39). --Robert Brinsmead

Granite
April 18th, 2005, 06:13 AM
Have you ever gone into a Christian bookstore to buy the Bible? Today there are a multitude of versions and translations. And even before the advent of Christian bookstores there were several "Bibles"--each one the revealed word of a different and separate Christian sect.

You can't change the fact that all copies of the Bible were made by hand before the invention of the printing press in about 1450. So they consequently contain mistakes, mistranslation and inaccuracies.

Whether you like it or not, there aren't any fragments of any of the New Testament books older than about 125 AD.

And there are no copies of any Christian scriptures that can be dated to a time before 200 AD.

And there are no copies of the Hebrew Bible older than 200 years before Jesus' birth.

We can't change these facts. Only new discoveries can alter them.

Basically the book has no provenance. Kind of a big problem...

Zakath
April 18th, 2005, 07:49 AM
Basically the book has no provenance. Kind of a big problem...
Now don't go using those big three-syllable words, folks around here get testy when they don't understand your argument. :chuckle:

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 07:51 AM
I am surprised by that comment. I thoughth the virgin birth was pretty well laid out in Isaiah.
Mistranslation. Isaiah said "young woman". And a few months later, his young wife had aboy. Guess what they named him...

...Emmanuel. Hmm...

Granite
April 18th, 2005, 07:52 AM
:doh:

My bad.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 07:53 AM
Re theologians, I've quoted Jerome already. You jumped all over me in the No Longer A Chistian thread because I quoted from other people, and now you switch gears, because you must have taken a blood oath somewhere to be cranky and annoying no matter what someone is saying.

The word "Nazarene" is used as a synonym of "branch", to show their similarity. Jesus is called a Nazarene, or Netzer, "the branch", because he's from Natzareth, so called because of the many plants ("netzers") that grow there. Jesus fulfills the prophecies in Isaiah 11 by being a descendant of David and a Nazarene.
The geneologies in Luke and Matthew are so completely different... why should we believe either one?

Zakath
April 18th, 2005, 07:55 AM
The geneologies in Luke and Matthew are so completely different... why should we believe either one?
Particularly in light of Tit. 3:9... ;)

Seems that ole Paul knew what kind of trouble they caused and was smart enough to tell his disciples to avoid them... :chuckle:

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 07:55 AM
God's word is perfect, it has no errors. We humans who read can misinterpret what we read though.

What Moses wrote, what Apostle Paul wrote...what any of the authors of the Bible wrote...it was all recordings of the events and accounts.

Basically, what Jesus taught...boom, included. What happened to this prophet and that prophet? Boom, included. If there were any errors or "false/unnecessary" things, they would've been left out or not even passed as God's word. The way I see it, it's like authors assembling an anthology...to have it correct, you need an editor. Well? Who's more perfect than God? That's all.
I'll ask you then. If the geneologies in Luke and Matthew are both inspired? Which one is infallible, because they are COMPLETELY different.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 07:56 AM
Particularly in light of Tit. 3:9... ;)
Hmm...

Granite
April 18th, 2005, 08:00 AM
Ah. Well, the pat answer is the geneologies just differ in their FOCUS. :hammer:

How this explains away the discrepancies is beyond me.

Zakath
April 18th, 2005, 08:02 AM
Ah. Well, the pat answer is the geneologies just differ in their FOCUS. :hammer:

How this explains away the discrepancies is beyond me.
It doesn't. That's why the topic still comes up, over and over, after 1600 years... :rolleyes:

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 08:08 AM
It doesn't. That's why the topic still comes up, over and over, after 1600 years... :rolleyes:
And rightfully so. I was a Christian from childhood until a month or so ago, and I finally compared the 2 geneologies yesterday. I was appalled. The bald-faced lies were just too much.

Granite
April 18th, 2005, 10:52 AM
The lies are appalling, about as appalling as the X-rated incest, rape, murder, gang rape, genocide, and gore.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 10:55 AM
The lies are appalling, about as appalling as the X-rated incest, rape, murder, gang rape, genocide, and gore.
Well, not quite that appalling...

Aimiel
April 18th, 2005, 11:21 AM
You are misinformed on all three counts. I know you are, but what am I?

Granite
April 18th, 2005, 11:21 AM
I know you are, but what am I?

A real space cadet, for one.:rolleyes:

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 11:23 AM
I know you are, but what am I?
Aimiel, congratulations, you're the new winner of the "Single Coolest Post Caledvwlch Has Ever Seen" award!

Zakath
April 18th, 2005, 11:24 AM
Aimiel, congratulations, you're the new winner of the "Single Coolest Post Caledvwlch Has Ever Seen" award!
If you're a member you could post it as your Post of the Day! :D

Aimiel
April 18th, 2005, 11:35 AM
And rightfully so. I was a Christian from childhood until a month or so ago...No, you believed you were Christian. A Christian (IMHO) is someone who is in a relationship with The Lord, and anyone (in my experience) who is in a relationship with Him doesn't leave Him, and He never leaves or forsakes anyone.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 11:38 AM
No, you believed you were Christian. A Christian (IMHO) is someone who is in a relationship with The Lord, and anyone (in my experience) who is in a relationship with Him doesn't leave Him, and He never leaves or forsakes anyone.
Yeah, whatever. I know a great many people who were forsaken by him. Because he was never there to begin with, no matter how abdly we wanted him to be.

