Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

What did God say when Jesus was baptized?

leonardlewis4
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 12:43:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again, I wanted to address some of dj21's concerns and respond to some of the voters/comments from the following debate:

http://www.debate.org...

@dj21: My hope is for you to review here and then we can pick up the discussion via PM... As always, Thanks!

@dj21,

One of your claims against the inerrancy of Scripture involved instances of supposed "irreconcilable discrepancies" across the four Gospels.

The first (very important) thing that I would ask you to consider is this: God inspired the compilation of the four Gospel accounts and ultimately preserved virtually everything we know about Jesus and His earthly ministry in the (narrative) form that we now have it. He simply did not provide this information in a way that might appeal to the skeptics" call for a mechanistic, robotic, word-for-word agreement across all four Gospels.

Rather, God purposed to use fallible human beings to receive and record His infallible Word with the intention that it would be preserved through the ages by mortal human beings so that it could ultimately be delivered correct and reliable to sinful human beings for their benefit and to His glory.

During the debate, I called attention to these things a couple different ways:

| I believe that the Bible is Divine, not merely human in Origin:
| - Every book was physically composed and written by men
| - The Bible was compiled and delivered to the world by men
| - The marks of human origin are firmly established on every page of every book

...and then:

| The Gospel accounts to which you refer provide a description of the same
| (or similar events) from varying perspectives and even (in some cases) slightly
| different timeframes around those events. None are irreconcilable. Moreover,
| the synoptic Gospels are much more chronological in structure where John is
| more kairological and structured thematically. If all four accounts provided the
| same perspective and structure, with exactly the same details, the cry would be
| "collusion"!

So it is evident within the Scriptures that God chose to communicate His truth in the context of particular circumstances and events in human history. To impose your own standards for how God "should have done it" is not only irrelevant to our discussion, it is antithetical to proper exegesis. If your intent concerning the text is honorable and you really want to understand the Word of God, why not allow the text to speak to you--in the way that it does--with the voice that it claims? I don't say that you abandon critical analysis... To the contrary, I would expect that proper exegesis would provide sufficient corpus for virtually endless analysis of all kinds--if you like that kind of thing.

Now, I want to address one of your questions:

| dj21: "What did God say when Jesus was baptized?"

You call into question the slightly different wording in the three synoptic Gospel accounts:

Matthew 3:17* (NASB)
"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Mark 1:11* (NASB)
"You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

Luke 3:22* (NASB)
"You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

Here is the Greek (transliterated to Latin letters)
Matthew 3:17* - outos estin o uios mou o agaphtos en w eudokhsa
Mark 1:11* - su ei o uios mou o agaphtos en w eudokhsa
Luke 3:22* - su ei o uios mou o agaphtos en soi eudokhsa

Here is the literal translation, Greek to English
Matthew 3:17* - this is the son of-Me the beloved in whom I-delight
Mark 1:11* - You are the son of-Me the beloved in whom I-delight
Luke 3:22* - You are the son of-Me the beloved in You I-delight

You will notice that the difference among the Gospel accounts is effectively three words:

Mark and Luke: "this is"
vs
Matthew: "You are"

..and:

Matthew and Mark: "whom"
vs
Luke: "You"

First, I would contend that Matthew simply used a different mode of expressing what "the voice out of the heavens said". It was apparently his intent to express the public nature of God's testimony concerning His Son--with an emphasis on the importance (or relevance) of the testimony for the benefit of the hearers. After all, God's intent was obviously to glorify His Son in the presence of multiple witnesses--and certainly, Jesus was already well aware of His Divine Son-ship.

The accounts from Mark and Luke use virtually the same words--and are often translated the same--but even here, they differ by one word in the Greek. Even so, the mode of expression is virtually the same... In both of these accounts, the emphasis is more on the intimate personal relationship between Jesus and the Father.

Virtually all scholars agree that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke were "retellings" of Mark"s Gospel (almost certainly sourcing it) for different purposes, with different points of emphasis and tailored for different communities of believers... Considering this, and the fact that about 93% of the material in Mark is covered by Matthew and Luke, it is a virtual certainty that the different mode of expression in Matthew was absolutely intentional in accordance with his unique perspective.

