Textual Discrepancies & How They Could Impact Christianity

Was there anything in your link that had any significance?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Was there anything in your link that had any significance?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Except of course Jesus does not fulfill the requirements that Isaiah laid out there. It is not a prophecy of Jesus and if it were, it is a failed prophecy.It is true though that far after the time Isaiah wrote that others tried to take what was written and twist it to point to Jesus.

quote:

---

6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

​

7 Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this.

---

Jesus never reigned on David's throne, or over a nation.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It is also important to understand fasting as it was practiced then in the Judaic community (and in much of modern Judaism on fast days). Fasting as described in Luke 4 would have meant eating nothing between sunup and sundown. It would NOT mean going 40 days without any food. It would also have meant limiting what was eaten to a meal in the evening and one again before sunup.To often today we read the texts from today's perspective and NOT from the perspective of a Jew living at the time it was written.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

I have absolutely no doubt that you believe in the stories, the God and even the Christ that you create.However a Jew of the period would understand that 40 is one of the magic numbers, like 3 and 7 and 12 and so was symbolic. A Jew of the period would understand the custom of fasting and that the terms "during those days" meant that the fasting rules were observed during the period.And became hungry does not indicate suffering.Which returns us to the topic.The issue with textual discrepancies is partly due to the fact that most Christians are ignorant of Judaism. Jesus was not a Christian, he was a Jew. The different books of the Bible were not written by Christians, but primarily by Jews, Jews with a basic cultural mythos that is missing in modern Christians.That ignorance of the basics let's you pull stuff out of context like your quote from Job and truly believe that it really applies to the Luke desert narrative.And that is the second great issue of textual discrepancies.Christianity created "a Bible". They sat down in committee a few hundred years after Jesus death and made one of the biggest changes in how the holy texts would be viewed, they went beyond canonization and created a BOOK.For the Jews, things were and still are scrolls. Each is a separate story by a separate author meant to address a separate issue.Christianity and committees, human editors, redactors took those separate stories and forced them into a new creation, a Bible, one book and over time that attitude has evolved into thinking that there is but one story.That act alone totally changed the way the scriptures were viewed so that today, many Christians see the Bible as one story and not the anthology of anthologies it really is.Edited by jar, : stil appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

They likely used common sense and base it on how well they knew you. For example, I have a brother that if he said he would b coming in three days I'd say "Neat", but I certainly wouldn't make any preparations.His behavior is kinda like Jesus' when Jesus said he's be right back.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yawn.The story is meant as epic, it is a symbolic tale that describes HUMAN traits, being tempted and resisting temptation. It was not meant as a literal event.I don't reject the gospels, just the interpretations of SOME chapters of Club Christian. That is YOUR interpretation. There is no indication though that Job or any other Old Testament book was written referring to Jesus. What is seen is that the authors of the New Testament often used quotemines from earlier writers just as you do by taking stuff out of context. Well, no, I would not expect that. In fact that would be more likely a carny trick.I have never presented a conspiracy theory or think there ever was some conspiracy. Instead there have just been humans and committees that have acted based on their own needs and desires. Huh?Please don't misunderstand me in relation to inspiration. I believe many folk have been inspired by GOD, Mohammad is a great example; then there is Frost and Darwin and Mark Twain and the Reverend Dodgson, and Mendel and Lematre and Mencken and White and Mill and Russell and Popper and Lao Tzu and Confucius and Mencius and ...The question in the end though is "How do you know it is from GOD?"

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Kinda. The evidence shows that the Bible is simply the work of man, of committees, of power factions, of politics. It is not so much a scrap book as an anthology of anthologies. I may have even mentioned that before.The idea that it is some unified object is refuted by the fact that there is no such thing as an universal Canon.And it seems you still don't get it. The quotes themselves are not quote mining, your acts, your practice of pulling stuff out of context is quote mining.And you continue to simply dismiss almost all of the Bible it seems in favor of a few quotes taken out of context.This is the issue of the thread, there are textual discrepancies as well as multiple purposes for different sections. It is NOT all one unified message.Edited by jar, : fix subtitle

