Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[Zenn]

Wait a second...


(both end in an 'e' so not sure where you were going now....)

Here:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I wasn't shooting you down for it, it just looks like you aren't up to posting on TOL tonight, to me. Some people post on pain pills, etc. and I try to never be the judge of that person. I don't have crushed discs or fibromyalgia or anything like that. I'm not the guy that throws the first or even the last stone.
I'm not your judge over such a matter. I'd suggest sleep then, or something similar. It just 'looks' to me like you aren't your best tonight. :think: Just a suggestion, didn't cost me or you anything.

It is a bit of a compliment as well, you DO write better than this, I've seen it. :e4e: -Lon

Again with the assumptions, it's morning here and I'm not on any medication?

You make up your reality as you go along rather than finding out the truth. This is exactly how you study the Bible as well as has been shown here on the thread. A fundaMENTAL flaw you have.

 

[daqq]

Awesome post, Daqq. Thank you for taking the time to explain. :thumb:

I was just thinking that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Tabernacle so I may have been wrong about it not being kept behind the veil: we simply have no way of knowing as far as I know. Moreover there are some who object to what has been presented because of other reasons, which we need not bring up here, for either way, saying that Heb 9:4 is erroneous is entirely off the table, and that was really the overall point brought up here by the accusers to begin with. The Septuagint clearly uses the same word from Heb 9:4 to describe a censer in at least two places, (two witnesses), even if there may be other places where the same word might have been used for the altar of incense.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Gosh, the guy owns a dictionary. We should all give him a big shout out.

Anyway, you'll get over it. Just try to think before you post next time, and you won't have to get called on the carpet. One would think you'd be happy for some advice. :idunno:

My advise to you is to repent of your lies or nastiness or both.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I was just thinking that the author of Hebrews is speaking of the Tabernacle so I may have been wrong about it not being kept behind the veil: we simply have no way of knowing as far as I know. Moreover there are some who object to what has been presented because of other reasons, which we need not bring up here, for either way, saying that Heb 9:4 is erroneous is entirely off the table, and that was really the overall point brought up here by the accusers to begin with. The Septuagint clearly uses the same word from Heb 9:4 to describe a censer in at least two places, (two witnesses), even if there may be other places where the same word might have been used for the altar of incense.

I'm sure you're not referring to me daqq: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127447-Scripture-What-is-considered-Scripture&p=5166017&viewfull=1#post5166017

 

[daqq]

LAIR

#1729 patrick jane; "The serpent has been thoroughly spanked by Lon, john w, AMR, daqq, steko, Tam and glory."

#1746 Watchman; "Where was the altar of incense; in the Holy of Holies or the Holy place in the temple?"

#1762 Glorydaze; "Where is your head? Above your shoulders or on your neck? Same thing."

05:13 AM
#1777 daqq; "Incorrectly worded. Try the actual word itself, which is θυμιατηριον, and then go check for that word and how it is used and where it is located in 2Chr 26:19, (you may just find it located in the hand of an angry king who carried it into the sanctuary to burn incense in the temple by the altar of incense, (του θυσιαστηριου των θυμιαματων), lol).PS ~ After that go to Ezekiel 8:11."

You then thanked daqq for that post so you did see it! I then asked you the same question while I researched daqq's answer:

05:14 AM
#1778 Watchman; "Was the altar of incense in the Holy of Holies or the Holy place in the temple?"

05:29 AM
#1780; "It depends on when you're talking about. It was kept just without and brought in once a year. Lev. 16:12-13 And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: 13 And he shall put the incense upon the fire before the Lord, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the testimony, that he die not:"

That gave you 15/16 mins to look at daqq's answer and to find the Lev 16:12 quote. Inorder to make it look like you knew.

IF you did know then it is even worse because rather than be nice and helpful and tell me the answer, you instead say something quite nasty; "Where is your head? Above your shoulders or on your neck? Same thing."

Either you're a liar or nasty. Not good either way.