From what I gather, it seems you've decided that all three accounts should provide a verbatim, word-for-word record of what God said (assumedly in Greek???). I don't know how you warrant that standard, but I'll assume you were actually serious about this and continue...

Considering the miracle of God invading space-time and "speaking" with a "voice out of the heavens" in a way that people could actually "hear" Him and understand Him, the first questions that come to mind are:

What language did He speak in? Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek? Tongues of Angels?

Did He necessarily cause sound waves to strike the eardrums of the hearers, or was a "voice out of the heavens" just a good approximation to describe what it's like to "hear" God's voice in your head (loud-and-clear)? When God speaks in that way, must He use actual audible words (units of spoken language) or can He "speak" directly to the human mind with very clear and distinct, supremely accurate bits of information/meaning such that the "hearer" could then express the same with actual words in a variety of forms without detracting from what God has "spoken"?

Considering all of this, what is more important--the actual words used or the distinct, context-bound bits of information/ideas/concepts/truths that the words express? Personally, I think it is important to remember that words are not generally univocal... Rather, they are equivocal and meaning is heavily dependent on context.

Q: "What did God say when Jesus was baptized?"
A: We can know by reading any (or all three) of the following in virtually any reliable translation (some of which are dynamic equivalence):
Matthew 3:17
Mark 1:11
Luke 3:22

They all three "say" the same thing.

Your example simply does not constitute error in any sense.

Thanks again, dj21... Let's discuss via PM.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 4:31:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The meaning of the statements are equivalent. One need only compare the accounts of the so-called "Great" Commission as an example:

"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world." (Matt)

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." (Mark)

"Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name unto all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are witnesses of these things." (Luke)

It's also in John - but I can't remember exactly where

No one of the accounts is complete, but taken together, one has an excellent idea of what the Commission is, what it involves, what it means, and where it first went into action.

It seems to me that the entire line of argumentation is but a quibble.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 10:49:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 12:43:49 AM, leonardlewis4 wrote:
Again, I wanted to address some of dj21's concerns and respond to some of the voters/comments from the following debate:

http://www.debate.org...

@dj21: My hope is for you to review here and then we can pick up the discussion via PM... As always, Thanks!

@dj21,

One of your claims against the inerrancy of Scripture involved instances of supposed "irreconcilable discrepancies" across the four Gospels.


Q: "What did God say when Jesus was baptized?"
A: We can know by reading any (or all three) of the following in virtually any reliable translation (some of which are dynamic equivalence):
Matthew 3:17
Mark 1:11
Luke 3:22

They all three "say" the same thing.

Your example simply does not constitute error in any sense.

Thanks again, dj21... Let's discuss via PM.

The Roman religious leaders added these lies about the baptism of Jesus. Jesus would have been baptized in water at an early age like all Jews were in those days because it was a common practice of their's to try wash their sins away. They tried washing their sins away because they could not obey the commandments of God that was given to them in written form by the prophet Moses.

So water baptism became a ritual of the Jewish people who were trying to purify themselves and it doesn't work like that. Only God can purify His chosen saints starting with His first saint ( the first saint that Christians believe is Jesus, their false god ). There were thousands of purified saints who came after the first saint who became totally obedient to the commandments of God.

We saints don't need to be baptized in water or baptize other sinners in water because we know it is a false practice started by sinful Jews who were trying to purify themselves.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:14:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
borno: "The Roman religious leaders added these lies ... "

Anna: I've asked you which Roman religious leaders did all this. You consistently fail to name them.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:23:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:14:33 AM, annanicole wrote:
borno: "The Roman religious leaders added these lies ... "

Anna: I've asked you which Roman religious leaders did all this. You consistently fail to name them.

This comment of yours came from your flesh that keeps you from the knowledge of God. This means your flesh lies to you and keeps you from hearing the Truth in God's Word.

Go read the prophecies that I have showed you and try deny them.
dj21
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 12:25:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 4:31:40 AM, annanicole wrote:

It seems to me that the entire line of argumentation is but a quibble.

