Religion Biblical Texts: Explication and Discussion

M

Mars Man

Regular Member
Messages
595
Reaction score
51
Points
0
While yet in gratitude for Mycernius' thoughtful consideration in opening a new thread on 'Christianity: conceptions and Misconceptions', to relieve the one on 'Missionaries in Japan', I have, through consultation, decided to open this thread. I envisage this thread as both complimenting and supporting that of 'conceptions/Misconceptions', and as running side by side with it in our efforts to consider and discuss in further detail.

It is only true that as regards Christianity, the ultimate source of data, whether applied directly or indirectly, is the Christian Greek Scriptures (NT) and the Jewish Scriptures (OT)--as seen mostly through the minds of the NT writers. In combined codex form, all these individual documents have come into one volume; the Bible. It is widely known that Christianity on the whole pronounces the original autographs, which have come down to us today in the forms of manuscripts, parital and whole codexes, fragments of scrolls, pages, and skins, and critically collected in our recensions, had been superintended by the supernatural being those same works describe and prescribe--YHWH, or "God". This is the idea of 'being inspired'. This concept has a number of variations, but the most common is that similar to what Charles C. Ryrie Th.D, Ph.D gave on page 2013 in the 1994 edition of the New International Version --"My own definition of biblical inspiration is that it is God's superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded, without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs."

'Without error', 'inerrant' are modifiers that one often hears along with terms like 'the Word of God'. Although I have seldom heard explanations of just what that may mean, I gather that it means 'without mistake'; 'true'. In the discussion that follows, I hope to encourage testing this fundamental principle, or claim, in a very simple but scientific-like manner--not going to the point of appealing to many various theories or philosophical treatises. First I would like to set out a working premise, as follows:

1. It is held to be true that our recensions of today accurately represent the original autographs, with few variable readings that would change an English translation, to any disclamation.

2. It is held to be true that the intent to write to a decided recipient implies an intent to have the recipient come to an intended understanding-- especially in the case of any attempt to convince, impart knowledge, or debate.

3. It is held to be true that before any ancient document can be more reasonably understood and appreciated, an understanding of the historical and cultural environment in which it is deemed to have been written, should be considered.

4. It is held to be true that any complete ancient document is a complete context, subdivided into further linguistical contexts, and that such context is a major key for understanding meaning, sense, and overt intent in writing.

I have found that there are two basic approaches to examining the Bible--from the top down, and from the bottom up. Those who firstly believe that the Bible is 'inspired' and thus 'inerrant' will most usually use the former, therefore, I intend to use the latter.

I don't claim to be inerrant by any means whatsoever, :p and I have a tendency to be wordy. Plus my writing style, I feel, is not so smooth; not flowing and easy to read. Please help me out where I do need it. I hope all who join in on this discussion will make every effort to keep cool and logical heads--and the head, by the way, includes both the 'mind' and the 'heart'.

With that, before I close this introduction and make my first post, I would like to give two quotes, the first said to have been by Thomas Jefferson, and the second by Sir Hermann Bondi: "...reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error." "Since at most one faith can be true, it follows that human beings are extremely liable to believe firmly and honestly in something untrue in the field of revealed religion. One would have expected this obvious fact to lead to some humility, to some thought that however deep one's faith, one may conceivably be mistaken." :note:
 
There are a number of texts used in the argument for Biblical inspiration, where 'Biblical' refers to the Old and New Testaments. There are a number of misconceptions that leak into the explanations of the texts as well as some presuppositions. The first that I'd like to look at can be found in Paul's second letter to Timothy: 2 Tim 3:16.

The New World Translation gives the following in English:
"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be full competent, completely equipped for every good work."

Most versions and translations read similar, a good number pointing out another possible translation, namely,
"Every (or all) Scripture (or scripture) inspired by God is also good for...every good work."

On close inspection, it can be seen that one is restrictive while the other isn't really. The Greek is as follows--transliteration mine:

"pasa graphe theopneustos kai ophelimos pros didaskalian pros elegmon...pros pan ergon agathon eksiptismenos." (Novum Testamentum Graece, Nestle-Aland 27th ed. 1993--hereafter NTG) A direct translation is--every/all writing (sing.) god-breathed and(also) good towards teaching, towards reproving...towards all work good equipped/fitted out.

Comparing this with the clause at 1 tim 2:20a--"en megali de oikia ouk estin mono skeui..." (direct translation=dt) in large but house not is only vessels...

It can be seen that in 3:16, the verb of state, estin, is left to be inserted by the reader, giving it two possibilities. Which, if either, would be more likely the intended communication? I would argue that that would require a good look at the whole instrument.

Quickly, from 1:1,2,4,5,6; 2:1,2,14-26; 3:10-15; 4:1,2,9-13,19-22, it can easily be seen that this was a letter to one Timothy to remind, enourage, admonish, and request favor. We are required to understand, a priori, that this Timothy had learned about Christianity from his mother, Eunice, and grandmother, Lois (1:5) and been taught from the 'hiera grammata' (holy/sacred writings) since childhood (3:15). In the immediate context running from verse 14-17, it is historically most reasonable to understand both 'hiera grammata' and 'graphe' as referring to the various scrolls of the Septuagint (hereafter LXX). It cannot be determined that Paul had been absolutely referring to the entire canon as he would have understood it to have been, since 'graphe' is singular, and can easily mean any particular writing, rather than all the writings. Since there were actually writings which were religious in nature (Christian) but were not accepted into the canon in the later 2nd century, Paul could have been delimiting just which scripture was worthy by the 'theopneustos' (god-breathed) modifier. In this case, the 'kai' (and or also) could very well be seen as giving the affect of 'in addition'--which does happen as times in the Greek. In this understanding, Paul would have been highlighting that those 'hiera grammata' which Timothy had known of from childhood, were to be delimited to those which Paul had considered 'theopneustos'--and that those writings were to be used in teaching and reproving, etc.

There is no challenge, in biblical scholarship, that both terms used here in the letter written around the year 64/65, have the scrolls which make up the LXX as a referent. There were more than one canon of scrolls for the LXX as well, so an effort to delimit the Palestinian canon may have been typical of Paul. ( Acts 17:2,3; 9:22; 18:4, 28; 19:8; 26:22,23; etc.) It is for this reason that many attempt to apply 2 Peter 3:16 to cover for the loss of the understanding that our Bible of today is NOT what 'scripture' at 2 Timothy 3:16 had been talking about, and that the historically intended referent cannot be changed simply because time has accumulated and some try to emotionally apply it as though it were talking about our 'Bible' of today.