They slew Zekaryah ben Berekyah between the ναος and the θυσιαστηριον, (Mat 23:35), which means they either slit his throat or cut off his head, (for the altar in this sense is the adamah-altar of the heart and the naos is "the house" [οικος, Luke 11:51] and "sanctuary" of the mind). Therefore, if she was off at all, it was only by a mere cubit: and who by taking thought can add a cubit to his stature? :chuckle:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

They slew Zekaryah ben Berekyah between the ναος and the θυσιαστηριον, (Mat 23:35), which means they either slit his throat or cut off his head, (for the altar in this sense is the adamah-altar of the heart and the naos is "the house" [οικος, Luke 11:51] and "sanctuary" of the mind). Therefore, if she was off at all, it was only by a mere cubit: and who by taking thought can add a cubit to his stature? :chuckle:

I prefer the literal interpretaion:

3485. naos ►
Strong's Concordance
naos: a temple
Original Word: ναός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: naos
Phonetic Spelling: (nah-os')
Short Definition: a temple, shrine
Definition: a temple, a shrine, that part of the temple where God himself resides.

2379. thusiastérion ►
Strong's Concordance
thusiastérion: an altar
Original Word: θυσιαστήριον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: thusiastérion
Phonetic Spelling: (thoo-see-as-tay'-ree-on)
Short Definition: an altar
Definition: an altar (for sacrifice).

I believe that after this John the Baptist had to live in the desert as he was next to be killed.

 

[Zenn]

Well, this thread is hot for it, but how would you have translated rhema? For instance: Speak/tell. Can they work in either's place and convey the same? :think: (I'm not sure this part will be all that hot - it will heat up and likely boil over after that). Imho, there isn't 'much' different between logos and rhema in meaning. Logos is attached to God as God. Whatever God says 'is' God too in some sense, for instance 'yes, this is Lon (the text isn't quite me, but it is me and most know what that means).

Translation is not a precise science. (Trust me, I've been doing it long enough.)

I would encourage you to find all the verses that speak of the Word of God (rhema) to know what the Word of God is. Just telling somebody about it is truly an act of unkindness. Rather like telling little kids about bike riding but never letting them experience riding a bicycle because the parent fears it. Paul aledges to have heard the voice of Jesus on the road to Damascus. That was a direct experience of the Word of God. THAT was the Word of God. Itself. That event. Written accounts of that event are NOT the event. A written account about the Word of God is Not the Word of God. The written accounts are edification and encouragement for others to seek the Word of God (Rhema) by which God speaks to you directly. Fall into the hands of the living God, if you can handle the fear. It is a Pearl of Great Price. Most Christians never experience God, but only experience stories about God.

I am reluctantly Pentecostal in this matter. I have laid hands on the sick and they have recovered. When the Spirit of the Lord overtakes my voice and speaks through it ... THAT is the Rhema Word of God. In Ephesians, the Koine describes the Rhema/Word of God as prayer, specifically praying in tongues. It's a transcendent state where God prays through you. That God speaks though you. But this is not some metaphorical slight of hand whereby one's testimony for the Lord is considered "God speaking through you." No. That's you speaking through you about God. But when the Spirit comes to speak Rhema through you, you will know it. It's a glory of the Lord, and a power beyond measure that actually transforms the world. But be careful, one can release faith against the things of God and the suffering God would have abated through his disciple remains, and the world stays in its darkness. Consider Luke 6:12.

(Luk 6:12 KJV) And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.

No, He did not continue in prayer to God. Rather, και ην διανυκτερευων εν τη προσευχη του θεου ... "in prayer of God."

Zenn

PS: Not sure if this answers your question.

PPS: John defines the logos as Jesus Himself. Jesus is the Word of God(Logos) not the Bible.
the Holy Spirit is the Word of God(Rhema) not the Bible. The Bible speaks about these things as a testimony to them, but it ISN'T itself these things.

PPPS:

for instance 'yes, this is Lon (the text isn't quite me, but it is me and most know what that means).

No. the text isn't you at all. It is a representation of you - your thoughts, but it isn't YOU.

PPPPS: Tell me the best way to destroy faith. Or the best way to destroy the Word of God.