If the question were the general "reliability" of the Bible, as thg called it in the other forum, then I would not disagree. But that is not the same as complete accuracy - and since we are debating inerrancy, there is no room for artistic liscense within quotation marks of a document that claims to be historical. If the authors were paraphrasing, then there would be more leeway, but in the English language, quotation marks do not indicate the author's own words, they indicate that the words therein are exact representations of what was spoken.

If we start to say that in the Bible quotation marks don't indicate exact representation of the spoken word, then everything Jesus is purported to have said in quotes is thrown into doubt. It can't be both ways. Quotes can't both be used to indicate that Jesus did indeed speak certain words and then ignored in other instances where they present problems of consistency. Where sayings are quoted differently it simply means that at one of the authors is wrong. It doesn't render the saying meaningless, but it does mean that all of the accounts cannot be simultaneously inerrant.

Also, in this particular case, the difference in description is material. The difference between God addressing Jesus and God addressing the witnesses is material and relevant. It is particularly appropriate and fitting that the author of Matthew would have God's voice address the audience. More than any other synoptic gospel account, Matthew was focused on presenting Jesus as the Messiah to the Jewish people. The overwhelming majority of Old Testament prophecy references are in Matthew. One can make a good case that his entire account is an effort to convince the Jews that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. So, it is quite fitting, that God addresses the crowd - to whom the author is writing - in the baptism account.
dj21
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 1:09:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 leonardlewis4 wrote:

God purposed to use fallible humans ... with the intention that it would be preserved through the ages by mortal human beings so that it could ultimately be delivered correct and reliable to sinful humanity for their benefit and to His glory.


Why entrust it to humans and leave it subject to error? Given the variety of religions followed by humans earnestly seeking truth, and given the variety of Christian denomentions with dramatically different interpretations - each earnest, and each convinced it is "correct" in its own mind, it seems to me that either a) it was a work of man (as Floid has said), b) God was incapable of providing clear direction, or c) God did not intend to be understood broadly (as bornofgod has said, and some Calvinist views would assert, a scenario in which are just actors in God's movie, deviod of meaning).

If all four accounts provided the same perspective and structure, with exactly the same details, the cry would be "collusion"!

Yes. You get to choose between a higher risk of collusion or proof of error (at least in details).

If your intent concerning the text is honorable and you really want to understand the Word of God, why not allow the text to speak to you--in the way that it does--with the voice that it claims?

My point exactly. That is why the quotes matter. I am trusting the text means what it says, and that the quotations marks are there to indicate the same thing as they mean any other time they are used.

I don't say that you abandon critical analysis...

If you are suggesting we change the definition of what quotation marks indicate in written language, then maybe you are.


First, I would contend that Matthew simply used a different mode of expressing what "the voice out of the heavens said".

Sure. Artistic lisence. Very useful in works of historical fiction, and very useful for provided a broad impression (I very much agree with you about Matthew's goal) but less desirable in works that aspire to historical accuracy.


Virtually all scholars agree that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke were "retellings" of Mark"s Gospel (almost certainly sourcing it) for different purposes, with different points of emphasis and tailored for different communities of believers...

My point exactly. This is good for the "reliable" argument, bad for the "inerrant" argument. They are not necessarly the same thing and, as in the matter discussed above (separate 'independant accounts'), they are mutually exclusive in some ways.

What language did He speak in? Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek? Tongues of Angels?

If the report has any veracity, it was whatever was spoken by the people in that place at that time. Aramaic is the most common answer.

Did He necessarily cause sound waves to strike the eardrums of the hearers, or was a "voice out of the heavens" just a good approximation to describe what it's like to "hear" God's voice in your head (loud-and-clear)? When God speaks in that way, must He use actual audible words (units of spoken language) or can He "speak" directly to the human mind with very clear and distinct, supremely accurate bits of information/meaning such that the "hearer" could then express the same with actual words in a variety of forms without detracting from what God has "spoken"?

If the account is mean anything historical, yes across the board.

