Honestly, I do not find this 'objection' to have any bearing on the gospel accounts veracity, anymore than the myriad of questions that result from text-critical studies of other ancient historical documents.
Do you hold ALL ancient historical documents to the same exacting standards?
Marc can answer for himself, but I'd like to know: why should he? Nobody claims that other such documents are divinely inspired and infallible. Nor do the documents themselves (far as I know) claim to be such (2 Tim 3:16), nor that they will be miraculously preserved (not one jot or tittle lost), nor that they are God's special instructions for all mankind to follow (and obey, or else).
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Marc can answer for himself, but I'd like to know: why should he? Nobody claims that other such documents are divinely inspired and infallible. Nor do the documents themselves (far as I know) claim to be such (2 Tim 3:16), nor that they will be miraculously preserved (not one jot or tittle lost), nor that they are God's special instructions for all mankind to follow (and obey, or else).
The jot and tittle is a Hebrew notation not a Greek notation.
so that may or may not apply to the Greek Texts.
and there is more than one view on the definition of scriptural preservation.
just because you have accepted some Christian definition of scriptural preservation does not necessarily means that every Christian defines scriptural preservation the same way.
__________________
**Original Matthew 28:19 Restored**
This will not destroy anyone's faith, and there are no doubt both simple and complex explanations somewhere online intended to preserve your belief that the bible is inerrant, inspired, infallible.
Mark 2:26 "How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread...
The account of same story in 1 Sam 21:1-2 indicates it was Ahimelech. (Abiathar's father.)
Oops, "Mark," you're only human.
PS. "Mark" in quotations because it's an anonymous gospel (and the earliest one of the four) believed written around 70 c.e., with "Gospel according to Mark" simply added by editors.
Mark 2:26
The house of God (τον οἰκον του θεου [ton oikon tou theou]). The tent or tabernacle at Nob, not the temple in Jerusalem built by Solomon. When Abiathar was high priest (ἐπι Ἀβιαθαρ ἀρχιερεως [epi Abiathar archiereōs]). Neat Greek idiom, in the time of Abiathar as high priest. There was confusion in the Massoretic text and in the LXX about the difference between Ahimelech (Abimelech) and Abiathar (II Sam. 8:17), Ahimelech’s son and successor (I Sam. 21:2; 22:20). Apparently Ahimelech, not Abiathar was high priest at this time. It is possible that both father and son bore both names (I Sam. 22:20; II Sam. 8:17; I Chron. 18:16), Abiathar mentioned though both involved. Ἐπι [Epi] may so mean in the passage about Abiathar. Or we may leave it unexplained.
Robertson's Word Pictures
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
The jot and tittle is a Hebrew notation not a Greek notation.
so that may or may not apply to the Greek Texts.
and there is more than one view on the definition of scriptural preservation.
just because you have accepted some Christian definition of scriptural preservation does not necessarily means that every Christian defines scriptural preservation the same way.
Of course! Why should this doctrine be different from all the others?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Of course! Why should this doctrine be different from all the others?
Here is a book which shows some of the different views.
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) published in 2013
In here five Doctors of Theology discuss their different views of Inerrancy.
It is an intellectual wrestling match, each trying to throw the others of the ring.
__________________
**Original Matthew 28:19 Restored**
Personally, I find it amusing when people claim the bible is not God's Word, or not true, because it has contradictions.
Such thinking assumes there is such a thing as logical propositions (statements of truth) which are necessarily true (such as 'a thing cannot both be, and not be, in the same way, at the same time', aka the Law of Non-contradiction).
But if that is in fact true, then that means there are non-physical realities. A proposition is a thought, not an material thing. And thoughts can only exist in minds.
If the Law of Non-contradiction is true, then it is a thought existing only in a mind. However, if no human ever knew about the Law of non-contradiction, though, it would still be true. Which means the law of non-contradiction is what may be called a 'neccessary thought', as opposed to a 'contingent thought'.
But a necessary thought can only exist in a necessary mind... because for a thought to be necessary, it must be and cannot but be. But since thoughts exist in minds, and if a certain thought MUST exist, then it follows a mind MUST exist as well.
A necessarily existing mind... hmmm... I believe that's the definition of 'God'.
Here is a book which shows some of the different views.
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) published in 2013
In here five Doctors of Theology discuss their different views of Inerrancy.
It is an intellectual wrestling match, each trying to throw the others of the ring.
Sounds exciting!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
The thread http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=44199 got me thinking. It seems that evangelical Christians, almost by definition, have work to do. Very important work. They are working for God! And that work is to bring the Good News to as many people as they can, as effectively as they can. They want results.
So now I'm wondering: does this make sense? Does it make sense that the number of people who end of up in heaven will be higher, the better job Christians do of getting the word out? If they had only worked a liiiiitle harder, here in this life, there could have been 1 more convert. A lot harder, and there could have been thousands more!
God's Word says the way is narrow, and few will find it. Is that how God wanted it to be, or is He just saying that his followers aren't doing a good job?
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Personally, I find it amusing when people claim the bible is not God's Word, or not true, because it has contradictions.
Such thinking assumes there is such a thing as logical propositions (statements of truth) which are necessarily true (such as 'a thing cannot both be, and not be, in the same way, at the same time', aka the Law of Non-contradiction).
But if that is in fact true, then that means there are non-physical realities. A proposition is a thought, not an material thing. And thoughts can only exist in minds.
If the Law of Non-contradiction is true, then it is a thought existing only in a mind. However, if no human ever knew about the Law of non-contradiction, though, it would still be true. Which means the law of non-contradiction is what may be called a 'neccessary thought', as opposed to a 'contingent thought'.
But a necessary thought can only exist in a necessary mind... because for a thought to be necessary, it must be and cannot but be. But since thoughts exist in minds, and if a certain thought MUST exist, then it follows a mind MUST exist as well.
A necessarily existing mind... hmmm... I believe that's the definition of 'God'.
lol
I notice the "lol" at the end. But how much seriousness is there in your post? I laugh at my own posts a LOT, but it doesn't mean I don't mean what I said.
So, are you actually amused by people who think God's word shouldn't have any contradictions? If so, I'm confused about your reasons (if what followed were reasons for said amusement. ) Not seeing the connection.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
I notice the "lol" at the end. But how much seriousness is there in your post? I laugh at my own posts a LOT, but it doesn't mean I don't mean what I said.
So, are you actually amused by people who think God's word shouldn't have any contradictions? If so, I'm confused about your reasons (if what followed were reasons for said amusement. ) Not seeing the connection.
I don't think God's word has any contradictions, and I don't think it should have.
I am amused at the fact that people claim the bible is not true because it has contradictions, yet their own judgement is based on a biblical worldview.
Read what I wrote, I explained it pretty simply.
It's all about one's presuppositions and worldview.
Linear Mode
