Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

2003cobra

New member
Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.


I believe that both Luke and Matthew were accurate in their accounts.
If we can't believe them, why believe any of it?

Matthew says that Jacob was the father of Joseph.
Luke says Heli was the father of Joseph.

The two genealogies differ in every generation.

And you believe that Matthew and Luke were that stupid.

I don't. I choose to believe them and reconcile the accounts in the only way I see possible.
It makes sense to me and I'll go with it.

You have the liberty to choose your course.
I've chosen mine and for nearly 40 years believing Scripture.

You'll have to plant doubt in someone else's head. You won't succeed here.
If I have put doubts in the heads of people about the man-made doctrine of inerrancy, then that is only because they saw that the text does not support inerrancy or claim inerrancy.

Have you seen the post I made quoting Dr. Daniel Wallace of Dallas Theological Seminary on why making inerrancy a prime doctrine is a “slippery slope” that we should avoid? If not, let me know and I can post it again.

We are called to follow Jesus, not a book. We should never worship a book. We should not make claims for it that it does not make itself.

I have been reading and believing scripture for 55 years, and I learned to separate the teachings of scripture from the teachings of man.

I don’t think Matthew and Luke were stupid. What makes you think that Matthew, rather than his students, wrote the gospel according to Matthew?

The “if you can’t believe every single word is perfect then you can’t beleive anything” is both unscriptural and silly — God Never promised us a perfect book.
 

2003cobra

New member
▲see▲ how one without scruples could lambast you wrongly? With exact quotes?

Clipping quotes to suit one's fancy is a dishonest work. "If" I were unscrupulous, I wouldn't care and would post this for the world to see if my agenda wasn't truth, but to harm another and or his reputation *(used here just for example, you 'said' this but I don't believe clipping from the fuller context is how it is done and it is often damaging and I think irresponsible - for thread again, The clipped quote here doesn't express what I believe was your intention and I will not use your words against you to prop up something I'm sure you don't believe -again, just used for example and empathy).
(you seem to have left off that clipping-quote tack, for now, but simply to reinforce it, this example shows the problem of 'using exact words' vs using all of one's words and what they believe).
Pretending I did anything like that is dishonest.

Are you really that bothered that you cannot explain these errors?
 

2003cobra

New member
It's so-called 'scholars' opinion as opposed to other so-called 'scholars' opinion.

Take your pick.
They do not all agree.

Do you have any scholars who support your claim that father and father-in-law could be interchanged in Koine Greek documents?
 

Zenn

New member
Amen, but there are some pretty stupid people on this thread. :chuckle:
One might think that blindly accepting an assertion that there was no cultural or linguistic distinction between father and father-in-law without any proof and, indeed, in the face of proof to the contrary where a specific Greek word for father-in-law (without clunky hyphens as in English) is actually used in the New Testament texts would be... well... pretty stupid in its own right.

Zenn

PS: I will wait for a citation, but if none is given, then the assertion:

In that culture father-in-laws were considered fathers when the children were married and son-in-laws were considered sons.
is just a pitiful fabrication pulled out of thin air and made up, like stories about Santa Claus. Christians tend to invent stuff like this all the time, one of the best being: "eye of needle" is a gate into the old city of Jerusalem. Lying for God's sake is never justified.
 

Zenn

New member
I believe that both Luke and Matthew were accurate in their accounts.
If we can't believe them, why believe any of it?
Why?

Why do you demand that if the genealogy (either one) is not accurate than one cannot believe ANY of the Bible?

This is known as "Black and White" thinking. Everything must be right or Nothing can be right. Reality works a bit differently, steko, and I think you know this. If a good friend in all sincerity tells you something that turns out to be wrong, then must EVERYTHING he or she ever says again be wrong?

Life doesn't work that way.

I once read a post along time ago in a forum far far away that excitedly declared to someone that the gospels can be believed because they were written by members of the original twelve disciples. (Please tell me you caught that.) And while I'm sure this person was of the highest standing character and moral certitude, his belief was just plain wrong. Luke was never one of the twelve. And Luke even says his account is a collection of stories from others.

