Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Bible inerrancy versus author's mistakes | 2 Tim 3:16 | Aslans_Friend | 186674 | ||
How do we reconcile bible inerrancy with authors mistakes? | ||||||
2 | Bible inerrancy versus author's mistakes | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 186675 | ||
Dear Asians_Friend - Will you cite concrete examples of what you deem to be "authors' mistakes"? We teach that all Scripture, though penned by man, is God breathed and therefore inerrant. See 2 Timothy 3:16. --Hank | ||||||
3 | Bible inerrancy versus author's mistakes | 2 Tim 3:16 | Aslans_Friend | 186686 | ||
While reading Dr. Bart D. Ehrman's MISQUOTING JESUS, I see that Mark 2 says that Jesus said that King David went into the temple while Abiathar was the high priest, but according to I Samuel 21, it was Ahimelech. | ||||||
4 | Bible inerrancy versus author's mistakes | 2 Tim 3:16 | Searcher56 | 186695 | ||
God's day to you, Aslans_Friend, From an old post of mine ... Ahimelech may of been only a priest, for the word "high" is not there (1Sa 21:1). However, from Josuha 20:6 to 2 Kings 12:10, we do not see the phrase "high priest". On the latter, it seems strange that Jehoiada is only a priest and the high priest is not named. Ahimelech may of been retired as high priest and Abiathar, the high priest was not around when David came. We know that Abiathar is the son of Ahimelech (1Sa 22:20, 23:6, 30:7). However, we see Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar (2Sa 8:17, 1Ch 24:6). Either there is another copiest error, or the son is named after his grandfather. ------------------------------------------- Doc wrote ... The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge states, "The most probable opinion seems to be, that both father and son had two names, the father being also called Abiathar; and this appears almost certain from 2 Samuel 8:17; 1 Chronicles 18:16, where Ahimelech seems evidently termed Abiathar, while Abiathar is called Ahimelech or Abimelech. (Cf 1 Kings 2:26, 27.)" Although I'm sure there has been much discussion and speculation since this statement was penned, it sounds reasonable. It probably represents the general concensus, while avoiding problematic conjecture. ------------------------------------------- The orginial has no mistakes ... there are copist mistakes. Searcher |
||||||
5 | was this a scribe's error? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Aslans_Friend | 187059 | ||
So you believe that a copist, a scribe "corrected" the discrepancy? | ||||||
6 | was this a scribe's error? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Searcher56 | 187060 | ||
Aslans_Friend, There is no discrepancy. Seacher | ||||||
7 | was this a scribe's error? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Aslans_Friend | 187071 | ||
Ok. The author made such a big deal about nothing. (Ehrman) It was like he questioned his beliefs over it... Thank you very much. |
||||||
8 | was this a scribe's error? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Searcher56 | 187075 | ||
You are welcome | ||||||