Do you believe that all scripture really "God breathed&

[polonius]

2 Timothy 3:16-17New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

If scripture is indeed authored by God, does God make occasional errors?

A Biblical fundamentalist will frequently try to prove what they want someone to believe by quoting (at least their interpretation) of a scripture passage, and hence not consider the fact that that scripture itself may be in error.

But don't scriptural contradictions prove that not all scripture is divinely inspired (or God-breathed)?:?

[JehovahsWitness]

I use the primary translation of the term.

Good for you. But you still haven't answered my question: Does Strong's Greek Lexicon suggest there no other ways to understand the term? Is the words restricted by scholars to mean a blood relative?

That would normally be a "yes" or a "no" answer.

[polonius]

I use the primary translation of the term.

Good for you. But you still haven't answered my question: Does Strong's Greek Lexicon suggest there no other ways to understand the term? Is the words restricted by scholars to mean a blood relative?

That would normally be a "yes" or a "no" answer.

RESPONSE: Clearly, not in this case.

For example, if I speak of my brothers, readers would understand who I meant. But in a less precise sense, I might refer to all sports fans as "my brothers."

If you demand that I can only answer "yes" or "no' regarding the use of my term brothers, I could accurately reply by pointing out that the primary, or most used meaning, is my actual brother.

That would be the primary way to translate the word "brother."

By the way, regarding offspring in general, when the scriptures were written it was believed that the offspring person was contained in the father's seed (sperm) only. The mother was not involved in the offspring's personage. She only provided nutrients for the husband's "seed" if she were "fertile" or not if she were "barren."

Is short, if Joseph did not provide the "seed, " Mary could not pass on her father's Davidic lineage.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 52 by polonius.advice]

Okay let's put it this way, does Strong's Lexicon have the words "fellow countryman" included in its defintion of syggen"s ?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 49 by polonius.advice]


QUESTION: Does the bible state that Elizabeth was a "cousin" or a "blood" relative of Mary?

The Greek word describing the relationship between the two women in Luke 1:36 is syggen"s (). Although the word, which occurs five times in the Septuagint, is rendered as "cousin" in the The King James Version most modern translators undertand it to be a peculiar form of the word syggenes, which more accurately carries the meaning of relatives in general rather than the modern restricted designation cousin. (see Le 18:14; 20:20; 25:45; 2Sa 3:39; Eze 22:6; LXX)

Compare various translations
http://biblehub.com/luke/1-36.htm

QUESTION: Is the word restricted to a blood relative or a member of the same tribe?

While the word can indeed refer to a blood relative of the same tribe, this is not necessarily the case. Strongs #4773 lists it as extending to {quote} "a fellow countryman" as does Thayer's Greek Lexicon (see below)



Note the following BIBLE COMMENTARIES:

"What the actual relationship was we do not know. It is a mistake to infer from this [...] that Mary too was of the tribe of Levi, for except in the case of heiresses there was free intermarriage between the tribes (Exodus 6:23; Jdg 17:7; Philo De Monach. ii. 11; Jos. Vit. i"- Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

"But [cousin] may be taken in a large sense, as Paul calleth all the Jews his kinsmen, Romans 9:3"- Matthew Poole's Commentary

CONCLUSION: While we do not know how Elizabeth and Mary were related, the use of the word "syngennes" in Luke 1:36 does not in itself dictate we conclude that Mary and Elizabeth were of the same tribe

[Sojournerofthearth]

6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. 8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Note: Two animals

Summary: One animal or two animals. A contradiction.

Well, I know it says in the English versions, that He sat on THEM, which I can't quite conceive how one guy could ride two animals... that being said, the GREEK says more literally,

Mat 21:7 And broughtG71 theG3588 ass,G3688 andG2532 theG3588 colt,G4454 andG2532 putG2007 onG1883 themG846 theirG848 clothes,G2440 andG2532 they setG1940 (him is added in and there is no word there that says him) thereon.G1883 G846. IOW, it should read,

And the disciples having gone and having done as Jesus commanded them, brought the ass and the colt, and did put on them their garments, and set upon them; (Matthew 21:6-7)

Since the colt was young enough no one had ever once sat upon it, to include even a child, you might assume it was still a suckling, as it were, and so Matthew pointed out that they also brought its mom, while the rest of the versions didn't feel the need to include that. It doesn't mean there is a contradiction, merely, Matthew gave more detail.

[Sojournerofthearth]

What sacred writings would Timothy have known from childhood? Nothing in the New Testament.