(Luk 1:1-3 YLT)
Seeing that many did take in hand to set in order a narration of the matters that have been fully assured among us, as they did deliver to us, who from the beginning became eye-witnesses, and officers of the Word, — it seemed good also to me, having followed from the first after all things exactly, to write to thee in order, most noble Theophilus,

So this other fellow made a mistake. Does that mean Everything he believes is wrong? Of course not.

Good people can still make bad decisions and believe things that are just plain wrong. And people can still be saved, and much of the New Testament can still be believed if Matthew and Luke strongly disagreed on the genealogy of Jesus.

What do you think the following verse is about, if not trying to deal with Black and White thinking that arose from questions about this discrepancy?

(1Ti 1:4 KJV) Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Meaning, ... there's no need to make stuff up. The genealogies differ. Period. And trying to reconcile this with fables and fake answers is detrimental to godly edifying. One should take no heed. The difference makes no difference. Accept it and move on.

But Black and White thinking is dangerous.

Zenn

PS: steko, if the genealogy is wrong, does that mean you're not saved? (or can't be?) :AMR:
 

Zenn

New member
▲see▲ how one without scruples could lambast you wrongly? With exact quotes?

Clipping quotes to suit one's fancy is a dishonest work. "If" I were unscrupulous, I wouldn't care and would post this for the world to see if my agenda wasn't truth, but to harm another and or his reputation *(used here just for example, you 'said' this but I don't believe clipping from the fuller context is how it is done and it is often damaging and I think irresponsible - for thread again, The clipped quote here doesn't express what I believe was your intention and I will not use your words against you to prop up something I'm sure you don't believe -again, just used for example and empathy).
(you seem to have left off that clipping-quote tack, for now, but simply to reinforce it, this example shows the problem of 'using exact words' vs using all of one's words and what they believe).
Actually, Lon, Cobra ought to have "clipped" the quote. His request for proof could have equally applied to either steko's assertion about cultural proclivities on in-laws OR the alleged non-stupidity of Matthew and Luke. To me it's obvious (and to you as well) that cobra wanted proof regarding the assertion that there was no distinction between father and father-in-law, but such would have been made more clear if he had accurately clipped the quote to begin with.

Zenn

PS: What quote did cobra clip to misrepresent you? (Just curious, and you can consider it rhetorical if you wish.)
PPS: Yes, I see you're one of the ones to go zonkers.
PPPS: And with regards to your moniker, aren't you missing an "R" ? :)
 

Zenn

New member
It's so-called 'scholars' opinion as opposed to other so-called 'scholars' opinion.

Take your pick.
They do not all agree.
"Take your pick?" :AMR:

One doesn't just "take one's pick." This is more Black and White thinking. At best it's appalling, and at worse its reckless.

Zenn

Everyone has the right to his own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong in his facts. - Bernard Baruch

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison
 

Zenn

New member
Yep the Greek interlinear is 'on' Google too but tbh I have not heard of conceptual fusion (as I couldn't find it on Google). :)
Google is not the god of all knowledge.

Track down the Koine words "logos" and "rhema" and see how they are rendered by the KJV.

There are secrets you do not share with anyone who lacks the intelligence and the discipline to discover them for themselves.

Zenn

PS: If that does not suffice, I will share with you by PM. (That is if the site allows me to do so.:))
 

2003cobra

New member
Steko, you wrote:
I merely voiced my opinion of what the text implies.

I really do want you to think seriously about this, and answer the question:
If there were not a contradictory genealogy in Matthew, would you still say the text in Luke implies this is Mary’s genealogy?


If so, why?

I expect an honest assessment will lead you to conclude that, absent the genealogy in Matthew, you would swear up and down that Luke gives Joseph’s genealogy.
 

WatchmanOnTheWall

New member
Google is not the god of all knowledge.

Track down the Koine words "logos" and "rhema" and see how they are rendered by the KJV.