 

[daqq]

I prefer the literal interpretaion:

3485. naos ►
Strong's Concordance
naos: a temple
Original Word: ναός, οῦ, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: naos
Phonetic Spelling: (nah-os')
Short Definition: a temple, shrine
Definition: a temple, a shrine, that part of the temple where God himself resides.

2379. thusiastérion ►
Strong's Concordance
thusiastérion: an altar
Original Word: θυσιαστήριον, ου, τό
Part of Speech: Noun, Neuter
Transliteration: thusiastérion
Phonetic Spelling: (thoo-see-as-tay'-ree-on)
Short Definition: an altar
Definition: an altar (for sacrifice).

I believe that after this John the Baptist had to live in the desert as he was next to be killed.

Then you do not know who Yohanan the Immerser is, eh? When you silence the voice of another it is the same as slitting his throat or cutting off his head, and that is why silencing the truth from the voice of another is considered murder in the kingdom of Elohim, and why the Master says that murders come forth from the mouth, and why Yohanan says that whosoever hates his brother is a murderer. His father was deposed from the priesthood, (his voice as a chief priest was silenced), and again, four generations to the first "age" of a man. As it is written, Take a great writing tablet and write upon it with a chisel of Enosh, for Maher-SHalal-CHash-baz, to record witnesses faithful unto Me: Flame of Yah, the Kohen, and Yah has remembered the Son of the Blessing of Yah! (for that is the meaning of the name, Zekaryah ben Berekyah). And the Rhema of Elohim indeed came to Yohanan ben Zekaryah in the wilderness, (Luke 3:2).

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Then you do not know who Yohanan the Immerser is, eh? When you silence the voice of another it is the same as slitting his throat or cutting off his head, and that is why silencing the truth from the voice of another is considered murder in the kingdom of Elohim, and why the Master says that murders come forth from the mouth, and why Yohanan says that whosoever hates his brother is a murderer. His father was deposed from the priesthood, (his voice as a chief priest was silenced), and again, four generations to the first "age" of a man. As it is written, Take a great writing tablet and write upon it with a chisel of Enosh, for Maher-SHalal-CHash-baz, to record witnesses faithful unto Me: Flame of Yah, the Kohen, and Yah has remembered the Son of the Blessing of Yah! (for that is the meaning of the name, Zekaryah ben Berekyah). And the Rhema of Elohim indeed came to Yohanan ben Zekaryah in the wilderness, (Luke 3:2).

No, when Jesus said;
Matthew 23:35
And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

He meant actual murder because Abel was the first righteous person who was murdered and the last of all the righteous til then was Zacharias. As you said he was the High Priest and John the Baptise was next in line as the true and rightous High Priest (Jesus' cousin and uncle basically). I believe Annas and Caiaphas plotted this in order to become high priests themselves.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

No, when Jesus said;
Matthew 23:35
And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

He meant actual murder because Abel was the first righteous person who was murdered and the last of all the righteous til then was Zacharias. As you said he was the High Priest and John the Baptise was next in line as the true and rightous High Priest (Jesus' cousin and uncle basically). I believe Annas and Caiaphas plotted this in order to become high priests themselves.

And as John the baptist did not have any Children and Jesus was the Eldest in His family and was related to John's family it is possible Jesus was the next in line after John, and was another reason why John also prophetically said:

John 3:30
He must become greater; I must become less."

And Paul added:

Hebrews 4
14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

 

[Zenn]

Hello there 2003cobra and Zenn,

You two seem to be the most logical persons who are opposing the inerrant nature doctrine of Scripture.

Greetings and Facilitations !! (You are far too gracious.)

Well not to throw a spanner into the works, but...

I know of a third position where one would claim that the New Testament texts have errors in facts and discrepancies in presentation, but is inerrant in doctrine and spiritual teaching.

What does it matter if Jarius' daughter was dead or not? It doesn't. The error in fact is irrelevant. What matters is that Jesus can resurrect. This is a hard thing to do, and when I raised Walter from the dead, I was flat out exhausted in bed for two days.