Zakath
April 18th, 2005, 11:38 AM
... anyone (in my experience) who is in a relationship with Him doesn't leave Him, and He never leaves or forsakes anyone.Sounds like a relationship between an abused wife and her husband...

Aimiel
April 18th, 2005, 11:38 AM
Aimiel, congratulations, you're the new winner of the "Single Coolest Post Caledvwlch Has Ever Seen" award!It's a favorite saying of mine, especially when someone gives a rebuttal which is bereft of all substance and a waste of time to read.

Caledvwlch
April 18th, 2005, 11:40 AM
Sounds like a relationship between an abused wife and her husband...
Precisely! Man this guy is on the ball...

Christianity is mainly psychological abuse. "Believe it or you're going to hell!" Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is a good example. What a grump that guy was...

Zakath
April 18th, 2005, 11:42 AM
Precisely! Man this guy is on the ball...

Christianity is mainly psychological abuse. "Believe it or you're going to hell!" Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is a good example. What a grump that guy was...
Grump he may have been, but boy could he work a crowd!

Granite
April 18th, 2005, 12:31 PM
No, you believed you were Christian. A Christian (IMHO) is someone who is in a relationship with The Lord, and anyone (in my experience) who is in a relationship with Him doesn't leave Him, and He never leaves or forsakes anyone.

:yawn:

Whatever helps ya sleep at night.

aikido7
April 18th, 2005, 02:15 PM
No mistakes, mistranslation or inaccuracies in the KJV.Why would that change anything? The ones that we have are accurate.Or, as in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls, verify the authenticity of what we have, to the letter, every jot and tittle.

Right! All the errors in the KIng James Version were put there by the Devil to confuse unwary Christians--right? All translation is a betrayal of the original. The Dead Sea Scrolls are not a 100 per cent accurate standard for comparison. Only about a third are rough duplicates of Hebrew texts in the canon; "jot and tittle" is an overstatement. The scrolls' discovery showed us that first-century Judaism was more complex and varied than Christians ever thought before.

logos_x
April 18th, 2005, 03:01 PM
No mistakes, mistranslation or inaccuracies in the KJV.


It's amazing that statements are made like this around here and accepted as truth.

Lets look at one topic...and lets see how thw KJV fares as far as mistranslation or inaccuracies...

Charts for Sheol, Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus (http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellStudy/HellCharts.htm)

Forevers and forevers ??? (http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellStudy/forever.htm)

Damn is a four letter word... (http://www.what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellEncyclopedia/WordDamn.htm)

Mr. Coffee
April 19th, 2005, 01:23 AM
The geneologies in Luke and Matthew are so completely different... why should we believe either one? I guess it's "so completely" as opposed to "partly completely", and if we have two differing accounts of something, aren't they both false? Well, I'm not touching that one.

But the genealogies are different. We have two different bloodlines through two sons of David--Solomon and Nathan. The question is how they intersect. There are a number of viable theories, and this one (http://www.theology.edu/ap10.htm) at least has the virtue of simplicity. But without further documentation, we don't really know. And this cuts both ways, because the mere existence of two genealogies is not a prima facie case for Biblical errancy, either.

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 07:12 AM
I guess it's "so completely" as opposed to "partly completely", and if we have two differing accounts of something, aren't they both false? Well, I'm not touching that one.

But the genealogies are different. We have two different bloodlines through two sons of David--Solomon and Nathan. The question is how they intersect. There are a number of viable theories, and this one (http://www.theology.edu/ap10.htm) at least has the virtue of simplicity. But without further documentation, we don't really know. And this cuts both ways, because the mere existence of two genealogies is not a prima facie case for Biblical errancy, either.
You're right. It's not a prima facie case. It is however a strong hint. The fact that theologians have to jump through hoops to explain it is interesting to me, to say the least...

Zakath
April 19th, 2005, 07:46 AM
You're right. It's not a prima facie case. It is however a strong hint. The fact that theologians have to jump through hoops to explain it is interesting to me, to say the least...
What that old saw...

"The Bible says what it means, until it doesn't." ;)

logos_x
April 19th, 2005, 07:50 AM
The letter of Scripture is a veil just as much as it is a revelation; hiding while it reveals, and yet revealing while it hides.—Andrew Jukes

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 07:52 AM
The letter of Scripture is a veil just as much as it is a revelation; hiding while it reveals, and yet revealing while it hides.—Andrew Jukes
Spooky...

Zakath
April 19th, 2005, 08:45 AM
Spooky...
More like "goofy". :freak:

Granite
April 19th, 2005, 09:59 AM
The Bible is all things to all men; if you want to prove something you'll find a verse to do it.

Caledvwlch
April 19th, 2005, 10:18 AM
The Bible is all things to all men; if you want to prove something you'll find a verse to do it.
Oh yeah. Remember that time with that guy and that thing? :chuckle:

Granite
April 19th, 2005, 03:11 PM
:cool:

About the place and the time?