“Arguably the most distinctive feature of the early Christian literature,” writes Dr Bart Ehrman, “is the degree to which it was forged: The Homilies and Recognitions of Clement; Paul’s letters to and from Seneca; Gospels by Peter, Thomas, and Philip; Jesus’ correspondence with Abgar; letters by Peter and Paul in the New Testament all forgeries. To cite just a few examples.”
Categories: Bible, Christianity, Dr Bart Ehrman, Hadith, Islam, New Testament scholarship
I feel an incoming from Ken in Farsi…
Ha Ha
Lived in Iran Ken?
No.
How did you learn Farsi then?
Many educated and upper and middle class and urban / city Iranians have been fleeing Iran for the past 40 years to other countries. They are disillusioned with the government and Islam also. They are the most open Muslims to Christ and Christianity. We lived among an Iranian community in one of these other countries for about 3 years, 1993-end of 1995, then upon returning to the USA; building on that foundation, (and learning to write and read Farsi, especially the Bible), I was able to improve my language by being with Iranians in the USA pretty much most of all the time from 1996 to 2008, (ethnic Iranian church (all former Shiite Muslims), visiting them in the homes during the week, Bible studies in Farsi) and now off and on in the present.
Oh dear oh dear that’s new to me sorry to hear that but to such a degree after Khameini’s rampage i had no idea…those mad mullahs are good at hiding stuff, they will always talk about unity and peace in front of your face while behind the curtains the picture seems to be very different
Kind of amazing that many people don’t about the massive defection of many Iranians from Islam as a whole – many are becoming agnostic and atheists and Marxist and some are even becoming Buddhists and Hindus, but some form of Christianity is probably the biggest philosophy that modern Iranians are turning to, of those that are disillusioned with Islam.
As to your question about the Synoptic problem, there are many aspects to the whole issue, and many books on the subject, so you would have to be more specific on exactly what aspect of the so called “synoptic problem” is. “Q” (German for “source” is a hypothetical theory of an unknown and no extant evidence for document, as is “L” and “M”, etc.) Markan priority in chronological writing (anywhere from 45 AD to 65 AD) is probably true, but no one can be dogmatic about that. As it stands, according to orthodox sound doctrine, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all inspired the by Holy Spirit, God-breathed and God’s word, and they each confirm each other as true, as does John’s gospel. All 4 are true, like an eyewitness on each corner of a four-way intersection street accident. One historical event, 4 perspectives or angles.
@ Ken
Shia is not Muslims lol so we could care less. They already worship 12 gods so its an improvement that they now worship 3. So, by all means, get rid of them.
They are several sects of Islam. (12ers, 7ers, 5ers, Alawites, Sufis, Dervishes, etc. – and many Islamic governments don’t admit that they much more prevalent that their statistics say.)
So, do you agree with the evil terrorist, Abu Mossab Al-Zarqawi, and what morphed from him, Isis (Da’esh) to just haul off and kill Shiites and blow up their shrines and blow up their Mosques ?
“So, do you agree with the evil terrorist, Abu Mossab Al-Zarqawi, and what morphed from him, Isis (Da’esh) to just haul off and kill Shiites and blow up their shrines and blow up their Mosques ?”
He obviously meant proselytization from higher paganism to lower paganism
“As it stands, according to orthodox sound doctrine, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all inspired the by Holy Spirit, God-breathed and God’s word, and they each confirm each other as true, as does John’s gospel.”
You don’t sound so secular anymore
Anyway i don’t know about the statistics but good to know Iranians are leaving Shi’ism…for me it simply means they developed critical thinking which is something barely found among the rafidis so now it’s easier to have a decent exchange with them
Paul, have heard that the Dead Sea Scrolls also forgeries?
Dead Sea Scrolls’ at the Museum of the Bible are all forgeries
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/museum-of-the-bible-dead-sea-scrolls-forgeries/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
There are authentic manuscripts of the DSS in a museum in Jerusalem
@ Sam
It’s unfortunately only the ones at that museum:
“The report does not cast doubt upon the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls held by the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. These artifacts are among the most precious relics of the ancient world, first discovered in 1947 in a cave at Qumran, near the shores of the Dead Sea.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/all-museum-bibles-dead-sea-scrolls-are-fake-report-finds-180974425/
However I will join you in the laugh that they’re STILL forging text 🤣🤣🤣
Since 1 Peter up front admits that Peter is using an amanuensis ( 1 Peter 5:12); it is not unreasonable that Peter is using another one for 2 Peter.
“Through Silvanus, our faithful brother (for so I regard him), I have written to you briefly, exhorting and testifying that this is the true grace of God. Stand firm in it!”
An amanuensis is a glorified secretary who takes down oral dictation and has the authority to correct grammar and style, particularly going from one language to another.
So, these (the NT canonical books, for example that Bart Ehrman claims are forgeries) are not forgeries. I am surprised he thinks 1 John is a forgery. There is pretty much unanimous historical evidence that all the Christians considered 1 John as true and real, from the apostle John.
There are other clear forgeries that are in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries.
The Qur’an actually uses forgeries, legends, apocryphal gospels for its information.
There are good conservative scholars who give good responses to the claim that 2nd Peter is a forgery.
@Ken Temple
I have a question for you ken. I understand that you do not believe that the NT contains forgeries. But in the hypothetical scenario that it DID, would that be cause enough to render the NT canon as uninspired and not from God?
Only God knows the things that are no longer available from history research.
historical research leads most Christian scholars to conclude the NT DOES contain forgeries.
So Ken is wrong.
@Ken Temple
“Only God knows the things that are no longer available from history research.”
…so is that a yes or a no to my question?
Hahahaha, Vaqas trips up Kennywise yet again! What’s the score now? Like 10-0?
It’s not “difficult” to answer the question. Kennywise is just being his usual dishonest self. And I think deep down inside, he knows the truth about the Bible but he just can’t bear to admit it. It would be the same as admitting that he has wasted his pathetic life on a lie. Which of course he has.
@Ken Temple
Whoops i think i replied to my own comment, sorry about that. So Ken when you said
“Only God knows the things that are no longer available from history research.”
should I take that as a yes or a no to my earlier question?
difficult to answer a hypothetical, since it would depend on the strength of the evidence that is brought forth that would without a doubt prove that it was a forgery.
God knows and is Wise.
Ken you talk like a Muslim. Are you coming to the Truth finally?
There are some things in Islam and the Qur’an that are true.
We also believe that God is all knowing and all wise.
Jesus is the word of God / Kalimat’Allah کلمه الله
The text of the previous Scriptures had not been corrupted so as to be lost.
The Injeel and Torah are true.
Jesus was born of the virgin Mary and had no human father.
Jesus was a great prophet and did miracles, was sinless, and is the Jewish Messiah who fulfilled the OT Scriptures.
@Ken Temple
“difficult to answer a hypothetical, since it would depend on the strength of the evidence that is brought forth that would without a doubt prove that it was a forgery.
God knows and is Wise.”
…Ken…it’s a simple yes or no. I’ll ask more bluntly if it was proven to you Ken, without a shadow of a doubt that the bible canon contained forgeries, would that mean the bible canon was not from God?
…Yes?…or no?…
@ Vaqas
Well, we now have the answer. he will not admit its not God’s Word even with forgeries (being a kaffir and all) and will simply call it a “variant” and “not sure what God’s Word is or isn’t”.
“Since 1 Peter up front admits that Peter is using an amanuensis ( 1 Peter 5:12); it is not unreasonable that Peter is using another one for 2 Peter.”
Isn’t it ironic that Kennywise the clown doesn’t think that Mark 13:32 proves the holy spirit is not all-knowing because it doesn’t actually mention the holy spirit, but the moron wants to assume that 2 Peter was written by a secretary of Peter even though it doesn’t actually say so?