Considering all of this, what is more important--the actual words used or the distinct, context-bound bits of information/ideas/concepts/truths that the words express?

When quotes are used by the reporter, the exact words. Any else is unethical journalism. Nobody like being misquoted. God included.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 1:13:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 1:09:46 PM, dj21 wrote:
At 8/24/2013 leonardlewis4 wrote:

God purposed to use fallible humans ... with the intention that it would be preserved through the ages by mortal human beings so that it could ultimately be delivered correct and reliable to sinful humanity for their benefit and to His glory.


Why entrust it to humans and leave it subject to error? Given the variety of religions followed by humans earnestly seeking truth, and given the variety of Christian denomentions with dramatically different interpretations - each earnest, and each convinced it is "correct" in its own mind, it seems to me that either a) it was a work of man (as Floid has said), b) God was incapable of providing clear direction, or c) God did not intend to be understood broadly (as bornofgod has said, and some Calvinist views would assert, a scenario in which are just actors in God's movie, deviod of meaning).




If all four accounts provided the same perspective and structure, with exactly the same details, the cry would be "collusion"!

Yes. You get to choose between a higher risk of collusion or proof of error (at least in details).


If your intent concerning the text is honorable and you really want to understand the Word of God, why not allow the text to speak to you--in the way that it does--with the voice that it claims?

My point exactly. That is why the quotes matter. I am trusting the text means what it says, and that the quotations marks are there to indicate the same thing as they mean any other time they are used.


I don't say that you abandon critical analysis...

If you are suggesting we change the definition of what quotation marks indicate in written language, then maybe you are.




First, I would contend that Matthew simply used a different mode of expressing what "the voice out of the heavens said".

Sure. Artistic lisence. Very useful in works of historical fiction, and very useful for provided a broad impression (I very much agree with you about Matthew's goal) but less desirable in works that aspire to historical accuracy.



Virtually all scholars agree that Mark was written first and Matthew and Luke were "retellings" of Mark"s Gospel (almost certainly sourcing it) for different purposes, with different points of emphasis and tailored for different communities of believers...

My point exactly. This is good for the "reliable" argument, bad for the "inerrant" argument. They are not necessarly the same thing and, as in the matter discussed above (separate 'independant accounts'), they are mutually exclusive in some ways.



What language did He speak in? Aramaic? Hebrew? Greek? Tongues of Angels?

If the report has any veracity, it was whatever was spoken by the people in that place at that time. Aramaic is the most common answer.


Did He necessarily cause sound waves to strike the eardrums of the hearers, or was a "voice out of the heavens" just a good approximation to describe what it's like to "hear" God's voice in your head (loud-and-clear)? When God speaks in that way, must He use actual audible words (units of spoken language) or can He "speak" directly to the human mind with very clear and distinct, supremely accurate bits of information/meaning such that the "hearer" could then express the same with actual words in a variety of forms without detracting from what God has "spoken"?

If the account is mean anything historical, yes across the board.


Considering all of this, what is more important--the actual words used or the distinct, context-bound bits of information/ideas/concepts/truths that the words express?

When quotes are used by the reporter, the exact words. Any else is unethical journalism. Nobody like being misquoted. God included.

Why keep on arguing about something you don't understand and read my posts in here about water baptism as a ritual by the Jews who tried to wash away their sins and purify themselves. Water baptism is false.
leonardlewis4
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 3:12:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 1:09:46 PM, dj21 wrote:
At 8/24/2013 leonardlewis4 wrote:

God purposed to use fallible humans ...


Why entrust it to humans ... subject to error? ... either a) it was a work of man b) God was incapable of providing clear direction, or c) God did not intend to be understood broadly , and as some Calvinist views would assert,...we are just actors in God's movie...


You can question God's methods, but doing so ignores what the Bible tells us in that regard... When considering internal consistency, it is a useless waste of time to ask questions of the Scripture if you aren't even willing to accept the possibility (for the sake of discovery) that it is what it says it is.

Why is it a problem that God purposed to deliver His Word in that way? We could ask the same question of Christ (as you have before)... Why did God need to become a man? Why doesn't he wave a magic wand?