In careful consideration it can be seen that a misconception has worked it's way into the more commonly understood import behind 2 Peter 3:16 as well. And I will explicit and discuss that soon enough. In summary here,, I say that even though there is at best a 50/50 chance on translation, Paul wouldn't have been talking about something that Timothy couldn't have understood or known, and could not have been referring to letters and Gospels yet written, so it is most logical and historically correct to say that he had been referring to the some number of scrolls which in his mind, were inspired by "God" as he saw it. (That, in itself, does not make his understanding correct, however) My pet understanding is: ...every writing that is inspired by "God" is also useful for teaching, for reproving... :wave:
 
Last edited:
Mars man, this is an excellent idea. I am definitely going to get back here again.
 
Looking good Kasei no Otoko! :cool:

Mars Man said:
Paul wouldn't have been talking about something that Timothy couldn't have understood or known, and could not have been referring to letters and Gospels yet written, so it is most logical and historically correct to say that he had been referring to the some number of scrolls which in his mind, were inspired by "God" as he saw it. (That, in itself, does not make his understanding correct, however) My pet understanding is: ...every writing that is inspired by "God" is also useful for teaching, for reproving... :wave:
Click to expand...

This is exactly my problem. Whenever you analyse it, you always seem to come back to a person, on whose authority the whole argument rests. And since Paul never knew Jesus, and is not the person to whom Jesus entrusted his church, can we rely on his authority? If we answer 'no', then we can forget about much of the NT. If we answer 'yes' then we become mired down in the argument about which texts Paul was referring to, and it seems unlikely we can ever answer this.

Where else does the Bible mention texts that are inspired by god? Can this claim be traced back to an individual? How much can we trust their authority? Exactly which texts are referred to? Of course Moses comes immediately to mind, but exactly what did he receive on Mount Sinai? Where did the OT post-Moses come from?

Can you enlighten us Mars Dude?
 
I have a problem with the letters in the NT. You have the gospels that show the life of Jesus and his ministry. When he dies the 'cause' is taken up by his disiples who continue to spread his word. Along come Paul, who is converted to Christianity and eventually beome the head of the early church. He then starts to organise the church into the body that eventually became the Catholic Church. It is through him and his interpretations of the Gospels and the OT that have formed the beliefs of the Christian religion. It seem that Christianty is based on Pauls teachings and interpretations of Jesus teachings. Anyone who deviated from this line was sent one of his Letters telling them how they should continue to his thinking, not to their own. I would shudder to think how he would have dealt with anyone one who said no to him, but a doubt a strongly worded letter was not he only way they dealt with splitters (Sounds like the life of Brian). These methods would not make it into the final scripture, as that way of maintaining control is not the sort of face you want to see if you are trying to put across a new religion.
 
Thanks for the appreciation guys. :bow: I do hope the thread plays out well.

My dear Martian chan sister, you have actually just asked a whole bunch of questions at one time--or should I say, a question with so much information rushing in with the answers; but yes, I do hope to touch on every single one of these. 1 Timothy 3:16 is the only explicitly expressed 'inspired' type text with that wording, followed immediately by 2 Peter 1:20-2:1's explanation type wording. Both of course, most likely refer to the Palestinian canon of the Hebrew Scriptures as contained in the several LXX scrolls. I will touch on all of this in detail as the flow goes that way. Not tonight though...it's not so late, but I've got a day tomorrow. The up-coming 2 Peter 3:16 study is much more detailed than the above, and takes a closer look at other examples of the Greek style used there. I have NO idea, at the moment, just how long that will be, and I may have to break it into two posts. BUT, I will answer that question. I promise.

I hear you mycernius. He has some 13 letters I think it was--I'll have to go count again. Paul did twist scripture himself to make it fit his theology--it's there in his writings, and I will point that out as well, as time allows--so he was not totally guilt free. Now that can only throw a degree of doubt on his story of becoming a Christian--besides he argues for his 'apostleship' just a little too loud. I'll get back on those things too. It's really nice to know that you all are on your 'Ps and Qs' !! :note: See you !! :wave:
 
Messianic Judaism

Mycernius: He then starts to organise the church into the body that eventually became the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

So you think Paul did rather than Peter? I don't think either one did, but that caught my eye.

Paul didn't actually "convert" to Christianity however. Belief that Jesus was the promised Messiah is actually a very Jewish thing that Paul and the other early disciples did. I tend to think of what's called Christianity as a branch of Judaism...Messianic Judaism. Up until about chapter 10 of Acts the common practice was that anyone who was gentile or "goyim" who wanted to trust in the Hebrews' God had to become Jewish, become circumcised, etc. The believers in Jesus thought the same thing was going to hold true up until a new revelation that God gave Peter in Acts 10 and following. With that new revelation, the Jewish believers had to re-adjust their thinking and their prejudices!

Following chapter 15, the church at Jerusalem set out a few basic guidelines for their new gentile brothers and sisters and received them into the arms of the church. The church then exploded in growth and before long (couple of centuries later) the question became "can Jews be members of the church"?

I personally find great treasure in studying the Jewish festivals and how they relate to fulfillment in Messiah. I'm very blessed to be adopted as a spiritual daughter of Abraham and share in the spiritual blessings of the Jewish people (ie, the Messiah and the holy scripture).

Thanks!
 
2 Peter 3:16 #1

That was a rather well put post there Pararousia, I fully understand the wording style of seeing the text flow as equaling the time flow. Luke, the understood writer of that text--as it is a continuation of the Gospel, actually--was very careful with wording. His Gospel is the longest, and most elegantly written.

RECAP: Some 1940 years ago, one Saul (his Roman name being Paul, it seems) wrote a letter while in Rome to one Timothy--a fellow worker in Paul's troupe. In that letter, which was obviously written with the intent to encourage and remind, as well as to ask favor, Paul mentioned--by way of reminding Timothy of what he had learned of the LXX from his early years--that those scrolls which Paul considered to have been 'god-breathed' (inspired) were good for teaching and reproving; among others. It is just as likely that he had meant to restrict, and thus highlight, which, out of all those scrolls 'on the market' (to coin a phrase) he considered inspired as it is that he meant that he thought all of them were inspired. (It is true that the first century Christian writers seldom quote what are now in the Jewish Apocrypha)

As it is often too convenient to associate the wording there, when one simply looks at an English Bible today, as a single book, to be speaking of that one and same book that the reader has before them, it is important to stress that the intention of meaning was locked into that word when it was historically penned. The English 'scripture' or 'Scriptures'--the former being more likely the intent--can only refer to the LXX portions that the author, Paul, had had in mind; and that Timothy would have understood. The simple fact that time has passed, cannot and does not change the historical truth of the specific referent for the word 'graphe'.