In any case, 2 Peter could not have been based on Peter’s views because it was explaining to people why the world hadn’t ended. This would have been unnecessary if Peter was see still alive. There would be no reason for Christians to get confused just yet as to why the world hadn’t ended.
Ironically, 2 Peter proves that Christians were expecting the world to end. They must have got the idea from false apostles like Paul.
A good conservative and scholarly Commentary on 2 Peter that defends Peter the apostle as the author.
https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Baker-Exegetical-Commentary-Testament/dp/0801026725/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2/143-2269762-5001841?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0801026725&pd_rd_r=b9a0cbdf-4870-44e4-877d-f2a04d8ecd6d&pd_rd_w=9aUVG&pd_rd_wg=36gL6&pf_rd_p=9d05ca86-8760-4334-a147-e5d5836a8859&pf_rd_r=MJ7MNQTVJN92PE61YVDP&psc=1&refRID=MJ7MNQTVJN92PE61YVDP
the author is an inerrantist so he is not objective or historical.
Conservative Muslims who take the Qur’an as a priori inerrant / inspired are not objective nor historical.
just a diversion from the issue. *Every* Muslim scholar accepts the Qur’an is the Word of God. Most Christian scholars think 2 Peter is a forgery.
*Every* Muslim scholar accepts the Qur’an as the Word of God.
If that is even true, (there is no way to know for sure- they are fearful) – since their lives and career would be threatened with punishment or prison or death. There are scholars of the Qur’an in the west, who are not orthodox Muslims, or who may pick and choose what they believe or may be agnostic or atheists, who left the faith because of what they discovered about Islam and the Qur’an and Hadith.
Like the Muslim professor that the students rose up and threw him out the window and killed him.
Have you read this / his defense?
Yes. It is based on the presupposition of inerrancy. So it is not objective.
Ken Temple: Like the Muslim professor that the students rose up and threw him out the window and killed him.
That’s a myth.
end of 1 Peter and beginning of 2 Peter on continuous Papyrus,
1 Peter 5:12–end and 2 Peter 1:1–5 on facing pages of Papyrus Bodmer VIII (Greek NT Manuscript P-72)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_72#/media/File:Papyrus_Bodmer_VIII.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/38/Papyrus_Bodmer_VIII.jpg/1920px-Papyrus_Bodmer_VIII.jpg
@ Paul
Idk why you you do these back and forths watch this…
@ Ken
1. Nobody cares about your fear fallacy. Pretty much even Western orientalist are agreed we’re good.
But onto the topic at hand do you take the lady taken in adultery and the ending of Mark as authentic and if so, why?
John 7:53-8:11 seems like a real historical event in Jesus’ life and ministry, but granted the textual tradition of it is questionable. There is an early tradition from Papias about this, that seems to give weight to it being true. It certainly reflects Jesus high moral character and justice against the Pharisees who only wanted to condemn the woman – where is the man she committed adultery with?
Mose things in Mark 16:9-20 are true (the part about picking up snakes (although Acts 28 shows an example of what he might mean) and drinking deadly poison and strange/ awkward wording about baptism seem doubtful, but the rest is all good) – the abrupt ending at Mark 16:8 does not make sense, although the empty tomb is clear in 16:1-8 and with the earlier predictions in 8:31; 9:31; 10:33-34, testifies to the resurrection of Jesus in Mark’s gospel. Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:9 about the ascension and sitting down at the right hand of God the Father, so there’s that early evidence for that.
1. Nobody cares about your fear fallacy.
Germany — Muhammad Sven Kalisch, a Muslim convert and Germany’s first professor of Islamic theology, fasts during the Muslim holy month, doesn’t like to shake hands with Muslim women and has spent years studying Islamic scripture. Islam, he says, guides his life.
So it came as something of a surprise when Prof. Kalisch announced the fruit of his theological research. His conclusion: The Prophet Muhammad probably never existed.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122669909279629451
Yes some people do care. It is not a fallacy. Many who care cannot say, because they would be killed or have acid thrown on them, or be tortured in prison, or be thrown out the window, etc. or have death threats and live in fear.
Pretty much even Western orientalist are agreed we’re good.
What do you mean by “agreed we’re good” ?
and do you have evidence of pretty much all western orientalists agreeing that the Qur’an is God’s word?
it is clear that Abraham Geiger (which even you provided his work in earlier post) understood that the Qur’an and Islam borrowed from Talmudic and Midrash Judaism and then Muhammad added his own twists and understanding to a Theocratic Law State and military expansion of conquering.
Such uncertainty around god’s word, trying to put weight on questionable verses via questionable sources
@ Condescending
As we can conclude from Ken, Christendom has no idea what is or isn’t God’s Word.
But recently, Robert E. Picirilli has written an illuminating essay, “AIIusions to 2 Peter in the Apostolic Fathers,”3 in which he challenges such opinion. His conclusion is well worth quoting:
Three conclusions seem justified.
1. The possibility clearly exists that 2 Peter is reflected in several passages in the Apostolic Fathers. …real possibility obtains in at least twenty-two places, the level of likelihood ranging from merely possible to highly probable. The strongest possibilities have been found in 1 Clement, Pseudo Clement, Barnabas, and Hermas, with at least reasonable possibilities in Ignatius and the Martyrdom of Polycarp.
From Dan Wallace’s article, defending 2 Peter.
https://bible.org/seriespage/second-peter-introduction-argument-and-outline#_ftn3
Dan Wallace is an inerrantist so his conclusions about authorship are predictable before he even discusses the question.
“Dan Wallace is an inerrantist so his conclusions about authorship are predictable before he even discusses the question.”
Few words yet closer to the truth, you’ll find out once you read Robert Picirill’s study about 2 Peters in the Patristics…uncertainty, assumptions assumptions and assumptions though clearly the “parallels” aren’t so obvious
*Peter
Mose things in Mark 16:9-20 are true . . .
I meant
Most things in Mark 16:9-20 are true
@ Ken
Nice try on the deflecting, I didn’t ask if “most things are true” or “reflects character blah, blah, blah. I asked is John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 the “inspired” Word of God as Christians have believed and been written in your text for almost 2,000 years? Just need a simple yes or no?
Because of the complicated history of the text, it is not a simple “yes or no”.
But I admit they are textual variants.
We are up front and honest about the textual variants.
No you are not Ken. Fundamentalists like you are the most dishonest people of all when it come to the truth about the Bible. I know. I used to think like you. I know how you secretly fear the work of scholars.
@ Ken
Didn’t read your long ranting fear fallacy. It is a simple yes or no question watch this…
@ Paul and Vaqas
Is everything in the Quran God’s Word. Just a need or yes or no.
Yes.
The Quran is God’s word yes
@ Ken
Look at that 2 yes with no extra. For giggles I asked another Muslim sitting next to me and he replied yes so that’s 3.
So like how we just answered is the John and Mark passages God’s inspired Word? Yes or no?
John 7:53-8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20 are textual variants.
@ Ken
Idk what that means. Are they God’s inspired Word? Just need a yes or no?
A textual variant means that we cannot be sure that they are original as what is extant.
@Ken Temple
So am i correct in saying that you’re answer to stew’s question is “I don’t know?”
(Still waiting on my question btw)
Allow me to answer Stew’s question about the Quran as well: YES!
“John 7:53-8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20 are textual variants.”
There goes the gymnastics. You know the one thing Christians are good at is gymnastics.
A textual variant would be like substituting a word for a different word, or removing a word or adding a word. Maybe even phrases. But entire paragraphs are just “textual variants” even when they clearly didn’t exist in the earlier manuscripts? No, you clown. Those are forgeries because some other clown added those stories at a later time.