To me, those questions point to an interesting parallel--which offers an answer to your question as to the dual nature of the Bible. The Bible (the written Word) is Divine and human in origin (a dual nature). Jesus (the living Word) is also Divine and human (a dual nature)... Fully God and fully man... The Son of God, and the Son of Man. The written Word points to the living Word.

Your "either a), b), or c)" assertion is not at all sound (on a few different levels):
- unstated, false premise (that inerrant means verbatim agreement)
- false choice (a, b, or c only)
- premise for argument against Calvinist views is also false
- Calvinist view is misrepresented (straw man)


If all four accounts provided the same perspective and structure, with exactly the same details, the cry would be "collusion"!

Yes. You get to choose between a higher risk of collusion or proof of error (at least in details).


You still impose an arbitrary standard for what you consider error... AND your reasoning begs the question! If God did not intend to provide word-for-word agreement across all four Gospels, and He wanted varying perspectives on the same truth, then calling it "error" is absurd. With this fallacious line of reasoning, you are saying that God MUST not do what the Bible itself says He intended to do concerning Scripture.

If God intended to use imperfect people to deliver perfect truth, you can't make a rational argument that He didn't deliver perfect truth because He used imperfect people.

If God intended to communicate perfect truth from different perspectives, you can't make a rational argument that He didn't accomplish it because the Bible has different perspectives.

Your arguments are not sound.


If your intent concerning the text is honorable ..., why not allow the text to speak...with the voice that it claims?

My point exactly. That is why the quotes matter. I am trusting the text means what it says, and that the quotations marks are there to indicate the same thing as they mean any other time they are used.


You do realize that there are no quotes or punctuation in the Greek, right? Similar to the helpful nature of chapter/verse indexing, the quotes (and other punctuation) are "helps" to facilitate natural reading in modern translations. In fact, different translations often position quotes differently... If you read John 3 (the account of Jesus and Nicodemus), it is not altogether clear where Jesus stops talking and John begins again. Is John 3:16 a declaration of truth from John, or is it John quoting Jesus, continuing His discussion with Nicodemus? I don't know... But that is not a problem if you understand that the primary concern of the text is the truth concerning the new (spiritual) birth and the Kingdom of God--not whether John is communicating a truth or whether he is quoting Jesus communicating it.

That modern translations use punctuation has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the Bible is inerrant.


I don't say that you abandon critical analysis...

If you are suggesting we change the definition of what quotation marks indicate in written language, then maybe you are.


Again, you err... There are no quotation marks or other punctuation in the manuscripts.




First, I would contend that Matthew simply used a different mode of expressing what "the voice out of the heavens said".

Sure. Artistic lisence. Very useful in works of historical fiction, and very useful for provided a broad impression (I very much agree with you about Matthew's goal) but less desirable in works that aspire to historical accuracy.


Now you're equivocating... One can be historically accurate without providing a verbatim quote, ESPECIALLY if it was God's intention that Matthew provide that very Jewish perspective in accordance with his very Jewish emphasis throughout the Gospel account. I can assure you that Matthew did not pen quotation marks. The only one requiring a verbatim quote is dj21! I'm sorry, but you don't get to make up the hermeneutics... The Bible provides for that if you care to discover it. Moreover, if God did grant some degree of license constrained within the boundaries of truth (the human part of the dual nature of Scripture), how does that constitute error?

Will you now cry "error" because the Bible is not exclusively Divine in origin?



Virtually all scholars agree that Mark was written first...

My point exactly. This is good for the "reliable" argument, bad for the "inerrant" argument. They are not necessarly the same thing and, as in the matter discussed above (separate 'independant accounts'), they are mutually exclusive in some ways.


Are you saying that because Matthew and Luke were intimately familiar with the Gospel of Mark (or that they used it as a source), that calls into question whether their accounts were inspired? If so, again... Nice try, but you don't get to impose your standards on the text and cry "error". You can certainly hold that opinion, but that's a far cry from disproving inerrancy.

