Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[Lon]

Lon misrepresents with:
Nope. You, yourself, had said 'errors' were over things that "don't matter."

As I wrote many times before, the errors don’t matter for the good news of Jesus Christ.

The errors matter greatly for the doctrine of inerrancy: the errors prove it is a false doctrine.

:doh: It can't be. If all you are talking about is a nickel full of who's father is who? Nope. Not when you say doctrine and truth isn't error. You are bumbed about details that don't matter or make a lick of difference by your own admission. Sorry, you are basically saying 'error EXCEPT in all things that really count!" Er, that's BARELY errant. You are merely arguing over separations at that point. IOW, for all your contention, you believe in a form of inerrancy, unless you are picking and choosing your doctrines willy-nilly. If you are, not Christian. Not picking and choosing but listening and following? Then your pages of contention have fallen by the wayside meaning less than nothing because YOU, by such admission. are arguing over LESS THAN NOTHING. I don't care where you go after that, you've lost a debate. Done deal.

So your misrepresentation fails.

However far you'd intended to go, your 'errancy' problem is about diddly squat anyway. Joseph's father? Inconsequential 'if' an error. Makes absolutely no difference, according to you. It is the end summation of the entire debate of yours: Arguing over what you yourself believe next to nothing. So.... this is a nothing debate, even by your own admission. It is just the logical end.

You wrote:
It has become a VERY large and damnable heresy debate.

How can you declare either position heresy when the scriptures never mention inerrancy and never teach it?

Who gave you the authority to claim any position on a topic never mentioned in scripture could be heretical? No one.

Er, rather I was saying you've upped the game. Though such errors, by your admission, mean next to nothing, and no wise touches doctrine, then you are really, yourself, making much-ado-about-nothing. :think:

Even you admit that Revelation is without error, at least.

You know I never wrote that.

Nope, had no idea you removed a jot or a tittle from there :noway: Revelation 22:18,19

Is you case so weak that you must misstate my position repeatedly?

No, just the impression I get. You can correct anywhere you like.

I wrote that I know of no errors in Revelation.

Well, no, that was what you said about John. I'd posted the verse from Revelation and you 'seemed' to acquiesce it must be so. No? Well, you aren't considered any kind of Christian after that. Christians HAVE to believe Revelation wasn't added or taken away from.

Given your earlier claims to intelligence (when you wrote: You can't think out of a paper bag and assume everybody else is just as bad. Be truthful, C's and C- in school, right? It shows...You can go sit in the back of the class now and put your head down in shame for your disobedience...You are too thick to be taught...Were you raised in a one room school house where they had to pass you because you were all below par?...I'm smarter than you...you are not intelligent enough to talk to me.), you should know the difference.

Wowch! That REALLY hurt you bad, did it? I can post my grades. They are tucked away with my certificates and diplomas.
It has nothing to do with anything, just you raising it again. It must have stung. The point was, you aren't too swift on things. I think that's clear, even as much as it hurts you to hear it. You ARE a fellow that needs to listen more, be instructed more, talk less, try and 'teach' less.

Lon wrote:
Do you think I'm not authentic in my conviction?

Given that you misrepresented my views at least twice in that one post, your authenticity is below questionable.

:chuckle: Doesn't surprise me about you a bit. I kind of expected it. You double-down when you aren't careful instead of restating or moving for clarity. ANYTHING but admit a need to be more clear or careful with your words. Me? Catch me in a mistake. I welcome it. Appreciate it (don't be vindictive, be helpful).

You wrote:
You at LEAST believe Revelation (perhaps a few other books?) are perfect, yes?

Why would you think I believe anything written by imperfect people is perfect?

Yowch. We shouldn't even be talking, really. Your view isn't even Christian at that point. :noway:

A shopping list could be perfect, but I can’t declare it perfect because I don’t have all the information needed to declare perfection.

BOOM! "OR imperfection." There, you realize why you are posturized and most Christians don't appreciate you now. It is because you cannot recognize your own illogical thinking and postulations. It is like trying to have your cake and eat corn. You unknowingly give away all the hangups and inconsistencies with your world view. :up: Thanks. I can just walk away. As I said previously, I've not much else but pray for you. Only God can sift through your disheveled head.

On the other hand, two documents telling the same story but contradicting each other cannot both be inerrant....