“So am i correct in saying that you’re answer to stew’s question is “I don’t know?””
It seems that is the answer to a lot of questions about Christianity. Do. babies go to hell? “I don’t know.” Are the forged verses inspired? “I don’t know.” And on and on…
@ QB
Alright, now we’re at 4. I asked my wife, her brother and of course myself and just started picking some random spots in the Quran and it was yes as well. So that makes 7.
In defense for Kennywise he didn’t waste his life if he comes over to Islam (aka the cool kid’s club) Also I would like to nominate Kennywise and Washer to the Wall of Shame.
Ken for turning a multiple choice question into a fill in the blank and Washer for his refusal despite repeated asking.
Pretty much even Western orientalist are agreed we’re good.
What do you mean by “agreed we’re good” ?
The Bible (OT and NT; Tanakh and Gospel / NT) is God’s Word, yes.
It doesn’t claim to be. The Quran does.
Yes it does.
John 17:17
Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.
John 14:16-17
I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.
John 14:26
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
John 16:13
But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come.
2 Timothy 3:16-17
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
Jude 3
“the faith once for all delivered to the saints”
2 Peter 1:19-21
The Holy Spirit carried holy men along to write what they wrote in the Scriptures / Prophetic Scriptures.
“And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
(shows the connection back to Jesus’ promise of the Holy Spirit to lead them into all the truth.)
2 Peter 3:15-16
calls all of Paul’s letters Scripture.
“And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.”
Where is the evidence that the Letter of James is inspired scripture?
The character of the internal content.
so your subjective evaluation decides what is inspired scripture.
Dan Wallace gives good evidence for James, the Lord’s half-brother, who was also a witness to the resurrection to Jesus and early leader of the church in Jerusalem.
d. James the Lord’s brother (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3; Gal. 1:19; called simply James in Acts: 12:17; 15:13; 21:18; and in 1 Cor. 15:7), mentioned only twice by name in the Gospels (Matt. 13:55; Mark 6:3), he rises to prominence after Pentecost. Arguably, James became the de facto leader of the Jerusalem church sometime before A.D. 44,7 and was one of two leaders Paul met with in Jerusalem three years after Paul’s conversion (Gal. 1:19). The assignment of this James (also known in later church traditions, starting with Hegesippus, as “James the Just”) as author of the letter has been the traditional view. Guthrie8 summarizes six reasons as to why this James is the most likely candidate:
1) The author’s self-identification points to this James, “for it is evident that a well-known James must have been intended, and as far as the biblical record is concerned, the Lord’s brother is the only James who appears to have played a sufficiently prominent part in early Christian history.”9
2) The author’s Jewish background, both in terms of his use of the OT (including a few quotations, numerous allusions, and several illustrations), and in other, more subtle ways (e.g., traces of Hebrew idioms behind his otherwise polished Greek; Hebrew prophetic style, etc.).
3) Similarities between James and Acts: James’ speech in Acts 15 contains many striking parallels in language with the epistle of James. For example, χαίρω is found in Jas. 1:1 and Acts 15:23 (and elsewhere in Acts only in 23:26); Acts 15:17 and Jas. 2:7 invoke God’s name in a special way; the exhortation for the brothers (ἀδελφοι) to hear is found both in Jas. 2:5 and Acts 15:13. Further, not-so-common individual words are found in both: ἐπισκέπτεσθε (Jas. 1:27; Acts 15:14); ἐπιστρέφειν (Jas. 5:19 and Acts 15:19); τηρεῖν (or διατηρεῖν) ἑαυτόν (Jas. 1:27; Acts 15:29); ἀγαπητός (Jas. 1:16, 19; 2:5; Acts 15:25). Though short of conclusive proof, this is nevertheless significant corroborative evidence.
4) Similarities with the teaching of Jesus: “there are more parallels in this Epistle than in any other New Testament book to the teaching of our Lord in the Gospels.”10 The parallels to the Sermon on the Mount are especially acute:11
1:2
Joy in the midst of trials
Matt. 5:10-12
1:4
Exhortation to perfection
Matt. 5:48
1:5
Asking for good gifts
Matt. 7:7ff.
1:20
Against anger
Matt. 5:22
1:22
Hearers and doers of the Word
Matt. 7:24ff.
2:10
The whole law to be kept
Matt. 5:19
2:13
Blessings of mercifulness
Matt. 5:7
3:18
Blessings of peacemakers
Matt. 5:9
4:4
Friendship of the world as enmity against God
Matt. 6:24
4:11-12
Against judging others
Matt. 7:1-5
5:2ff.
Moth and rust spoiling riches
Matt. 6:19
5:10
The prophets as examples
Matt. 5:12
5:12
Against oaths
Matt. 5:33-37
The point Guthrie attempts to draw from this is that the author probably heard the Lord himself.12 However, this would not prove that James, the Lord’s brother, was responsible for the epistle (for the son of Zebedee would be just as likely a candidate). Further, the earliest stratum of the Jesus traditions is, in some ways, impenetrable. That is to say, we have no easy and infallible test for determining whether an author was an eyewitness and heard Jesus himself or whether he was merely a recorder of primitive oral tradition. Nevertheless, to be fair to Guthrie, it seems that he is affirming the veracity of the traditional authorship against a late (ca. 90s) non-Jacobean authorship. In this regard, his point is indeed well taken, for the oral tradition of the dominical sayings which James uses shows no dependence on any of the written Gospels.13
5) Agreements with the NT account of James: Not only is he seen as leader of the Jerusalem church in Acts 15, but he is also seen as a champion of the continued validity of the law, in some sense at least. “His outlook was correspondingly limited. The full freedom of the gospel had not yet reached him. He lived in an age of transition.”14 This portrait of James by Luke corresponds well with James’ statements about the law in the epistle (cf., e.g., 1:22-25; 2:8-13), as well as with the obvious authority with which he writes his letter.
6) The conditions within the community: “The community appears to belong to the period before the fall of Jerusalem. The oppressors are wealthy landowners, who, after the siege of Jerusalem, virtually ceased to exist in Judaea . . .”15
In sum, the internal evidence is relatively strong—especially when considered cumulatively—for James, the Lord’s brother, as the author of this epistle. And in light of the rather weak claims of the other candidates, the relative strength of this James moves him beyond a reasonable doubt.
https://bible.org/seriespage/james-introduction-outline-and-argument
You complain when I don’t give the full text, just references for you to look up. But I gave a lot of good texts with the reference, you jumped to the Epistle of James.
LOL
@ Paul
Because I don’t want to side track notice the Law is to be kept. I trust your capable hands to know what to do…
@Ken Temple
…And if there were found to be forgeries in the bible canon?…
@ Ken
Again nice deflecting, I asked about the passages quoted. Here watch again…
@ Vaqas and Paul
Is the entirety of the Quranic text from Surah Fatiha to Nas with no debate about any passage whatsoever contained therein God’s Word? Just need a yes or no.
Yes
YES
@ Ken
Look at that mashallah. Beautiful and simple answers . Now your turn, is the ending of Mark and the lady taken in adultery God’s inspired Word? Yes or no?
YES!
it is clear that Abraham Geiger (which even you (Stewjo004) provided his work in earlier post) understood that the Qur’an and Islam borrowed from Talmudic and Midrash Judaism and then Muhammad added his own twists and understanding to a Theocratic Law State and military expansion of conquering.
@ Ken
Don’t care about what one out of date kaffir says to another at the moment. We’re talking about your text that you refuse to talk straight about.
Geiger was right.
@ Ken
Could care less at the moment. Answer the question of topic, please
@Ken, What’s your thoughts on the synoptic problem?