2 Peter 3:16

There is almost consistently an effort on the part of some to claim that the wording used at 2 Peter 3:16 shows that the author there understood Paul's letters to be included, as in a continuation of, the LXX. The effort is inclusive of the attempt to apply the entire NT as being within the bounds of the intent of that wording--which is simply historically impossible, first of all. As in many cases, there is a tendency to not think about the language and wording enough, and thus a misunderstanding is often the result. The following is to look into that carefully, probably in two posts:

Today there is no outstanding argument on whether this document should or should not be in the NT canon, that's long since been finished, however it is understood that the actual author cannot be ascertained with any great definitiveness because this work was hardly accepted from the earliest of canon catalogs--save that of Irenaeus of Aisa Minor (c.180) The Muratorian doubts it (c.170), Clement of Alexandria doesn't mention it (c.190) and neither does Tertullian (N. Africa, c.207). Therefore to that extent, there will always be some degree of doubt on the content's being from Apostolic descent. That should also be kept in mind, although it will be held aside here, for the sake of argument.

The Greek text according to NTG:

15 kai ten tou . . . 16 hos kai en pasais epistolais lalon en autais peri totoun en hais estin dysnoeta tina ha hoi amatheis kai asteriktoi streblousin hos kai tas loipas graphas pros ten idian auton apoleian

One key point here, among others, is the term 'tas loipas', meaning in English, 'the remaining' or 'the rest of'. 'The others' can also be considered although there is another Greek term which better fits that, and the principle of 'one word assignment' may best call for the former translations. The main consideration, of course, is the intent in writing and wording. That will give us a better picture of just what may have been meant. For that purpose, it is most important to look at the entire context that that document is. I will do that as I look at the immediate context of chapter three itself, below:

I.A. 3:1,2--An address to arouse attention towards the reminding element of what is follow in verse two--and possibly afterwards as well.

B. 3:2--The stating of the reminder--in two separate elements:
1. SAYINGS--previously spoken by the holy prophets.
(more likely those of HS-cf 1:20-2:1)
[HS=Hebrew Scriptures; cf=compare]

C. 3:3,4--Perhaps a point of explanation, perhaps part of the reminging
element.
1. The idea of 'ridiculers' could possibly be seen as part of a
running address to a similar class of (if the same) people:
a. verses 2:1b-3
b. verses 2:10-22
c. verse 3:16b
d. verse 3:17

2. This class or group of people were most likely members of the
set of people who associated under the faith, among those of
the direct and immediate audience.
a.verse 1:9
b.verses 2:1b-3
c.verse 2:13b
d.verse 2:15
e.verses 2:18b,19a
f.verse 2:20
etc.

D. 3:4--The concept in verse four evidences a questioning of the doctrine
of the "presence" [parousias] by some certain people. (C.1, 2)

1. The doctrine or teaching of the 'presence' was obviously
known, at least in general, by the direct and immediate
audience.
a.verse 2:16
b.verse 3:16a

2. The teaching of the 'presence' is defended by:
a.verses 1:16,17
b.verses 3:5-9
c.verses 3:10-13
d.verses 3:15,16

E. 3:5-13--The general discourse runs in the following possible blocks:
1. a. 3:5-7 further explanation regarding the ridiculars in
verse three, and why, or in what way they have
gone wrong.
b. 3:8,9 address to audience to remind them, in the form
of an answer against the argument of the ridiculars
in verse 4, so as to neutralize it and explain the
reason for the delay.
c. 3:10 emphatic echo and detailing of verse 7.
d. 3:11-13 sub-dialog; an explanation of a proper course of
action due to, and in preparation for verse 10's
future event.
e. 3:14,15 address to the audience...and in conclusion of the
running discourse regardng the 'presence' and the
'judgement day' (vss. 4,7,8-10,12) two commands.
1.) do your upmost....
2.) consider......
Then reference to Paul as a second source to back
up the latter command.
f. 3:16 actually this verse is most likely the one and same
sentence that could possibly begin at "kai" (vs. 15
beginning) or the section of it which could possibly
begin (in thought flow) at "kathos" in verse 15
(although the whole lot, 14-16, could be taken as
one long, run-on sentence) Anyway, it is mostly a
parenthetically embedded clause, firstly detailing
Paul's letters, then using that to expound on and
expose two sources of false teachings; being
wrinched, as they were: 1.)Paul's letters 2.) LXX.
(the clause "hos kai tas loipas graphas" with or
without the latter portion of the sentence, could
be considered yet further embedding.)
g. 3:17,18 address to the audience with an explanation, then
admonition--along with the reason for it--along with
further admonition after an explanation. Then ending
without salutation.

II. A. Firstly, it is noticible that verses 15 and 16, along with 3:11-14, are
subordinate in nature; the overall intention of the letter and the chap-
ter would not be effected if they were removed. Therefore any and all
statements contained within this section logically support the overall
intention which is to deal with and give warning of 'false teachers', and
remind the audience to maintain status quo in accurate knowledge.
(1:1-3,8,12,15; 2:1,21; 3:1-4,8-10,17,18)

1. a. "Touton hotos panton leomenon" [since all of these things are
thus to be dissolved/destroyed ] in verse 11a is the pivitol point
which swings to verses 11b-13, from which verses 14,15 ascend
(meaning to signify motion into an assertive flow or forward lean,
or to advancing to next main point or level in an argument)
b. "en hais estin..." [in which is...] leads into a furher embedded
section within the 3:15,16 sentence, and which is dependent on
"pasaia epistolais" [all letters].
c. If the entire letter had been written without this section, there
would have been no change to the overall intention of
the writing. 1.)1:1-21 2.)2:1-22 3.)3:1-10,17,18

B. Taking verses 14-16 as one long run-on sentence even, it can be seen
that verse 15 is echoing verse 9 and at the same time is a referral to
Paul's letters which the audience has recieved, to reinforce the admoni-
tion given in the first portion of verse 15.

C. Paul's letters are qualified by the writer as having been written owing to
(or according to) wisdom. (vs. 15) The import here would most likely
have been 'God-given wisdom'.

D. In verse 16, the term 'these things' most likely refers to:
1. The 'presence'--vss. 4,9,11,12
2. The judgement day--vss. 7,10-12
3. The patience of the Lord as salvation--vss. 9,15

E. In verse sixteen the expression 'as in all [his] letters' renders it unclear
whether the audience had recieved a letter, or several let-
ters, or copies of all of his letters.
1. One possible extrapolation in expanded form of the intent could
be : 'It is not only in the lettes that you all recieved from Paul
that he had written about these things; he writes about them
in all his letters.'

2. Another possibility is that the intended idea could have been:
'You all know; he always writes about these things!'

F. In verse 16, the clause 'in which [are] (the actual Greek verb is 'is') some
things hard to understand which the untaught and unsteady are twisting
as also the remaining Scriptures...' is a pivot point in the first part, swing-
ing from the dialog about Paul's letters (vs. 15b) to highlighting, 2
sources from which false or erroneous teachings by those false teachers
are being taken, in the second point.