In fact, that's really all you've been able to do so far... You issue an opinion that the text "ought" to have certain qualities or that it "must" provide some level of satisfactory compliance with your arbitrary standards; but in doing so, you completely ignore what the Bible claims about itself.


What language did He speak in? Aramaic? ...

If the report has any veracity, it was whatever was spoken by the people in that place at that time. Aramaic is the most common answer.


Why should that be so? Again with the arbitrary rules!


Did He necessarily cause sound waves to strike the eardrums of the hearers, or was a "voice out of the heavens" just a good approximation to describe what it's like to "hear" God's voice in your head (loud-and-clear)? When God speaks in that way, must He use actual audible words (units of spoken language) or can He "speak" directly to the human mind with very clear and distinct, supremely accurate bits of information/meaning such that the "hearer" could then express the same with actual words in a variety of forms without detracting from what God has "spoken"?

If the account is mean anything historical, yes across the board.


Same question here... Why must that be so? More arbitrary rules!


Considering all of this, what is more important--the actual words used or the distinct, context-bound bits of information/ideas/concepts/truths that the words express?

When quotes are used by the reporter, the exact words. Any else is unethical journalism. Nobody like being misquoted. God included.

I'm sure... But again, you impose an arbitrary rule, declaring "error" even if God allowed or even required Matthew's distinct form.

The Bible was written using languages with no convention for indicating quotations. Your quote-based argument fails.
dj21
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 4:00:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 3:12:37 PM, leonardlewis4 wrote:

You still impose an arbitrary standard for what you consider error..

Sure, and you impose an arbitrary standard for what you consider truth. I will not bother debating this anymore. It is a pointless exercise. Greek punctuaion is a straw man. Because there is no Greek punctuation, does that mean everything Jesus is quoted as saying is a rough paraphrase? When he says "Love the Lord your God with all your heart," might he have actually said 'Love God with all your stomach," cause you know, it's juat a paraphrase and it could mean anything really.

This has gotten silly.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 4:16:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: It seems to me that the entire line of argumentation is but a quibble.

dj: If the question were the general "reliability" of the Bible, as thg called it in the other forum, then I would not disagree. But that is not the same as complete accuracy - and since we are debating inerrancy, there is no room for artistic liscense within quotation marks of a document that claims to be historical. If the authors were paraphrasing, then there would be more leeway, but in the English language, quotation marks do not indicate the author's own words, they indicate that the words therein are exact representations of what was spoken.

Anna: Perhaps that is why the word "saying" ... legousa from the verb lego ... is not present in Mark's account.

"And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased." (Mark 1: 11, ASV)

If it were present, it simply means "to affirm, to maintain, to speak."

There are no quotation marks, of course, in the Greek. I would surmise, based upon looking at all three accounts, that the Father actually said, "Thou are my beloved Son" - if someone insists on using quotation marks.

Matthew's account would thus read, "and lo, a voice out of the heavens, affirming, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The Father affirmed the Sonship and His pleasure with Jesus, and He did so directly to Jesus. In so doing, He secondarily affirmed it to everyone else.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
thg
Posts: 520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 5:19:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
dj21: I know this is frustrating and seems silly, but please don't give up. You and leonardlewis4 are discussing a fine point of biblical interpretation and church tradition. It appears you both agree that there ARE discrepancies and ambiguities in the Bible. The difference is how you interpret those ambiguities.

I side with you that "inerrancy" is a misleading term...but only because it fosters straw man controversy. What I tire of (and, I believe leonardlewis4 does also) are those who dismiss the Bible because of so-called "discrepancies"...and when I try to explain that the discrepancies need not detract from the Bible's message, I often get, "Oh, right...now you're playing the "metaphor" or "culturally bound" card." What I believe L is saying is that people often come to the Bible with an accusatory stance that is just as prejudiced as many of the views they are criticizing. So I agree with his effort to show that they need to look in the mirror and realize they are likely not using sound logic, but are simply trying to find any way they can to debunk the Bible (as evidenced by so many straw man arguments).