Pray tell, before talking about Muhammad wouldn’t your logic literally disprove Matthew and Luke to much greater and much more serious degree? or maybe your view of Jesus himself considering the clear cut ideological hostility between the NT and the OT despite sharing the same ingredients of thought? You sound very secular for someone who illogically toss aside and whine about secular scholarship
John 7:53-8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20 are textual variants.
@ Ken
Again don’t know what that means are they God’s inspired Word? Just need either the word yes or no.
They (those 2 sections – John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20) might be, but because they are textual variants (not in the earliest copies) with complicated textual copying history, we cannot say for sure yes.
God is All knowing and all Wise.
@ Ken
What is “might be” how can you not be sure? If something is God’s Word its clear as day. Surely a whole passage didn’t appear out of no where (especially with John being sometimes found in Luke who was making an “orderly account” and that there are 2 versions (really 3) of the ending of Mark) How can you doubt if something is God’s Word Ken?
Are you not tired of regurgitating the same old stuff again and again?
@ Ken
Now that I’ve proven forgeries in the Bible (no surprise there) let me go ahead and attack the rest of your crap now:
1. Guy thrown out a window name was Suliman Bashear and he wasn’t even a Muslim genius, he was Druze which is a completely different religion.
2. The next guy Sven Kalisch was a Shia (also not a Muslim) and is hilariously wrong. Ready? What’s this I have? Tom Hoyland’s “Islam As Others Saw It” that lists EVERY reference to Prophet Muhammad(saw) following the first 100 years after his death? And whoa would you look at that following TWO years after his death we have our first outside reference from a Christian no less in Doctrina Jacobi? Yeah, there’s no question he s a historical figure. You know this and so do I. If not do you have anything from 2 years after Jesus(as)? (And just as a pre-emptive strike him getting a bunch of info wrong is irrelevant to if Muhammad(saw) existed the point is he is mentioned)
3. James hurts you not helps. You accept some conclusions about James and reject others. For one he said to keep the Law so that already refutes Paul. And his followers (who believed the same also didn’t think Jesus(as) was God.
So in conclusion,
Forgeries, kuffar are stupid and early Christians not believing what you do. Prosecution rests.
All normal translations of the Bible have some kinds of notes, footnotes and brackets around the sections of John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20, noting that they are textual variants, and not found in the earliest extant manuscripts. James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” is a very good book which shows the fallacy of the JKV Onlyism and the value of the up-front honesty of scholarship that knows about the textual variants.
But they do not affect the truth of the rest of the Scriptures. The truth of the resurrection appearances is in Matthew and Luke and John and Acts. Mark 16:1-8 testifies to the empty tomb of Jesus and the women’s testimony of finding the empty tomb, and the angels telling them to tell Peter and the disciples. The other gospels confirm these historical facts.
My point about the 2 guys above is not to agree with their conclusions or presuppositions, but to illustrate that the freedom to think and criticize and theorize produces lots of other viewpoints, but that is not allowed in the Muslim world and is considered a grave crime and sometimes people take the law into their own hands, and there is also lots of fear that keeps them in line. (the Druze and the 5er Shiite /Zaydi, or Ebadi Shiite professor = Muhammad Sven Kalisch was a Shia (articles I found online say he is a Zaydi, or 5er or Ebadi Shiite.
“Zaidiyyah or Zaidism (Arabic: الزيدية az-zaydiyya, adjective form Zaidi or Zaydi; occasionally known as Fivers) is one of the Shia sects closest in terms of theology to the Ibadi and Mutazila schools. Zaidiyyah emerged in the eighth century out of Shi’a Islam.[1] Zaidis are named after Zayd ibn ʻAlī, the grandson of Husayn ibn ʻAlī and the son of their fourth Imam Ali ibn ‘Husain.[1] Followers of the Zaydi Islamic jurisprudence are called Zaydi and make up about 50% of Muslims in Yemen, with the vast majority of Shia Muslims in that country being Zaydi.[2][3]”
My point is not to agree necessarily with their conclusions – my only point is that if there academic freedom to criticize and theorize with anti-supernaturalistic presuppositions (like in the west since the Enlightenment), then there would be all sorts of liberal theories and available literature, like all the stuff you guys have from the west in the last 300 years that in more recent years, James D. G. Dunn and Bart Ehrman (2 of Paul Williams favorite scholars) and Rudolph Bultmann (1930s-1970s; died in 1976) and Marcus Borg (died recently) and John Dominic Crossan and Robert Funk (died a few years ago; one of the main leaders of the very liberal “Jesus Seminar”, along with J. D. Crossan and Borg, etc.) have been promoting in recent years. These are all warmed over German scholars of the Tubingen school of thought, F. C. Bauer, & David Strauss, Remarius,
Friedrich Schleiermacher ( 1768 – 1834)
and Walter Bauer and Adolf Von Harnack, (and many others over the past 300 years) and later, Karl Barth, who tried to modify classic liberalism into the Neo-Orthodox movement.
@Ken Temple
Ok sure Ken they are textual variants. BUT let’s say it was proven to you that those as well as other parts of the bible canon were indeed forgeries. Would the presence of forgeries in the NT canon mean that said canon was not from God?
I’m looking for a yes or a no here ken.
If it was proven, beyond doubt, of course, that would cast doubt on the truth of the NT and Christianity. But to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt, that is a BIG if.
So far, I see no evidence that the presence of those textual variants (and the others) as casting doubt upon the standard established Greek text (s) [United Bible Societies USB 27 or 28 or Nestle-Aland, or the Tyndale House edition, etc.] of the NT.
@Ken Temple
Thank you for answering my question Ken.
😂 Finally!
@Ken Temple
Out of curiosity Ken what would definite proof of forgery in the bible canon look like to you?
There is no contradiction between James, the epistle of James, and the apostle Paul, when there is proper exegesis and study.
There is a big contradiction between Jesus and Paul:
D. A. Carson’s commentary on Matthew, pages 172-180, on the section of Matthew 5:17-20, is much, much better. There is no contradiction, once you understand Jesus’ words, “I came to fulfill the law” and the place that the gospels are in the process and progress of NT revelation.
Conservative Roman Catholics completely disagree with the late Raymond Brown (on his casting doubt upon the infancy narratives in Matthew 1-2 and Luke 1-2, and yet “having cake and eating it too”, as Geza Vermes called him out on) and Fitzmeyer (on his scholarly positive take on the Protestant doctrine of justification by Faith Alone). What Pope officially agreed that these words are not authentic to Jesus and “made up” by Matthew? What Pope officially announced an infallible dogma that is ex-cathedra on Raymond Brown and Fitzmeyer’s scholarship? none. Roman Catholic theology since Vatican 2 (1962-1968) is a mass of contradiction anyway and guts their claims that they are the one true church that is infallible and never changing, etc. Their authority is empty and bogus.
By claiming that Islam is the fulfillment of “the religion of Jesus” in Matthew and Judaism, well . . . you just confirmed what Abraham Geiger already has written.
Except you don’t have the Jewish priesthood or sacrificial system, or temple and you and your other Muslim friends here claim that many passages of the TaNaKh (OT), like Genesis 22, Joshua’s commands against the Canaanites and Amorites in the promised land, and I -2 Samuel and 1-2 Kings and the honesty about David’s sins, Solomon’s sins, and in Genesis, Noah’s and Abraham’s sins – are all Jewish forgeries and lies.
So, you just gutted Islam also, and confirmed Abraham Geiger’s understanding that Islam is basically Midrash and Talmudic Judaism, that Muhammad and his followers learned from the Jews in Medina, and then added their own particular twists and changes on some things, and gutted the Jewish priesthood and temple sacrificial system, although sometimes affirming the concept of substitutionary atonement (for example, in Surah 37:107 – “We ransomed him with a mighty sacrifice”; and numerous Hadith on the concept.)