1. This is written in support of the overall intention in writing.

2. The obvious focus is most logically to direct attention to the
twisting of Paul's letters due to its direct and immediate
relation to those three concerns in D. above.

3. Referral to the LXX directly ties in with the dialog explaining
that there are some hard to understand points in Paul's letters,
which are being twisted--therefore most logically showing the
intention of indentifying a second source of false teachings
from what would otherwise have been considered true teachings.
This understanding does support the overall intention.

I will post this much in this #1 post on this subject, and will finish up in #2 after a few more days. I hope that those who are interested will take the time to tediously look through it, checking each and every point conscientiously. I hope there are no big wording misses--I don't have the time to go over so slowly now, but will only spot check.
See you all later on !! :wave:
 
Last edited:
2 Peter 3:16 #2

First of all I'm sorry that my indentions were lost. I didn't think about that, and had indented it so as to make it easier to read through the conclusion on each point for those who didn't want to take the time to check the support for the conclusion. In the preview it was o.k., but when submitted, everything went to the left, making it quite hard to read. I apologize. I'll do this one with that in mind. PICKING UP WHERE I HAD LEFT OFF AT. . .

G. Usage definition in the Greek Scriptures (GS) along with empirical historical knowledge gives the word 'graphe' and its forms, the referent: the LXX, in one form or another.

1. In one form or another leaves room for any variant translations of works, and or the various collections of scrolls--Palestinian, Alexandrian, Babylonian, and Samaritan.

H. Usage definition in GS gives the word 'epistolais' the referent: letter(s)--A form of written communication from one specific party to another.

I. The writer basically modifies the term for scripture in the 1:19-20 section, and in the application of the LXX throughout 2:4-10a, 22; 3:2a, 5b, as something like, let's say: 'spoken-from-God LXX.
(or better, maybe, 'spoken-from-God-via-born-by-spirit LXX)

J. The writer directly modifies the term letters (from Paul) in section 3:14b,15 as something like, let's say: 'written-through-(God-given)-wisdom letters'.

K. The more logical understaning is that the writer linguistically classifies Paul's 'written-through-(God -given)-wisdom letters' along with the 'spoken-from-God LXX' by use of the terminology 'tas lopas' (the rest) as members of the universal set which could be termed something like, let's say: 'Documents of a religious bearing known to or used by the direct and immediate audience.'

1. The term 'tas loipas' (the rest, or remaining) as in all languages I know of, requires a universal set from which the extracted, listed members given in a text belong.
a. sometimes the universal set is the second member, in its full form.
b. sometimes it's given, or determinable from the text in another location.
c. when two qualifiers of inherence adequately differentiate the two members given in a text, and no universal set is determinable from the same context, it must be deduced.

2. In verses 15 and 16, the qualified essence for Paul's letters, and, in the overall context of the letter itself, the qualified essence for the Scriptures, are not inherently equivalent--thus adequately differentiated.
a. Paul's letters were written due to or by virtue of wisdom.
b. the LXX were written by 'spoken-from-God-via-born-by-spirit'.

3. The usage of some form of 'he loipas' in GS, about as often as not, ignores the mention of the universal set or qualities the first member so as to signify a degree of opposition with the second.
a. for this reason the quality of the first member mentioned does not intersect the exact inherent quality of the second member, thus making them individual sub-sets of a broader universal set.
b. I call this usage 'contrasting in nature'.

Luke 8:10--{to you all...but (to) the rest [of the people here]} The qualifying terms are given in the context as 'it is given', and apply to the first member only thus differentiating the inherent quality. It's like saying 'you have something that they don't'--'you are different.'

Mt. 25:11---They are all virgins, but some have the wisdom to prepare, the others don't.

Acts 5:13---Here we find: {(the apostles) were all in Solomon's colonade; of the rest [of the whole congregation (vs 11)] no one dared to...} Whether one says 'none of the others ' or 'not one of the others' may be emphatically different but both of them equal 'of the rest, none...' or ' of the rest, not one...'. The first member is delimited thus qualified and, of course, is know to not equal the second member except on the level of 'members of the whole congregation'. Again, either you are an apostle, or you are not.

2 Cor. 13:2---The universal set is given in the first verse: 'you all' but there are those who have previously sinned (and not repented) and those who have previously sinned ( and have repented) (vs 12:21). The second member is as much a member of the universal set as the first, but they are in opposition on the very immediate contextual level-that very sentence.
etc. etc.

Non- Contrasting in nature are, for example: Mt. 27:49; Acts 2:37; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 2:13; etc. etc.

III.

A. It is very clear that the writer has classed Paul's letters with the LXX. What many miss, however, is the fact that the 'tas loipas' style does not necessarily mean that the members listed are inherently equal.

1. Take 1 Thess. 4:13 as one example: We find that 'hoi lopoi' (inflection of 'he loipas') is used, that two members are given--specifically 'brothers' and 'the rest [of the people] who have no hope'. There is no contest that the two mentioned members do not intersect on the level of inherent quality, yet the linguistica style demands a universal set, and they ARE all people, so 'people living at that point in time' would be a specific universal set.

2. To verify that, let's take one more example, 1 Thss. 5:6. It is somewhat similar to both 2 Peter 3:16 and 1 Thss. 4:13. This time the second member is not qualified. It uses 'hoi loipoi', and gives two members also--how are we to understand that? Of course, it wouldn't be, {let us (christians) not be sleeping as the rest [of us christians]} The second member would most logically be those who were not christians, and the universal set would be 'people living at that point in time' again. The two members are inherently differentiated, and the 'he loipas' style being used here, again, shows that the two members mentioned can be contrasting in nature--different things in essence.

B. As highlighted before, it is quite certain that in the minds of the first century Christian writers and audience, the word 'graphe' and its forms, invariably referred to the LXX and thus cannot change in referent for us now, when looking at the context to get meaning. In that understanding, it would be quite in error to imply that the writer of 2 Peter had understood Paul's letters to be a continuation of, or addition to the LXX>

S U M M A R Y

The writer of 2 Peter makes no attempt to modify Paul's letters, or even his own, in the same manner that he does for the LXX; thus it is not demanded that the reader do such. Wisdom is just that, a certain state of sagacity, where as 'being born along by the spirit and thus speaking from God' was altogether a different matter. The focal points of 2 Peter 3:14-18 are:
1)the intended communication to support the admoniton to 'consider the patience of our Lord'.
2.the intention of using Paul's letters as a second witness to this admonition
3. the afforded opportunity (purposely or otherwise) to point out that some are misusing the LXX as well as Paul's letters.
4. the fact that the entire overall context is being supported by the points made, leaving it unnatural to conclude that an effort is being made to include Paul's letters in the LXX.

Due to the logic flow, and the linguistics, it is very clear that Paul's letters and the LXX (Scriptures) had been classed together as 'documents of a religious nature known to the audience and writer alike.'

