http://errancywiki.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Robert+Stevens&feedformat=atomErrancy Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T14:29:09ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.0http://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Titus_1:2&diff=35328Titus 1:22008-01-28T14:06:35Z<p>Robert Stevens: revert: this is not actually a "Con" argument against Titus 1:2 (which says that God cannot lie)</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Titus 1:1|Previous Verse]] < [[Titus 1]] > [[Titus 1:3|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
in hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Contrary to the above, God lies about the effects of eating the Forbidden Fruit ([[Genesis 2:17]]).<br />
<br />
God also lies (or, at best, "deceives" or sends a "lying spirit") in [[1 Kings 22:23]], [[2 Chronicles 18:22]], [[Jeremiah 4:10]], [[Jeremiah 20:7]], [[Ezekiel 14:9]] and [[2 Thessalonians 2:11]].<br />
--[[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] 07:29, 24 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Tts&chapter=1&verse=2&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=titus%201:2;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/titus/titus1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Titus&chapter=1&verse=2 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Titus+1.2 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B56C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Titus_Chapter_1,_Verse_2 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Isaiah_40:22&diff=24728Isaiah 40:222008-01-23T10:14:19Z<p>Robert Stevens: /* Pro */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Isaiah 40:21|Previous Verse]] < [[Isaiah 40]] > [[Isaiah 40:23|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
[It is] he that sitteth above the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
This verse is sometimes cited by apologists as evidence of the Bible's supernatural inspiration: that Isaiah knew the Earth was spherical, something he "could not have known except by supernatural means".<br />
<br />
Actually, it indicates exactly the opposite. Various ancient peoples knew the Earth was a sphere (most notably the Greeks: Eratosthenes calculated its circumference with remarkable accuracy in 240 BC), but the ancient Hebrews were not among them. While the Bible never actually declares "the Earth is flat", it consistently alludes to the flat-Earth cosmology described in more detail in the Book of Enoch: a flat disc covered by a solid dome (the "Firmanent" of [[Genesis 1:6]], with the "waters of Heaven" above it) to which the stars are attached. It should be noted that, while Enoch is not considered "canonical" by Christians, he is nevertheless endorsed as a "true prophet" in [[Jude 1:14]].<br />
<br />
Given the context, "circle" could refer either to the disc of the Earth or the dome above it. The Hebrew flat-Earth cosmology is further indicated by the tent analogy (tents are pitched on a flat surface, not wrapped around a sphere). Some apologists claim that the Hebews had no word for "sphere" that they could have used instead: this is incorrect, the Hebrew ''duwr'' ("ball") is used in the same book, in [[Isaiah 22:18]]. When confronted by this, the usual defense is that this word can't really mean "ball" because it's also used to describe an army surrounding a town ([[Isaiah 29:3]]), and armies don't form a spherical shell: however, this usage is similar to English words such as "envelop" which could be used in this context, metaphorically "wrapping up" an object (which, in a non-metaphorical context, would make a ball).<br />
--[[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] 12:00, 3 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
'''Response to Con piece:''' ''"Introducing a strawman argument through reference to 1 Enoch..."'' - ironically, this is itself a strawman argument. The Hebrew flat-Earth, solid-sky cosmology is consistently supported thoroughout all Hebrew and early-Christian literature, from Genesis to Revelation and in extra-Biblical texts too, and was a variant of the Sumerian/Babylonian cosmological model they inherited. 1 Enoch merely provides more details, and it isn't the only book to do so: for instance, 3 Baruch elaborates on the Tower of Babel story, with the tower-builders reaching the underside of the Firmament dome and attempting to drill through it.<br />
<br />
Biblical references to this cosmology (specifically, the notion of a solid Firmament with Heaven above it) include the creation of the Firmament in [[Genesis 1:6]]; God opening windows in the Firmament in [[Genesis 7:11]] to let water rain down, and closing them again in [[Genesis 8:2]]; the construction of a tall tower to reach Heaven in [[Genesis 11:4]]; celestial warehouses for snow and hail in [[Job 38:22]], the sky as a strong crystalline material in [[Job 37:18]] and [[Ezekiel 1:22]]; the sky as a tent in Isaiah 40:22; stars as small objects attached to the Firmament (which can fall off) in [[Daniel 8:10]], [[Matthew 24:29]], [[Mark 13:25]], [[Revelation 6:13]], [[Revelation 8:10]], [[Revelation 9:1]] and [[Revelation 12:4]] (apologists sometimes claim that these "falling stars" are meteors, but the swipe of a dragon's tail dislodges ''one-third of all the stars in the sky'' in Revelation 12:4).<br />
<br />
The heavens are "rolled back like a scroll" in [[Revelation 6:14]]: however, as stars are apparently still being knocked off the Firmament in subsequent verses, it's unclear which layer is being removed at this point.<br />
<br />
The authors of the Jewish Encyclopaedia understand the issue:<br />
:"The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse."[http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=807&letter=C#2736] --[[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] 04:14, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
The understanding of the verse is gained by taking it simply and exactly as it reads. We are told that God sits above the earth and from the perspective of being above the earth, the earth appears as a circle. To emphasize distance and perspective, we are told that the inhabitants are as grasshoppers. One need only go to that height at which people appear as grasshoppers and describe how the earth would look. That is the way in which the verse should be taken.<br />
<br />
Introducing a strawman argument through reference to 1 Enoch contributes nothing to the understanding of Isaiah nor does it establish an error in the account.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
So it is acceptable to use a metaphor of an army "enveloping" a city, but it is not acceptable to use a metaphor "windows of heaven" of the place where rain comes from? I see.<br />
--[[User:Jjmarkka|jjmarkka]] 09:16, 11 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Well, if he "sitteth" above the circle of the earth, then the earth has an upside and a downside. Ask the Australians, which side is which.<br />
--[[User:FreezBee|FreezBee]] 11:47, 19 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Isa&chapter=40&verse=22&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=isaiah%2040:22;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/isaiah/isaiah40.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Isaiah&chapter=40&verse=22 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Isaiah+40.22 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Isaiah_Chapter_40,_Verse_22 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Isaiah]]<br />
[[Category:Science]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Exodus_11:10&diff=16843Exodus 11:102008-01-23T09:55:50Z<p>Robert Stevens: Move from "Con" to "Neutral"</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Exodus 11:9|Previous Verse]] < [[Exodus 11]] > [[Exodus 12:1|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and Jehovah hardened Pharaoh`s heart, and he did not let the children of Israel go out of his land. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
God "hardens Pharaoh's heart", to prevent him from simply letting the Hebrews go. See the [[Exodus 7:13]] page for a detailed summary of the verses relating to this issue. --[[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] 12:14, 17 Aug 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Argument moved from "Con" to "Neutral":<br />
<br />
Paul's response to this from Romans 9:<br />
<br />
17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, <br />
that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”<br />
<br />
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.<br />
<br />
19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”<br />
<br />
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed <br />
say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”<br />
<br />
21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make <br />
one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?<br />
<br />
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, <br />
endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,<br />
<br />
23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of <br />
mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory,<br />
<br />
24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?<br />
<br />
Reason for move: This does not appear to be a "Con" argument at all. Contrary to the claims of some modern apologists (who prefer to believe that Pharaoh hardened his own heart), God was indeed responsible, and Paul is confirming this. "Paul thinks that's OK" is not a refutation. --[[User:Robert Stevens|Robert Stevens]] 03:55, 23 Jan 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Exd&chapter=11&verse=10&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=exodus%2011:10;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/exodus/exodus11.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Exodus&chapter=11&verse=10 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Exodus+11.10 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Exodus_Chapter_11,_Verse_10 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Exodus]]<br />
[[Category:Immorality]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Category:History&diff=42713Category:History2008-01-11T09:39:21Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 222.190.96.195, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>This is for claimed historical error in the Bible.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:7&diff=28626Matthew 1:72008-01-11T09:38:59Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 84.2.38.30, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Smackdown}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Matthew 1:6|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:8|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
<br />
<br />
To my honored Teacher Rabbi Maimonides as I lay (what's left of) your Tormentor at your feet.<br />
<br />
<br />
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Asaph” instead of “Asa” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Asaph”. "Asaph" was a famous Psalmist so "Matthew" appears to have either confused him with King Asa or again simply copied an existing error in the Greek. <br />
<br />
Now let's test drive a special option Peter Kirby has installed here, the HTML Bible by verse:<br />
<br />
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Byzantine Majority -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Alexandrian -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945;&#966; <br />
<br />
Hort and Westcott -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945;&#966; <br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
"Asa"/"Asaph" is the last word of the sentence. Note that TR has "Asa" and WH has "Asaph". Raymond Brown, The International Critical Commentary and UBS confirm "Asaph" as '''likely''' original. From A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Bruce M. Metzger:<br />
<br />
"1.7–8 ????, ???? {B}<br />
It is clear that the name “Asaph” is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts, for the agreement of Alexandrian (? B) and other witnesses (f 1 f 13 700 1071) with Eastern versions (cop arm eth geo) and representatives of the Western text (Old Latin mss and D in Luke [D is lacking for this part of Matthew]) makes a strong combination. Furthermore, the tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the titles of Pss 50 and 73 to 83) was confused with that of Asa the king of Judah (1 Kgs 15.9 ff.), would have been to correct the error, thus accounting for the prevalence of ??? in the later Ecclesiastical text and its inclusion in the Textus Receptus.1<br />
Although most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting ????, Lagrange demurs and in his commentary prints ??? as the text of Matthew. He declares (p. 5) that “literary criticism is not able to admit that the author, who could not have drawn up this list without consulting the Old Testament, would have taken the name of a psalmist in place of a king of Judah. It is necessary, therefore, to suppose that ???? is a very ancient [scribal] error.” Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew."<br />
<br />