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The beginning of Moby Dick uses similar language and the book itself uses many of the same writing techniques. It is likely that the actual character Luke never even met Jesus and that the actual author of Luke was reporting hearsay (and of course, cribbing off even earlier Gospels and narratives).The story of the temptation in the desert is filled with symbolism and is an allegorical fable. It's likely that the author of Luke was creating a larger allegorical narrative and so changed the ordering and timing of events to suit his particular voice.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

It is precisely on topic. The quote taken from Luke aligns well with the opening of Moby Dick, a character, in the Gospel Luke, in Moby Dick the character Ishmael, makes a claim, of historicity. jawill was using that quote to support his assertion that the account of the temptation was to be taken as factual and literal.I am simply pointing out that the author of Luke was using that same techniques of allegory that we see repeated in Luke and many other parts of the Bible.The Textual discrepancies, for example between the account of the temptation in Luke and in Matthew would not have been significant or important to Jews of the time because they recognized that the writers were using symbolism and allegory.The impact on Christianity comes from the inability of many Christians to understand literature and the concept as expressed by jaywill that "the Bible is some Unified Revelation".

If the only thing you wish to harp on is the one example of jaywill quoting the opening of Luke I am more than happy to concede that in that one incident it was not quote mining. I have no problem agreeing with that. We have no idea what the author thought, we only know what the character Luke in the Gospel said.Further, if you would actually read the thread you would find that I was referring to a common and continued practice of jaywill of taking one quote out of context and using it as proof text for some other passage, the concept that the Bible explains the Bible. How is the declaration of the character Luke any different than the declaration of Ismael? No it is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of looking at the literature itself and understanding the culture of the author.It is important to the topic, and helps the audience understand the some of the things that lead to the positions so many Christians espouse.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Please show where I said things discourage me?The fact is that there is not even a universal list of what books would be included. And the folk familiar with how literature is written and how the terms were used also understand that the mention of 40 days is symbolic of a long fast of indeterminate length in the Moshe myths and the Elijah story as well and that fasting does not mean going without all food. Ah, so yet again the goal posts move. Now it is just a "general message of the New Testament". That's a whatever jaywill, of little importance and I don't think even very significant to what I think the message of the New Testament, the Gospel is.Salvation, if there is salvation, will be by GOD's grace. The message of the New Testament though is that we are charged to try to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sorrowful, teach the young, protect the helpless, to do.The textural discrepancies impact Christianity by moving peoples focus from just doing to some future possible reward.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Okay jaywill.You present YOUR best case to support YOUR position.I have never said you should do otherwise.In turn, I present the best case I can for my position.The audience will decide who has presented a better explanation.However my explanation for the allegorical and symbolic nature of the use of numbers, fasting and the literature that the author of Luke used when writing the Gospel attributed to Luke is not unique or even unusual.For example, even the information in Wiki points out many of the same issues I raised. From Wiki Article:If the issue is taken literally then the issue of the different textual accounts found in Matthew and Luke should be addressed.Edited by jar, : hit wrong keyEdited by jar, : and still appalin spallin

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

But in the latest quote mine example from you, you left out a significant if not THE significant part of the OP.Here is what you just wrote: and here is what was actually on the OP...

quote:

---

I feel these verses could have an impact on certain tenets, beliefs and practices of Christianity.

​

1 John 5:7 - There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.

​

IMO, this impacts the Doctrine of the Trinity

​

There is one big, whopper mammoth verse that you can literally base the entire doctrine of the Trinity on. Here it is:
For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7)

​

Unfortunately, that verse isn’t in the earliest Greek manuscripts. With the sure thing gone, apologists have to pull together a lot more verses from various writings to seemingly support this tenet. 1 John was supposedly written about 90-120 CE.

---

Note the bold part that you left out.Many chapters of Club Christian have as a basic article of faith the concept of Unity in Trinity, of Three in One.The passage from John is one of the main places where support for that position can be found.If though it was not in the original or even what John thought or believed but rather a later dogmatic insertion, then it is a great example of textual discrepancies that have impacted Christianity.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!