Having considered all this, the interpretation that 1 Peter 3:16 proves that the NT and OT are to be thought of as one continious book is very incorrect. To suggest that the writer of 2 Peter had considered Paul's letters to be equal in 'inspirational' essence to 'the rest of the Scriptures' has no realistic support at all.

2 Peter 3:16 does not amount to evidence for a proof text to support the claim that the NT claims to have been 'spoken from God' or 'inspired' in the way that those writers considered the OT to be.
 
Let me first say that I am not a scholar nor shall I pretend to be a scholar, but the material I will be quoting/using has been done by those well versed in the Holy Scripture, whose writings show themselves to be good teachers rather than false teachers seeking to deceive or patronize.

"The writers of the NT epistles seemed conscious of the fact that they were writing under the authority of the Lord. When an author identifies himself as an apostle of Jesus Christ (or equivalent) at the beginning of the epistle, he is testifying that he is writing with apostolic authority and thus his message is consistent with the message the Lord would have him convey. (An apostle is simply an emissary delivering a message. In this case Apostles of Jesus Christ are emissaries of Jesus Christ whose task it was to communicate His word not their word. To preface an epistle by self-identification as an apostle, the author is stating that what follows is an official communication from the Lord delivered through His emissary.)

"In some cases the NT writers described their message as the word of God (ie, 1 Cor. 14:37, "Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored"; 1 Thess. 2:13, "And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who bleieve"; 4:1-6, "For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus....threfore, he who rejects this instruction does not reject man but God"; 1 Pet. 1:25; 2 Pet. 1:19-21 (as an eyewitness of the transfiguation, heard God's voice from heaven, and has the word of the prophets of old); 3:2 (puts the old testament prophets and the apostles on equal footing); 1 Jn. 4:6, "We [the apostles] are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood."). 1 Cor. 7:25 is interesting in that Paul has to qualify that regarding virgins he does not have a command from the Lord but offers an opinion.

"The apostles' teaching in Acts is characterized as the word of God (or equivalent) frequently (Acts 4:29, 31; 6:7; 8:14; 11:1; 13:5, 7, 44, 46; 14:3; 16:32; 17:13; 18:11; 19:10; 20:32).

"Throughout His teaching as captured in the Gospels, Jesus claims divine authority for His words. Just as the validity of Jesus' words (as being from God) were attestated by miraculous works (Acts 2:22) so the divine authority accompanying the apostles' teaching was validated by miraculous works (as presented throughout Acts, but cf. also Rom. 15:18-19; 1 Cor. 2:4). Thus their teaching carries the authority of God and Christ no less than the OT prophets who claimed to be writing the word of the Lord. We theologically conclude, and rightfully so, that the apostles were claiming inspiration for their teaching and writing. The miracles accompanying their words and the consistency their words had with OT teaching evidence their claim.

Additionally, in John 14:26 ("But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My Name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you" and 16:12-15 Jesus indicates that the Holy Spirit will so guide the apostles that they will recall and thus accurately teach what Christ had taught them (and He will tell you what is yet to come).

"It has been the task of the people of God to recognize the word of God, differentiating what is God's word from man's word. The Jewish people thus recognized and canonized the OT Scriptures, which the NT frequently describes as "Scripture." And likewise, the early church did the same sorting through the various written records to discover those writings which bore the marks of inspiration and those which did not. So part of the evidence for receiving the NT as Scripture is recognizing what God has spoken, which is the responsibility of the people of God (the church). God's providence was directly involved in this process. The church used specific criteria to identify those writings genuinely inspired by God vs. those writings which were not inspired by God including:

i. Apostolic authority - The book was either written by an apostle or written under an apostle's authority.
ii. Acceptance - The book was accepted throughout the primitive church.
iii. Content - The book reflected consistency of doctrine with what had already been taught (this is a principle similar to the Bereans testing Paul's teaching in light of OT teaching). It speaks truthfully about God and about God's creation consistent with prior revelation.
iv. Edifying Power - The book carries the power of God to accomplish its goal in the heart and life of the reader.

In regard to II Tim 3:16, what differentiates Scripture from other writings is divine inspiration, and as such, Scripture carries the power of God to teach, to correct, to edify (build us up in righteousness). "
 
Historical errors in the Gospel Narratives #1

First to give a quick responce to Pararousia's quoted material above. The source material is again, a 'top to bottom' approach, in that it is done in the attempt to maintain a concept before checking the details at the lowest level and working upwards to see if that conception can be reached. The first part of the article quoted is correctness mixed with incorrectness through the insertion of some conclusion which one cannot actually get from the exact texts themselves. I don't intend to deal with those here and now, because of the lenght and detail required, but will in the future. The contextual definition for the term 'word of God' as used by the several first century Christian writers, never alludes itself to the specific act of writing a letter or a narrative?Abut to the general message, the 'gospel'. There is much yet to say on that commentator's presentation, but it will have to wait for now. I'm glad, again, to see that you are doing some good homework; keep it up !! Yet once again, would like to point out that author is apparently not really a biblical scholar--it shows in the style and embedded comments.


Historical Error in the Gospel Narratives #1

Scholarship and the religious scholars and commentators do agree that at least in the latter portion of the gospel accounts, chronological order is maintained--althouh I agree with some others that there is a basic attempt to do so throughout all the accounts, maintaining that understanding throws more monkey wrenches into the machine, as so some argue that the first portions had not been written with the intention to follow chornological order. For this reason, therefore, I will start in the later portion, of the traveling up to Jerusalem. I will use Luke as the base, since he claims accuracy and is closer to the events timewise.

Luke 18 (referring to the chapters)

31 (verse numbers) Introduces the trip up to Jerusalem. At 35 they are getting near Jericho, and a blind man is sitting beside the road. At 39 the man shouts out "Son of David, have mercy on me!" to which Jesus is said to have replied, at 41, "What do you (singular)want me to do for you (singular)?"

Matthew 20

17 Introduces the trip up to Jerusalem. At 29 they are going out of Jericho, and two blind men are sitting beside the road, 30, who cry out, "Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!" (31 repeats this) At 32 Jesus says, "What do you (plural) want me to do for you (plural)?"

Mark 10

32 Introduces the trip to Jerusalem. At 46 they go into Jericho and then go out of Jericho, where one Bartimaeus (the son of Timaeus), a blind beggar, is sitting on the side of the road. At 47 he says, "Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me!" (48 repeats this less the word 'Jesus') At 51 Jesus says, " What do you (sing.) want me to do for you (sing.)?"

Luke 18

41 has the blind man saying, "Lord, let me recover sight." to which Jesus said, "Recover your sight; your faith has made you well." afterwhich they proceed into Jericho in 19:1

Matthew 20

33 has the blind men saying, "Lord, let our eyes be opened." to which no reply is given, then they get close to Jerusalem.