But I am surprised to see myself characterized as "opposing the inerrant nature doctrine of Scripture." I'm not. Rather I am "promoting the sane doctrine of reading what is actually written," and I read the initial Greek manuscripts so I can avoid bad decisions made by other translators who for the most part have been indoctrinated into certain theologies beforehand and so see these doctrines already in the text. The real trouble is when one learns that God loves you and he provided this Book for you to follow that Has no Errors! (Which you really aren't expected to read or question anyway.) But then someone comes along and actually reads it, only to find the numerous issues that Cobra chomps on about. And the Baby Jesus gets thrown out with the bathwater.

If you have not yet read the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, I would highly encourage you to do so before we continue on. Bart makes some real blunders in his conclusions, but presents important facts regrading the transmission of New Testament scriptures from the ancient days. Yes, the book has destroyed the faith of many who were weak, but it hadn't destroyed mine. It just made me more aware. To a God fearing Christian, it will make his faith stronger.

From what I can infer, you two are coming in from an unchanging/closed idea of the Scriptures being errant (if I am wrong, please correct me), while, consistently, your opposition comes in with unchanging/closed idea of inerrant Scripture.

When I find a discrepancy, I am not closed to the idea that such might be reconciled by a well presented argument. But when something in the text clearly shows that Jesus was crucified on Thursday, well... I will admit to being highly perplexed when I see all these morons attend Good Friday services. It's like they just don't care to spend the time and energy to be accurate in their beliefs. When a portion of scripture shows an error, I (personally) am not enthralled to "an unchanging/closed idea of the Scriptures being errant". Certitude within the Web of Belief should never be cemented into the unmovable rock.

If I may, I would like to take a fresh approach to the discussion with one or both of you, as you two seem to be the most reasonable (and cobra is the OP after all). I will inform you upfront, as 2003cobra knows, that I do ascribe to the doctrine of the inerrant Scriptures.

Inerrant in both fact and spiritual truth? or just inerrant in spiritual matters? :AMR:

Yet, I am always open to logic and evidence. With that, I would just like a basic argument, as well as evidence/logic for your position. (For example, I noticed that the genealogy of Joseph was a particular piece of evidence)

I look forward to your response(s) and the discussion.

Cobra, more than I, has a "go to" list of his favorites, so I'll let him provide these, for which it would become your responsibility to be open and honest as to whether the specifics he provides actually do constitute an "error" (whatever that might mean). There are many Bibles out there that have errors, even amongst the corpus of Greek mss. (of course they are mostly spelling errors).

But God won't strike you down with lightning bolts if you realize that Matthew describes an event where Jesus is riding on two animals at the same time (one hopes sidesaddle). The author of Matthew just did not understand the doublet in Jewish poetry. Whoever the author of the gospel according to Matthew was, he most certainly wasn't a Jew, nor was he writing to Jews.

Personally, I'm more interested in hearing why you "ascribe to the doctrine of the inerrant Scriptures" and what that means.

But for any real discussion to take place, I would again recommend you read the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman

Zenn

PS: I don't think Cobra is OP. That would be jacob. I, as usual, am late to the party.

PPS: Borrow Ehrman's book from the library so he doesn't get any more money. :jolly:

 

[Zenn]

Food for thought.

Eph.6:17(Y.L.T.) and the helmet of the salvation receive, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the

(4487)saying of God,

This begs the question, though, just what is the "(4487)saying of God"? the sword? or the Spirit? (One cannot tell in English.)

My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth,

Interesting that he does not write "book". Is it not?

(... my words which I have put in thy book ...)

Zenn

 

[Zenn]

Some thoughts...

And what you said about those 3,000 is also a bit off.

Argue with the source

(Act 2:41 KJV) Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

3,000 saved, and all without a New Testament.

Zenn

 

[daqq]

Greetings and Facilitations !! (You are far too gracious.)

Well not to throw a spanner into the works, but...

I know of a third position where one would claim that the New Testament texts have errors in facts and discrepancies in presentation, but is inerrant in doctrine and spiritual teaching.