On a related note Origen's Hexapla from the early third century may have been an important source of correction for this type of name error for later Greek manuscripts as you wouldn't need to know Hebrew here to observe that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian all used "Asa" instead of "Asaph" for the genealogy in the Jewish Bible. Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time. <br />
<br />
Now let's look at the Hebrew Genealogy for "Asa":<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 3:10 <br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a03.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ?????-????????, ?????????; ???????? ????? ????? ?????, ??????????? ??????. 10 And Solomon's son was Rehoboam; Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son; " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asa) is the 4th Hebrew word from the left.<br />
<br />
Now the Hebrew Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Kings 15:8<br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a15.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ???????????? ???????? ???-????????, ????????????? ????? ??????? ??????; ??????????? ????? ?????, ??????????. {?} 8 And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David; and Asa his son reigned in his stead. " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asa) is the 3rd Hebrew word from the left.<br />
<br />
We can see in the Masoretic text here that "Asa" is spelled consistently. Reading the related Narrative shows that "Asa" was a relatively important King.<br />
<br />
Now let's search the Hebrew for "Asaph" by Genealogy:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 6 <br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a06.htm<br />
<br />
" ?? ???????? ?????, ??????? ???-????????--????? ????-????????????, ????-????????. 24 And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand; even Asaph the son of Berechiah, the son of Shimea; "<br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asaph) is the fifth Hebrew word from the left and differs from "Asa" with the last letter being " ? " instead of " ? ".<br />
<br />
Now by Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 16<br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a16.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ????? ???????, ???????????? ?????????; ???????? ?????????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ????? ?????????, ???????? ???????? ?????????????, ???????, ??????????????? ??????????. 5 Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, Jeiel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obed-edom, and Jeiel, with psalteries and with harps; and Asaph with cymbals, sounding aloud; " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asaph) is the first Hebrew word on the right. <br />
<br />
We can see in the Masoretic text here that "Asaph" is spelled consistently. Reading the related Narrative shows that "Asaph" was also a relatively important person.<br />
<br />
Now let's look at the Greek Genealogy for "Asa":<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 3:10 <br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=3&verse=10<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles <br />
"3:10 ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?????"<br />
<br />
"???" (Asa) is in the middle. Note that the LXX has the correct name here per the Hebrew Bible. <br />
<br />
Now the Greek Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Kings 15:8<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible<br />
<br />
"15:8 ??? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????"<br />
<br />
Again, the correct word "???" (Asa) 5th word from the end. <br />
<br />
Now let's search the Greek for "Asaph" by Genealogy:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 9<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=9&verse=15<br />
<br />
"1 Chronicles <br />
9:15 ??? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????"<br />
<br />
"????" (Asaph) is where it's supposed to be as the last word. <br />
<br />
Now let's search the Greek for "Asaph" by Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 16<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=16&verse=5<br />
<br />
"5 ???? ? ????????? ??? ?????????? ???? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ????????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ????????? ????????"<br />
<br />
Again, "????" (Asaph) is where it's supposed to be as the first word.<br />
<br />
And now, the meaning of the names:<br />
<br />
http://www.ccel.org/bible_names/bible_names.html#A<br />
<br />
"Asa, physician; cure"<br />
<br />
"Asaph, who gathers together"<br />
<br />
Quite the difference.<br />
<br />
One more thing. The usual Christian Apology is that ancient documents show variation in the Greek spelling of "Asa's" name so "Matthew's" use of "Asaph" is just a variation and not a mistake. As near as I can tell most of these "ancient documents" are still hiding in a cave somewhere with the WMDs waiting to be discovered. Josephus though, does use a variation himself:<br />
<br />
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0145:book=8:section=290<br />
<br />
"[290] Ho de tôn Hierosolumôn basileus Asanos" (??????).<br />
<br />
"Asanos" instead of "Asa". However, "Asanos" is still not "Asaph" and the LXX "Matthew's" readers would have been referring to still had "Asa". Maybe the Christians changed Joshepus here to support "Matthew". Just kidding! <br />
<br />
<br />
So in '''Summary''', the evidence that "Matthew's" apparent use of "Asaph" at 1:7 is an '''Error''', ranked by weight of evidence is: <br />
<br />
1) According to the Masoretic text "Asa" was the '''correct''' name for the genealogy "Matthew" was trying to present and the textual evidence above indicates that "Matthew's" "Asaph" was likely original. <br />
<br />
2) The detailed '''narrative''' from the Jewish Bible also confirms "Asa" as correct. <br />
<br />
3) The '''LXX''' also has "Asa" for the genealogy and narrative which is further evidence that the Greek "???" was the correct name here. <br />
<br />
4) "Asa" and "Asaph" are two '''different''' names in the original Hebrew used to refer to different people in the Jewish Bible. This time both refer to relatively important people. Asa, the good king and Asaph, chief Psalmist of David.<br />
<br />
5) There is '''no''' evidence in the Jewish Bible that "Asa" and "Asaph" were anything other than two distinct names. <br />
<br />
6) Subsequent Christian copyists gradually '''changed''' the name from "Asaph" to "Asa" implying they recognized that "Asaph" was an error.<br />
<br />
7) A one letter difference is a '''big''' difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew. <br />
<br />
8) There are many '''more''' examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy. <br />
<br />
9) '''Origen''' confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts. <br />
<br />
10) The meaning of "Asa" and "Asaph" in Hebrew is '''different'''. <br />
<br />
11) In 13:35 "Matthew" quotes a Psalm of Asaph (78) indicating the use of "Asaph" may have been intentional.<br />
<br />
12) Messianic '''Apologist''' Schmuel confesses to us that if "Asaph" is original then 1:7 is in error.<br />
<br />
<br />
The evidence that "Matthew's" use of "Asaph" at 1:7 is '''not an Error''', ranked by weight of evidence is: <br />
<br />
1) It's possible that "Matthew" '''originally''' wrote "Asa".<br />
<br />
2) "Asa" and "Asaph" differ by '''one''' letter in the Hebrew and Greek so it's possible they could refer to the same person. <br />
<br />
3) Josephus has a variant spelling of "Asa" so it's possible that '''variant''' spellings at the time were an acceptable convention.<br />
<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the weight of the Evidence above is that '''"Asa" is the correct''' name at this point in the genealogy and "Matthew's" use of a different name ("Asaph") is an '''Error'''. Let me also point out something for the benefit of Fundamentalists here. If you want to believe that "Asa" and "Asaph" referred to the same person then "Matthew's" use of "Asa" would still have been a better choice and therefore, the existing genealogy by "Matthew" is not "perfect". <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
Update --[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:45, 11 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
===Issues of errancy: Textus Receptus vs. other manuscripts===<br />
There is a huge irony trying to claim this as a smackdown error against the New Testament, since it is only based upon a corruption that is not in the historic New Testaments (Greek Received Text, Tyndale, Geneva, Luther, King James Bible, etc) but only in the modern eclectic alexandrian texts, which only became an issue by the dubious Westcott & Hort work, and are defended by nobody anywhere as inerrant. <br />
<br />
This, btw, is a very frequent modus operandi of errantists, to attack the corruptions in the alexandrian text that are in the 'modern versions'. For them it is like an easy duckshoot. This is not the place to go into the whole history of the alexandrian text, suffice to say they are rife with geographical, historical, grammatical, logical and internal consistency blunders. One simple example is that a demoniac/swine incident is placed at Gerash (Jerash), 30 miles deep into Jordan, with no relationship whatsoever to the Sea of Galilee, <br />
<br />
Even worse, Peter Kirby is well aware of this distinction, from my own discussions with him on other issues, especially Mark 1:2 !<br />
<br />
Here are two excerpts from articles from those who defend the historic Bible, simply agreeing that this is a modern version blunder, and to demonstrate that this is a well-known modern version corruption. <br />
<br />
These men actually defend God's Word as inspired and preserved. And Thomas Strouse goes into some of the contradictory idiosyncrasies of one modern version errant translation.<br />
<br />
http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/A_BIBLICAL_CREDIBILITY_CRISIS_word.pdf<br />
http://floydjones.org/which.pdf - Which Version is the Bible<br />
<br />
A BIBLICAL CREDIBILITY CRISIS - Wilbur Pickering<br />
Moreover, the “minority text” has introduced some unequivocal errors which make the doctrine of inerrancy indefensible. For example, Matthew 1:7 and 1:10 list Asaph and Amos, two non-existent kings, in Christ’s genealogy whereas the Traditional Text correctly reads “Asa” and “Amon”.<br />
<br />
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/shouldfundamentalists-nasv.html Dr. Thomas Strouse<br />
Matthew 1:7-8; 10 However, Aleph and B, the two major manuscripts behind the Critical Text, read Asaph for Asa and Amos for Amon, respectively.<br />
Although Asaph the psalmist and Amos the prophet were godly men, they have no place in the royal genealogy of Christ.<br />
(more on url site, truncated to be sure to be in 'fair use')<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 04:18, 13 Nov 2005 (CST) Steven Avery Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
====Avery: Response 1====<br />
<br />
"11) Messianic Apologist Schmuel confesses to us that if "Asaph" is original than 1:7 is in error."<br />
<br />
LOL.. 'confesses to us' ????? :-) <br />
Au contraire.<br />
<br />
a) J'Accuse the alexandrian modern versions of being corrupt, full of errors, omissions, corruptions, from geographical impossibilities to grammatical abominations to logical contradictions to various other types of blunders, ironically the errors themselves generally based on minimal textual evidence.<br />
<br />
b) J'Accuse the methodologies of 'modern scientific textual criticism" of guaranteeing the creation of a corrupt text full of these blunders and errors, by gerry-rigging ascriptural theories of anti-inspiration for their false agenda, and then falsely pretending that their fabricated and clearly bankrupt text created is somehow closer to the 'original autographs'.<br />
<br />
c) J'Accuse modern liberal textual theories of desparately trying to bypass the true Bible New Testament, most especially the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, because of the Authority, the full and final authority, inherent in the Word of God.<br />
<br />
d) J'Accuse the enemies of the Gospel, who themselves have the strangest and most humorous theories of the creation and propagation of the NT text, of utilizing simply for convenience the false theories of a-b-c, for their agenda, their purposes of fighting the Word of God. They are aware that by putting forth a phoney facade of textual criticism, they can fight against what they can affectionately call the Duckshoot Text rather than against the inspired and preserved Word of God.<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 09:26, 17 Nov 2005 (CST) Steven Avery Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
===Response to Con===<br />
It is possible that there is more than one person with the name Asa, or Asaph.<br />
<br />
--------------------<br />
<br />
Tis not clear whose response this is above. <br />
To be clear that might be the response of a textual liberal trying to salvage his modern version duckshoot text. <br />
<br />
However I will use this space to note one entry from Joe that appears to be deliberately confusing, since it is amazingly an attack on the accurate, unerrant New Testament text !<br />
<br />
JW<br />
"Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time."<br />
<br />