3056. logos ►
Strong's Concordance
logos: a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech
Original Word: λόγος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: logos
Phonetic Spelling: (log'-os)
Short Definition: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy
Definition: a word, speech, divine utterance, analogy.
HELPS Word-studies
3056 lógos (from 3004 /légō, "speaking to a conclusion") – a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying. 3056 /lógos ("word") is preeminently used of Christ (Jn 1:1), expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit.

[3056 (lógos) is a common term (used 330 times in the NT) with regards to a person sharing a message (discourse, "communication-speech"). 3056 (lógos) is a broad term meaning "reasoning expressed by words."]

4487. rhéma ►
Strong's Concordance
rhéma: a word, by impl. a matter
Original Word: ῥῆμα, ατος, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: rhéma
Phonetic Spelling: (hray'-mah)
Short Definition: a thing spoken
Definition: a thing spoken, (a) a word or saying of any kind, as command, report, promise, (b) a thing, matter, business.
HELPS Word-studies
4487 rhḗma (from 4483 /rhéō, "to speak") – a spoken word, made "by the living voice" (J. Thayer). 4487 /rhḗma ("spoken-word") is commonly used in the NT (and in LXX) for the Lord speaking His dynamic, living word in a believer to inbirth faith ("His inwrought persuasion").

Ro 10:17: "So faith proceeds from (spiritual) hearing; moreover this hearing (is consummated) through a rhēma-word (4487 /rhḗma) from Christ" (Gk text).

[See also Gal 3:2,5 which refers to "the hearing of faith" (Gk text) – i.e. a spiritual hearing that goes with the divine in birthing of faith.]

KJV just says 'word'.

Zenn

PS: If that does not suffice, I will share with you by PM. (That is if the site allows me to do so.:))

Okay let me know.
 

daqq

Well-known member
Good people can still make bad decisions and believe things that are just plain wrong. And people can still be saved, and much of the New Testament can still be believed if Matthew and Luke strongly disagreed on the genealogy of Jesus.

What do you think the following verse is about, if not trying to deal with Black and White thinking that arose from questions about this discrepancy?

(1Ti 1:4 KJV) Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Meaning, ... there's no need to make stuff up. The genealogies differ. Period. And trying to reconcile this with fables and fake answers is detrimental to godly edifying. One should take no heed. The difference makes no difference. Accept it and move on.

So you think that was what that statement in 1Tim 1:4 was all about? disputations from the very beginning over the Matthew and Luke genealogies? That is nothing more than opinion guided by the fact that you believe your opinion about there being an error somewhere is correct. Frankly I am a little disappointed: you have part of the answer right in front of you, and even quoted it yourself, and yet do not see it. For most all intents and purposes Luke is Paul just as Mark is Peter. That should tell you something about the Luke genealogy and how it might otherwise be read. Moreover here is an example from a different text teaching the same by parable:

Mark 4:24-29 ASV
24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete it shall be measured unto you; and more shall be given unto you.
25 For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken away even that which he hath.
26 And he said, So is the kingdom of God, as if a man should cast seed upon the earth;
27 and should sleep and rise night and day, and the seed should spring up and grow, he knoweth not how.
28 The earth beareth fruit of herself; first the blade,
[1] then the ear,[2] then the full grain in the ear.[3]
29 But when the fruit is ripe, straightway he putteth forth the sickle, because the harvest is come.
[4]

And he said to them, Take heed how you hear what you hear: with what measure you measure out, it shall be measured unto you, and to you that hear shall more be added. For the one who retains, unto him shall be given; and the one retaining not, even what he has shall be taken from him. And he said, In the same manner is the kingdom of Elohim, as if a certain one should cast seed upon the earth, and should sleep and rise night and day, and how the seed should germinate and spring up, he knows not: for the earth brings forth fruit of herself, first the garden-courtyard of foliage, then the rising stalk, then the full head of grain in the stalk. But when the fruit is brought forth, immediately he dispatches the sickle, for the harvest stands ready.