@ Ken
Except….
1. We never claim to be a different religion. To make it easier for your understanding, we’re a reformation movement.
2. Real interesting we “learned everything from the Jews” when we existed for 10 years before making contact and all are laws were down in 2 years.
3. We purposely differentiated ourselves from the Jews once in Madinah.
4. Ironically, you actually are just heretical Jews.
PS As you keep holding Geiger up as some sort of “proof” even Marc who you learned this from admitted he was out of date and no longer taken seriously in scholarship.
I agree that the theory that Muhammad did not even exist is crazy.
The point is when there is freedom and no fear of punishment, as in the west since the secular movement and Enlightenment, all sorts of academic writings and theories come into existence.
And we know that Kennywise secretly wishes that secularism would disappear and the church becomes dominant again, but openly, he kisses secularism’s rear-end.
@ Ken
So you don’t know what’s God’s Word. Next, because you keep trying to bs no it is NOT taught to most Christians (as they know any rational person will chalk it) Most, have to actually look it up themselves as Church is usually selective quotes and singing to make people “feel good” (like a club)
Moving on, yes they do affect the truth on several points:
A. Most common for anyone who isn’t brain dead is people forged text, so what else is forged we don’t know.
B. From a theological standpoint, the lady taken in adultery is the ONLY proof Jesus(as) did not believe in enforcement of the Torah’s laws. Otherwise, he clearly teaches that everything in it is to be followed and enforced.
C. People have actually been hurt because of the ending of Mark trying to “prove the truth of the Scriptures”.
Finally, as I said to the previous retard Marc, WE ARE MORE ADVANCED THAN YOU ALL when it comes to critical scholarship (again its a comparison of 300 years to 1,400). We have done it earlier and more harshly. Idk why you keep thinking we live in some bubble, anything that can be debated with evidence, has more than likely been done.
So you don’t know what’s God’s Word.
Yes, I do; and all true believers do. the NT (the true Injeel, which the Qur’an affirms unwittingly and unknowingly 600 years later) and the OT is God’s Word, even acknowledging the textual variants.
Next, because you keep trying to bs no it is NOT taught to most Christians (as they know any rational person will chalk it) Most, have to actually look it up themselves as Church is usually selective quotes and singing to make people “feel good” (like a club)
Not really an understandable paragraph. (any rational person will chalk it – ? what does that mean ?)
All good translations of the English Bible today (NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, CHS, etc.) have the notes, footnotes, and / or brackets around those 2 passages.)
@ Ken
“Yes, I do and all true believers do.”
Cool, so we’re back to the original question “Is John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 God’s Inspired Word? Just need a yes or no.”
“…any rational person will chalk it – ? what does that mean ?)”
My apologies I sometimes forget not to use slang with you guys. Any person who is somewhat intelligent will conclude the Bible is unreliable when finding out that these passages are forgeries (proven this time and time again with actual people) Yes it is in “footnotes” but unfortunately most people don’t read those or really grasp what is being said.
@ Ken
Oh before I answer the rest as you seem to have written for everything but my initial question you said all believers know God’s Word, cool:
Is John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 God’s Inspired Word? Just need a yes or no.
Finally, as I said to the previous retard Marc, WE ARE MORE ADVANCED THAN YOU ALL when it comes to critical scholarship (again its a comparison of 300 years to 1,400).
The force of Uthmanic government power of the sword to enforce a government text on the people, and burn all other copies, proves otherwise. (Sahih Al Bukhari – Volume 6, book 61, Hadith 509-510)
Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 4986
In-book reference : Book 66, Hadith 8
USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 6, Book 61, Hadith 509-510
Also the backwardness of most of Islamic societies and governments proves otherwise – Saudi Arabia, Iran, Taliban Afghanistan, parts of Pakistan (the anti-blasphemy laws, people taking the law into their own hands and just killing people without evidence and just going on mob-rule over a rumour, etc.), Libya, Palestinian terrorist / Hamas, Boko Haram, Al Shabbab, Yemen civil war, the Lebanon civil war of the 1980s, Saddam Hussein, Syria, Al Qade’da, Isis (Da’esh), etc. – all of this fruit comes from the same rotten root. Even Salafis seem to admit that beginning with the Umayyad Caliphate all the way to the Ottoman Caliphate, the whole thing was corrupt.
“The force of Uthmanic government power of the sword to enforce a government text on the people, and burn all other copies, proves otherwise”
No, it proves that you’re an idiot. Uthman’s decision was supported by the other Sahabah. A few were hesitant at first but came around later. It was a collective decision. And it was necessary to avoid FUTURE disagreements, as we see in your silly religion with its multiple canons, forged verses, forged books, etc.
C. People have actually been hurt because of the ending of Mark trying to “prove the truth of the Scriptures”.
That is true – the snakehandlers of the Appalachian Mountains of the USA are nutty goof-balls. (But their abuse of a passage does not prove it is inauthentic, though the passage is doubtful)
Even if that part of Mark 16 is true; even if authentic, it never says to deliberately test the Lord by being stupid enough to play with poisonous snakes.
Acts 28:1-5 may be the fulfillment of that, if it is authentic. (Paul was healed of the snake bite, but he did not deliberately try to test God like the modern snake-handlers do in a worship service in the Appalachian Mountains, etc.
“Thou shalt not put the Lord Thy God to the test”
Deuteronomy 6:16 (quoted in Matthew 4:7 and Luke 4:12
“…any rational person will chalk it – ?
I guess you meant “chalk it up to the garbage heap” or “chuck it” (throw it away, abandon it)
ok
Iranians, Tajiks, and other Central Asian Muslims are celebrating “No Ruz” (new day or new year) now. (March 20 – Spring Equinox)
They have a deep culture, older than Islam, and make lots of cute animation and cool music.
There is a lot to admire in Muslim cultures that is part of the creation blessings of Genesis 1-2 (traditional marriage, family, respect for elders, etc. – great music and art, and great food and poetry. Most Mosques are beautiful in their architecture – the calligraphy, symmetry, etc. – great !! I love Iranian, Arabic (Lebanese, Egyptian, Moroccan), Turkish, Pakistani cuisine and traditional music.
A beautiful and cute celebration of “No Ruz” and family: (goes far back in history before Islam came to Iran)
LOL, so what? Christians do the same, moron! Ever heard of Halloween? Not to mention Christmas, which has its roots in pagan religion?
“March 20 – Spring Equinox”
Hmm, sort of like the Christians adopting pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.
@ QB
Did a brief skim its some pagan Zorastrian holiday. How it’s relevant to us though…idk.
Yeah, I knew that. Zoroastrianism was the dominant religion in pre-Islamic Persia. But yeah, what this has to do with the topic of Biblical forgeries…🤷♂️
As long as one gives it creational (God as creator) meaning, separating out the “image of God in man” principle from Genesis 1-2, from the paganism, there is nothing wrong with it.
🤣🤣🤣 So repackaging the pagan imagery and applying it to God is perfectly fine. Wow! I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. I mean your Bible does that all the time. e.g. God as an old man with white hair, copied from Canaanite myth.
symbol of wisdom, but not from any Canaanite myth.
Qur’an got everything good from OT and a few things about Jesus from NT truths that were already within the apocryphal gospels (Jesus Al Masih, virgin born, Injeel, did miracles, He is the Word of God, etc.) and twisted and added, etc.
🤣 And there we have the dishonesty and lies. Canaanite mythology has the exact same motif. Your Bible copied it.
In contrast, the Quran is God’s Word.
The Qur’an is not God’s word. Too many problems.
