Bible Fails

[McBell]

You always play that "you're an atheist- I'm a real Christian" card, don't you?

What makes it even more interesting is that he believes no one can possibly understand the Bible unless God gives them special permission to understand the Bible.

 

[3rdAngel]

But either proposed solution would stand on its own if the other was discredited? Thus it seems better to treat them as separate.

Why does both solutions need to be separated? They both fit perfectly together. It was the custom of the times to reference works to major prophets over minor. You were given other scruptural references to support this fact and it was something that the Rabinnic teachings did. Also the connections between Matthew; Jeremiah and Zechariah only support the resoning outlined above. Therefore IMO there is no need to separate out the two solutions. Both solutions only support the argument and make it stronger and strengthen it.

The first 'spoken' solution is that Jeremiah spoke the prophecy (something we have to accept without any evidence), and then Zechariah wrote it down (as if it was his, without attribution, and again something we have to accept without evidence), and that Matthew somehow knew of this turn of events (how?) and for some reason (he doesn't elucidate) confusingly attributes this prophecy to the one who originally said it, supposedly expecting his readers to infer all this from his use of the word 'spoke' even though this is the exact same word and fulfillment formula used by him in an earlier chapter to introduce an actual written quote by Jeremiah, and where we don't seem to have many (any?) other Matthean (NT?) cases of this occurring. This view doesn't have consensus amongst scholars, even evangelicals.

No you were shown that aspects of the prophecy is written in both Jeremiah and Zechariah and shown the correlations between both prophecies as they relate to Matthew. So your claims here are not true. Collectively though both Jeremiah and Zechariah outilne what is described in Matthew 27. Spoken is not written and written is not Spoken this is what the scripture say not me. So I do not see any issues here as the prominant prophet was the custom in referencing the scriptures of the day.

The second 'prominent prophet' solution also has issues: "Yet other interpreters are far from convinced with this approach. Morison describes Lightfoot’s view as “too evidently ingenious, and hyper-ingenious,—far-fetched.”42 Furthermore, both Toy and Ridderbos bring attention to the fact that “such a mode of citation is unexampled.”43 D. A. Carson calls this explanation a “highly improbable ‘solution’…[because] it is not at all certain that Jeremiah was first in Matthew’s day.”44 In other words, too much stock is given to Jewish documents written approximately 500 years after Matthew’s Gospel. And even if weight is given to the historical roots of this rabbinical literature, it should be noted that Jeremiah is not always listed first; in fact, Isaiah heads up the list twice as often.45 Michael Knowles further points out that “since the one other ascription of a formula quotation to ‘Jeremiah’ (in 2:17-18) is clearly to the canonical work of the prophet, a more general reference here seems highly improbable.”46 And lastly, if the mention of Jeremiah is truly equivalent to writing “in the prophets,” we should expect Jeremiah to be cited liberally throughout the whole of the New Testament when any passage from the prophets is quoted, which of course, is not the case.47" From 'Managing Over-Cites' Managing “Over-Cites”: Learning from Evangelical Treatments of Faulty New Testament Citations of the Old Testament | Bible.org I really find it difficult to accept that someone without a prior commitment to inerrency would favour either/both of these proposed solutions over the much simpler and direct explanation that figures as diverse as Augustine, Barclay and Ehrman accept, which is that Matthew just made a mistake.

All you have provided here is someone elses opinion. Showing that even the sholars do not agree among themselves. This is not an argument to what I have shared with you above IMO but you are free to believe as you wish.

 

[sooda]

What makes it even more interesting is that he believes no one can possibly understand the Bible unless God gives them special permission to understand the Bible.

That is funny.. Is that self righteous-one-upmanship?

 

[McBell]

3rd angel is a man?

I can only assume so based on this:

 

[sooda]

I can only assume so based on this:

View attachment 36534​

I'm surprised.

 

[McBell]

That is funny.. Is that self righteous-one-upmanship?

It appears as such.
Especially when you take into account his constant claiming that anyone who disagrees with him is not a Christian

 

[3rdAngel]

What atheist links?

The only quote/link I've given is to a paper written by a Christian Master of Theology student from Dalls seminary, which was highly praised by Dan Wallace, where all citations were from well respected evangelical scholars like Carson, put online at a Christian bible study site.

It seems you are equating 'atheist' with evangelical Christian scholars who don't agree with your proposed solution to a specific well known biblical problem. Which is ... Odd.

