Is there proof that the Bible is divinely inspired? (believing, prayer, Isaiah)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nope he sat on the cloaks. Now since they were on both:
ASV Matthew 21:7 and brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their garments; and he sat thereon.
BBE Matthew 21:7 And got the ass and the young one, and put their clothing on them, and he took his seat on it.
Did he sit on just the Colt with multiple cloaks on it and just lead the mother, which also had cloaks on it? Remember there were quite a few men there, so more than one cloak on each.
Did he ride the Ass from Bethphage and then change to the colt for the ride into Jerusalem, as a Colt would not have the stamina of its' full grown mother?
Doesn't say. The fact it doesn't is not a contradiction, just a detail with no clarification, as it wasn't needed.
RESPONSE:
That's an old ploy to avoid admitting Matthew's blunder. What one does is change the word "them" when referring to the two animal sent for to "them" meaning cloaks.
Let's look at Mark's account of the same incident (Matthew used Mark as his primary source)
Mark 11:1-8 When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it. 3 If anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ just say this, ‘The Lord needs it and will send it back here immediately.’” 4 They went away and found a colt tied near a door, outside in the street. As they were untying it, 5 some of the bystanders said to them, “What are you doing, untying the colt?” 6 They told them what Jesus had said; and they allowed them to take it. 7 Then they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks on it; and he sat on it. [Note: They threw their cloaks on the colt (it) and Jesus sat (on it)] 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields."
Note: Also, noet the precise wording of the prophecy Matthew is saying that Jesus fulfilled:
"This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying,“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.”
No cloak's are even mentioned. Two different animals, a donkey and a colt, are clearly identified.
Last edited by Aristotle's Child; 09-18-2014 at 02:34 PM..
Reason: addition
That's an old ploy to avoid admitting Matthew's blunder. What one does is change the word "them" when referring to the two animal sent for to "them" meaning cloaks.
Well generally in grammar the subjkect of 'them" would be the closest anticedent, which is the cloaks. However even if them was the animals he could have ridden both, one from Bethphage and the other in Jerusalem.
Notice the quote:
When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, ... 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. 9 Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting,
You really haven't studied this with the right sources. As an example Isaiah at that time covered more writings than Just the book of Isaiah. Today they are separated, but then they were not.
The Bible is the most documented book in history and when comparing the variations the differences are miniscule and do not impact teaching at all.
Additions are easy to spot and really do not change anything when examined in any level of detail.
YOU haven't studied the right sources. You've looked at what apologists have had to say. And they fabricate stories to "make it work."
Daniel Wallace is a respected professor at super conservative Dallas Theological Seminary for decades--and an inerrantist (although he couches that belief in terms that give him an escape route)--and even he recognizes Mark mixed up Isaiah.
Quote:
Even an essay by Professor Daniel B. Wallace , written from a conservative Christian point of view, defends this conclusion. Wallace points out that of all the variant biblical manuscripts containing this verse, the “Isaiah” ones are far earlier, more numerous and more geographically widespread. Notably, although Wallace still believes in inerrancy, he’s honest enough to admit that this does appear to be a genuine error with no apparent resolution.
And you never bothered to address the issue of the missing book of Jasher. As soon as you find an apologist for that--I've got half dozen more in the wings for you. I'm sorry that the Bible is not the idol that so many of you want. It is a message about the faith men had in God, but it is not as holy as God, Jesus, AND the Holy Spirit. Making it so is nothing but modern day idolatry.
As a post-script here is Wikipedia's take on your idea that they were separate documents--but not mixed up with any other prophets:
Quote:
The scholarly consensus which held sway through most of the 20th century saw three separate collections of oracles in the book of Isaiah.
A typical outline based on this understanding of the book sees its underlying structure in terms of the identification of historical figures who might have
been their authors:
1–39 – Proto-Isaiah, containing the words of the original Isaiah;
40–55 – Deutero-Isaiah, the work of an anonymous Exilic author;
56–66 – Trito-Isaiah, an anthology of about twelve passages.
While one part of the consensus still holds – virtually no one maintains that the entire book, or even most of it, was written by one person – this perception
of Isaiah as made up of three rather distinct sections underwent a radical challenge in the last quarter of the 20th century. The newer approach looks at the book in terms of its literary and formal characteristics, rather than authors, and sees in it a two-part structure divided between chapters 33 and 34:
1–33 – Warnings of judgement and promises of subsequent restoration for Jerusalem, Judah and the nations;
34–66 – Judgement has already taken place and restoration is at hand.
Last edited by Wardendresden; 09-18-2014 at 02:51 PM..
Well generally in grammar the subjkect of 'them" would be the closest anticedent, which is the cloaks. However even if them was the animals he could have ridden both, one from Bethphage and the other in Jerusalem.