Watching I was, and praying I was, and behold, a certain mighty one stood in my house: and I heard the voice of Adam in the midst the mighty on the Living River, saying, Gabriel, give this one the manna. And he opened a little scroll, and therein was the record of Boaz and Ruth, and he said to me, Thus it is recorded in the writing of Truth concerning David the king, tribe Yhudah:

1) Pharez, like a seed in the earth splitting open, breaking forth, and sprouting up:
2) And Pharez produces Hezron, the sprouting of a courtyard like a garden of foliage:
3) And Hezron produces Ram, the height of a stalk rising up toward the heavens:
4) And Ram produces Amminadab, people of a willing heart, a full head of wheat in the stalk.

And by this I began to understand genealogies . . . :chuckle:

H6557 - H6556 פרץ perets (peh'-rets) n-m
a break
{literally or figuratively}
[from H6555]
KJV: breach, breaking forth (in), X forth, gap

H2696 חצרון Chetsrown (chets-rone') n/l
1. courtyard
2. Chetsron, the name of a place in Israel
3. (also) of two Israelites
[from H2691]
KJV: Hezron

H7410 רם Ram (rawm) n/p
1. high
2. Ram, the name of an Arabian and of an Israelite
[active participle of H7311]
KJV: Ram

H5992 עמינדב `Ammiynadab (am-mee-naw-dawɓ') n/p
1. people of liberality [cf. H5068, willing (of a willing heart)]
2. Amminadab, the name of four Israelites
[from H5971 and H5068]
KJV: Amminadab

H5068 נדב nadab (naw-daɓ') v
1. to impel
2. (hence) to volunteer (as a soldier), to present spontaneously
[a primitive root]
KJV: offer freely, be (give, make, offer self) willing(-ly)

So then, in the genealogy of David, Pharez is likened to the seed of the Word which is planted in the fertile adamah-soil of the heart, as in the parable of the sower and the parable quoted above from the Gospel of Mark:

Ruth 4:18-22
18 Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez
[seed] begat Hezron,[1]
19 And Hezron begat Ram,
[2] and Ram begat Amminadab,[3]
20 And Amminadab begat Nahshon,
[4] and Nahshon begat Salmon,[1 (new generation)]
21 And Salmon
[1] begat Boaz,[2] and Boaz begat Obed,[3]
22 And Obed begat Jesse,
[4] and Jesse begat David.[1 (new generation)]

Did I "spiritualize" this genealogy into meaningless nothingness like your pal Cobra will no doubt believe? Perhaps not so much as Cobra will imagine, (and I am sure he and his counterparts will have a field day with my little Gabriel story, lol, but it was all in good fun), but please do note that I learned the things herein from the Testimony of the Master in the Gospel of Mark, from his parable, as quoted above. And every day the Word amazes me even more and more in one way or another: for every day it seems that the Master adds more and more in one way or another. :)
 

daqq

Well-known member
LUKE 3:23 BEZAE [D]
ΗΝ ΔΕ Ι̅ΗϹ ΩϹ ΕΤΩΝ ·Λ·
ΑΡΧΟΜΕΝΟϹ ΩϹ ΕΝΟΜΕΙΖΕ ΤΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ
ΥΙΟϹ ———— ΙΩϹΗΦ
http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/371

ην δε Ι̅Η ως ετων ·λ· αρχομενος ως ενομειζε το ειναι υιος ιωσηφ

Luke 3:23-27b — Moreover Ι̅Η was commencing about thirty years, as done by law being a son of Yoseph,(Gen 41:46, Psa 81:3,4,5,6) of Heli-my-El, a gift of Yaho, of Levi of Melki-my-King, the flourishing one of Yoseph, a present of Yaho, a burden of comfort, preserved of Yaho, illuminating the small, a gift of Yaho: hear my report of Yoseph of Yhudah, of the grace of Elohim, of the head of Zerubbabel
 

genuineoriginal

New member
I study the details of the book-you're not in my ballpark/league.
I left little league a long time ago.