He would have only known the teachings of the Law, the Writings and the Prophets. Personally, I am of the opinion that the NT is the spiritual explanation for the Law, the Writings and the Prophets and that the early Christians of the Way that some call heresy did not imagine that the Laws of God were dismissed like leftovers from yesterday's breakfast, but indeed, they kept the Sabbath, the Holy Days and they maintained the laws of clean and unclean and saw Christ as the breach between God and Man. I do believe that Paul was in the process of gathering the books of the New Testament, as they explained the more spiritual aspects of the Law of God, but Timothy as well as Paul were schooled in the Old Testament and by the teachings within those books came the understanding of who God is and what his plan for mankind would include.

[polonius]

6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them. 8 A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, and others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Note: Two animals

Summary: One animal or two animals. A contradiction.

Well, I know it says in the English versions, that He sat on THEM, which I can't quite conceive how one guy could ride two animals... that being said, the GREEK says more literally,

Mat 21:7 And broughtG71 theG3588 ass,G3688 andG2532 theG3588 colt,G4454 andG2532 putG2007 onG1883 themG846 theirG848 clothes,G2440 andG2532 they setG1940 (him is added in and there is no word there that says him) thereon.G1883 G846. IOW, it should read,

And the disciples having gone and having done as Jesus commanded them, brought the ass and the colt, and did put on them their garments, and set upon them; (Matthew 21:6-7)

Since the colt was young enough no one had ever once sat upon it, to include even a child, you might assume it was still a suckling, as it were, and so Matthew pointed out that they also brought its mom, while the rest of the versions didn't feel the need to include that. It doesn't mean there is a contradiction, merely, Matthew gave more detail.

RESPONSE: Let look at the prophecy itself and what Matthew is saying actually occurred.

This is Zechariah 9.9 which Matthew claims Jesus fulfilled in Matthew 21

Zechariah 9:9 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter Zion!
Shout aloud, O daughter Jerusalem!
Lo, your king comes to you;
triumphant and victorious is he,
humble and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

Matthew 21 When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples, 2 saying to them, Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me. 3 If anyone says anything to you, just say this, The Lord needs them. And he will send them immediately.[a] 4 This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,
5 Tell the daughter of Zion,
Look, your king is coming to you,
humble, and mounted on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.


Note what Matthew wrote: "...they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.Matthew 21:6-7)

Or from the koine Greek "And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their
clothes, and they set [him] thereon."

from http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInte ... /mat21.pdf (see 21.7)

[polonius]

What sacred writings would Timothy have known from childhood? Nothing in the New Testament.

He would have only known the teachings of the Law, the Writings and the Prophets. Personally, I am of the opinion that the NT is the spiritual explanation for the Law, the Writings and the Prophets and that the early Christians of the Way that some call heresy did not imagine that the Laws of God were dismissed like leftovers from yesterday's breakfast, but indeed, they kept the Sabbath, the Holy Days and they maintained the laws of clean and unclean and saw Christ as the breach between God and Man. I do believe that Paul was in the process of gathering the books of the New Testament, as they explained the more spiritual aspects of the Law of God, but Timothy as well as Paul were schooled in the Old Testament and by the teachings within those books came the understanding of who God is and what his plan for mankind would include.

RESPONSE: " Personally, I am of the opinion that....." We all have opinions, but are they all correct?

" I do believe that Paul was in the process of gathering the books of the New Testament"

That would have been difficult since Paul died in 64 AD the Gospels were not written until between 70 and 95 AD.

Also, Paul was not a disciple and never knew Jesus in the flesh. He didn't convert until about three years after the Ascension.

But you are entitled to your opinion although it may not supported by any facts.

[McCulloch]

Matthew 27:9 Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel,

But there is no such passage in Jeremiah.

I know this one. Jeremiah spoke this prophesy but no one wrote it down. Really! I've had Christian apologists seriously claim this explanation.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 3 by McCulloch]

"You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus."

There are two items in this scripture. #1 Things Timothy learned knowing who he learned them from, Paul and the apostles who in turn teach according to teachings of Jesus and #2 the sacred writings. So he would have been aware of both. Yet the NT as we know it was still being written but that doesn't make Timothy ignorant of what the NT was going to be teaching us later. The letters sent to the congregation by Paul, John, Peter etc were copied and passed around even during Timothy's time. He might not have known that these letters would later be added to the Bible but that doesn't mean he didn't read at least some of what was to become the NT.

The sacred writings in this passage are what he knew from childhood. This passage can only be used to show that the New Testament writers believed that the Old Testament was sacred. There is no passage in the New Testament claiming divine inspiration for the entire New Testament.