Mark 10

At 51 has the blind man saying, "Rabboni (or teacher), let me recover sight." to which Jesus says, "go, your faith has made you well." (made you well, and saved you are the same words in Greek--the Greek text at Luke and Mark agree while Matthew's is different.)

At this point, it is clear that there is historical error in reporting in the following areas:

1. It has to be historically true that they were either going into Jericho when this event had occured, or going out of it. It is wrong to assume that Jericho has some 'C' shape design allowing both claims to be true, and it is illogical, based on the continuing context of Luke, to say they went into and out of, then back into Jericho again.

2. It has to be historically true that there had been either two men, using plural forms (it would be wrong to argue that the writer is not trying to record a historical event--what someone or number of people had said) or one man using singular form. Matthew keeps everything, including the quotes in plural to match the 'two men' presentation. If one tries to argue that there had actually been two men, but that only one had spoken, or that they both had spoken separately, and in singular, and the writer simply put them together for brevity's sake, there is still historical inaccuracy because the writer's claim to know what had been spoken, by using that direct speech style {remember there are examples of indirect speech in the narratives } is false--because those words are not true history.


In conclusion on this point:

No accusation of just being too detailed can debunk the fact that every detail makes the total of historical occurence. While it is true that the narratives cannot be read in exactly the same way a history textbook at school can--because of the intent to convey a moral or message through the reporting--it is equally true that the content of the gospel narratives had been given with the intent of giving the direct audience the idea of its contents having been real history. The above portion of the several writer's explicit intent to show what had happened at that one point in time--including who said what--makes it clear that at least one of the three, and in this case, Matthew's, report contains historical error, directly contradicting the others, except on the point of going out of Jericho rather than into it, as Luke tells us.

I will continue from here, all the way up to the resurrection account, in the following posts. I will then answer to the commentator's work, afterwards. Please bear with me on that.
 
Historical Errors in the Gospel Narratives #2

RECAP

At the opening of the story about going up to Jerusalem all the writers agree that on one day there had been an encounter with the blind. Matthew says there had been two men, the others claim there had been only one. While Luke and Mark mostly agree, in the Greek, on the quotes, there are some words in question--such as Luke's blind man's 'rabboni' and word order--Matthew greatly disagrees with them. Jesus' words do not agree completely between Luke and Mark, and though there is room for simply missing the whole possible statement, it is nevertheless a contradictory claim on behalf of one of the writers. Matthew, in this case, can clearly be said to be putting words in Jesus' mouth. Only Mark offers information on just who that was, while they said that the man/men joined the troupe.

Historical Errors in the Gospel Narratives #2

>Luke 19

28 has Jesus and his troupe going on towards Jerusalem from Jericho. 29 arriving at a place near Bethphage and Bethany--Mount of Olives 30 he sends two disciples into the village in sight

Mt 21

1 has them getting close to Jerusalem arriving at Bethphage on the Mount of Olives where Jesus sends two into the village in sight.

Mk 11

1 has them arriving, as the two above.


Jn 10,11,12

John's story is quite different from others which is why it is not included in the term 'synoptics'. We can follow the flow of events leading up the entrance into Jerusalelm as follows: 10:22,23--Jesus is in the temple in Jerusalem on a winter's day--all the leaves are brown... (sorry, couldn't resist) then at 10:40 he goes across the Jordan to where John had been baptizing. 11:7 they prepare to go to Lazarus' place in Bethany (vs.1) at 17 they arrive, and while not yet actually in the village, meet Martha, at 30. Then at 54 they went back into the wilderness to a city named Ephraim. vss. 55-57 prepare for 12:1, where six days before the passover, they again arrive in Bethany at Lazarus' house, and have dinner. At 12:12, the next day Jesus and the crowd following him go into Jerusalem.

Lk 19

30 has Jesus telling the two disciples to "go into the village over there and in which entering you will find a colt tied up which no man has ever sat on, and untying it lead it. 31 And if anyone questions'what for are you untying it?', say such: 'that the lord is in need of it'."

Mt 21

2 has Jesus telling them to "go into the village over there and at once you will find an ass tied up and her colt with her, and untying them lead them to me.3 And if anyone might say anything, say 'the lord is in need of them' then he will send them off."

Mk 11

2 has Jesus telling them to "Go into the village over there and at once going into it you will find a colt tied up which no man has yet sat on, untie it and bring it. 3 And if anyone might say to you 'what doing (2per. pl.) is this?' say 'the lord is in need of it and at once will send it back off here again.'"

(Jn has nothing on this)

Lk 19

36,37 has the troupe going into Jerusalem 38 has the crowd saying, "blessed is the one coming, the king, in the lord's name. (the HS had YHWH there in the quote they were supposed to have been using) In heaven peace and glory in highest places."

Mt 21

7 has the two disciples bringing two animals 8 has them starting down the road for Jerusalem 9 has the crowds saying, "Hosannah to the son of David. Blessed is the one coming in the name of the lord. Hosannah in the highest places."

Mk 11

7 has them bringing one animal to Jesus. 8,9 have them going towards Jerusalem with the crowd saying, "Hosannah. Blessed is one coming in the name of the lord. Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David. Hosannah in the highest places."

Jn 12

12,13 have them going towards Jerusalem and the crowds saying, "Hosannah. Blessed is the one coming in the name of the lord and king of Israel." 14 has Jesus then finding a young ass (a word based on the word 'onon' for ass, not colt 'polon' and the Hebrew has two different word assignments here too.)

Lk 19

41 has Jesus nearing Jerusalem, 45 entering the temple and doing his thing.

Mt 21

10 has Jesus entering the city, 12 entering the temple and doing his thing.

Mk 11

11 has Jesus entering the city and entering the temple and looking around and then leaving since it was late in the day. (throwing out the money changers had to wait until the next day--see vss12, 15-17)


(John skips all this)

At this point, it is clear that there is error in historical reporting in the following areas:

1. Jesus' request and wording, and the actions would have had to have been about either one animal or two, not both, so most likely Matthew has it wrong here again. It is possible that Matthew forced that to make it fit the LXX rendering of Zachariah 9:9 which blurs the Hebrew)

2. Luke and Mark mostly agree on what Jesus is to have said in his directions to the disciples, only some misses, while Matthew's is again quite off. Luke and Mark disagree most outstandingly on the ending of that quote as follows:

Lk--hote ho kyrios auto xrian ekhei.
Mk--Ho kyrios auto xreian ekhei kai euthys auton apostenlei palin hode.