My point is that the term "inerrancy", as I hear L using it, sounds a lot like my view of "reliability". But I'm not so sure that L's and my (and your? and Annanicole's) views are much different. Perhaps L would be willing to concede that his use of "inerrancy" is just as metaphorical and approximate as some of the metaphors he believes are included in the Bible. We may vary in degrees and on details, but I believe L might be able to live with allowing that his term (inerrancy) is itself somewhat of a legalistic and unnecessary expression of ultimate trust in the Bible as our main canon for channeling God's word in written form.

The fact is that most people who are dead set against debunking "inerrancy" are also dead set against my term "reliable" (apparently, neither you, Annanicole, nor I fall into that group). If L could see his way to changing from "inerrancy" to "reliable"...and realize that this is NOT a concession of his faith-stance...THEN we'd be able to get on to more pertinent issues and would be able to expose more of those anti-Bible straw man arguments.

Not sure if L is willing to drop the term completely, but maybe, for the sake of our discussion, he might be willing to allow that my use of "reliable" really is not that different from his use of "infallible". Once we adopt "reliable", the question of biblical authority and power mostly comes down to a matter of degrees...do I trust the Bible as much as you do, and why?
leonardlewis4
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2013 11:46:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 4:00:16 PM, dj21 wrote:
At 8/24/2013 3:12:37 PM, leonardlewis4 wrote:

You still impose an arbitrary standard for what you consider error..

Sure, and you impose an arbitrary standard for what you consider truth. I will not bother debating this anymore. It is a pointless exercise.

I'll consider this as a frustrated concession or forfeiture of the point... But I do want to clarify a few things in hopes for opportunities to debate or discuss issues in the future:

I use a very common and well established set of objective standards and rules for reading the Bible and determining truth. There is nothing arbitrary about it. The effort involves discovery, logical analysis, sound reasoning, etc... More specifically:

- I consider the dual nature of Scripture: The Word of God given in human words in historical context.
- I consider the historical particularity of the text, including: language, time, culture, and (if relevant) oral tradition.
- I consider the modes of communication from the wide range of genres God chose to use to deliver His Word to us, including: narrative history, genealogy, law, chronicle, poetry, proverb, riddle, drama, prophetic, biographical, parable, letter/epistle, apocalyptic
- I try to determine the historical relevance (always applicable) and the eternal relevance (if applicable)
- I try to do proper exegesis: This involves careful discovery of the originally intended meaning by bringing together the considerations above: Historical context, literary context, questions of content/meaning
- I also try to apply a proper hermeneutic, primarily, to determine the contemporary relevance (if any) in view of the historical relevance and applicable eternal relevance.

We all do some of this to some degree (mostly, without really thinking about it)... But we can also do it intentionally, and with discipline. Working within a rational framework with rational, objective hermeneutics is hardly arbitrary.


Greek punctuaion is a straw man.


I agree that it is pointless to debate the effect of quotation marks when they don't exist in the ancient manuscripts and there was no convention for it in the ancient manuscript languages. However, it is not a "straw man"... It is fact.


Because there is no Greek punctuation, does that mean everything Jesus is quoted as saying is a rough paraphrase?

Of course not... Not necessarily. The implication of that question is fallacious (a false dichotomy). This is yet another example of imposing arbitrary rules. You are now effectively giving us a false choice between (a) everything must either be verbatim quotes or (b) everything must be paraphrastic. As if there are no other choices or mix of choices and nothing to moderate your extremes.


When he says "Love the Lord your God with all your heart," might he have actually said 'Love God with all your stomach," cause you know, it's juat a paraphrase and it could mean anything really.

Now your argument has fallen into absolute absurdity:

First, your ridiculous example implies the false premise that meaning cannot be maintained by use of paraphrase.

Paraphrase - a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form
Merriam-Webster, http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Second, you create a straw man example "paraphrase" that corrupts a quote without maintaining the meaning in another form. But that is not what a paraphrase does.


This has gotten silly.

I agree.
dj21
Posts: 38
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 12:15:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 11:46:53 PM, leonardlewis4 wrote:

I'll consider this as a frustrated concession or forfeiture of the point...

There is no concession on fact. I believe you are entirely wrong, and blind to your own biases. It's okay, we all are.