The King James Bible does in fact match the Hebrew Bible here perfectly, so this is a very strange comment. <br />
<br />
In line with this, perhaps the time would be saved if supposed 'errors' were not brought forth ('smackdown' status, no less) that simply are not errors in the historic Bibles, the only Bibles that are defended as truly inerrant (in their tangible, 'hold-in-your-hands' state). <br />
<br />
Or at least they should have a clear disclaimer at top -<br />
"This argument does not apply to the historic Bibles based on the Received Text, such as the King James Bible, Geneva, Tyndale, Luther (German), etc"<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 06:00, 8 Dec 2005 (CST)Shalom, Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
===Beating up KJV Only folks is hardly a bragging right===<br />
<br />
Anyone can do that...it's rather easy, in fact, since their own arguments against the "liberal" translations often work equally well against their own position.<br />
<br />
As to the allegation of error, there are two points that can be contested:<br />
<br />
#The facticity of the typographical error.<br />
#The distinction between typographical error and errors of content.<br />
<br />
'''The facticity of the typographical error'''<br />
<br />
It is admitted above that the LXX has various spellings for the name Asa, therefore it is possible that Matthew used one of these variations (or perhaps one that was popular at the time he wrote), and that this is not a typographical error.<br />
:The reading ????? (Asaf), a variant spelling on ???? (Asa), is found in the earliest and most widespread witnesses (Ì1vid ? B C [Dluc] Ë1,13 700 pc it co). Although Asaph was a psalmist and Asa was a king, it is doubtful that the author mistook one for the other since other ancient documents have variant spellings on the king’s name (such as “Asab,” “Asanos,” and “Asaph”). Thus the spelling ????? that is almost surely found in the original of Matt 1:7-8 has been translated as “Asa” in keeping with the more common spelling of the king’s name. (NET Bible note on Matt. 1:7)<br />
In other words, there is no proof for a ''necessary'' error here &mdash; there is an alternate explanation that doesn't require accepting the allegation of typographical error.<br />
<br />
'''The distinction between typographical error and errors of content'''<br />
<br />
Even granting a typographical error, this does not challenge the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. ''The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy'', a standard formal expression of the doctrine, states:<br />
:We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, '''irregularities of grammar or spelling''', &c (Art. 13)<br />
A typographical error on the spelling of a name does not imply anything about the truthfulness of the content. Asa certainly is the correct person, as your review of the Hebrew geneologies shows.<br />
<br />
Thus on two counts the charge of errancy can be disputed: a typographical error is not ''necessary'' to explain the variant spelling, and even granting a typographical error, it would not effect the doctrine of inerrancy. Pretty far from a "smackdown" &mdash; more like a "love tap" if anything!<br />
<br />
[[User:4.253.64.77|4.253.64.77]] 07:47, 3 Apr 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
===TR v. Other Manuscripts: Joseph Wallack===<br />
JW:<br />
Shalom Schmuel, you've been ...expected. I'm perfectly willing to consider the Textual Analysis issue. No one should stop their evidence at Appeal To Authority. Can you transform the above into an Argument? In other words, list your Key Points, consider opposing Points and analyze how both make your conclusion the more likely one. Right now, the main Assertions I see above are:<br />
<br />
1)"which only became an issue by the dubious Westcott & Hort work" <br />
<br />
2)"the alexandrian text, suffice to say they are rife with geographical, historical, grammatical, logical and internal consistency blunders."<br />
<br />
3)"Thomas Strouse goes into some of the contradictory idiosyncrasies of one modern version errant translation."<br />
<br />
Right now you don't have a complete Argument, you just have a few Assertions which you claim support your Conclusion. I know you don't play the Apologist Game of intentionally refusing to do anything other than refer to Apologist arguments and then primarily claiming that your opponent doesn't understand the Apologist Argument you refer to (in order to distract). <br />
<br />
Please try and present a more complete Argument even if that means cutting and pasting someone else's. Thanks.<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
===TR v. Other Manuscripts: Steven Avery===<br />
Sure<br />
<br />
1) The only New Testament defended as inerrant is the historic Bible,<br />
the Received Text, and most especially the majestic English translation, the King James Bible, always the point of comparision for the lessers.<br />
<br />
2) This is the true scriptures. <br />
<br />
3) In the historic Bible, there is no error with Asa. All TR Bibles (Tyndale, Geneva, KJB, Luther, others and modern TR vresions) have no error here.<br />
<br />
4) The same point answers a few dozen of your most significant attempts to find an error in the New Testament. And you are welcome to cut-and-paste this 1-2-3-4 (or link to this page) to answer those dozens of claims of error. <br />
<br />
That should do :-)<br />
<br />
Additional note to (2). There is little point or sense in debating what is the true scriptures with one like yourself that believes the New Testament is simply a bunch of junque and confusions and deceptions and errors. You of course will embrace any argument that creates an errant text, (since an errant text is your goal and hope and dream) such as the W&H textual position (e.g through overuse of lectio difficilior). <br />
<br />
And basically every modern version user will agree with you that they have an errant text, full of errors, anyway (they like to call them 'scribal errors', although their problems are far deeper than that). The whole inerrancy discussion then becomes a waste of time, since they agree with you out of the box. <br />
<br />
Your idea that my defending the true Bible is an "Appeal to Authority" is, in an ironic sense, 100% right. The King James Bible remains today the 'Final Authority' (see William Grady book).<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 17:29, 14 Nov 2005 (CST) Shalom, Steven Avery<br />
<br />
====Avery: Response 2====<br />
Joe<br />
"I'm perfectly willing to consider the Textual Analysis issue"<br />
<br />
What you, Joe W, will 'consider' is essentially irrelevant. <br />
The issue is integrity on the wiki. <br />
<br />
We know your desire is always to fabricate an error in the NT text, so you will argue, ironically, that, the true (original) text is the false (errant) text. Those who accept the Authority of the Bible and defend its inerrancy in the historic text, really do not care a whit what an unbeliever with an agenda will 'consider'.<br />
<br />
Now this wiki entry should, for honesty, have a large disclaimer -<br />
<br />
<b> This claimed 'smackdown' error in Matthew 1:7 does not relate at all to the historic English Bible (the King James Bible or any Reformation Bibles, English, German, Spanish, or other languages). </b><br />
<br />
In addition, in smaller letters, but also clear and on top- <br />
<br />
Please note that this claimed error has not been shown at all to be in any of the following- <b> <br />
a) Vast majority of Greek manuscripts, (which have Asa), or the<br />
b) Latin Vulgate and its English translation, the Douay-Rheims, or the<br />
c) Old Latin manuscripts, or the<br />
d) Aramaic Peshitta. <br />
e) Early church writers, Greek, Latin or Aramaic </b><br />
<br />
With two such disclaimers, bold and clear in the introduction, the wiki would then gain some errancy integrity.<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 11:07, 17 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Wiki Integrity Notice===<br />
Integrity of this Wiki is monitored and maintained by the Administration, and as such the rule regarding integrity is stated as "Dual point of view is maintained." While Mr. Avery is to be commended for his concern for the integrity of this wiki, it might be best to note that your interpretation of "integrity" may or may not agree with the Wiki Administrators.<br />
<br />
Thank you,<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 14:05, 17 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Spelling ==<br />
<br />
'''ABIJAH'''<br />
<br />
Matthew: ????<br />
<br />
1 Chr. 3.10: ????<br />
<br />
Josephus: ????? O?????<br />
<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 11:16, 10 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=7&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:7;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=7 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.7 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_7 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:Matthew]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]<br />
[[Category:Con]]<br />
[[Category:Neutral]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Job_1:7&diff=40711Job 1:72008-01-11T09:38:42Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 210.238.206.94, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Con Piece}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Job 1:6|Previous Verse]] < [[Job 1]] > [[Job 1:8|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And Jehovah said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered Jehovah, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
How is it that an omniscient God would not know the origin of Satan? <br />
The question makes no sense. God would certainly know the whereabouts of Satan. <br />
Moreover, Satan is presumed to be present everywhere at all times. How is it that ANY being that is always everywhere can explain where he has been or where he is going? The logic escapes me.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
Satan is not presumed to be omnipresent. That is your speculation, or possibly something you heard from a Christian who made that speculation. Satan is nowhere indicated in the Bible to be omnipresent. As for God, I do believe that he knew where Satan had been, but might he not have been asking for other reasons than ignorance? Have you never heard an adult, scolding a child, ask the child what they just did or said even though the adult heard it distinctly?<br />
--Austin<br />
<br />
The concept of an &quot;omnimax God&quot; isn't really Biblical: while there are passages that can be interpreted as claims of omnipotence (such as [[Jeremiah_32:27|Jeremiah 32:27]], at no point does the Bible say that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and/or omnibenevolent. If God's not omniscent, the verse becomes clearly sensible.<br />
<br />
But even at that, it must be remembered that this particular passage is not necessarily proof that God is not omniscient: <br />
<br />
:1: Hebrew grammar also employs rhetorical questions, where the purpose of a question is not to gain information, but to make a statement. <br />
:2: Literarily, this is not God attempting to gain information, but a means to introduce Satan to the reader.<br />
<br />
Rhetorical question or plot device? It makes an interesting discussion for the literary minded, but also makes the claim of errancy rather moot.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Well, I don't hold with inerrancy at all, but I have always interpreted this verse by its plain meaning in English which is, "where (what location) did you come from?" This meaning also fits in with the nature of Satan's answer so I don't see this as even a contradiction, much less an error.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Job&chapter=1&verse=7&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=job%201:7;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/job/job1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Job&chapter=1&verse=7 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Job+1.7 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Job_Chapter_1,_Verse_7 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Job]]<br />
[[Category:Other]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]<br />
[[Category:Con]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew&diff=13777Matthew2008-01-11T09:38:22Z<p>Robert Stevens: revert</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Matthew 1]]<br />
*[[Matthew 2]]<br />
*[[Matthew 3]]<br />
*[[Matthew 4]]<br />
*[[Matthew 5]]<br />
*[[Matthew 6]]<br />
*[[Matthew 7]]<br />
*[[Matthew 8]]<br />
*[[Matthew 9]]<br />
*[[Matthew 10]]<br />
*[[Matthew 11]]<br />
*[[Matthew 12]]<br />
*[[Matthew 13]]<br />
*[[Matthew 14]]<br />
*[[Matthew 15]]<br />
*[[Matthew 16]]<br />
*[[Matthew 17]]<br />
*[[Matthew 18]]<br />
*[[Matthew 19]]<br />
*[[Matthew 20]]<br />
*[[Matthew 21]]<br />
*[[Matthew 22]]<br />
*[[Matthew 23]]<br />
*[[Matthew 24]]<br />
*[[Matthew 25]]<br />
*[[Matthew 26]]<br />
*[[Matthew 27]]<br />
*[[Matthew 28]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[:Category:Matthew]]<br />
*[[Matthew placed first]]<br />