3. John has finding the animal happening as an 'in-process' thing, but this could be allowed by a re-tacking idea. (but it could simply be a miss, just as well) However, John gives a very different report on the flow of location. The other reports, esp. Luke, give the strong impression that it was a straight flow of motion from Jericho up to Bethany, whereas John has them all there at Bethany from the night before, and that after having come from Ephraim. If one checks the geography, it will be clear that it would be a stretch to think they had gone from Ephraim to Jericho, then to Bethany, or the other way around. (meaning the others had gone from Jericho to Ephraim then down to Bethaney)

4. The various quotes from the crowds present no real problems since there could have been a number of voices or wordings. It would be most likely, however, that there would have been a somewhat formalized chant or slogan type thing going on, and in that case (and even otherwise) Mark's use of 'Eulogemene hi erkhomene basileia tou patros himon daheid is strangely worded--as far as I have seen, it doesn't fit any phrasal Hebrew patterns that one would have expected. BUT, this is no real, non-historical point here, only a doubt as to its truth value historically.

5. Mark clearly has Jesus entering the temple, looking around, then leaving because it was late--doing the throwing out the next day. Lk and Mt have him doing that upon arriving, and it is forcing the intention in telling the story to argue that it had been done twice.

In conclusion on this point

As had correctly been pointed out by the source material that Pararousia had diligently looked up, there are some differences in the quotes given in Greek that can easily have a single Aramaic word, and which in English need not be different, such as the command to 'go'--
Lk 30--'Ipagete' Mt 2--'Poreuesthe' both essentially mean 'go'. Yet there are places where words have obviously been put into Jesus' mouth--Mk 3 ending, Mt number wording, the use of 'at once', the use of 'entering'.

There is a bit of unsurety on when the writers of John understood the animal to have been brought into the picture, and that leaves their witness doubtful when compared to the others. Also that report sets events in locations that do not fit the flow of the other reports.

Therefore, while there is a degree of room for some generality on reporting the historical events, there are definitely a few historical errors, and doubts on other points made by the reporters.



Note: The English I'm giving here is my own, rather strictly adhereing to the Greek text of Wescott and Hort. I will mostly use this, but will cross reference with NTG (Aland/Nestle recension) for possible differences in what the autographs are thought to have had.
 
Historical Errors in the Gospel Narratives #3

RECAP

If we take one point of historical impossibility to be one count of historical error, and one point of doubtful validity as to a statement's being true history as being one count of historical doubt, we see that we have the following so far:
Jericho scene: number of blind men-1 count; Jeusus' words-1 count; direction of travel at that moment-1 count. 3 counts

Travel to Jerusalem: travel route and implied flow-1 count of historical doubt

Going into Jerusalem: number of animals-1 count; Jesus' words-2 counts. 3 counts

Temple scene: first day's history-1 count

So over four scenes, we have 7 counts of clear historical error, (two opposing claims to know what had happened and what had been said cannot both be true, so one must be in error) and one count of doubt--that is we cannot be sure of just if a claim is truly history or not.

Historical error in the Gospel Narratives #3

Luke 19:45 makes it very clear that Jesus and his disciples entered the temple upon having arrived in the city, and then starting to throw out the 'bad' people.
Mark 1:11,12 makes it quite clear that Jesus and his troupe went into the temple, looked around, then left as it had been late in the day. He then came back the next day and threw those 'bad' people out of it.

All three carry the 'throwing out' scene however, regardless of timing, and there is one count there too in the first part of the qoute--as follows:
>Lk 19:46
 "Gegraptai ( Kai estai ) ho oikos moe oikos proseuxis. . ."
(it) is written and is the house of mine (a) house (of) prayer.
Mt 21:13
"Gegraptai ho oikos moe oikos proseuxis klethesetai. . ."
(it) is written the house of mine (a) house (of)prayer will be called. . .
But Mark, though missing the opening words, copies the LXX closely at Isaiah 56:7 here-- and the following is from the LXX itself:
"ho gar oikos moe oikos prseuxis klethesetai pasin tois ethnesin. . ."
for (a) house of mine (a) house (of) prayer will be called to/for all peoples. . .
The Hebrew there is as follows:
"ki beythi beyth tephilah yikareh li khal ha-amiyam. . .
for (a) house of mine (a) house (of) prayer (be)calling to/for all the peoples

:note: This is to point out at the same time, that the syntax is not so different between Hebrew and Greek, so it doesn't really come into play when we are looking at quotes. The writers were claiming that Jesus had been quoting from Isaiah, which had already been written, so either he had known it verbatim or he had not. If what Isaiah had written was supposed to have been from the same source ("God") that the writers had claimed Jesus was to have come, then wouldn't it be reasonable that such a short phrase could have been spoken verbatim?

(Luke and John have nothing on the following scene, only Mt and Mk.)

>Mt 21:10-17 Tells of going into the city, entering the temple and spending some time, then going out to Bethany to stay night.

Mk11:11 Tells of going into the city, entering the temple, looking around, then going out to Bethany since it was late--not spending any time.

>Mt 21:18 Introduces returning to the city the early the next morning--made obvious by the context--and Jesus' getting hungry.

Mk 11:12 Says that the next day when they came out of Bethany, Jesus became hungry.

>Mt 21:19 Jesus sees a fig tree and going up to it finds no fruit, only leaves on it. He says to it:
"ou meketi ek sou karpos genetai eis ton aiona. "
Not no longer from you fruit may become to/into the ages (forever)
and the tree withers instantly--right then and there!

Mk 11:13.14 Jesus sees the tree and finds no fruit since it is not the season for fruit (go figure??why wouldn't that be known??) and says:
"Meketi eis ton aiona ek sou medeis karpon psagoi."
No longer to/into the ages from you nobody fruit may eat.
and the disciples were listening (vs14b)

>Mt 21:20 The disciples see the tree wither instantly and wonder, saying:
"Pos paraxphema ekseranthe hi syki ?"
How instantly withered the fig tree ? Jesus responds but notice the difference here, with that of Mark, to, of course fit the scenario given in this narrative. (Mk 11:22-25; vs 26 is considered spurious)

Mk 11:15 They enter Jerusalem, enter the temple and Jesus throws out the 'bad' people. The next day, on the way to the temple again, vss 19,20, Peter notices the tree and says:
"Rabbei ide hi syki hen kateraso ekserantai."
Teacher see the fig tree which(f)* you cursed has been withered.
And notice that the writer points out that he remembered it--as in from the day before to fit this overall context. Again, Jesus' reply is different from that given in Matthew.

In this scene, it can be seen that. . .
there is historical error in that if it had actually happened at all, it would have happened on the morning of the day that Jesus had thrown the 'bad' guys out of the temple, or on the morning after having done that: one count. The tree would have had to wither as per the context of Mt, or as of the context of Mk--only one can be correct history: one count. Mark's having this scene as occurring when one should have known that there would not be any fruit on the tree, leaves room for overall doubt as to the reality of this ever having happened: one count of doubt.
(And I'm not including the one count for Jesus' words at Mk 11:17 'has it not been written' vs the others 'it is written' and the count of doubt as to the writers' inability to recall whether his words had been Isaiah verbatim or not.)