What does it matter if Jarius' daughter was dead or not? It doesn't. The error in fact is irrelevant. What matters is that Jesus can resurrect. This is a hard thing to do, and when I raised Walter from the dead, I was flat out exhausted in bed for two days.

But I am surprised to see myself characterized as "opposing the inerrant nature doctrine of Scripture." I'm not. Rather I am "promoting the sane doctrine of reading what is actually written," and I read the initial Greek manuscripts so I can avoid bad decisions made by other translators who for the most part have been indoctrinated into certain theologies beforehand and so see these doctrines already in the text. The real trouble is when one learns that God loves you and he provided this Book for you to follow that Has no Errors! (Which you really aren't expected to read or question anyway.) But then someone comes along and actually reads it, only to find the numerous issues that Cobra chomps on about. And the Baby Jesus gets thrown out with the bathwater.

If you have not yet read the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, I would highly encourage you to do so before we continue on. Bart makes some real blunders in his conclusions, but presents important facts regrading the transmission of New Testament scriptures from the ancient days. Yes, the book has destroyed the faith of many who were weak, but it hadn't destroyed mine. It just made me more aware. To a God fearing Christian, it will make his faith stronger.


When I find a discrepancy, I am not closed to the idea that such might be reconciled by a well presented argument. But when something in the text clearly shows that Jesus was crucified on Thursday, well... I will admit to being highly perplexed when I see all these morons attend Good Friday services. It's like they just don't care to spend the time and energy to be accurate in their beliefs. When a portion of scripture shows an error, I (personally) am not enthralled to "an unchanging/closed idea of the Scriptures being errant". Certitude within the Web of Belief should never be cemented into the unmovable rock.

Inerrant in both fact and spiritual truth? or just inerrant in spiritual matters? :AMR:

Cobra, more than I, has a "go to" list of his favorites, so I'll let him provide these, for which it would become your responsibility to be open and honest as to whether the specifics he provides actually do constitute an "error" (whatever that might mean). There are many Bibles out there that have errors, even amongst the corpus of Greek mss. (of course they are mostly spelling errors).

But God won't strike you down with lightning bolts if you realize that Matthew describes an event where Jesus is riding on two animals at the same time (one hopes sidesaddle). The author of Matthew just did not understand the doublet in Jewish poetry. Whoever the author of the gospel according to Matthew was, he most certainly wasn't a Jew, nor was he writing to Jews.

Personally, I'm more interested in hearing why you "ascribe to the doctrine of the inerrant Scriptures" and what that means.

But for any real discussion to take place, I would again recommend you read the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman

Zenn

PS: I don't think Cobra is OP. That would be jacob. I, as usual, am late to the party.

PPS: Borrow Ehrman's book from the library so he doesn't get any more money. :jolly:

Oopsy daisy, you said that you raised someone from the dead and did not even think to mention God or give Him the credit. :shut: :chuckle:

 

[daqq]

But God won't strike you down with lightning bolts if you realize that Matthew describes an event where Jesus is riding on two animals at the same time (one hopes sidesaddle). The author of Matthew just did not understand the doublet in Jewish poetry. Whoever the author of the gospel according to Matthew was, he most certainly wasn't a Jew, nor was he writing to Jews.

Also, we have already been over this for many pages now, and your theory is straight up hogwash: you cannot spiritualize the Prophet and hang Matthew out to dry by interpreting that passage as strictly literal and physical. It does not matter that you choose to call Zechariah "poetry", (he is a PROPHET for goodness sakes), it is still the same thing: spiritualizing the words of the Prophet under the more palatable label of "Hebrew poetry". It is tantamount to using unfair, (wicked), scales or balances. The Prophet clearly intends both just as Matthew does; and we have not one witness, (Hebrew), but two witnesses including the Septuagint which also clearly intends both. In the Hebrew text it is not just the waw, (and), but also the word for upon is used two times:

Zechariah 9:9 WLC (Consonants Only)
גילי מאד בת־ציון הריעי בת ירושלם הנה מלכך יבוא לך צדיק ונושע הוא עני ורכב על־חמור ועל־עיר בן־אתנות׃
http://biblehub.com/text/zechariah/9-9.htm

Zechariah 9:9 KJV (Hebrew Text)
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ***, and upon a colt the foal of an ***.