1 Corinthians 13:11
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.​

 

daqq

Well-known member
LUKE 3:23 BEZAE [D]
ΗΝ ΔΕ Ι̅ΗϹ ΩϹ ΕΤΩΝ ·Λ·
ΑΡΧΟΜΕΝΟϹ ΩϹ ΕΝΟΜΕΙΖΕ ΤΟ ΕΙΝΑΙ
ΥΙΟϹ ———— ΙΩϹΗΦ
http://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/371

ην δε Ι̅Η ως ετων ·λ· αρχομενος ως ενομειζε το ειναι υιος ιωσηφ

Luke 3:23-27b — Moreover Ι̅Η was commencing about thirty years, as done by law being a son of Yoseph,(Gen 41:46, Psa 81:3,4,5,6) of Heli-my-El, a gift of Yaho, of Levi of Melki-my-King, the flourishing one of Yoseph, a present of Yaho, a burden of comfort, preserved of Yaho, illuminating the small, a gift of Yaho: hear my report of Yoseph of Yhudah, of the grace of Elohim, of the head of Zerubbabel

PS ~ Please note that, although I did not use it in my rendering of the names in the genealogy up to Zerubbabel, Codex Bezae contains the genealogy of Matthew! Lol, I therefore can go either way and neither of them is "erroneous", (1Tim 1:4). :chuckle:
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.​
I prefer to read the psalm without having to remove this verse, as you're forced to do with your chosen translations.
I don't remove the verse.
Try a better translation so you can understand what the verse following that one is not referring to the Lord preserving "words", like this one:



Psalm 12:7-8 CJB
7 (6) The words of Adonai are pure words,
silver in a melting-pot set in the earth,
refined and purified seven times over.
8 (7) You, Adonai, protect us;
guard us
forever from this generation —​

 

genuineoriginal

New member
Well said, although the Bible is not even a creation by God but by man. Man's attempt of capturing God's Words. Like trying to capture the wind and put it on paper.
Good point, especially when the spirit and wind share the same word in Hebrew and in Greek

h7307 רוּחַ ruwach (wind, breath, mind, spirit)
g4151 πνεῦμα pneuma (spirit, wind, breath)
 

Lon

Well-known member
Rubbish! The offending word is still there: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ed-Scripture&p=5160158&viewfull=1#post5160158 if you really were concerned about a child seeing it you would have asked me to remove it, which you did't. So really you don't care about any child seeing it. I might call you a you sycophantic amoral weasel but it might make me look as low as you and because I still believe you are saved and my brother/sister in Christ.
I'll ask for it to be removed. It is/was my only concern.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
Why Luke left out 'Mary' I don't know but I'm convinced Heli is the father of Mary and Jacob is the father of Joseph according to Matthew.

On what basis would you think the text implies that this is Mary’s lineage?

A Christian scholar that also studied the Talmud, named John Lightfoot, wrote the following commentary sometime around 1660:

Luke 3

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

[Being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph.] "A parable. There was a certain orphaness brought up by a certain epitropus, or foster-father, an honest good man. At length he would place her in marriage. A scribe is called to write a bill of her dower: saith he to the girl, 'What is thy name?' 'N.' saith she. 'What the name of thy father?' She held her peace. To whom her foster-father, 'Why dost thou not speak?' 'Because,' saith she, 'I know no other father but thee.' He that educateth the child is called a father, not he that begets it." Note that: Joseph, having been taught by the angel, and well satisfied in Mary, whom he had espoused, had owned Jesus for his son from his first birth; he had redeemed him as his first-born, had cherished him in his childhood, educated him in his youth: and therefore, no wonder if Joseph be called his father, and he was supposed to be his son.

II. Let us consider what might have been the judgment of the Sanhedrim in this case only from this story: "There came a certain woman to Jerusalem with a child, brought thither upon shoulders. She brought this child up; and he afterward had the carnal knowledge of her. They are brought before the Sanhedrim, and the Sanhedrim judged them to be stoned to death: not because he was undoubtedly her son, but because he had wholly adhered to her."

