Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of $20 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Tom
Tom
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 3,316
Joined: April 2001
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,544
Posts50,743
Members921
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,307
Tom 3,316
chestnutmare 2,864
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,748
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 24
Pilgrim 18
Recent Posts
Christian Leaders Behaving Badly
by Anthony C.. Sun Dec 10, 2017 9:56 PM
Sexual harrassment fraud
by PerpetualLearner. Sat Dec 09, 2017 8:01 AM
Israel
by Pilgrim. Sat Dec 09, 2017 6:21 AM
Classical vs.Presuppositional Apologetics
by Pilgrim. Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:45 AM
Trying to understand the Confessions
by Tom. Sun Dec 03, 2017 4:29 PM
Question I read
by Tom. Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:04 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#50050 - Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:17 AM The Innerancy of Scripture  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,316
Tom Online content
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Online Content
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,316
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
I recently read an article by someone who believes in the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. Yet, he also says that it is not a doctrine that any of us should consider absolutely essential.
He basically wrote this article, because there are people who once considered themselves Christian and defended the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture vehemently. Yet after years of doing so, could not find sufficient answers for some of the critiques questions. This made them question the entire Christian faith, because if the doctrine of the inspiration is not true then all Scripture doctrine must be suspect.
The author of this article believes that the doctrine of inerrancy should never be considered so essential that it would cause them to walk away from the faith.
Yet, his reasoning doesn’t sit well with me. Just because someone may not know how to reconcile all Scripture; doesn’t mean that it is not reconcilable.
What are your thoughts?

This is a topic that I have run into quite a few times. A few years ago for instance while talking to someone who claims to be Emergent, rejects the doctrine of inerrancy because he believes there are errors in Scripture. Yet it doesn't mean a hill of beans to him; mainly because he thinks of the Bible was not written to be inerrant, but God telling certain people basically how mankind should live their lives.
The point in my mind for mentioning the last part concerning my experience with the person claiming to be Emergent, is similar to my thoughts on the first part of the post. I believe all Scripture as originally given, is inerrant and any discrepancies we can chalk up to things like "apparent contradictions". Which is not the same thing as “contradictions”.

Tom

Last edited by Tom; Sun Sep 15, 2013 12:37 AM.
#50285 - Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:51 AM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: Tom]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
rstrats Offline
Journeyman
rstrats  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
Missouri
Tom,

re: " I believe all Scripture as originally given, is inerrant and any discrepancies we can chalk up to things like 'apparent contradictions'."

And there are a number of "apparent contradictions". One for example has to do with Matthew 28:1-10 and John 20:1-2.

Matthew says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John says that when she came to the tomb and didn't find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn't know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn't.

How can this be reconciled?

Last edited by rstrats; Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:13 AM.
#50287 - Wed Dec 11, 2013 9:50 AM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: rstrats]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
NH, USA
Originally Posted By: rstrats
And there are a number of "apparent contradictions". One for example has to do with Matthew 28:1-10 and John 20:1-2.

Matthew says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

However, John says that when she came to the tomb and didn't find the Messiah there, that she ran to the disciples and told them that He had been taken away and that she didn't know where He was. In Matthew she knew where He was (or at least had been) and where He would be, but in John she didn't.

How can this be reconciled?

There is no reconciliation necessary. The problem is with your reading of the Matthew account:

Quote:
Matthew says that when Mary Magdalene went to the tomb that she was told by an angel that the Messiah had risen and would be seen in Galilee. Matthew then says that she ran "with great joy" to tell the disciples and while on the way that she met the Messiah (this occurred before she got to the disciples).

The actual text reads:

Quote:
Now after the sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to look at the tomb.

There were "2" Marys that came to the tomb along with several other women. Matthew's account relates that the angel spoke to "the women"[pl.] (v. 5) and later, in v. 8, "And they departed..." and again in v.9 "And as they went to tell his disciples...", again reporting on what all the women did.

In John's Gospel, the apostle specifically mentions Mary Magdalene and what she did only.

Thus, there is no contradiction or appearance of contradiction whatsoever.

The question I have for you is two-fold:

1. Why did you ask this question?
2. How would you answer your own question?


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#50302 - Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:08 AM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
rstrats Offline
Journeyman
rstrats  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
Missouri
Pilgrim,

re: "There is no reconciliation necessary. The problem is with your reading of the Matthew account:.... Matthew's account relates that the angel spoke to 'the women[pl.] (v. 5) and later, in v. 8, 'And they departed...' and again in v.9 'And as they went to tell his disciples..."

Are you suggesting that Mary M. was not with "the women" when the angel spoke to them, nor with them when they (the women) departed to tell his disciples, nor with them when they came upon the Messiah?


re: "Why did you ask this question?"

It was prompted by Tom's mention that any seeming scriptural discrepancies can be attributed to such things as "apparent contradictions". The Matthew/John narratives have always puzzeled me, and I thought that someone might have some explanation.



re: "How would you answer your own question?"

That I do not have a satisfactory answer to explain it.

#50303 - Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:28 AM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: rstrats]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
NH, USA
Originally Posted By: rstrats
Pilgrim,

re: "There is no reconciliation necessary. The problem is with your reading of the Matthew account:.... Matthew's account relates that the angel spoke to 'the women[pl.] (v. 5) and later, in v. 8, 'And they departed...' and again in v.9 'And as they went to tell his disciples..."