Notice the quote:
When they were approaching Jerusalem, at Bethphage and Bethany, near the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples 2 and said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, ... 8 Many people spread their cloaks on the road, and others spread leafy branches that they had cut in the fields. 9 Then those who went ahead and those who followed were shouting,
This was outside Jerusalem as he had to enter it.
No contradiction except for those who want one.
RESPONSE:
Of course there is a contradiction. One and two are different numbers. Matthew says Jesus rode on two animals the the prophet said two animals. Nothing could be clearer. And consulting the reporting of Mark, Luke, and John, it becomes clear that there was only one animal involved
But perhaps we can examine another (in this case a major) contradiction in supposedly "inspired" scripture.
Without getting into detail, the conflicting nativity narratives of Matthew and Luke.
Matthew has Jesus born during the lifetime of King Herod (d. c 4BC) and has the slaughter of the innocent, the flight into Egypt, but no census or trip to Bethlehem.
Luke has Jesus born during the census of Judea conducted by Quirinius in 6 AD, so obviously no slaughter or flight into Egypet since Hero had been dead of 10 years.
Bumping this for you again, Warden, in case you missed it. Do you have any response?
Can you explain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo Whereas I only see that criteria applying to a work that is written by an infallible being. God didn't write any book that I'm aware of. (I certainly have never encountered a book that doesn't contain errors and/or contradictions.) The authors of the books of the bible may (or may not) have been inspiredby what they thought they understood about God to write their thoughts down. They may have or may not have been correct. Or it is possible that they were directly inspired by God to write something down. But people are fallible beings and their understanding of any inspiration is therefore subject to their imperfection and will, as a matter of course, be imperfect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden Finally something we CAN agree upon!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pleroo That is nice. I have to admit to being confused by your constant barrage of accusations, however, that people who "cherry pick" from the bible are somehow doing it for nefarious reasons, when you agree that the bible is imperfect and, therefore, in dire need of cherry picking. Is it simply that you think your criteria for what constitutes a cherry is the only criteria condoned by God? If so, why?
one of the most glaring examples of the bible misquoting itself appears at the very beginning of the new testament. Mark 1:2 says this:
as it is written in isaiah the prophet, “behold, i am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way.”
there is no verse like this in the book of isaiah. The old testament verse whose wording comes closest is in a different prophet, malachi 3:1:
behold, i will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: And the lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: Behold, he shall come, saith the lord of hosts.
…which implies that mark, supposed author of a divinely inspired and inerrant gospel, remembered the quote correctly, but made a mistake and attributed it to the wrong prophet. (the next verse, mark 1:3, is more clearly a quote of isaiah 40:3, which may explain the confusion – apparently mark garbled the two prophets together.)
you may notice that the king james bible gives this verse differently – it begins “as it is written in the prophets…” – which would encompass mark’s synthesis of malachi and isaiah.
There’s a good reason for the variant wording. As the bible was passed down through the centuries, prior to the invention of the printing press, the manuscripts had to be laboriously recopied by scribes. Usually they copied it faithfully, including the mistakes. but sometimes, when they noticed a mistake, they were bothered enough to try to correct it. This is one of those cases. Evidently, some medieval scribe tried to cover for mark’s mistake by changing the inaccurate “isaiah” to the more general “the prophets”. This “corrected” manuscript was passed on and gave rise to a tradition of variant manuscripts, one of which served as the source for the kjv.meanwhile, the original manuscript with the error was recopied exactly as written by a more scrupulous (or less observant) scribe and passed down in a separate chain of historical transmission, creating two competing wordings for this passage.
although both the “isaiah” and “the prophets” variants have survived to this day, there can be no doubt that the “isaiah” wording is the original. Even an essay by professor daniel b. Wallace , written from a conservative christian point of view, defends this conclusion. wallace points out that of all the variant biblical manuscripts containing this verse, the “isaiah” ones are far earlier, more numerous and more geographically widespread. notably, although wallace still believes in inerrancy, he’s honest enough to admit that this does appear to be a genuine error with no apparent resolution.
So no matter how one cuts the mustard any critical approach to scripture turns up many, many problems for the inerrantist. And what they continue to do, even to this day, is hold the writings we have to be inerrant because they believe the "originals" that no one has are inerrant. It is the equivalent of saying in court, "you can believe the testimony of our next witness, your honor, because he got it from the original source and wrote it down as it was being said by that source." (called hearsay) but, as proven above, there are errors. I only have a dozen or so more from the ot and paul and others. This doesn't even mention the famous mark 16:9-20 which any scholar with any decent credentials (including daniel wallace) admits as an after addition to the original writing of mark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatca
you really haven't studied this with the right sources. As an example isaiah at that time covered more writings than just the book of isaiah. Today they are separated, but then they were not.