*[[Title]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_2:2&diff=21632Luke 2:22008-01-11T09:37:12Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 210.238.206.94, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Luke 2:1|Previous Verse]] < [[Luke 2]] > [[Luke 2:3|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
<br />
<br />
To Do:<br />
<br />
:1) Fixed Chronology and related support.<br />
<br />
:2) List online references to Richard Carrier's related article at Internet Infidels at the following EW Page:<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2:2_Carrier Online References|Carrier Online References]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
The Pro argument as it stands is primarily a Defensive argument. It's mainly a '''Reaction''' to CTT's argument which is itself a Reaction to a Pro argument. Offensive arguments directly explain Why there is error. Too much Interaction with the related Con argument can distract from the effectiveness of the Pro argument.<br />
<br />
Pro arguments at ErrancyWiki should primarily be Offensive. Let's construct an Offensive argument in the Pro section here and use Richard Carrier's related detailed article:<br />
<br />
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html<br />
<br />
as a Source to first create an Outline of an Offensive argument.<br />
<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:58, 24 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
===Offensive Argument For Error===<br />
<br />
<br />
====DATING====<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Let's go through the Evidence now for Dating and after each Reference I'll summarize the Significance for Dating. The Dating Evidence will provide '''Fixed''' and '''Relative''' Evidence for the respective Dating of Jesus' birth by "Luke" and "Matthew".<br />
<br />
<br />
=====LUKE=====<br />
<br />
<br />
======TEXT======<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2|Luke 2]]:<br />
:[[Luke_2:1|1]] "Now it came to pass in those days, there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be enrolled.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:2|2]] This was the first enrolment made when Quirinius was governor of Syria.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:3|3]] And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own city.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:4|4]] And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David;<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:5|5]] to enrol himself with Mary, who was betrothed to him, being great with child.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:6|6]] And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:7|7]] And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:8|8]] And there were shepherds in the same country abiding in the field, and keeping watch by night over their flock.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:9|9]] And an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:10|10]] And the angel said unto them, Be not afraid; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people:<br />
<br />
:[[Luke_2:11|11]] for there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord."<br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Per "Luke" Jesus is born sometime after Quirinius became governor of Syria.<br />
<br />
======'''JOSEPHUS'''======<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Ultimately Josephus will be the primary evidence that there is Contradiction here between "Luke" and "Matthew". So the relative Weight of Josephus will have to be compared to the Weight of "Luke".<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Antiquities of the Jews''' <br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.342 17.342]<br />
<br />
"[342] But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar, and that especially because they knew he had broken the commands of Caesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation among them. Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and called for Archelaus's steward, who took care of his affairs at Rome, and whose name was Archelaus also; and thinking it beneath him to write to Archelaus, he bid him sail away as soon as possible, and bring him to us: so the man made haste in his voyage, and when he came into Judea, he found Archelaus feasting with his friends; so he told him what Caesar had sent him about, and hastened him away. And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Probably most important to the Pro argument Josephus tells us that Archelaus reigned '''ten''' years.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.355 17.355]<br />
<br />
"[354] Now I did not think these histories improper for the present discourse, both because my discourse now is concerning kings, and otherwise also on account of the advantage hence to be drawn, as well for the confirmation of the immortality of the soul, as of the providence of God over human affairs, I thought them fit to be set down; but if any one does not believe such relations, let him indeed enjoy his own opinion, but let him not hinder another that would thereby encourage himself in virtue. So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
We are told that Archelaus' Kingdom was made '''part''' of the Syrian Province and Quirinius was put in charge of the liguidation of Archelaus' estate.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.1 18.1]<br />
<br />
"HOW CYRENIUS WAS SENT BY CAESAR TO MAKE A TAXATION OF SYRIA AND JUDEA; AND HOW COPONIUS WAS SENT TO BE PROCURATOR OF JUDEA; CONCERNING JUDAS OF GALILEE AND CONCERNING THE SECTS THAT WERE AMONG THE JEWS.<br />
<br />
NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance. Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus's money;"<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
We are told that Quirinius was sent to be in charge of Syria at this time, to '''inventory''' Judea and dispose of Archelaus' assets.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=18.26 18.26]<br />
<br />
"[26] WHEN Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus's money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Ananus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
We are told that Quirinius settled Archelaus' estate and concluded a taxation '''Census'''. Josephus again provides a Fixed date and multiple time references.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=20.102 20.102]<br />
<br />
"[100] Then came Tiberius Alexander as successor to Fadus; he was the son of Alexander the alabarch of Alexandria, which Alexander was a principal person among all his contemporaries, both for his family and wealth: he was also more eminent for his piety than this his son Alexander, for he did not continue in the religion of his country. Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already. And besides this, the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
We are told that there was a revolt when Quirinius conducted a Census with the Implication being this was the '''only''' related Census under Quirinius.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Wars Of The Jews'''<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=1.665 1.1665]<br />
<br />
"[665] So Herod, having survived the slaughter of his son five days, died, having reigned thirty-four years since he had caused Antigonus to be slain, and obtained his kingdom; but thirty-seven years since he had been made king by the Romans. Now as for his fortune, it was prosperous in all other respects, if ever any other man could be so, since, from a private man, he obtained the kingdom, and kept it so long, and left it to his own sons; but still in his domestic affairs he was a most unfortunate man. Now, before the soldiers knew of his death, Salome and her husband came out and dismissed those that were in bonds, whom the king had commanded to be slain, and told them that he had altered his mind, and would have every one of them sent to their own homes. When these men were gone, Salome, told the soldiers [the king was dead], and got them and the rest of the multitude together to an assembly, in the amphitheater at Jericho, where Ptolemy, who was intrusted by the king with his signet ring, came before them, and spake of the happiness the king had attained, and comforted the multitude, and read the epistle which had been left for the soldiers, wherein he earnestly exhorted them to bear good-will to his successor; and after he had read the epistle, he opened and read his testament, wherein Philip was to inherit Trachonitis, and the neighboring countries, and Antipas was to be tetrarch, as we said before, and Archelaus was made king."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Note that Josephus provides corraborating information in '''another''' Source here, ''Wars Of The Jews''. Confirmation that the Kingdom passed from Herod to Archelaus.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.117 2.117]<br />
<br />
"ARCHELAUS'S ETHNARCHY IS REDUCED INTO A [ROMAN] PROVINCE. THE SEDITION OF JUDAS OF GALILEE. THE THREE SECTS.<br />
<br />
[117] AND now Archelaus's part of Judea was reduced into a province, and Coponius, one of the equestrian order among the Romans, was sent as a procurator, having the power of [life and] death put into his hands by Caesar. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Cofirmation that Archelaus' Judea kingdom was made '''part''' of a Province and Coponius, mentioned before as taking control of Syria with Quirinius, was put in charge of Judea.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=2.433 2.433]<br />
<br />
"[433] In the mean time, one Manahem, the son of Judas, that was called the Galilean, (who was a very cunning sophister, and had formerly reproached the Jews under Cyrenius, that after God they were subject to the Romans,)"<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Another reference to '''Resistance''' to Quirinius.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0148&layout=&loc=7.252 7.252]<br />
<br />
"[252] WHEN Bassus was dead in Judea, Flavius Silva succeeded him as procurator there; who, when he saw that all the rest of the country was subdued in this war, and that there was but one only strong hold that was still in rebellion, he got all his army together that lay in different places, and made an expedition against it. This fortress was called Masada. It was one Eleazar, a potent man, and the commander of these Sicarii, that had seized upon it. He was a descendant from that Judas who had persuaded abundance of the Jews, as we have formerly related, not to submit to the taxation when Cyrenius was sent into Judea to make one;"<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
And finally, reference to Resistance to a Taxation administered by Quirinius on Judea and again, Implication that there was only one related Census under Quirinius.<br />
<br />
Regarding the Quirinius census of Judea in General, there is evidence that "Luke" used Josephus as a Source as evidenced by this article:<br />
<br />
[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/lukeandjosephus.html Luke and Josephus (2000)]<br />
<br />
which if true is even more evidence that "Luke" intentionally referred to the '''same''' Quirinius census as Josephus.<br />
<br />
We can even come close to the length of "Luke's" Jesus' life if we assume that chronological Time Markers in "Luke" have Josephus as a Source. "Luke" states that Jesus was about thirty when he began his career which per "Luke" appears to have lasted for about one year. The Key related Chronological Markers from "Luke" are:<br />
<br />
1) Jesus was born during the Quirinius' census which according to Josephus started around 6 CE.<br />
<br />
2) Based on the Lukan Narrative Jesus would have been about 31 when he died.<br />
<br />
3) "Luke" places John the Baptist's death in the year of Jesus' Ministry.<br />
<br />
4) John the Baptist died around 36 CE according to Josephus.<br />
<br />
5) "Luke" thus places Jesus' death around 37 CE.<br />
<br />
<br />
======CASSIUS DIO======<br />
<br />
[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/55*.html#27.6 55.27.6])<br />
<br />
"6 These were the events in the city that year. In Achaia the governor died in the middle of his term and instructions were given to his quaestor and to his assessor (whom, as I have stated, we call envoy) for the former to administer the province as far as the Isthmus and the other the remainder. Herod of Palestine, who was accused by his brothers of some wrongdoing or other, was banished beyond the Alps and a portion of the domain was confiscated to the state."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Here we have some independent '''confirmation''' of Josephus. Archelaus (Herod) is removed and his territory goes to Rome. Following is related commentary by Richard Carrier:<br />
<br />
"[3.5] Roman History 55.27 (begun in 202 and completed around 235 A.D.). Dio's history is annalistic (it covers events year by year), and for the year 6 he reports that Archelaus' brothers accused him before Augustus who then deposed him and annexed his territory to Syria. He clearly does not have his account from Josephus because Dio says he does not know why Archelaus was deposed (though he should if he had read Josephus), does not call him Archelaus but Herod the Palestinian (his political name; Josephus uses only his real name), and implicates his brothers as his accusers even though Josephus only mentions "leading men in Judaea and Samaria."<br />