It is not worth any more of my time addressing your contention that a=b, that two different quotes are actually the same quote. I would suggest you steer clear of journalism school. But plotics might make a very comfortable home.
leonardlewis4
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 1:50:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 12:15:48 AM, dj21 wrote:
At 8/24/2013 11:46:53 PM, leonardlewis4 wrote:

I'll consider this as a frustrated concession or forfeiture of the point...

There is no concession on fact.


I understand you would never concede on fact. How could you? According to your agnostic views (to the degree that you are consistent), you can't know anything and I can't know anything... So how can you know when you have been proven wrong?

On other points, you have conceded plausibility... Is that the best one can expect from a consistent agnostic?


I believe you are entirely wrong, and blind to your own biases. It's okay, we all are.

I find it odd that you can actually "believe" that I am "entirely wrong"... That's a rather absolute statement coming from a man who claims to be an agnostic. You admit that you are blind (and can't know anything), but somehow, you can see with perfect clarity that I am "entirely wrong".


It is not worth any more of my time addressing your contention that a=b, that two different quotes are actually the same quote.

I agree, that would be a waste of time... But again, you misrepresent my position. I don't contend that a=b (as you keep repeating). You are the one contending that 'a' must "equal" 'b' with word-for-word accuracy and that if they don't, they don't provide the same meaning... Which is an absurd argument.

I contend that 'a' and 'b' were intentionally delivered using different modes of expression, to effect slightly different perspectives and emphasis--yet they carry the same meaning. I contend that Matthew (Levi) did not intend to provide a direct quote or a quote consistent with Mark's... Mark's Gospel was almost certainly available to Matthew, so he could have copied it word-for-word if that was his intention.

In the face of these rational arguments (and many other supporting facts), you still find it necessary to arbitrarily require word-for-word agreement across all four Gospels--even though they very obviously intend to provide different perspectives... You still find it reasonable to impose modern "journalistic standards" for citing a source even after learning (to your apparent horror) that the ancient manuscript languages did not have punctuation and they had no convention for indicating quotes.

All along, your irrational insistence on these things has caused you to argue against a straw man--which very definitely is a waste of your time.

I wonder if you can identify and admit any distinction between "ancient historian" and "modern journalist"--or between "ancient narrative" and "contemporary news story", respectively... I think if you took that task as a bit of homework, you may begin to see the fallacy of your approach on these issues--or at least, come to admit "plausibility". :)


I would suggest you steer clear of journalism school. But plotics might make a very comfortable home.

And in the end, the best you can do is launch a veiled attack on my character...???
leonardlewis4
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 2:31:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/24/2013 4:16:29 PM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: It seems to me that the entire line of argumentation is but a quibble.

dj: If the question were the general "reliability" of the Bible, as thg called it in the other forum, then I would not disagree. But that is not the same as complete accuracy - and since we are debating inerrancy, there is no room for artistic liscense within quotation marks of a document that claims to be historical. If the authors were paraphrasing, then there would be more leeway, but in the English language, quotation marks do not indicate the author's own words, they indicate that the words therein are exact representations of what was spoken.

Anna: Perhaps that is why the word "saying" ... legousa from the verb lego ... is not present in Mark's account.

"And a voice came out of the heavens, Thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased." (Mark 1: 11, ASV)

If it were present, it simply means "to affirm, to maintain, to speak."

There are no quotation marks, of course, in the Greek. I would surmise, based upon looking at all three accounts, that the Father actually said, "Thou are my beloved Son" - if someone insists on using quotation marks.

Matthew's account would thus read, "and lo, a voice out of the heavens, affirming, this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." The Father affirmed the Sonship and His pleasure with Jesus, and He did so directly to Jesus. In so doing, He secondarily affirmed it to everyone else.

Wonderful (and accurate) observations, annanicole!
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2013 11:39:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 8/25/2013 2:41:46 AM, bulproof wrote:
What the bloody hell did ya do that for?

Sinners don't have a clue why they say the things they say.

This is a very confusing world that God created, isn't it?