...assuming. Incorrect. I have TWO sets of grandparents. Like Jesus, I also have a couple of 'fathers.' "Oops, Lon made a mistake." Nope, ask, don't assume. ASSUMING is where we do stupid things. As I said, it is ALSO a sin. It is NOT supposed to be in your Christian character. Perhaps your first need is to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving work before trying to delve into peripheral issues. I don't know. It is just covering a base. I do wonder and question such at this point.

That is the case with Matthew and Luke in the case of the centurion. That is one of several errors that your dedication to the man-made doctrine of inerrancy forces you to pretend does not exist.

:doh: It is like you didn't even read Daqq's post! Look. Daqq and I bump heads very hard but I at least listened to what he had to say in thread. He is right, there are a number of times a centurion crossed Jesus' path. You have NO idea if this is the same or different story. Let me say that again. YOU, COBRA, have NO IDEA whether this is the same or different centurion with a sick servant. You are thinking they all didn't die of disease then? Not that often? TOO coincidental? Look at that! "Too Coincidental." YET coincidences, however unlikely, DO happen. Did you give that benefit of doubt? Nope, not you. You are 'too smart' for that. Too accusing, for that. Too, righteously indignant to EVEN entertain it. You are committed to 'something' rather than SomeOne you SHOULD be committed to, and it shows. Sorry buck. As I said, you are too thick to have much of a dent. I will/must necessarily leave you in God's hands. Hebrews 10:31 (I REALLY wish you knew and could readily use and quote scriptures. They SHOULD pour from your life, mind and soul ).

 

[2003cobra]

Not sure who you're addressing there but you say:

"discrepancy does not mean error, but rather 'something different, often with a genuine purpose and accuracy.'"

Dictionary says:

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

And the two facts that are incompatible are:
1) Luke says the centurion did not come to Jesus and did not speak to Jesus.
2) Matthew says the centurion did come to Jesus and did speak to Jesus.

Both cannot be true. At least one has an error: facts in one story that are incompatible with the facts in the other story.

 

[2003cobra]

Lon, there were only one thing in your post 921 to which I wanted to respond.
Wowch! That REALLY hurt you bad, did it?

Not all all, given that my academic qualifications are excellent. That makes your tirade humorous, not troubling.
I mention those comments you made for what they reveal about you, not me.
They show a pride in your position and background that help inform why you refuse to recognize the errors: you have invested so much in this man-made doctrine and those institutions and circles that embrace it that you cannot admit what the Bible actually says.

(I REALLY wish you knew and could readily use and quote scriptures. They SHOULD pour from your life, mind and soul ).
I can and I do. The one that comes to mind on this matter concerns pride going before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

If you are hung up on the word, simply change it to 'difference' which is the full scope of my 'discrepancy' meaning, (rather the 'or divergence' was in mind) and, I believe, well within the parameter of its usage ("or" being operative). That said, I think I agree 'discrepancy' is too vague because of the further implication of error allowed with "or." I'm not meaning that so would 'difference' or divergence serve better? My use was merely to acquiesce the accounts are not quotes from one another. Thanks. -Lon

Yes vague is one way of trying to describe the differences between the different labels being given in trying to describe the 'discrepancies' found in the Bible.

difference
noun
1.a point or way in which people or things are dissimilar.
2.a disagreement, quarrel, or dispute.

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

divergence
noun
1.the process or state of diverging.

inerrancy
noun
1.lack of error; infallibility.
2.the belief that the Bible is free from error in matters of science as well as those of faith.

If only Dr Johnson were here to help us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

And the two facts that are incompatible are:
1) Luke says the centurion did not come to Jesus and did not speak to Jesus.
2) Matthew says the centurion did come to Jesus and did speak to Jesus.

Both cannot be true. At least one has an error: facts in one story that are incompatible with the facts in the other story.

Now things like that are fine and to be expected, accounts from different people of the same event always leads to different conclusions. This is perfectly normal and only adds weight to the validity of the texts (as long as the accounts on ballance largely agree that is).

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

My question stands, to your "argument"-How would you know that, droid, if you do not have the "originals?"

The bible corrector is scrambling to his stack of humanism books, pamphlets.....anything but the bible's testimony.