<br />
<br />
======'''JUSTIN MARTYR'''======<br />
<br />
'''First Apology'''<br />
<br />
[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html 1.34]<br />
<br />
"CHAPTER XXXIV -- PLACE OF CHRIST'S BIRTH FORETOLD.<br />
And hear what part of earth He was to be born in, as another prophet, Micah, foretold. He spoke thus: "And thou, Bethlehem, the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a Governor, who shall feed My people." Now there is a village in the land of the Jews, thirty-five stadia from Jerusalem, in which Jesus Christ was born, as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing made under Cyrenius, your first procurator in Judaea."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
As an Apologist Justin lacks the Positive qualities which give weight to a Historian like Josephus. For what it's worth though he gives his understanding that Jesus was born when Quirinius made a Census.<br />
<br />
[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-firstapology.html 1.46]<br />
<br />
"CHAPTER XLVI -- THE WORD IN THE WORLD BEFORE CHRIST.<br />
But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius"<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
If you work out the years this '''confirms''' Josephus' dating of the Census. Thanks Justin.<br />
<br />
<br />
======'''THE GOSPEL OF PSEUDO-MATTHEW'''======<br />
<br />
http://ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-68.htm#P5970_1750772<br />
<br />
" Chapter 13.<br />
<br />
And it came to pass some little time after, that an enrolment was made according to the edict of Caesar Augustus, that all the world was to be enrolled, each man in his native place. This enrolment was made by Cyrinus, the governor of Syria,28"<br />
<br />
" Chapter 16.<br />
<br />
And when the second year was past,40 Magi came from the east to Jerusalem, bringing great gifts. And they made strict inquiry of the Jews, saying: Where is the king who has been born to you? for we have seen his star in the east, and have come to worship him. And word of this came to King Herod, and so alarmed him that he called together the scribes and the Pharisees, and the teachers of the people, asking of them where the prophets had foretold that Christ should be born."<br />
<br />
JW: Note that the author's solution here is to have the Census under Quirinius first and later have Herod the Great's Massacre of the Innocents story.<br />
<br />
<br />
======'''DIATESSARON'''======<br />
<br />
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/diatessaron.html<br />
<br />
""9 And in those days there went forth a decree from Augustus Caesar that all the people of his dominion should be enrolled. This first enrolment was while Quirinius was governor of Syria. And every man went to be enrolled in his city. And Joseph went up also from Nazareth, a city of Galilee, to Judaea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem (for he was of the house of David and of his tribe), with Arabic. Mary his betrothed, she being with child, to be enrolled there. And while she was there the days for her being delivered were accomplished. And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them where they were staying."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Note that the author Tatian, the student of Justin Martyr, gives his understanding that Jesus was born during the Quirinius' census.<br />
<br />
<br />
======'''EMPEROR JULIAN'''======<br />
<br />
''AGAINST THE GALILAEANS''<br />
<br />
[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm]<br />
<br />
"Even Jesus, who was proclaimed among you, was one of Caesar's subjects. And if you do not believe me I will prove it a little later, or rather let me simply assert it now. However, you admit that with his father and mother he registered his name in the governorship of Cyrenius.72 |381"<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Julian comes relatively late and just repeats what he says is the Christian position but still it is some evidence that the understanding in Julian's time (4th century) was that Jesus was supposedly born while Quirinius was Governor. Keep in mind that the Christians destroyed/didn't preserve Julian's ''Against The Christians'' so "translations" have to be peaced together from carefully preserved Christian rebuttals like Frankenstein's monster.<br />
<br />
<br />
======'''JOHN CHRYSOSTOM'''======<br />
<br />
''On The Day Of The Birth Of Our Saviour Jesus Christ'' (translation from the dissertation of Beth Dunlop):<br />
<br />
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/4700/nativityms1.png<br />
<br />
<FONT COLOR=Blue>JW</font>:<br />
Chrysostom is relatively late as a witness here (4th century) but should have a little extra weight regarding Syria. Note that he apparently refers to Justin's claim that the related record still exists in Rome and postures that it still is available in his time presumably because Justin said it was there 250 years ago. Sure, and some of John's best fiends are Jewish.<br />
<br />
<br />
======'''ACTS'''======<br />
<br />
[[Acts_5:37]]<br />
<br />
"After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the enrolment, and drew away [some of the] people after him: he also perished; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad."<br />
<br />
JW: Note that "Luke" refers to "the enrolment" which is evidence that 2:2 referred to the only enrollment related to Quirinius.<br />
<br />
======Coins======<br />
<br />
Extant Coins are very good Dating evidence as presumably a Coin, unlike writings, could not be subject to '''Change''' (pun intended). As Richard Carrier indicates in his following Footnote, Roman coins for Judaea start at 6 CE and are stamped with the Regnal year of Augustus. This supports Josephus' account of Rome taking control of Judaea in 6 CE.<br />
<br />
"''For corroboration, coins minted in Judaea by Roman officials begin in A.D. 6 (Burnett, Roman Provincial Coinage, 1992, no. 4954: note that his supplemental volume corrects a typographical error: the coin in fact reads "Year 36 of Caesar," i.e. the 36th year after Actium or A.D. 5/6).''"<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 10:19, 18 Aug 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
=====MATTHEW=====<br />
<br />
<br />
======TEXT======<br />
<br />
[[Matthew_2|Matthew 2]]:<br />
:[[Matthew_2:1|1]] "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, Wise-men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying,<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:2|2]] Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to worship him.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:3|3]] And when Herod the king heard it, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:4|4]] And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:5|5]] And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet,<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:6|6]] And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:7|7]] Then Herod privily called the Wise-men, and learned of them exactly what time the star appeared.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:8|8]] And he sent them to Bethlehem, and said, Go and search out exactly concerning the young child; and when ye have found [him,] bring me word, that I also may come and worship him.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:9|9]] And they, having heard the king, went their way; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:10|10]] And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:11|11]] And they came into the house and saw the young child with Mary his mother; and they fell down and worshipped him; and opening their treasures they offered unto him gifts, gold and frankincense and myrrh.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:12|12]] And being warned [of God] in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:13|13]] Now when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I tell thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:14|14]] And he arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt;<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:15|15]] and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:16|16]] Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the Wise-men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the male children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had exactly learned of the Wise-men.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:17|17]] Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying,<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:18|18]] A voice was heard in Ramah, Weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; And she would not be comforted, because they are not.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:19|19]] But when Herod was dead, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth in a dream to Joseph in Egypt, saying,<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:20|20]] Arise and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of Israel: for they are dead that sought the young child`s life.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:21|21]] And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel.<br />
<br />
:[[Matthew_2:22|22]] But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning over Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; and being warned [of God] in a dream, he withdrew into the parts of Galilee,"<br />
<br />
<br />
JW: Per "Matthew" Jesus was born while Herod the Great was King.<br />
<br />
======'''JOSEPHUS'''======<br />
<br />
'''Antiquities of the Jews''' <br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=14.9 14.9]<br />
<br />
"[8] But there was a certain friend of Hyrcanus, an Idumean, called Antipater, who was very rich, and in his nature an active and a seditious man; who was at enmity with Aristobulus, and had differences with him on account of his good-will to Hyrcanus. It is true that Nicolatls of Damascus says, that Antipater was of the stock of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod, who was his son, and who, by certain revolutions of fortune, came afterward to be king of the Jews, whose history we shall give you in its proper place hereafter."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
In order to consider the General Weight of an author, Provenance of the author must be identified. What do we know about an author? Generally, the more we know, the better the Provenance and the greater the Weight. <br />
<br />
Generally, we can tell from the above, that Josephus writes like a Historian and is interested in Herod's family and leaders/rulers of the time and area. Specifically, Josephus appears to give a '''Source''' for some of his information here, Nicolatis of Damascus, which again has the Mark of a Historian. <br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=14.389 14.389]<br />
<br />
" Antony also feasted Herod the first day of his reign. And thus did this man receive the kingdom, having obtained it on the hundred and eighty-fourth olympiad, when Caius Domitius Calvinus was consul the second time, and Caius Asinius Pollio [the first time]."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Josephus gives a '''fixed''' year for the start of Herod's reign and provides '''multiple''' corroborating dating. Again, the Mark of an Historian.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=14.487 14.487]<br />
<br />
"[487] This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome 1 on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day, and this was after twenty-seven years' time. So when Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem, and carried Antigonus with him in bonds to Antony; but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain, which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease, a hundred twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation; but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction, but one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Josephus gives us the '''backgound''' for Herod taking control of the Kingdom and more fixed dates.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=15.174 15.174]<br />
<br />
"[174] And this account we give the reader, as it is contained in the commentaries of king Herod: but other historians do not agree with them,"<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Josephus identifies another Source, the commentaries of Herod, potentially the best source of information about Herod, and indicates an ability to '''critically evaluate''' Sources by noting disagreement with other historical accounts.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.136 16.136]<br />
<br />
"HOW HEROD CELEBRATED THE GAMES THAT WERE TO RETURN EVERY FIFTH YEAR UPON THE BUILDING OF CESAREA; AND HOW HE BUILT AND ADORNED MANY OTHER PLACES AFTER A MAGNIFICENT MANNER; AND DID MANY OTHER ACTIONS GLORIOUSLY<br />
[136] ABOUT this time it was that Cesarea Sebaste, which he had built, was finished. The entire building being accomplished: in the tenth year, the solemnity of it fell into the twenty-eighth year of Herod's reign, and into the hundred and ninety-second olympiad." <br />
<br />
JW:<br />
More Dates of Events and a '''recurring''' time marker, the Olympiad.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=16.183 16.183]<br />