In conclusion on this point
Here we are looking at basically one scene--that of the morning at the fig tree which supposedly got Jesus ticked off. Just how is it that anyone who should have had some degree of knowledge about when a fig tree should have fruit on it, have expected to find fruit on a fig tree? And why would its NOT having fruit on it when it wasn't supposed to have fruit on it, get any one pissed off like that? Just what WAS it that Jesus said? And, for the sake of argument, assuming this scene to be generally accurate historically, just how long did it take the tree to wither? WE CANNOT KNOW. And so with this scene, we have 2 counts of historical error and 1 count of doubt as being true history.

*And as one case in point (and there are a good number of others) in regards the point made in the material Pararousia had looked up, on gender of object pronouns, we might want to look at Mt 21:19 ( and I quote here from Today's English Version (ABS)) "He saw a fig tree by the side of the road and went to it, but..." All English renderings and translations I've seen word it in this manner, but the Greek, in literal rendering, is as follows there:
"kai edon sykin mian epi tes hodou elthen ep auten kai ouden. . . "
and having seen (a) fig tree on the way (he) went up to her and nothing. . .

So you see, it is not needed to translate this 'he went up to her' in English because we don't have feminine and masculine nouns with agreeing object pronouns and such. You could translate it 'her' if you wanted to because the Greek DOES mean her--but it's strange. That writer's presentation of that point in that topic of 'enerrancy' is non-relevant to that topic because it has no real bearing on how quotes are to be translated. I feel that the author was once again simply trying to add bulk to his presentation.
 
I wish all human languages would be perfect so that everyone can communicate 100% with no mistake or misunderstanding. Or is it the languages themselves having the limitation to do the task?

I think it is natural for anyone to make a mistake even in the writing of the scriptures since the language itself is not a perfect thing.

If I can trust on such and such Ph.D nobody, I think there is a chance for me to believe anything in the world. Who knows what this scholor said is true or not. Or who knows what other people say is really true or not. How can we know that first off? Should I believe in the scholor to believe what you wrote here?
 
Mars Man, I agree that there are minor errors in the books of the Bible. I think the greater error is in claims of inerrancy. There is no claim of inerrancy in the Bible. The doctrine of inerrancy was created by men, I think inappropriately.

Your recognition that Paul's letter to Timothy was talking about the Septuagint is also valid. In context, that is clear.

You may have also said, and I missed it, but I would like to add a couple more factors to consider in the wording of "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." The word translated "scripture" is graphe, and it means writings. It was a common word in Greek and referred to things like court documents at the time. And the Greek word "inspiration" does have roots in the word "God-breathed," but roots do not always define a word. "Breakfast" is not breaking a fast. If "inspired" simply means "prompted" and "scripture" means writings, then we removed the need to recognize "inerrancy" and "perfection" in the Bible.

Some have elevated the Bible nearly to the level of worship. That is unfortunate. When one studies the scriptures, as both you and I have, one does fine small errors. We should drop back and realize that God never claimed to give us a perfect book. Instead, the Bible is a set of writings by good men (maybe some women, since some books writers aren't known) who did not do a perfect job of recording a wonderful history.

That history is that God, the creator, sent Jesus Christ, the Messiah who was prophecied centuries before, as a sacrifice for our sins. Through the acceptance of His free gift of salvation and repenting for our sins, we can become children of God. With that decision to become a Christian, we decide to follow a life that reflects living the way God would have us live.

It would be unfortunate if these man-made doctrines of inerrancy and a doctrine of inspiration based on one or two verses (the important truths in the Bible are supported by much more than one or two verses) resulted in people not accepting the life of a Christian.
 
03cobra said:
Some have elevated the Bible nearly to the level of worship. That is unfortunate. When one studies the scriptures, as both you and I have, one does fine small errors. We should drop back and realize that God never claimed to give us a perfect book. Instead, the Bible is a set of writings by good men (maybe some women, since some books writers aren't known) who did not do a perfect job of recording a wonderful history.
Click to expand...
I agree on a lot of your points. Just to say that I wouldn't call all of the people 'Good' men or women. You could just as easily say that some of them were not very nice, especially the founding of the Jewish nation and how they went around killing everyone in their new homeland. They did a good job of recording early history, but with a highly biased view of the world and its people. Although it does give us insight into the Kingdoms of the middle east. I find it need to be put into context with other histories from that time. By picking through the various histories and records from more than one source we will eventually get a clearer picture of the time. The problem we get is that this did happen over 3000 years ago and victors write the history, which does make life difficult to find out the truth. As you pointed out inerrancy is a human creation and this causes problems when investigating the biblical past.

It would be unfortunate if these man-made doctrines of inerrancy and a doctrine of inspiration based on one or two verses (the important truths in the Bible are supported by much more than one or two verses) resulted in people not accepting the life of a Christian.
Click to expand...
It isn't inerrency that made me become a non-believer, it was the logic and the people shouting from various religions "we are right, you are wrong" and the sudden realisation that the universe is older than the Human race and this planet. When we have gone and the sun has faded to dust, the universe will carry on. It is the way of nature
 
I also believe that the universe is older than the human race and this planet. I don't know why that would be a reason not to believe.

It is also true that some shout "we are right, you are wrong." That's like the shouting a chili cookoff -- "With beans!" and the others shout "No beans." (Being English, that analogy may not work for you -- but it does work in the US.) That, too, is no reason not to believe. If the gospel can simply be dismissed because some people disagree with other people about it, then almost everything should be dismissed. Because it is a rare thing that is universally accepted.

If you are saying (this is a guess on my part), that the Bible should be dismissed because it claims the earth is only 6000 years old -- time to rethink. The Bible does not claim that. The creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are figurative (you could use the word poetic) stories that only give us some sense of God's interaction in our creation. This is clear if you compare the two versions. In Genesis 1, plants were created before man. In Genesis 2, man was created before plants. The poetic versions are not there as a scientific description.

The promise of God is a eternal life to those who accept his way of salvation.

The way of nature really shows God's power and interaction. The more I study nature the more I am amazed and see the hand of God. Flowers that are shaped like female wasps, to lure by male wasps for pollination. Wasps that can inject spiders with a chemical that rewrites their desires and makes them become incubation centers for the baby wasps. Nature shows the power of God.
 
I dismiss the Bible because it was created by man, just as the idea of God was, IMHO. I have mentioned this before elsewhere. God is an advanced abstract and only man can do that.
This would be better discussed on Christianlty: conceptions and misconceptions, as Mars Man really created this thread for Biblical texts rather than whether God exist or not. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

This thread has been viewed 6569 times.

Back
Top