As I read through this thread I see you continually name call 2003cobra and do not address the actual OP with any productive solution. You also allude to the 'holy' scriptures and how they are to be believed yet I have yet to see you clearly state which books of the Bible you believe these are nor which translations. Also you seem to ignore the sources of the writings:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#/media/File:Texts_of_the_OT.svg

I understand you agree that the KJV was not inspired of God and I apologise if I am misrepresenting you but seeing as PJ, Tambora and Glorydaze are all cheering for you I feel 2003cobra deservedly needs a cheerleader too. Therefore can you offer some insight into your reasoning on this subject without descending to name calling?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

§13 An answer to the imputations of our adversaries
4 No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

§15 The purpose of the translators, with their number, furniture, care, etc.
10 If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.

OT = Hebrew - yes I agree, but NT mmmm.

Did the authors of the NT really have Greek as a first language? And would they have written it in Greek? Look at this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#/media/File:Texts_of_the_OT.svg

And consider that the Galileans (Of which 11 of the disciples were) spoke a colloquial form of Aramaic as their first language, a few of whom also spoke Hebrew (like Jesus also did) if they were willing and able enough to learn it in the Synagogues and Temple. Many of them would have been familiar with Latin if working and mixing with the Romans. Sepphoris for example was a new Roman town in Jesus' time just 4 miles from Nazareth. It is likely Jesus worked there (perhaps). Jesus' legalised father Joseph was a Tekton according to the NT which is carpenter or wood-worker or builder, which would have been a much needed form of labour in this new Roman conurbation. The Koine Greek was also the most widely spoken language in the Empire and may have also been a part of the populous' speech but would the likes of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul etc really have chosen Greek over their first languages? I doubt it.

Also consider that the Jews hated the Christians and would have destroyed every piece of Christian literature they could find. Now it begins to make sense why the earliest NT scripture were in Greek. As the saying goes 'It's all Greek to me!' And I hazard a guess that is why the Jews were not able to destroy all the Greek versions of the NT as most of them did not read Greek and therefore often did not know if it was a Greek NT they were looking at or some other text (over the first couple of centuries AD).

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

The 66 books of the King James Bible

But who says so is the question?

i.e. citation!

 

[2003cobra]

Now things like that are fine and to be expected, accounts from different people of the same event always leads to different conclusions. This is perfectly normal and only adds weight to the validity of the texts (as long as the accounts on ballance largely agree that is).

I agree that the differences add credibility and demonstrate a lack of collusion and rewriting.

 

[Lon]

Yes vague is one way of trying to describe the differences between the different labels being given in trying to describe the 'discrepancies' found in the Bible.

difference
noun
1.a point or way in which people or things are dissimilar.
2.a disagreement, quarrel, or dispute.

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

divergence
noun
1.the process or state of diverging.

inerrancy
noun
1.lack of error; infallibility.
2.the belief that the Bible is free from error in matters of science as well as those of faith.

If only Dr Johnson were here to help us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOSYiT2iG08

I yet believe you missed the 'or' in definition. I'm fairly consistent with knowing what words mean. "Difference" does not mean error. It simply means "not the same." At first, you seemed to grasp that, but you've come to agreement a few times with Cobra. I believe in inerrancy for several reasons. 1) Revelation claims it (so do other books) 2) It goes hand in hand with authority and command. One simply does not go about correcting his commander, ESPECIALLY if even as Cobra says: It doesn't matter. And that leads to 3) So inconsequential that he can't make a big deal about the claim that there is inerrancy. 4) 1 Corinthians 13 "Hardly notices when ("If") somebody gets it wrong. 5) waste of time, not worthy of our time: There is no 'reason' to entertain errant claims if, as Cobra says, such were inconsequential. You simply cannot say 'not a problem with doctrine' then say 'problem.' It is counter-intuitive discussion. 5) There are many reasons we believe in inerrancy and they are all posted within the scripture. John W posted a good many. I've posted a good many. John W asked 'where is this "word of God?" Why? Because in order to follow what is 'in' scriptures, one must have access to those written words.

 

[Lon]

Lon, there were only one thing in your post 921 to which I wanted to respond.
Wowch! That REALLY hurt you bad, did it?

Not all all, given that my academic qualifications are excellent. That makes your tirade humorous, not troubling.
I mention those comments you made for what they reveal about you, not me.
They show a pride in your position and background that help inform why you refuse to recognize the errors: you have invested so much in this man-made doctrine and those institutions and circles that embrace it that you cannot admit what the Bible actually says.