Are you suggesting that Mary M. was not with "the women" when the angel spoke to them, nor with them when they (the women) departed to tell his disciples, nor with them when they came upon the Messiah?

No! What I'm saying is just the opposite which I thought was clear. BOTH Mary (the mother of James and Joses (27:56,61) AND Mary Magdalene were present. In the gospel of John, the writer focused upon just Mary Magdalene. A cursory reading of the two gospel narratives might appear to be contradictory, but in fact they are complimentary. Scripture, being divinely inspired is inerrant and infallible, thus any "apparent contradiction" is just that apparent and the reason is due to the reader's inability to grasp the truth and not with the Scripture itself.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#50307 - Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:46 AM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
rstrats Offline
Journeyman
rstrats  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
Missouri
Pilgrim,

re: "No! What I'm saying is just the opposite which I thought was clear. BOTH Mary (the mother of James and Joses (27:56,61) AND Mary Magdalene were present."

So if Mary M. ran away with "great joy" after being told by the angel that the Messiah was alive and that He would be seen in Galilee, and met the Messiah on the way, why do you suppose John has her saying "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him"?

Last edited by rstrats; Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:52 AM.
#50308 - Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:12 AM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: rstrats]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
NH, USA
Originally Posted By: rstrats
So if Mary M. ran away with "great joy" after being told by the angel that the Messiah was alive and that He would be seen in Galilee, and met the Messiah on the way, why do you suppose John has her saying "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid Him"?

You are assuming, wrongly... that in Matthew's account it was Mary Magdalene. It was the other Mary and thus no 'contradiction' exists, except in your own mind due to the fact that you have assumed it was Mary Magdalene.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#50311 - Thu Dec 12, 2013 6:23 PM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
rstrats Offline
Journeyman
rstrats  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
Missouri
Pilgrim,

re: "You are assuming, wrongly... that in Matthew's account it was Mary Magdalene. It was the other Mary..."

In my post #50302 I asked if you were saying that Mary M. was not included in the "they" mentioned in Matthew 28:8. You replied in your post #50303 that you were actually saying just the opposite; that Mary M. was included. Matthew says in verses 8 and 9 that "they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them..." Are you now changing your mind about Mary M. being included in the word "they"?

#50313 - Thu Dec 12, 2013 7:32 PM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: rstrats]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
NH, USA
You still don't get it obviously!!

A number of the women went to the tomb. But Matthew only records that fact. John was inspired to focus upon only ONE of the Marys; Mary Magdalene. The 'other' Mary had a different experience than Mary Magdalene, which Matthew records. Thus, there is no contradiction whatsoever because the two authors wrote about two totally different people. Get it now? You are insisting that the two authors wrote about only Mary Magdalene's experience which is simply not the case.

Give it a little thought and maybe the will come on. grin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#50315 - Fri Dec 13, 2013 6:53 AM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
rstrats Offline
Journeyman
rstrats  Offline
Journeyman

Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 52
Missouri
Pilgrim,

re: "A number of the women went to the tomb. But Matthew only records that fact."

Actually, Matthew was only inspired to focus on two women - Mary M. and the other Mary.


re: "The 'other' Mary had a different experience than Mary Magdalene, which Matthew records."

So you HAVE changed your mind about Mary M. being included with the "they" that is mentioned in Matthew 28:8, You're now saying that Mary M. didn't hear the angel, and didn't depart with "great joy" and didn't meet the Messiah on the way to tell the disciples.

#50317 - Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:21 AM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: rstrats]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,307
NH, USA
Last attempt...

1) I have not 'changed my mind' whatsoever, but rather I have maintained that both Marys were mentioned in the Matthew account ALONG WITH several other women, which I clearly stated here:

Originally Posted By: Pilgrim
There were "2" Marys that came to the tomb along with several other women. Matthew's account relates that the angel spoke to "the women"[pl.] (v. 5) and later, in v. 8, "And they departed..." and again in v.9 "And as they went to tell his disciples...", again reporting on what all the women did.

In John's Gospel, the apostle specifically mentions Mary Magdalene and what she did only.

Iterating once again, Matthew's account records "the other Mary" and her experience along with the other women vs. John's account which specifically focuses upon Mary Magdalene.

This isn't rocket science for even a child can grasp the difference. I don't know what more can be said or really needs to be said. Either you simply don't have the propensity to grasp the differences between the two recorded accounts or you are just being argumentative. Which is it? shrug


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#50319 - Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:43 PM Re: The Innerancy of Scripture [Re: rstrats]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,316
Tom Online content
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Online Content
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,316
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
rstrats
What Pilgrim said is exactly correct. However, suppose there are errors in the Scriptures as they were originally given. By necessity it would mean that we could not trust the Bible. If you think I am exaggerating. Take at look at 2Tim. 3:16-17, if one studies the meaning of the passage, it leaves no room for error. Saying otherwise makes God out to be a liar.


Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 16 guests, and 107 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
drewk, patrice, Robert1962, Ron, billmcginnis
921 Registered Users
Shout Box
December
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
663,082 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.047s Queries: 15 (0.003s) Memory: 2.6489 MB (Peak: 2.9608 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-12-11 07:27:26 UTC