<br />
"And even Nicolaus 1 his historiographer makes mention of this monument built by Herod, though he does not mention his going down into the sepulcher, as knowing that action to be of ill repute; and many other things he treats of in the same manner in his book; for he wrote in Herod's lifetime, and under his reign, and so as to please him, and as a servant to him, touching upon nothing but what tended to his glory, and openly excusing many of his notorious crimes, and very diligently concealing them. And as he was desirous to put handsome colors on the death of Mariamne and her sons, which were barbarous actions in the king, he tells falsehoods about the incontinence of Mariamne, and the treacherous designs of his sons upon him; and thus he proceeded in his whole work, making a pompous encomium upon what just actions he had done, but earnestly apologizing for his unjust ones. Indeed, a man, as I said, may have a great deal to say by way of excuse for Nicolaus; for he did not so properly write this as a history for others, as somewhat that might be subservient to the king himself."<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Identification of a Source, Nicolaus, as the '''Official''' Biographer of Herod and more ability to critically evaluate a Source.<br />
<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0146&layout=&loc=17.191 17.191]<br />
<br />
"CONCERNING HEROD'S DEATH, AND TESTAMENT, AND BURIAL.<br />
<br />
[188] AND now Herod altered his testament upon the alteration of his mind; for he appointed Antipas, to whom he had before left the kingdom, to be tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, and granted the kingdom to Archclaus. He also gave Gaulonitis, and Trachonitis, and Paneas to Philip, who was his son, but own brother to Archclaus 1 by the name of a tetrarchy; and bequeathed Jarnnia, and Ashdod, and Phasaelis to Salome his sister, with five hundred thousand [drachmae] of silver that was coined. He also made provision for all the rest of his kindred, by giving them sums of money and annual revenues, and so left them all in a wealthy condition. He bequeathed also to Caesar ten millions [of drachmae] of coined money, besides both vessels of gold and silver, and garments exceeding costly, to Julia, Caesar's wife; and to certain others, five millions. When he had done these things, he died, the fifth day after he had caused Antipater to be slain; having reigned, since he had procured Antigonus to be slain, thirty-four years; but since he had been declared king by the Romans, thirty-seven. 2" <br />
<br />
Josephus testifies that Herod left his Kingdom to '''Archelaus''' and also indicates the total years of his reign.<br />
<br />
'''Summary''' of the '''Qualifications''' of Josephus as a Historian:<br />
<br />
1) Josephus has '''Provenance''' himself. He can be Placed in history.<br />
<br />
2) Provides '''Detailed''' account of Herod's reign.<br />
<br />
3) Provides '''Sources''' for his account:<br />
<br />
1) Nicolatis of Damascus<br />
<br />
2) Commentaries of King Herod<br />
<br />
4) Provides potentially the '''Best''' possible Sources, Herod himself and his official biographer, Nicolatis.<br />
<br />
5) Indicates ability to '''Critically''' evaluate sources.<br />
<br />
6) Provides a '''Recurring''' Marker of time, the Olympiad.<br />
<br />
7) Provides Comparative and '''Multiple''' Markers of time:<br />
<br />
1) Caius Domitius Calvinus was consul the second time<br />
<br />
2) Caius Asinius Pollio (was consul)<br />
<br />
3) Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome<br />
<br />
4) the thirty-seventh year of Caesar's victory over Antony at Actium<br />
<br />
8) Provides a '''Starting''' date for Herod's reign.<br />
<br />
9) Provides the '''Length''' of Herod's reign in years.<br />
<br />
10) '''Corroborating''' evidence in a separate Work.<br />
<br />
<br />
======'''STRABO'''======<br />
<br />
''Geography'' Book XVI, Chapter 2<br />
<br />
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/16B*.html<br />
<br />
"46 Now Pompey clipped off some of the territory that had been forcibly appropriated by the Judaeans, p299and appointed Herod121 to the priesthood; but later a certain Herod, a descendant of his and a native of the country, who slinked into the priesthood, was so superior to his predecessors, particularly in his intercourse with the Romans and in his administration of affairs of state, that he received the title of king, being given that authority first by Antony and later by Augustus Caesar. As for his sons, he himself put some of them to death, on the ground that they had plotted against him; and at his death left others as his successors, having assigned to them portions of his kingdom. Caesar also honoured the sons of Herod and his sister Salomê and her daughter Berenicê. However, his sons were not successful, but became involved in accusations; and one of them122 spent the rest of his life in exile, having taken up his abode among the Allobrogian Gauls, whereas the others,123 by much obsequiousness, but with difficulty, found leave to return home, with a tetrarchy assigned to each."<br />
<br />
<br />
======'''APPIAN'''======<br />
<br />
Appian, BC 5.75<br />
<br />
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/5*.html<br />
<br />
"75 After these events Octavian set forth on an expedition to Gaul, which was in a disturbed state, and Antony started for the war against the Parthians. The Senate having voted to ratify all that he had done or should do, Antony again despatched his lieutenants in all directions and arranged everything else as he wished. He set up kings here and there as he pleased, on condition of their paying a p507prescribed tribute: in Pontus, Darius, the son of Pharnaces and grandson of Mithridates: in Idumea and Samaria, Herod:"<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
Appian '''confirms''' that Antony placed Herod as King and provides time Markers which confirm Josephus' account.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
====OTHER PROBLEMS====<br />
<br />
Other problems with "Luke's" non-census story making the specific Dating problem more likely to be non-Historical:<br />
<br />
1) A general census by Augustus is otherwise unknown.<br />
<br />
2) In a Roman census Joseph would not have to go to Bethlehem.<br />
<br />
3) In a Roman census Mary would not have to go anywhere.<br />
<br />
4) No Roman census would have been made in Israel during Herod the Great's reign.<br />
<br />
:Appian tells us that at least initially, Herod the Great was set up to pay a prescribed '''tribute''':<br />
<br />
Appian, BC 5.75<br />
<br />
[http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Appian/Civil_Wars/5*.html BC 5.75]<br />
<br />
"75 After these events Octavian set forth on an expedition to Gaul, which was in a disturbed state, and Antony started for the war against the Parthians. The Senate having voted to ratify all that he had done or should do, Antony again despatched his lieutenants in all directions and arranged everything else as he wished. He set up kings here and there as he pleased, on condition of their paying a p507prescribed tribute: in Pontus, Darius, the son of Pharnaces and grandson of Mithridates: in Idumea and Samaria, Herod:"<br />
<br />
:Strabo gives an example of Roman thinking regarding the advantages of permitting a local King to handle the Administration:<br />
<br />
[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0198&query=chapter%3D%2360&layout=&loc=14.4.1 ''Geography'' 14.5] <br />
<br />
"[6] Then, after Corycus, one comes to Elaeussa, an island lying close to the mainland, which Archelaüs settled, making it a royal residence,17 after he had received18 the whole of Cilicia Tracheia except Seleuceia--the same way in which it was obtained formerly by Amyntas19 and still earlier by Cleopatra;20 for since the region was naturally well adapted to the business of piracy both by land and by sea--by land, because of the height of the mountains and the large tribes that live beyond them, tribes which have plains and farm-lands that are large and easily overrun, and by sea, because of the good supply, not only of shipbuilding timber, but also of harbors and fortresses and secret recesses--with all this in view, I say, the Romans thought that it was better for the region to be ruled by kings than to be under the Roman prefects sent to administer justice, who were not likely always to be present or to have armed forces with them. Thus Archelaüs received, in addition to Cappadocia, Cilicia Tracheia; and the boundary21 of the latter, the river Lamus and the village of the same name, lies between Soli and Elaeussa."<br />
<br />
<br />
Other problems with taking "Luke" as History in General:<br />
<br />
1) "Luke" primarily presents and emphasizes the Impossible. This impeaches the credibility of all Possible claims by this author.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''CONCLUSION:'''<br />
<br />
'''Relative''' to each other "Luke's" Dating of the supposed birth of Jesus is at least ten years after "Matthew's" Dating of the birth of Jesus. The Key pieces of information are as follows:<br />
<br />
1) Per "Matthew" Herod the Great was King when Jesus was born. <br />
<br />
:Pseudo-Matthew 16<br />
<br />
2) Per "Matthew" Archelaus succeeded Herod the Great as to part of the Kingdom when Herod the Great died.<br />
<br />
3) Per Josephus Archelaus ruled 10 years.<br />
<br />
:AJ 14.389 & 14.487 & Appian BC 5.75 (Herod the Great receives Kingdom), <br />
<br />
:AJ 17.191 & WJ 1.665 (succession by Archelaus of Herod the Great)<br />
<br />
:AJ 17.342<br />
<br />
:Roman coins minted in Judea (start around 6 CE which is when Quirinius became Governor of Syria)<br />
<br />
4) Per Josephus Archelaus was removed and Quirinius was made responsible for his territory at the time Quirinius was made Governor of Syria.<br />
<br />
:AJ 17.342 (removal), 17.354, 18.1, 18.26, 20.102<br />
<br />
:Cassius Dio 55.27.6 (removal)<br />
<br />
:WJ 2.117 & 2.433 & 7.252 (census reaction)<br />
<br />
5) Per "Luke" Jesus was born after Quirinius became Governor of Syria and started a Census.<br />
<br />
:Justin Martyr ''First Apology'' 1.34, 1.46<br />
<br />
:Pseudo-Matthew 13<br />
<br />
:Julian ''Against The Galileans'' <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
See also [[Legends#Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth By Richard Carrier (2006)|Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth]].<br />
<br />
Quirinius did not become governor until 6 CE. His census occurred ten years after the death of Herod the Great, who died in 4BCE. This contradicts [[Matthew 2:1|Matthew's]] claim that Jesus was born during the reign of Herod.<br />
<br />
<br />
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html<br />
<br />
'''Conclusion'''<br />
"There is no way to rescue the Gospels of Matthew and Luke from contradicting each other on this one point of historical fact. The contradiction is plain and irrefutable, and stands as proof of the fallibility of the Bible, as well as the falsehood of one of the two New Testament accounts of the Nativity."<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[User:Opercularis|Opercularis]] 16:32, 26 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
See [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html CTT]. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This article seems to be fully rebuttet by what it states in the PRO section. See : [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] by Richard Carrier<br />
<br />
[[User:Opercularis|Opercularis]] 12:24, 31 Jan 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
<br />
Outside Defense arguments will be referenced here to separate ErrancyWiki pages with rebuttals and listed here in order of quality compared to each other:<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2:2_Ramsey|Ramsey]]<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2:2_Marchant|Marchant]]<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2:2_Holding|Holding]]<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2:2_Miller|Miller]]<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2:2_Ankerberg|Ankerberg]]<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2:2_Geisler|Geisler]]<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2:2_Jones|Jones]]<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2:2_Price|Price]]<br />
<br />
[[Luke_2:2_Carlson|Carlson]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Luk&chapter=2&verse=2&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=luke%202:2;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke2.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Luke&chapter=2&verse=2 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Luke+2.2 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C002.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Luke_Chapter_2,_Verse_2 BibleWiki]<br />
*[http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/quirinius.html The Date of the Nativity in Luke] by Richard Carrier<br />
<br />