Zechariah 8:9 LXX
9 χαιρε σφοδρα θυγατερ σιων κηρυσσε θυγατερ ιερουσαλημ ιδου ο βασιλευς σου ερχεται σοι δικαιος και σωζων αυτος πραυς και επιβεβηκως επι υποζυγιον και πωλον νεον
http://bibledatabase.net/html/septuagint/38_009.htm

Zechariah 8:9 LXX Brenton Septuagint
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; proclaim it aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, the King is coming to thee, just, and a Saviour; he is meek and riding on an ***, and a young foal.
http://biblehub.com/sep/zechariah/9.htm

And with the Matthew passage we have three witnesses that are all in agreement: you therefore deal treacherously with the scripture, as well as your friend Cobra who has accused me of over-spiritualizing Matthew while he himself did the same thing you are doing by spiritualizing Zec 9:9 in the Hebrew, ignoring the Septuagint text, and hanging Matthew out to dry by reading that text as literal and physical in meaning so you can accuse Matthew of being in error. It is two-faced and hypocritical as well as wicked and deceitful balances in your dealings with supernal and prophetic words. You cannot have it both ways: if you are going to spiritualize Zechariah, and call it "poetry", then do the same with Matthew. Just because you do not understand it does not mean it is erroneous.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Greetings and Facilitations !! (You are far too gracious.)

Well not to throw a spanner into the works, but...

I know of a third position where one would claim that the New Testament texts have errors in facts and discrepancies in presentation, but is inerrant in doctrine and spiritual teaching.

What does it matter if Jarius' daughter was dead or not? It doesn't. The error in fact is irrelevant. What matters is that Jesus can resurrect. This is a hard thing to do, and when I raised Walter from the dead, I was flat out exhausted in bed for two days.

But I am surprised to see myself characterized as "opposing the inerrant nature doctrine of Scripture." I'm not. Rather I am "promoting the sane doctrine of reading what is actually written," and I read the initial Greek manuscripts so I can avoid bad decisions made by other translators who for the most part have been indoctrinated into certain theologies beforehand and so see these doctrines already in the text. The real trouble is when one learns that God loves you and he provided this Book for you to follow that Has no Errors! (Which you really aren't expected to read or question anyway.) But then someone comes along and actually reads it, only to find the numerous issues that Cobra chomps on about. And the Baby Jesus gets thrown out with the bathwater.

If you have not yet read the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman, I would highly encourage you to do so before we continue on. Bart makes some real blunders in his conclusions, but presents important facts regrading the transmission of New Testament scriptures from the ancient days. Yes, the book has destroyed the faith of many who were weak, but it hadn't destroyed mine. It just made me more aware. To a God fearing Christian, it will make his faith stronger.


When I find a discrepancy, I am not closed to the idea that such might be reconciled by a well presented argument. But when something in the text clearly shows that Jesus was crucified on Thursday, well... I will admit to being highly perplexed when I see all these morons attend Good Friday services. It's like they just don't care to spend the time and energy to be accurate in their beliefs. When a portion of scripture shows an error, I (personally) am not enthralled to "an unchanging/closed idea of the Scriptures being errant". Certitude within the Web of Belief should never be cemented into the unmovable rock.

Inerrant in both fact and spiritual truth? or just inerrant in spiritual matters? :AMR:

Cobra, more than I, has a "go to" list of his favorites, so I'll let him provide these, for which it would become your responsibility to be open and honest as to whether the specifics he provides actually do constitute an "error" (whatever that might mean). There are many Bibles out there that have errors, even amongst the corpus of Greek mss. (of course they are mostly spelling errors).