You provided two proposed solutions to the issue. All I have done is present the case why I don't find either proposal as plausible as the mistake theory, and used evangelical scholarly work to back up that case.

If you feel that that requires someone to self-identify as 'atheist', even though they believe in God, I am unsure as to how anyone can proceed here with a sensible discussion.

Shall we just agree to disagree?

Sorry I was referring more towards those your getting your information from. Augustine, Barclay and Ehrman, and your source. I am not a real fan as you can gather but all your source points out is that even the scholars do not agree among themselves. Nothing new. That does not mean what I have presented to you is not a solution to Matthew 27; Jeremiah and Zechariah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

3rd angel is a man?

He claims to be. Click on his icon. It says "male".

 

[Galateasdream]

@3rdAngel
I guess we see our exchange to date a little differently, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the difficulties involved with Internet forum exchanges.

From my perspective you proposed two solutions which you feel work synergistically together and which you provided support for. And I argued against them, explaining why I don't find them convincing in comparison to a much simpler mistake solution, referring to evangelical scholars along the way.

It seems you feel that my responses didn't adequately address your solutions. Which is entirely possible, yet from my side I think they do. We can just agree to disagree on this and let other readers judge for themselves.

If it isn't an impertinent question, could I ask you what evidence against biblical inerrency would you accept?

Given that there's a lot in the bible that doesn't cohere with modern understandings of science or history, stuff that doesn't seem to be externally evidenced, things that appear to many folk as evil or immoral or barbaric, stuff that appears contradictory, and stuff that appears obviously mistaken or misquoted, and yet all that can be explained or harmonised (however complexly or implausibly) from within an inerrantist paradigm, what exactly would it take for you to re-think your bibliology?

And, again if it's not rude, could I also ask you whether or not you apply this same standard to other religious texts like the Quran?

 

[sooda]

It appears as such.
Especially when you take into account his constant claiming that anyone who disagrees with him is not a Christian

Some Christians are like that.. bullies.

 

[sooda]

Sorry I was referring more towards those your getting your information from. Augustine, Barclay and Ehrman, and your source. I am not a real fan as you can gather but all your source points out is that even the scholars do not agree among themselves. Nothing new. That does not mean what I have presented to you is not a solution to Matthew 27; Jeremiah and Zechariah.

Dallas Theological Seminary is very evangelical, inerrant, fundamentalist.. Founded by Cyrus Scofield.

 

[Galateasdream]

Sorry I was referring more towards those your getting your information from. Augustine, Barclay and Ehrman, and your source. I am not a real fan as you can gather but all your source points out is that even the scholars do not agree among themselves. Nothing new. That does not mean what I have presented to you is not a solution to Matthew 27; Jeremiah and Zechariah.

Ehrman is agnostic, fair enough.

But you think that:
Augustine
Barclay
Wes Gristy

Are not Christians?

Also, I should, point out that the only sources I've used were from evangelical scholars - I merely refered to Ehrman, Augustine and Barclay as those who all accepted the mistake theory to highlight the diversity of thought amongst those who agree with me.

 

[McBell]

Some Christians are like that.. bullies.

Yes.
But fortunately (at least for me) the vast majority of theists I have come in contact with have not been.

 

[sooda]

Yes.
But fortunately (at least for me) the vast majority of theists I have come in contact with have not been.

Same for me.. Just lucky I guess.

 

[3rdAngel]

@3rdAngel
I guess we see our exchange to date a little differently, but I'm willing to chalk that up to the difficulties involved with Internet forum exchanges.

From my perspective you proposed two solutions which you feel work synergistically together and which you provided support for. And I argued against them, explaining why I don't find them convincing in comparison to a much simpler mistake solution, referring to evangelical scholars along the way.

It seems you feel that my responses didn't adequately address your solutions. Which is entirely possible, yet from my side I think they do. We can just agree to disagree on this and let other readers judge for themselves.

If it isn't an impertinent question, could I ask you what evidence against biblical inerrency would you accept?

Given that there's a lot in the bible that doesn't cohere with modern understandings of science or history, stuff that doesn't seem to be externally evidenced, things that appear to many folk as evil or immoral or barbaric, stuff that appears contradictory, and stuff that appears obviously mistaken or misquoted, and yet all that can be explained or harmonised (however complexly or implausibly) from within an inerrantist paradigm, what exactly would it take for you to re-think your bibliology?

And, again if it's not rude, could I also ask you whether or not you apply this same standard to other religious texts like the Quran?