Now suppose we that the blessed Jesus had come to the Sanhedrim upon the decease of Joseph, requiring his stock and goods as his heir; had he not, in all equity, obtained them as his son? Not that he was, beyond all doubt and question, his son, but that he had adhered to him wholly from his cradle, was brought up by him as his son, and always so acknowledged.

III. The doctors speak of one Joseph a carpenter: "Abnimus Gardieus asked the Rabbins of blessed memory, whence the earth was first created: they answer him, 'There is no one skilled in these matters; but go thou to Joseph the architect.' He went, and found him standing upon the rafters."

It is equally obscure, who this Joseph the carpenter, and who this Abnimus was; although, as to this last, he is very frequently mentioned in those authors. They say, that "Abnimus and Balaam were two the greatest philosophers in the whole world." Only this we read of him, That there was a very great familiarity betwixt him and R. Meir.

[Which was the son of Heli.] I. There is neither need nor reason, nor indeed any foundation at all, for us to frame I know not what marriages, and the taking of brothers' wives, to remove a scruple in this place, wherein there is really no scruple in the least. For,

1. Joseph is not here called the son of Heli, but Jesus is so: for the word Jesus must be understood, and must be always added in the reader's mind to every race in this genealogy, after this manner: "Jesus (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, and so the son of Heli, and of Matthat, yea and, at length, the son of Adam, and the Son of God." For it was very little the business of the evangelist either to draw Joseph's pedigree from Adam, or, indeed, to shew that Adam was the son of God: which not only sounds something harshly, but in this place very enormously, I may almost add, blasphemously too. For when St. Luke, verse 22, had made a voice from heaven, declaring that Jesus was the Son of God, do we think the same evangelist would, in the same breath, pronounce Adam 'the son of God' too? So that this very thing teacheth us what the evangelist propounded to himself in the framing of this genealogy; which was to shew that this Jesus, who had newly received that great testimony from heaven, "This is my Son," was the very same that had been promised to Adam by the seed of the woman. And for this reason hath he drawn his pedigree on the mother's side, who was the daughter of Heli, and this too as high as Adam, to whom this Jesus was promised. In the close of the genealogy, he teacheth in what sense the former part of it should be taken; viz. that Jesus, not Joseph, should be called the son of Heli, and consequently, that the same Jesus, not Adam, should be called the Son of God. Indeed, in every link of this chain this still should be understood, "Jesus the son of Matthat, Jesus the son of Levi, Jesus the son of Melchi"; and so of the rest...

2. Suppose it could be granted that Joseph might be called the son of Heli (which yet ought not to be), yet would not this be any great solecism, that his son-in-law should become the husband of Mary, his own daughter. He was but his son by law, by the marriage of Joseph's mother, not by nature and generation.

There is a discourse of a certain person who in his sleep saw the punishment of the damned. Amongst the rest which I would render thus, but shall willingly stand corrected if under a mistake; He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades. R. Lazar Ben Josah saith, that she hung by the glandules of her breasts. R. Josah Bar Haninah saith, that the great bar of hell's gate hung at her ear.

If this be the true rendering of the words, which I have reason to believe it is, then thus far, at least, it agrees with our evangelist, that Mary was the daughter of Heli
: and questionless all the rest is added in reproach of the blessed Virgin, the mother of our Lord: whom they often vilify elsewhere under the name of Sardah.​
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
I don't remove the verse.
Try a better translation so you can understand what the verse following that one is not referring to the Lord preserving "words", like this one:



Psalm 12:7-8 CJB
7 (6) The words of Adonai are pure words,
silver in a melting-pot set in the earth,
refined and purified seven times over.
8 (7) You, Adonai, protect us;
guard us
forever from this generation —​


You're still removing the verse. Address the verse in whatever version you want.

THE VERSE. The verse you refuse to address in any translation you choose.
 
Top