Proof that Qur’an is NOT God’s word:
https://crossexamined.org/simple-reason-quran-word-god/
The Bible is not God’s word or inspired by Him. Way too many problems.
Linking to an idiotic website by another Ignoramus proves nothing. 😂
Excellent take down / “chalking” of the Qur’an by Wood and Nabeel Qureshi:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/p/quran.html
Two other clowns. Who cares? 😂
“clowns” were able to take down the Qur’an as credible.
LOL
Only in the minds other clowns. LOL
And one of those clowns is a psychopath. The other WAS a liar (not anymore as he is suffering punishment now in the afterlife) who claimed he was a Muslim bent on jihad, when actually he was an Ahmadi.
correction:
was a psychopath pre-conversion, which he confessed. Confession of sin and repentance and faith in Christ makes one into a new creature.
2 Corinthians 5:17
DW’s testimony is powerful of how the grace of God changed him.
he is STILL psychopath even today.
Correction: He still claims to be a psychopath. He said so during his catastrophic debate with Muhammad Hijab.
Clearly, your pagan god did not have the power to change him. He’s also a liar and unbelievably incompetent.
I see you had nothing to say about Nabeel the Ahmadi liar. 😂
I wrote in separate box
DW admitted he lacks emotional empathy, (or ability to cry or show those emotions) but I don’t remember him saying he is “still” a Psychopath sociopath.
😂 So your god failed to fix this mentally insane clown! Thanks for proving your god is false! 🤣
I say he is.
He said “IF had known about the harsh Jihadi passages, he would be like the Al-Qaedah / Isis types. As it was though, in Ahmadi Islam, they are never taught or exposed to all that gross Jihadist Hadith and Sunna and Sira and Tarikh embarrassing stuff.
🤣 Trying to cover up the lies with more lies? That’s Christianity for ya!
@ QB
Good for you because it news to me. Since we’re just out throwing random trivia facts, some people think cucumbers taste better pickled.
PS
Did you see my nomination for Ken and Washer for the Wall?
Absolutely!
By the way, I like pickles but not cucumbers.
no! cucumbers are better unpickled
Enjoy your cucumbers Paul.
@ Ken
Yes, Ken, we know you worship anything but that’s not the discussion right now. We are trying to find out if the lady taken in adultery and the ending(s) of Mark is God’s Word.
@ QB
Taste-wise tough call depends on how I’m feeling. However, cucumbers are more versatile by being able to get rid of razor bumps and rejuvenate bags underneath one’s eyes so they win.
Zoroastrianism adopted the No Ruz and related things from even earlier religion and culture, which the ancient Iranians called “Mehr” مهر (love, kindness) as a symbol of the sun / light – and has a lot in common with Babylonian and Roman and Greek ancient religions – granted the worship of the sun is pagan and wrong, but Zoroastrianism developed out of that and created a dualism (God = Ahura Mazda; Satan = Ahriman) (similar to the 2 sides of the “Force” in Star Wars and “Ying and Yang” in Chinese religions, Taoism, etc.
Yaaaawn, still waiting to find out what this has to do with the forgeries in the Bible.
I guess because Shaad (unapologetically condescending) asked me questions about how I learned Farsi, and that led me to eventually point out how the Iranians and other Central Asians are celebrating “No Ruz” yesterday and today and will continue to for 13 days. It is a big deal in their cultures, like the west’s month of December for Christmas season.
And yet, the question that Stew keeps asking remains unanswered. 🤔
@ Ken
We know your fascinated by paganism (seeing as most Christians have a dualistic view between God and the Devil) but stay focused good sir. You said all Christians know God’s Word so summon that Holy Spirit to end the argument of Academic scholarship. Is it or is it not?
“I guess because Shaad (unapologetically condescending) asked me questions about how I learned Farsi”
Blimey Ken how did you recognize me?😱 is it because of the Rose i offered? 🤔
@Ken Temple
“correction:
was a psychopath pre-conversion, which he confessed. Confession of sin and repentance and faith in Christ makes one into a new creature.
2 Corinthians 5:17
DW’s testimony is powerful of how the grace of God changed him.”
…Wait WHAT?! does this mean if we get david tested on his mental state we’ll have conclusive proof of whether Christianity is true or not?!
In all seriousness though Ken I find you’re outlook on mental health and religion to be unhealthy. religion is a powerful force of good for the mentally ill true, but therapy and medication are still sometimes needed just like with more physical ailments.
Yes, I never deny proper therapy and medication are sometimes needed.
DW was changed; listen to his testimony; it is on You Tube.
But that does not mean that some aspects of our old life are not still with us.
After conversion, we still have to choose to “put off the old man / self”
Ephesians 4:20-24
20 But you did not learn Christ in this way,
21 if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught in Him, just as truth is in Jesus,
22 that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit,
23 and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind,
24 and put on the new self, which in the likeness of God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.
He has said some disturbing things, such as his willingness to kill babies if he believed God told him to do so.
Sounds like a psychopath.
Well, how convenient! Your god didn’t feel it necessary to fix the psycho’s lack of emotions and instead rely on human medicines. 😂
Christian converts to Islam and his father is amazed at his transformation:
https://youtu.be/zyvdktoLCac
@Ken temple
OK now i”m confused. You said david was transformed by his conversion and no longer a psychopath(something as far as i’m aware he denies by still referring to himself as such) wouldn’t that imply that anyone who have problems with their mental health just need to convert to Christianity instead of medication and therapy? If I’ve misunderstood you I apologize.
Another really cute and beautiful animation about “No Ruz” with great music and explanation of the “Haft seen” (7 things that begin with an “s” in Farsi)
Wonderful and beautiful culture!!
A lot of Persian poetry is also deep and beautiful and full of meaning – Mowlana (Jallal a din Rumi), Hafez, Saadi, Rudaki, Ferdowsi, etc.
I learned some over the years, and there are many beautiful sayings about Jesus Al Masih and Christian truth in them that they unwittingly and unknowingly affirm Jesus of the NT (the true gospel, the true Injeel)
Ken why do you refer to Jesus as ‘Jesus Al Masih’? – it’s just I have never heard a Muslim or Christian refer to him like this.
Jesus Al Masih = Jesus the Messiah
عیسی المسیح
shows how the Arabic name actually affirms the truth of the NT, the true Injeel.
Jesus is THE Messiah.
Can anyone tell me how any of this is relevant to the present topic? (scratches head)
LOL
Just showing there is a lot of good still in Muslim cultures that is still part of creation ordinances of Genesis 1-2 and that I love and respect. (Family, marriage, good art and good food, poetry, architecture.)
The good in Islam has nothing to do with the previous cultures, idiot.
@ QB
Correct me if I’m wrong but basically, Ken said the thing he likes about Islam is, cultures pre-Islamic pagan practices? Thanks…
That’s what it sounds like.
The affirmation of marriage and family values is good, that goes back to Christian truth and Judaism in the OT – Genesis 1-2, among other good creation – common grace blessings in art, science, poetry, architecture, music, etc.
Moron, marriage and family values are common in many religions. It is God’s Law and has nothing to do with your false religion or the other false religions.
I did not say they were not. They also retain Genesis 1-2 / Creation / common grace blessings and goodness.
I loved it when secular leftist Journalists tried to trap the Tibetan Buddhist leader, the Dalai Lama and get him to approve of homosexuality and he said no.
Good for him.
Genesis 1-2 were written long after, dummy.
written around 1400 BC, but based on earlier truth that goes back to beginning of Human history.
Uh no, stupid. They were probably written in Babylon more than a 1000 years later. Even if they were written in 1400 BC, other religions predate that by thousands of years.
Except Adam and Eve and Noah and Abraham either predate/or are contemporary with them, and they (Noah, Abraham, etc.) passed down the oral traditions of the creation account.