[[Category:Luke]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Help_talk:Contents&diff=46081Help talk:Contents2008-01-10T11:47:47Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 193.87.3.235, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is for discussing the layout of Help:Contents. '''Please add any general site comments and questions to the [[ErrancyWiki:Community Portal|Community Portal]].'''</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1&diff=13895Matthew 12008-01-09T14:02:21Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 222.6.34.171, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Matthew]] > [[Matthew 2|Next Chapter]]'''<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:1]] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:2]] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:3]] and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:4]] and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:5]] and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:6]] and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:7]] and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:8]] and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:9]] and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:10]] and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:11]] and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:12]] And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:13]] and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:14]] and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:15]] and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:16]] and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:17]] So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:18]] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:19]] And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:20]] But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:21]] And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:22]] Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:23]] Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:24]] And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:25]] and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Leviticus&diff=13742Leviticus2008-01-09T09:30:08Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 217.8.248.203, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Leviticus 1]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 2]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 3]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 4]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 5]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 6]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 7]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 8]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 9]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 10]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 11]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 12]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 13]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 14]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 15]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 16]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 17]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 18]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 19]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 20]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 21]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 22]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 23]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 24]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 25]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 26]]<br />
*[[Leviticus 27]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[:Category:Leviticus]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Category:Transmission&diff=46331Category:Transmission2008-01-04T10:19:30Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 200.51.208.38, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>This is for claimed errors in transmission of text.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Deuteronomy&diff=13744Deuteronomy2008-01-04T10:18:46Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 85.91.133.135, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Deuteronomy 1]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 2]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 3]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 4]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 5]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 6]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 7]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 8]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 9]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 10]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 11]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 12]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 13]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 14]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 15]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 16]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 17]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 18]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 19]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 20]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 21]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 22]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 23]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 24]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 25]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 26]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 27]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 28]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 29]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 30]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 31]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 32]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 33]]<br />
*[[Deuteronomy 34]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[:Category:Deuteronomy]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=1_Chronicles&diff=137331 Chronicles2008-01-01T20:06:57Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 61.142.81.137, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[1 Chronicles 1]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 2]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 3]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 4]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 5]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 6]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 7]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 8]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 9]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 10]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 11]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 12]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 13]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 14]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 15]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 16]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 17]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 18]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 19]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 20]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 21]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 22]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 23]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 24]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 25]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 26]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 27]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 28]]<br />
*[[1 Chronicles 29]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Category:Haggai&diff=46068Category:Haggai2008-01-01T20:05:22Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 63.238.216.253, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>This is for miscellaneous items that people have commented on.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Category:Contradictions&diff=21148Category:Contradictions2007-12-27T17:02:59Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 81.211.26.66, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>This is for claimed contradictions in the Bible.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=John&diff=13780John2007-12-21T20:53:04Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 219.141.219.36, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Author and Date of Writing]]<br />
*[[John 1]]<br />
*[[John 2]]<br />
*[[John 3]]<br />
*[[John 4]]<br />
*[[John 5]]<br />
*[[John 6]]<br />
*[[John 7]]<br />
*[[John 8]]<br />
*[[John 9]]<br />
*[[John 10]]<br />
*[[John 11]]<br />
*[[John 12]]<br />
*[[John 13]]<br />
*[[John 14]]<br />
*[[John 15]]<br />
*[[John 16]]<br />
*[[John 17]]<br />
*[[John 18]]<br />
*[[John 19]]<br />
*[[John 20]]<br />
*[[John 21]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_2:6&diff=28650Matthew 2:62007-12-16T23:21:01Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 38.99.101.134, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Matthew 2:5|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 2]] > [[Matthew 2:7|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
===Misquote of Jewish Bible to Change Context===<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
[[Matthew_2|Matthew 2]]<br />
<br />
"4 And gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Christ should be born.<br />
<br />
5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written through the prophet,<br />
<br />
6 And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel." <br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Compare to:<br />
<br />
[[Micah_5|Micah 5]]<br />
<br />
"2 But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Note that "Matthew" has deleted "Ephrathah" from his quote of Micah. The phrase "Beth-lehem Ephrathah" along with the context of Micah "which art little to be among the thousands of Judah" appears to give the context of '''Lineage'''. The same clan that David was from. This is supported by the traditional Jewish understanding that the Messiah would be a descendent of David. "Matthew's"<br />
"Bethlehem, land of Judah" gives a different context, the '''geographical location''' of the city Bethlehem. The reason for this change in context by "Matthew" looks to be so he can claim prophecy fulfillment with a birth in the city of Bethlehem.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:52, 1 Feb 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Misquote of Jewish Bible to Change Quality of Bethlehem===<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Matthew 2:6<br />
<br />
"And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel." <br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Compare to:<br />
<br />
[[Micah 5:2]]<br />
<br />
"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Instead of "Art in no wise least" the Masoretic text says "small to be". Even the Christian Greek translations of Micah generally say, "are too small to be". "Matthew" has changed the quote in the Tanakh to avoid any description of Bethlehem as insignificant.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:41, 2 Feb 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Mistranslation of Jewish Bible Quote===<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Matthew 2:6<br />
<br />
"And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel." <br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Compare to:<br />
<br />
[[Micah 5:2]]<br />
<br />
"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Instead of "princes" the Masoretic text says "clans" (literally, "thousands"). Christian Greek translations of Micah generally say "thousands". The consonants of the Hebrew word (lpy) can mean "clans" or "rulers" so Matthew could have chosen to ignore the Hebrew tradition of "clans"<br />
even though it was accepted by the early Christians. The context of Micah though yields a translation of "clans" because of the reference to a clan, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, in the sentence.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:55, 3 Feb 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Misquote of Jewish Bible - Ommission of "For Me"===<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Matthew 2:6<br />
<br />
"And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel." <br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Compare to:<br />
<br />
[[Micah 5:2]]<br />
<br />
"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
The Masoretic text and Christian Greek translations of Micah say, "for out of thee shall come forth for me a ruler". "Matthew" has omitted "for me", apparently so as not to give the appearance that Jesus is ruling on behalf of anyone else. <br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 13:08, 3 Feb 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
===Misquote of Jewish Bible - Changing What/Who Is Ruled===<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Matthew 2:6<br />
<br />
"And thou Bethlehem, land of Judah, Art in no wise least among the princes of Judah: For out of thee shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel." <br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Compare to:<br />