Um, no, they aren't. This is my area of degree. I am paid to know how well another grasps something. And no doubt, it hurt, as it should. Ignorance does hurt us and you are that man.

Lon, there were only one thing in your post 921 to which I wanted to respond.

Not everybody 'can' adequately format or form a cogent sentence (exhibited here) BUT this is the 'there were only one thing.' It bothered you, as it should have (what is this, your fourth mention of it now? as 'there were only one thing I wanted to respond to'? Nobody likes truth but it is important for us to face it and be changed. It flustered you enough that you couldn't write a subject verb agreement.

(I REALLY wish you knew and could readily use and quote scriptures. They SHOULD pour from your life, mind and soul ).
I can and I do. The one that comes to mind on this matter concerns pride going before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall.

Er, that man is you. You are that haughty prideful, 'asserting' man. "IF" this scripture was on your heart, instead of just a tired canard on your mind, it'd have given you pause. It didn't.

Pride is not asserting over another man. Pride is 'wrongfully' asserting over another man and over-rating one's own prowess.

 

[2003cobra]

Lon writes:
Um, no, they aren't. This is my area of degree. I am paid to know how well another grasps something. And no doubt, it hurt, as it should. Ignorance does hurt us and you are that man.

This my point exactly. You have invested a great deal of time and effort dedicated to this false doctrine of inerrancy.

What would you happen to your reputation, your circles, your work if you admitted the truth: that there are errors in the text and that the doctrine of inerrancy is contradicted by the scriptures themselves?

Something bad for you, I expect.

This is why you vigorously, almost to a comical degree, kick against the pricks of truth.

This fear of having to face the truth is what led you to those prideful insults thrown at me. I waited several days before mentioning them for what they are, because they did not bother me.

Now, however, they are an important part of showing why you will not allow yourself to recognize the truth. So they become valuable in what will likely be your long journey in overcoming your false presuppositions.

Happy New Year. Consider a resolution to seek truth over presuppositions, humility over pride, and righteousness over reputation. It could free you from the oppression of consistently denying the text.

You wrote:
Pride is not asserting over another man. Pride is 'wrongfully' asserting over another man and over-rating one's own prowess.

Pride could be letting your academic efforts keep you far from honesty.

I think if you asked your peers, I am sure that they would tell you there is great pride in these words:
You can't think out of a paper bag and assume everybody else is just as bad. Be truthful, C's and C- in school, right? It shows...You can go sit in the back of the class now and put your head down in shame for your disobedience...You are too thick to be taught...Were you raised in a one room school house where they had to pass you because you were all below par?...I'm smarter than you...you are not intelligent enough to talk to me.

 

[2003cobra]

By the way, Lon, I type quickly on an iPad and sometimes I don’t catch an error or autocorrect or make all the changes to an edit (such as change were to was when I switch from two items to one). This is especially true while I am typing as I watch visiting grandchildren, as I have been this week.

Your pointing out minor errors in punctuation, grammar, or syntax only makes you look petty and arrogant. I rarely do such things. I did point out to john w that the word is “canon,” not “cannon.” That was to be helpful.

Do you really have so little to say of substance that you feel a need to focus on typos? Or is this just another manifestation of an arrogant resistance of the truth? Do better. Such actions do not help you.

 

[Lon]

This my point exactly. You have invested a great deal of time and effort dedicated to this false doctrine of inerrancy.
What would you happen to your reputation, your circles, your work if you admitted the truth: that there are errors in the text and that the doctrine of inerrancy is contradicted by the scriptures themselves?

:chuckle: What errors? You are stuck drinking your own Kool-Aid old man.

Something bad for you, I expect.

Wow. You JUST admitted your theology is bad ELSE it'd be 'good' no? :doh:

This is why you vigorously, almost to a comical degree, kick against the pricks of truth.

Er no. You are alone in thread and on TOL. Even the cultists disagree with you, not to mention absolutely the rest of us orthodox Christians.
You: There by yourself. Me: More than you, everybody really
Nice try with the parlor tricks again, kemosabe.

This fear of having to face the truth is what led you to those prideful insults thrown at me. I waited several days before mentioning them for what they are, because they did not bother me.

No. ANYTHING to bust your delusions, even if they hurt a little. They don't. You have a lot of skull more than other things that SHOULD be there. You cannot be reasoned with: Too old, too stuck, too "not thinking anymore."