But God won't strike you down with lightning bolts if you realize that Matthew describes an event where Jesus is riding on two animals at the same time (one hopes sidesaddle). The author of Matthew just did not understand the doublet in Jewish poetry. Whoever the author of the gospel according to Matthew was, he most certainly wasn't a Jew, nor was he writing to Jews.

Personally, I'm more interested in hearing why you "ascribe to the doctrine of the inerrant Scriptures" and what that means.

But for any real discussion to take place, I would again recommend you read the book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman

Zenn

PS: I don't think Cobra is OP. That would be jacob. I, as usual, am late to the party.

PPS: Borrow Ehrman's book from the library so he doesn't get any more money. :jolly:

I can answer this one highlighted but it is a big study for the uninitiated and most fall at the first hurdle. It involves God's ancient lunar solar Calendar that is described in the Bible but most have not seen it or understood it. It is totally different from the man made calendars that man has been more used to, such as the Gregorian calendar, Julian calendar, ancient Roman calendar or Jewish Hillel II calendar. This is the best place to start:

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127270-When-is-the-Sabbath&highlight=

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...3-nights-in-the-Heart-of-the-Earth&highlight=

http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?123680-Jesus-Fasted-The-Fast-Of-Esther&highlight=

 

[2003cobra]

Lon writes:
Here is what I would tell Bart, you, as well as a new convert: "Not your job. You aren't supposed to be reading the bible for errors BUT TO FOLLOW its directions and learn more about your Savior." Your supposed problem? Gone. End of discussion.

You would tell that to a new convert and expect them to ignore what the scriptures actually say and believe you instead?

That is the kind of bad action that shakes the faith of a thinking believer. It is the kind of action that Jesus taught against, describing millstones and the sea.

Thinking that would be the end of the discussion is naive and damaging to the kingdom of God.

Your response, Lon, reminds me of my teanage days around 1970 in fundamentalist, independent Baptist churches. I asked the youth pastor where scripture supported segregation. His response was much more respectful than yours; he actually pointed out a passage in Acts. Even a quick reading showed the passage was not responsive.

Telling people to ignore the errors they see will not solve the problem. You might get them to go away right then, but that kind of a “we know better than you, leave that to the adults” is a high stumblingblock. If you are still using such a technique, you should stop and do something respectful and honest instead.

 

[2003cobra]

:nono: I DIDN'T write it, you did. Worse? I thought you were genuine here, not some manipulative unrepentant acting pagan. There is nothing Christian about this and everything wrong with YOUR profanity YOU promised not to use on TOL. Yes, still bothers me. Leave it for anyone to see who you are and how appropriate your language is for a believer. Colossians 3:8 Ephesians 4:29 I didn't write it, God did. Take it up with Him.

The part in bold is a big part of the problem.

The Bible says Colossians was written by Paul and Timothy, not God.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, 2 To the saints and faithful brothers and sisters in Christ in Colossae:


The Bible says Ephesians was written by Paul, not God.
Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To God’s holy people in Ephesus


So you have rejected what the Bible actually says, and this is part of what has led you to the inerrancy error.

The Bible contradicts your claim that God wrote it.

 

[2003cobra]

See, you aren't paying attention.

Sorry to tell ya fella You are getting to be a petty man with this schoolyard antics and business. Question: Does he 'mean' or only 'meant' what he wrote? See the petty? This isn't a correction. Not only that, you BOTH missed my point: DON'T MAKE IT A BIG DEAL!
I was TRYING to get him to see even 'with' mistakes, it is BETTER to give the benefit of doubt. Both of you then IMMEDIATELY focused on the 'mistake' instead of the "NO BIG DEAL!" :doh I can't win for trying

I realize you are mad and acting out (or at least that's how it looks to me) but try to at 'least' read what I've said today. I haven't written anything for you to be angry with me about (again, as it looks to me).

People sometimes get frustrated when no one will give a straight answer to a simple question.

Hebrews has a simple, insignificant error. The writer said the Holy Of Holies held the altar of incense. That was a mistake.

It is insignificant for the gospel and for the authority and validity of scripture.

It is significant for the doctrine of inerrancy, which is proved wrong by this and the other errors that have been detailed on this thread.