The bible is the most documented book in history and when comparing the variations the differences are miniscule and do not impact teaching at all.
Additions are easy to spot and really do not change anything when examined in any level of detail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wardendresden
you haven't studied the right sources. You've looked at what apologists have had to say. And they fabricate stories to "make it work."
daniel wallace is a respected professor at super conservative dallas theological seminary for decades--and an inerrantist (although he couches that belief in terms that give him an escape route)--and even he recognizes mark mixed up isaiah.
Quote:
Even an essay by professor daniel b. Wallace , written from a conservative christian point of view, defends this conclusion. Wallace points out that of all the variant biblical manuscripts containing this verse, the “isaiah” ones are far earlier, more numerous and more geographically widespread. Notably, although wallace still believes in inerrancy, he’s honest enough to admit that this does appear to be a genuine error with no apparent resolution.
Mark did not misquote from the Old Testament, and you have misused a statement by Dr. Wallace to make it seem as though he agrees with your argument that there is a misquote. He does not. His statement (to which you did not provide a link or the name of the essay which contains the statement) speaks to the fact that the correct reading of Mark 1:2 is probably 'As it is written in Isaiah the prophet...' since some of the more important manuscripts support that reading. However, this has nothing to do with whether Mark misquoted the Old Testament. Dr. Wallace recognizes, as do others, that Mark had made a compound quote in which he quotes from both Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. In his introduction and outline of the Book of Mark Dr. Wallace makes the following statement.
II. Argument
Mark dramatically opens his Gospel with prophecies from Malachi and Isaiah (Mal. 3:1 and Isa. 40:3) about Jesus’ forerunner, John the Baptizer. Thus what is found in Matthew 3 and Luke 3 is placed up front in Mark’s Gospel. https://bible.org/seriespage/mark-in...nt-and-outline
There is in Dr. Wallace's statement no reference or inference to 'a genuine error with no apparent resolution'. Instead he acknowledges that Mark quoted from both Isaiah and Malachi.
While Mark 1:2 quotes Malachi 3:1, Mark 1:3 quotes from the LXX of Isaiah 40:3.
Mark 1:2 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before Your face, who will prepare Your way,
Malachi 3:1 Behold, I send My messenger, and he will prepare the way before Me.
The change in persons from the reading of ''your way'' to ''the way before Me'' reflects the Messianic interpretation of the passage.
Mark 1:3 the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make His paths straight,’”
Isaiah 40:3 [LXX] The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight the paths of our God.
The Pulpit Commentary refers to the different readings, ''in the prophets'' and ''in Isaiah the prophet'', and acknowledges that both Isaiah and Malachi are being quoted by Mark.
The Pulpit Commentary
As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
Verse 2. - Even as it is written in the prophets. The weight of evidence is here in favor of the reading "in Isaiah the prophet." Three of the most important uncials (א, B, and L), and twenty-six of the cursives, have the reading "Isaiah." With these agree the Italic, Coptic, and Vulgate versions. Of the Fathers, Irenaeus quotes the passage three times, twice using the words "in the prophets," and once "in Isaiah the prophet." Generally the Fathers agree that "Isaiah" is the received reading. The more natural reading would of course be "in the prophets," inasmuch as two prophets are quoted; but in deciding upon readings, it constantly happens that the less likely reading is the more probable. In the case before us we can hardly account for "Isaiah" being exchanged for "the prophets," although we can quite understand "the prophets" being interpolated for "Isaiah." Assuming, then, that St. Mark wrote "in Isaiah the prophet," we may ask why he mentions Isaiah only and not Malachi? The answer would seem to be this, that here the voice of Isaiah is the more powerful of the two. But in real truth, Malachi says the same thing that Isaiah says; for the messenger sent from God to prepare the way of Christ was none other than John, crying aloud and preaching repentance as a preparation for the receiving of the grace of Christ. The oracle of Malachi is, in fact, contained in the oracle of Isaiah; for what Malachi predicted, the same had Isaiah more clearly and concisely predicted in other words. And this is the reason why St. Mark here, and other evangelists elsewhere, when they cite two prophets, and two or more sentences from different places in the same connection, cite them as one and the same testimony, each sentence appearing to be not so much two, as one and the same declaration differently worded. [Bolding mine]. Mark 1 Pulpit Commentary
Far from being a misquote . . . far from being a genuine error with no apparent resolution, Mark simply made a compound quote in Mark 1:2-3 by quoting both Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. Mark did not make a mistake.
Last edited by Michael Way; 09-18-2014 at 09:10 PM..
Is there proof that the Bible is divinely inspired?
No proof whatsoever, except what you believe in your heart.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