Now, however, they are an important part of showing why you will not allow yourself to recognize the truth. So they become valuable in what will likely be your long journey in overcoming your false presuppositions.

Nope. And you see, you underhandedly imply the same. At least I'm forthright. Parlor tricks. Keep 'em. The adults are doing theology now, son.

Happy New Year. Consider a resolution to seek truth over presuppositions, humility over pride, and righteousness over reputation. It could free you from the oppression of consistently denying the text.

"...,Said Mr. Haughty." lain:

You wrote:
Pride is not asserting over another man. Pride is 'wrongfully' asserting over another man and over-rating one's own prowess.
Pride could be letting your academic efforts keep you far from honesty.

With simpletons? Yep. It REALLY could. You are right. I can't even walk a mile down those shoes.
It is trying to walk with an arrogant 2nd grader who is 80 years old

I think if you asked your peers, I am sure that they would tell you there is great pride in these words:
You can't think out of a paper bag and assume everybody else is just as bad. Be truthful, C's and C- in school, right? It shows...You can go sit in the back of the class now and put your head down in shame for your disobedience...You are too thick to be taught...Were you raised in a one room school house where they had to pass you because you were all below par?...I'm smarter than you...you are not intelligent enough to talk to me.

Really hurt? Sorry, you are the arrogant guy in this thread. Am I? Yeah, but I HAVE the where-with-all. You? :nono:
You've been corrected by the C students, the A students, those who've completed their degrees. Those who have none. YOU are this fellow.
Worse? You imply every single iota without being upfront with it. It is all there for anybody that reads. You've gotten into this contest 'with me' instead of over the material AND the material isn't really your thread. Others have suggested that you start your own. I've even suggested a place where you will feel more comfortable. Your indictment to me, is an indictment upon us all. I am very glad to be spokesman for your betters.

They are right (I'm in there somewhere), you are wrong, end of story, end of thread.

By the way, Lon, I type quickly on an iPad and sometimes I don’t catch an error or autocorrect or make all the changes to an edit (such as change were to was when I switch from two items to one). This is especially true while I am typing as I watch visiting grandchildren, as I have been this week.

Your pointing out minor errors in punctuation, grammar, or syntax only makes you look petty and arrogant. I rarely do such things. I did point out to john w that the word is “canon,” not “cannon.” That was to be helpful.

Do you really have so little to say of substance that you feel a need to focus on typos? Or is this just another manifestation of an arrogant resistance of the truth? Do better. Such actions do not help you.

No, I think you were in a hurry and it shows how much you are divested. Not much it'd appear. You have grandkids and are bothering to chat with me during the holidays? Spend your holiday better. Mine is about over, no distractions, all resting after beautiful time with our Savior, friends, and family. Go spend time with the grandkids! Yours isn't over yet.

 

[2003cobra]

:chuckle: What errors? You are stuck drinking your own Kool-Aid old man.

I have listed several.
Some you did not even try to explain. For example, you never attempted to explain why Matthew skipped four generations in his genealogy and miscounted 18 as 14.

So, you persist in pretending the errors do not exist. It is a sad dishonesty.

Wow. You JUST admitted your theology is bad ELSE it'd be 'good' no? :doh:

Why would you be so untruthful?
You know that I said that your admitting there are errors in the Bible, being honest about the situation, would be bad for you in your situation.

I am embarrassed for you — that you must persistently misstate the truth to support your false doctrine.

At least I'm forthright.

You have persistently misstated and misrepresented.
Not forthright.

The adults are doing theology now, son.

We already ascertained that I have been a Christian longer than you.
So calling me “son” is not your place.
Again, you are being prideful and not forthright.
You seem really bothered by your inability to explain these errors, but insulting me does not make the errors go away.

No, I think you were in a hurry and it shows how much you are divested. Not much it'd appear. You have grandkids and are bothering to chat with me during the holidays? Spend your holiday better. Mine is about over, no distractions, all resting after beautiful time with our Savior, friends, and family. Go spend time with the grandkids! Yours isn't over yet.

You don’t have grandchildren?

Yes, I know you would like me to go away and not ask you about any more errors. Your inability to explain them after all your seminary training must be quite embarrassing.

 

[2003cobra]

Another error

Another error

Does anyone see the error in this passage?

Hebrews 9:3-5 Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies. In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot speak now in detail.