🤣🤣🤣 Not according to your idiotic book’s chronology. The history only goes back to around 4000 BC. Humans have been around for much longer than that.
There is evidence of cultures older than your Bible’s creation story. This proves the Bible is false.
Not if there are gaps in the genealogies.
There are no gaps, stupid. That’s just a myth invented by modern Christians to save themselves the embarassment.
First, if the Biblical figures mentioned in the genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 are not necessarily “father” and “son”, then it means that the genealogies have gaps which can exceed thousands of generations (if we attempt to harmonize the Bible with science). If that is true, then these genealogies have no meaning and we have to question why they are even part of scripture.[32] What would be the point of mentioning a genealogy which separates two people by hundreds or thousands of generations?
Second, the context of the genealogies indicates that nothing other than a literal father-son relationship is implied. As “Answers in Genesis” points out:
“…additional biographical information in Genesis 5 and 11 strongly supports the view that there are no gaps in these chapters. So we know for certain that the following are literal father/son relationships: Adam/Seth, Seth/Enosh, Lamech/Noah, Noah/Shem, Eber/Peleg, and Terah/Abram. Nothing in these chapters indicates that the “X begat Y” means something other than a literal father/son relationship.”[33]
Put schematically, we can see that from Adam to Shem in the Genesis 5 genealogy, six of the eleven names mentioned are clearly linked in literal father-son relationships:
Adam–Seth–Enosh-Kenan-Mahalel-Jared-Enoch-Methusaleh-Lamech–Noah–Shem
Thus, why would we assume that the other five names are also not linked by the same relationships? In fact, the New Testament helps us to lock in Kenan, Mahalel, Jared and Enoch in literal father-son relationships as well.[34] According to Jude 1:14, Enoch was the “seventh from Adam”:
“Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: “See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones…”
If Enoch was the “seventh from Adam”, it means he was Adam’s great-great-great-great-grandson, which makes Jared the great-great-great-grandson and so on. Therefore, ten of the eleven names are now linked, with only Methuselah left:
Adam (1)–Seth (2)–Enosh (3)–Kenan (4)–Mahalel (5)–Jared (6)–Enoch (7)-Methusaleh-Lamech–Noah–Shem
Keeping the “ancestor-descendant” argument in mind, there is nothing outside of Genesis 5 which clearly links Methuselah as Enoch’s literal son, even though he is mentioned in other genealogies as the son of Enoch (and that is all the context really allows).[35] Nevertheless, it is clear that the other names are all part of literal father-son relationships and not “ancestor-descendant” relationships, and thus, Enoch and Methusaleh should be no different. Now let us look at the genealogy in Genesis 11.
The genealogy goes like this:
Shem-Arphaxad-Shelah-Eber-Peleg-Reu-Serug-Nahor-Terah-Abraham
We already know that Eber/Peleg and Terah/Abraham have literal father-son relationships. That leaves six names unaccounted for. Yet, we can also add Shem and Arphaxad because it is clear that Shem was the father of Arphaxad and not his “ancestor”, as is clear from Genesis 11:10, which states that Shem “fathered” Arphaxad only two years after the flood:
“This is the account of Shem’s family line. Two years after the flood, when Shem was 100 years old, he became the father of Arphaxad.”
Hence, six of the ten names are now linked:
Shem–Arphaxad-Shelah-Eber–Peleg-Reu-Serug-Nahor-Terah–Abraham
But Shelah can certainly be added since it would not make sense to place a distant “ancestor” between Arphaxad and Eber. Indeed, why would we assume that Shelah was perhaps only a distant “ancestor” of Eber or that Reu was a distant “descendant” of Peleg? Similarly, why would we assume that the other three are also not linked? Clearly, there is no rhyme or reason to claiming that “ab” and “ben” had any other meaning other than as literal “father” and “son”, respectively. Indeed, out of the twenty names mentioned in Genesis 5 and 11, from Adam to Abraham, sixteen can be undoubtedly linked. Based on this undeniable proof, the only reasonable conclusion is that when we add the number of years together in these genealogies, we can calculate the age of the earth as being around 6,000 years.
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/08/science-in-the-bible-and-the-quran/
@ Ken
“written around 1400 BC, but based on earlier truth that goes back to beginning of Human history.”
So are you saying you believe the text of the Bible is based off earlier stories the Jews hd in circulation before Moses (as)?
You said all Christians know God’s Word so summon that Holy Spirit to end the argument of Academic scholarship. Is it or is it not?
No one can “summon” (in the law court authority commanding someone to appear in court sense) the Holy Spirit.
He is God and He does as He wills. John 3:1-21; 1 Corinthians 12:11 “He gives gifts, . . . just as He wills)
if he is God how come he didn’t know the date of the End? “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Mark 13:32
So that means you don’t have the holy spirit then?
Obviously not.
We cannot command Him; He commands us.
But yes, the Holy Spirit lives in us and with us and that is the promise of John 14-16, which proves that the paraclete is certainly NOT about Muhammad. (which also destroys arguments based on Surah 7:157, that the Gospel speaks of Muhammad. What a joke and nutty argument!!)
The Song of Solomon argument and Deut. 17 are also nutty and goofy and prove Islam is false.
🤣🤣 Nutty and goofy…yep, that describes the Bible and idiots like Kennywise.
Obviously, your holy spirit knows nothing. It’s useless.
The Holy Spirit knows everything.
Mark 13:32. No, it doesn’t. 😂
He is not mentioned. Not mentioning someone does not mean contradiction.
“But only the Father”. That means the holy spirit does not know. Sorry Kennywise. Your god is not all knowing.
nope, it means only in relation to the Son.
Not mentioning the Holy Spirit is not the same as what you are trying to communicate.
Nope, it means only the Father knows. No one else. Period. You lost, stupid. Your god is not all knowing.
“only the Father” so not the spirit
boom!
not according to Jesus!!
@ Ken
yeah, yeah He’s in you, he’s yadda, yadda, yadda. Are those passages God’s Word? Do you need me to give you a demonstration of how other religions answer this basic question again?
Even the holy spirit doesn’t know the answer. 😂
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit.
For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God.
1 Corinthians 2:10
@Ken Temple
Don’t you find it troubling that one person of the trinity HAS to search the mind of God as opposed to just knowing it automatically by virtue of being all knowing?
good point
Showing the unity of the three persons within the Holy Trinity, by showing the unity of those 2 persons in that verse.
If one person has to “search” the mind of another, then it means that there was a point when the former did not know something.
@Ken Temple
But how can they be in unity when one HAS to search the mind of the other? Plus this still doesn’t ease the conflict of Mark 13:32’s “only the father” remark. Moreover I presume the “God” in the verse is the father correct? This just goes to show once again the father is in the top of the hierarchy. Ask yourself why does the spirit NEED to search the mind of “God” when it should be God and all knowing on its own?
All Trinitarians acknowledge that there is some kind of hierarchy of roles within the Trinity.
The doctrine of Perichoresis speaks to the inter-penetration spiritually of each person within the Trinity.
Why does Paul say that Jesus has a God?
‘I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.’ – 1 Corinthians 11
@ Ken
“…there is some kind of hierarchy of roles within the Trinity.”
Then they’re not equals.
1 Cor 11 says Jesus has a God.
@Ken Temple
Can the spirit have all knowledge without searching the depths of God?
For (for the Spirit searches all things) – Paul introduces a second term of explanation in this 1Cor 2:10. In context Paul is amplifying how the Spirit could reveal truth and by implication, the extent and depth of that truth (“all things… depths of God.”). As an aside Paul uses this literary tool (term of explanation) probably more than any other Biblical writer. Therefore it behooves us to become facile in interrogating Paul’s “for’s.” This discipline will often yield valuable insights into the passage, as the Spirit illumines (sheds light on) the text.