To be honest here with you all I see is that your basing many of your arguments on athiesm and on the things of the world over the things of God. As a christian believing that the scriptures are the Word of God, I believe that we live by many things by faith (e.g. miracles, creation, resurrection) based on the testimony of the prophets. There is much evidence in the scriptures that it is the inspired word of God in the fulfillment of prophecy showing that it's origin is not from man but inspired by God.

On the other hand the athiest does not believe in God or has lack of believe in God or gods. Yet they cannot prove that there is no God so in a way they are also living by faith as they have no evidence for the non existence of God in their belief.

As to science? There are many things that science simply does not have the answers to in regards to the origins of life and creation. If we had the answers to all things science would cease to exist but even today we see many things in science that we thought were true in the past being proven untrue. So science is only as good as the next experiement. I am sure you already know that I do not believe the scriptures are inerrant. I have looked at many so called contradictions in the past and found everytime I have prayerfully looked at context I have found solutions to these so called errors that most unbelievers point to from athiest websites.

For example your best case that we just discussed in Matthew 27; Jeremiah and Zecahariah took some time for me but after comparing all the scriptures together, the writing customs of the day, similar writing styles in the other gospels, and the separations of the major and minor prophets by Rabinnic custom. I believe that the solutions I have provided to you are indeed plausible. There are two complimentary solutions here. That support what was presented to you and if you are honest with yourself you cannot tell me that they are not plausible solutions 100% now can you? Now if you cannot than you must agree that there is a possiblity that the answer that I have provided to you is correct.

I do not agree with your assumption that modern understanding of the bible proves that the scriptures are in error. I believe that some aspects of science does support the bible as does the historical records support the biblical records.

You also make claims of some of the barbaric things that have happened in the bible to which I agree but keep in mind that the bible is a record of things that mankind has done and it does not mean that is necessarily the will of God.

Quran? I believe in the scriptures of the bible. When I was younger I looked into many other types of religions. I only ever found peace in the biblical scriptures.

Now why would you as a "christian" want me to "rethink" my bibliology? As a "christian" I am not sure why you would even ask such a question but I will tell you....

It is in these scriptures that you deny that God found me and has given me a new life and freed me from a life of slavery to sin. It is in these scriptures that I found God's love and forgiveness for my sins. It is in these words that I have my hope. This is something that cannot be explained to those who only read these words to deny God and make excuses not to hear his voice. It is here I see God's love for sinful me and you where he gave up his life for us so that we can return to God who created us and who will return for all those who believe his Word and follow him. If you are "christian" you will hear his Words and follow him.

I believe he is coming soon. Wheather we believe his words or not it does not matter. Time will tell who is right and who is wrong. I am at peace in what I believe. The question we must all ask ourselves. Are you at peace in what you believe? You can say yes but God knows if what you say is true or not. I do not believe those who do not know God have peace.

Time will tell who is wrong and who is right. Do you have peace in what you believe and how you are living?

 

[Galateasdream]

your basing many of your arguments on atheism

None of my arguments is based on atheism. All have come from people who deeply and sincerely believed in God, and most from evangelical Christians who hold to biblical inerrency.

if you are honest with yourself you cannot tell me that they are not plausible solutions 100% now can you?

They are not plausible. They are possible, but not plausible. A simple mistake is also possible yet much more plausible.

Now why would you as a "christian" want me to "rethink" my bibliology?

For the greater glory of God; because truth matters; because believing a faulty bibliology will likely lead to a faulty idea of God, ethical mistakes, and unecessary suffering for yourself and others.

Are you at peace in what you believe?

Yes.

 

[sooda]

It appears as such.
Especially when you take into account his constant claiming that anyone who disagrees with him is not a Christian

Do you think he would agree with Trump's pastor Paula White? She says Jesus died to save us from financial hardship.

 

[sojourner]

Nonsense, but it is correct I do not judge you or anyone here. As posted in the post you are quoting from, it is the Word of God that is our Judge. Now if God's Word says we should do something and we do not do it or we do the opposite how do we know if we have done what God says? - Yep through what God says - this is the fruit being referred to in MATTHEW 7:15-26

Your posts really are their own little fantasy world, aren’t they?

 

[McBell]

Do you think he would agree with Trump's pastor Paula White? She says Jesus died to save us from financial hardship.

I have no idea.
You could ask him, but be prepared for all the judgement he claims he withholds...

 

[sojourner]

Not really. Someone professing to be Christian and not doing "christian" things is in deed shameful

And that is a judgment of someone on your part. You’ve been caught with your pants down, so to speak.