This is a minor error. It does not affect the validity and authority of scripture, but it does prove the doctrine of inerrancy is false.

 

[George Affleck]

We can know!
We can know that Matthew says the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus.
We can know!
We can know that Luke says the centurion did not come to Jesus and did not speak to Jesus.

That is all obvious in the text. Either you recognize it or avert your eyes, refusing to read the Bible.

Today, as in times past, courts of law hold that what a man does through a duly constituted agency, he himself actually and legally does.

Personally, I think both happened. The centurion asked the elders to talk to Jesus and went with them. After they made a formal request, he reiterated what was asked.

 

[Lon]

I have listed several.
Some you did not even try to explain. For example, you never attempted to explain why Matthew skipped four generations in his genealogy and miscounted 18 as 14.

So, you persist in pretending the errors do not exist. It is a sad dishonesty.

:chuckle: All of us, against you. You are a joke on TOL. What a horribly depressing day you must be having....I'm home alone, family off doing a post-Christmas journey. You? Pathetically wasting time on TOL while you have grandkids. Sad really.

Why would you be so untruthful?
You know that I said that your admitting there are errors in the Bible, being honest about the situation, would be bad for you in your situation.

Ouch! You did it again. It would be 'sad' if I were corrected? :doh: You aren't bright enough to be even talking to me, lad.

I am embarrassed for you — that you must persistently misstate the truth to support your false doctrine.

:think: Loner you, against all of the rest of Christianity... :think:
Yeah, we are all embarrassed by parlor tricks of a clown? All of us??? :doh:

You have persistently misstated and misrepresented.

Er, no. You are thick in the head. I've been persistently clear that you were and are.

Not forthright.

Let me try again then: Thick. None-too-bright. Loner on TOL. All by your ignorant self.

Is that forthright enough? 2 Corinthians 10:5 You know, the scriptures you can't manage to quote or bring from memory...
...of course you don't esteem them as we do, so it is to be expected. You are seen as one who hates our Lord Jesus AND the words of God on TOL. I don't know if you get that. It is, frankly, detestable. You really need to understand, as much as you posture against us and raise this as your ONLY concern on TOL, the thing you quote Wallace as no big deal, you make a document of disfellowship and press beyond your ability or pay grade, to boot.

We already ascertained that I have been a Christian longer than you.

It doesn't matter how long you've been a Christian. It matters if you've grown. You aren't my elder. You wouldn't be, as I've made clear, able to teach a thing in my church. You are Nowhere near the maturity level I'd expect for a Christian. I do wonder, given your vitriol and parlor tricks, if you are. If you have to rely on smoke and mirrors and subterfuge, you've no truth. Truth stands all by itself and matters not who the salesman is or whether he is as arrogant as I am. It just stands. The one thing that stands easily, for all to see in thread, is who is posturing, who is less than forthright (you are just echoing back what I've already accused you of). You are in a class by yourself, all alone over there. Watchman may be close, but even he disagrees with you on points.

So calling me “son” is not your place.

It is your rightful immature Christian place (if 'christian' at all), Son.

Again, you are being prideful and not forthright.
You seem really bothered by your inability to explain these errors, but insulting me does not make the errors go away.

You dish it back as much or more than you get it.



You don’t have grandchildren?

Yes, I know you would like me to go away and not ask you about any more errors. Your inability to explain them after all your seminary training must be quite embarrassing.

 

[Lon]

Today, as in times past, courts of law hold that what a man does through a duly constituted agency, he himself actually and legally does.

Personally, I think both happened. The centurion asked the elders to talk to Jesus and went with them. After they made a formal request, he reiterated what was asked.

In one ear, out the other, George.

 

[Lon]

Does anyone see the error in this passage?

Hebrews 9:3-5 Behind the second curtain was a tent called the Holy of Holies. In it stood the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant overlaid on all sides with gold, in which there were a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tablets of the covenant; above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat. Of these things we cannot speak now in detail.


This is a minor error. It does not affect the validity and authority of scripture, but it does prove the doctrine of inerrancy is false.

Nope lain: "...there is certainly no demonstrated error here in the Bible. On the contrary, several plausible solutions are available."

Mr. dishonest and can't be bothered won't acknowledge that. He can't. His house of cards would topple. He HAS to dishonestly pronounce nobody was able to address and then proceed to his 'next' error, attacking God, His people, His bible.

Inerrancy is the Christian position.