The verb searches might suggest that the Spirit is not omniscient and that He needs to search for truth that He does not already know. Nothing could be further from the truth, for as the third member of the Trinity, the Spirit has all the attributes of God, including omniscience. As Leon Morris says the idea of the “Spirit searches all things (is) not that He conducts searches with a view to obtaining information, but that He penetrates all things. There is nothing beyond his knowledge.” (Ibid)
Charles Hodge explains that “Searches, i.e. explores, accurately and thoroughly knows. The word does not express the process of investigation, but rather its results, viz., profound knowledge.” (Hodge’s Commentary)
The Reformation Study Bible adds that “The idea of divine searching (cf. Ps. 139:1; Ro 8:27-note) emphasizes God’s omniscience, particularly His power to see what is invisible to humans (John 2:25). It does not imply that the Holy Spirit needs to seek knowledge of the Father that He otherwise lacks. The Spirit probes the depths of divine knowledge for our benefit.” (Reformation Study Bible)
Lol, Christians and their idiotic theology…
If nothing is beyond the spirit’s knowledge, even the Father, than the Father has limitations and cannot be God.
You Christians are so unbelievably lost.
@Ken Temple
I think you’d have a point if the verse ended at “for the spirit searches everything” because that alone could convey all knowing but verse continues and even distinguishes between the spirit and God(the father) in that the all knowledge the spirit has is not it’s own but that of the father’s. Moreover this still doesn’t ease the conflict of “only the father” statement from earlier. At best it’s a contradiction.
“only the Father” in Mark 13:32 means “only the Father in relation to the Son at the time while the Son is on earth in the incarnation and in the limitations of the physical body”
It does not refer to God the Son’s knowledge before the incarnation, nor after resurrection, nor to any kind of limitation with the Holy Spirit.
It is necessary to meditate on the whole passage of 1 Corinthians 2:7-16
7 but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God predestined before the ages to our glory;
8 the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;
9 but just as it is written,
“Things which eye has not seen and ear has not heard,
And which have not entered the heart of man,
All that God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.
The apostle Paul is claiming His message is from God, the Holy Spirit and there is a deep unity in the knowledge of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
verse 10 means the Holy Spirit knows all the deep things of God and is revealing the message in the NT gospel message, which is being written also during that time. “the things we speak” (now, even as I am writing this letter of 1 Corinthians.)
He is basically saying that Paul’s apostolic message is inspired by God and from the Holy Spirit and that believers in Christ have the mind of Christ – we have access to the mind of Christ, because we have the message and the Holy Spirit; and that message was later written down in all the 27 books of the NT.
Unbelievers cannot discern this without the Spirit of God (v. 14), that is why all of you guys are stupefied and stunned and perplexed and dazed and stumped and you don’t understand.
He wants to emphasize that the Holy Spirit knows all the depths of the Living God, since He is also God by nature. The truth of the Trinity comes out, by also the end of the passage, “We have the mind of Christ” (v. 16) – we have access to the mind of Christ, because we have the Holy Spirit and we are preaching and the teaching the inspired words of God by the Holy Spirit in this apostolic message. (which is also written down.)
““only the Father” in Mark 13:32 means “only the Father in relation to the Son at the time while the Son is on earth in the incarnation and in the limitations of the physical body””
Uh huh, sure, sure. We’re not falling for your BS. Jesus made it clear that he was referring to both in heaven and earth, only the Father knows all things. That’s why he mentioned the angels. The implication is that of all the beings, only the Father is all-knowing.
“It is necessary to meditate on the whole passage of 1 Corinthians 2:7-16”
Um no, not really because Paul was a different type of heretic.
“Unbelievers cannot discern this without the Spirit of God (v. 14), that is why all of you guys are stupefied and stunned and perplexed and dazed and stumped and you don’t understand.”
LOL, that’s funny, because Christian morons like Kennywise cannot answer simple questions about the forgeries in their Bible, which is why you are stupefied and stunned and perplexed and dazed and stumped and you don’t understand.
Hey Kennywise, have you heard of punctuation? They teach that to kids in grammar school. That way you don’t have to keep using “and” over and over again. You sound like an idiot on drugs. 🙂
Anyway, so Kennywise cannot actually explain how the HS is supposedly all-knowing in the light of Mark 13:32 aside from saying “you guys don’t understand”. How convenient!
@ QB
Poor Isa(as) never had a chance…
“He wants to emphasize that the Holy Spirit knows all the depths of the Living God, since He is also God by nature. The truth of the Trinity comes out, by also the end of the passage, “We have the mind of Christ” (v. 16) – we have access to the mind of Christ, because we have the Holy Spirit and we are preaching and the teaching the inspired words of God by the Holy Spirit in this apostolic message. (which is also written down.)”
LOL, now you have the mind of Christ? So when’s he coming back then? Maybe that’s why the idiot Paul was convinced the end was coming and warned his followers that the “time is short”. The ignoramus must have thought that he was reading Christ’s mind. LOL!!
Despite all this, you have yet to give a straight answer to Stew’s question. It’s amazing how much jumping around you do. You really should take a look at gymnastics. I think you would excel in it! You might even win a gold medal in the Olympics!
@ Ken
Since you have the mind of Al-Maseeha (as) ask him if John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 happened for me as I’m trying to learn his biography right now.
Zing! 🤣
@Ken Temple
““only the Father” in Mark 13:32 means “only the Father in relation to the Son at the time while the Son is on earth in the incarnation and in the limitations of the physical body”
And this is why I can’t be a Christian. I just can’t believe God would limit himself. Because he would effectively be less than God.
“It does not refer to God the Son’s knowledge before the incarnation, nor after resurrection, nor to any kind of limitation with the Holy Spirit.”
So did god the son forget? Also I have to disagree with the bit about the holy spirit as again the knowledge that the holy spirit searches is not it’s own but the fathers.
” 10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.”
isn’t this partalism? after all humans are not co equal with their souls, souls are a part of us.
Kennywise’s bumbling responses on the trinity remind me of this. This is one of my favorite YouTube videos! I move that when we need to criticize a response by Kennywise, we begin it with “Come on, Patrick!”
a great video
@ QB
I second this motion.
Isn’t democracy grand?
The Spirit of God was hovering over the waters / seas in creation.
Genesis 1:2
And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
The Spirit of God is creator, along with the Father and the Son (John 1:1-5)
Psalm 104:30
When you send your Spirit,
they are created,
and you renew the face of the ground.
“I guess because Shaad (unapologetically condescending) asked me questions about how I learned Farsi”
Blimey Ken how did you recognize me?😱 is it because of the Rose i offered? 🤔
No; that was not the reason.
I was looking at Faiz / QB’s blog and caught your conversations at the open forum thread.
I knew Kennywise was hanging around, lurking in the shadows!
@ QB
Dum, dum, DUUUUMMMMM!!!!
@Stew, I added Washer and Kennywise to the Wall of Shame.
https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/cerbies-list-of-nightmares-and-unanswered-questions-issues/
@ QB
I think we might have to do an award for Washer as I believe that’s the record for the quickest Wall of Shame induction.
“we have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16) does not mean we know everything in His mind, rather we have access to the thinking of Christ in what He has revealed
-see verse 10, “For to us God revealed them through the Spirit” and verse 12 “we have received”.
God has revealed spiritual truths through the gospel message, which was preached and then written down, and through the illuminating power of the Spirit, which Christians have.
10 For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
I actually agree with the video “St. Patrick’s bad analogies” and it is very funny.
Wow. . . QB and I agree on something . . . wow
I have not communicated Modalism, or Arianism, or Partialism.