<br />
[[Micah 5:2]]<br />
<br />
"But thou, Beth-lehem Ephrathah, which art little to be among the thousands of Judah, out of thee shall one come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting."<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
The Masoretic text says, "from you there will come forth for me one who is to be a ruler in Israel". (Early Christian Greek translations generally say, ""a leader of Israel"). "Matthew" has changed the prophecy of a leader of the country Israel to a leader of the people Israel. At the time that "Matthew" wrote he likely realized that Jesus was never a ruler or leader of the country Israel.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 22:11, 3 Feb 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=2&verse=6&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%202:6;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew2.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=2&verse=6 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+2.6 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C002.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_2,_Verse_6 BibleWiki]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:18&diff=28637Matthew 1:182007-12-15T21:04:34Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 155.7.45.19, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Matthew 1:17|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:19|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
===Inconsistency of Virgin Birth Story With the Rest Of "Matthew"===<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
A critical question regarding the Christian Bible is was the<br />
"virgin birth" story in "Matthew" written by the original author or <br />
was it later added. An increasing number of Christian Bible scholars <br />
are accepting that 1st century Judaism had no conception (pun <br />
intended) of a virgin birth and that combined with the observation <br />
that the supposed virgin birth of Jesus causes many awkward <br />
inconsistencies in Matthew with other verses which imply a<br />
normal birth, the virgin birth story may have been added to Matthew<br />
after it was first written. "The Interpreter's One-Volume<br />
Commentary" which is one of the two main Christian Bible<br />
commentaries now found in the big bookstores writes: "Neither<br />
Mark, nor John,nor Paul has any hint of the virgin birth story; it<br />
seems to have become important for the church only in the 2nd cent.<br />
As a way of combating the charge that Jesus was not truly human."<br />
The implication is that the authors of the Commentary suspect that <br />
the virgin birth story was added to Matthew in the 2nd century.<br />
<br />
Mark, likely the first Gospel written, has no virgin birth story and<br />
it's generally accepted that "Matthew" used Mark as a primary source <br />
for his Gospel (the other main Christian commentary in the big <br />
bookstores, "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary", actually lists <br />
Mark before Matthew in its detailed commentary). In Mark, Jesus is <br />
told by God that he is God's son at his baptism.Not something that <br />
would need to be done to a virgin birth and literally son of God <br />
product.<br />
<br />
In "Birth Of The Messiah", Father Raymond Brown, who may have<br />
been the top Christian Bible scholar of our time, demonstrates in<br />
detail how Matthew generally presents formula type accounts of Jesus<br />
which closely parallel formula type accounts in the Tanakh as to<br />
structure. Brown shows how the virgin birth account and references to<br />
it along with verses next to these accounts in Matthew seem to<br />
consist of a mixture of formula accounts but when you separate the<br />
likely virgin birth references from non-virgin birth verses you can<br />
recreate the usual formula patterns indicating that a virgin birth<br />
story was subsequently weaved into an original Matthew which lacked<br />
one.<br />
<br />
Another reason the virgin birth story may not be original to <br />
"Matthew" is that "Matthew" has a theme of presenting his version of<br />
Jesus as the new Moses and there does not appear to be any reference<br />
to Moses in the virgin birth story of "Matthew".<br />
<br />
The following Textual problems suggest that the virgin birth story<br />
is not original to "Matthew":<br />
<br />
Matthew 1: (KJV)<br />
<br />
"18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:"<br />
<br />
The Greek word for birth here, "genesis" is exactly the same Greek <br />
word used in Matthew 1:1, "a record of the genealogy" and has a wide <br />
range of meaning such as "birth", "creation" and "genealogy". Church <br />
Fathers generally used the Greek word "gennesis", which has a more <br />
limited meaning of "birth" to describe the nativity. Thus, it is <br />
extremely unlikely that the same author would have used the exact <br />
same Greek word in Matthew 1:1 and 1:18 to describe a genealogy and <br />
a birth. The genealogy and birth stories are probably from two <br />
different sources.<br />
<br />
<br />
Matthew 1: (KJV)<br />
<br />
"18…When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before<br />
they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19<br />
Then Joseph her husband,"<br />
<br />
Mary has gone from engaged to married after a mere thirteen words, a<br />
record that would stand until Liz Taylor two thousand years later.<br />
The mention in the genealogy of the four women is highly unusual<br />
(unparalleled?) for a 1st century Jewish writing. The common link is<br />
the questionable sexual morals of the four. Unnecessary apology if<br />
there was a virgin birth.<br />
<br />
<br />
Matthew 1: (KJV)<br />
<br />
"19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to<br />
make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily."<br />
<br />
The word that KJV has translated as "privily" is normally<br />
translated as "quietly". Under Jewish law at the time Joseph<br />
would have had to deliver a writ of repudiation before two witnesses<br />
so it would have been tough to keep it "quiet" unless the<br />
witnesses Joseph had in mind were the blind and mute men of Chapter 9.<br />
<br />
<br />
Matthew 1: (KJV)<br />
<br />
"20… fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife"<br />
<br />
The literal translation of the Greek is, "do not be afraid to<br />
take Mary your wife" which is an incomplete sentence making the<br />
meaning ambiguous. Does it mean take as in sexually, take as in<br />
accept or take as in bring home? Most of the main Christian Bibles<br />
have added words in their translations to give the appearance of a<br />
complete sentence (the relatively newer RSV being the exception):<br />
NIV "do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife"<br />
NASB "do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife"<br />
RSV "do not fear to take Mary your wife"<br />
Darby "fear not to take to [thee] Mary, thy wife"<br />
YLT "thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife"<br />
WE "do not fear to take Mary to be your wife"<br />
<br />
<br />
It's possible that "Matthew" was originally written with a virgin<br />
birth story but if so the rest of "Matthew" is still inconsistent <br />
with it with the following textual problems:<br />
<br />
====Why Does The Son Of God Need A Baptism?====<br />
<br />
Matthew 3: (KJV)<br />
<br />
14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of<br />
thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him,<br />
Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all<br />
righteousness. Then he suffered him."<br />
<br />
The Greek word that "Matthew" uses for "fulfill" is<br />
generally the same word used by Matthew to claim fulfillment of<br />
prophecies from the Tanakh. There is no prophecy in the Tanakh that<br />
the Messiah would be baptized in a river. As far as performing a<br />
commandment from the Tanakh there is no commandment requiring baptism<br />
in a river as a general type of atoning or purification ritual. A<br />
related question is, "who baptized John with water?" Matthew<br />
has to copy Mark's baptism story but the purpose of Mark's<br />
story was to show Jesus becoming the son at the baptism. Matthew<br />
presents a perfect Jesus so he is left with no good explanation for<br />
why a sinless person would need a baptism for repentance.<br />
<br />
<br />
====John the Baptist Unaware of the Virgin Birth====<br />
<br />
Matthew 11: (KJV)<br />
<br />
2 "Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he<br />
sent two of his disciples, 3 And said unto him, Art thou he that<br />
should come, or do we look for another?"<br />
<br />
Strange question to ask of someone who was the virgin birth son of<br />
God and was told by God at the baptism he performed that Jesus was<br />
God's son.<br />
<br />
<br />
====Jesus' Hometown Unaware of the Virgin Birth====<br />
<br />
<br />
Matthew 13: (KJV)<br />
<br />
54 "And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in<br />
their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence<br />
hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the<br />
carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren,<br />
James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"<br />
<br />
Once again, strange question.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:23, 6 Jan 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 20:13, 25 Feb 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Literally, the Greek reads "having in the womb" and not<br />
"with child". In any case, there is no definite article,<br />
"the", in front of "Holy Ghost" in almost all Greek<br />
manuscripts. The best translation would be "found to be pregnant<br />
through Holy Spirit". Christian translators have provided the<br />
"the" in English translations (found to be with child of the<br />
Holy Spirit) in order to support their pre-conceived belief that <br />
the Holy Spirit is a separate person.<br />
<br />
Even though "the" is absent in the Greek it could be properly<br />
translated into English if the '''Context''' supports it.<br />
Another reason for "the" could be just to indicate it's the<br />
holy spirit of God and not a separate entity.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:42, 20 Jan 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Movement of Con Argument to Neutral'''<br />
<br />
"The basic fact is in error in the "Pro" position.<br />
Please check your text. <br />
The Greek TR has an important one-letter distinction<br />
that is a separate word. <br />
<br />
Matthew 1:18 (KJB)<br />
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:"<br />
<br />
> The Greek word for birth here, "genesis" is exactly the same Greek word used in Matthew 1:1...<br />
<br />
Nope.<br />
Matthew 1:1 is 'genesis' translated as generation (also <br />
translated as nature) never as birth, nor as genealogy, <br />
which is a separate and distinct word used in the Pastorals.<br />
<br />
The Greek TR on Matthew 1:18 is 'gennesis' and that is birth.<br />
<br />
The KJB, following the Reformation TR text, is perfectly accurate.<br />
<br />
[[User:Steven Avery|Steven Avery]]"<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Reason for Move'''<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
I have Edited Pro and Clarified the error since the Con post. The claimed error is the '''Inconsistency''' of the virgin birth story with the rest Of "Matthew". In order to defend against error here Con must either argue that the virgin birth story is not inconsistent with the rest of "Matthew" or that being inconsistent is not an error. <br />
<br />
The Con argument asserted that the key to the Pro argument was a specific word used by Pro that Pro selected based on inferior text. However, the related example cited by Pro is only used to point out that the virgin birth story may not have been original to "Matthew" or at least to "Matthew's" source for the Infancy Narrative. <br />
<br />
While Pro ''thinks'' that the virgin birth story was added to the original "Matthew", at this time Pro can not prove it and therefore does not claim it as an error. Alternatively, if "Matthew" was the one who added the virgin birth story to an existing Infancy Narrative, that by itself is also not claimed as an error by Pro. <br />
<br />
However, Pro is using the Textual problems created by either having the virgin birth story added to the original "Matthew" or having "Matthew" add it to an original Infancy Narrative as evidence that the virgin birth story is inconsistent with the rest of "Matthew". The explanation being the rest of "Matthew" had a primary source of "Mark" which lacked a virgin birth.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:15, 27 Feb 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=18&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:18;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=18 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.18 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_18 BibleWiki]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Daniel&diff=13773Daniel2007-12-12T09:35:02Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 72.232.199.50, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Daniel 1]]<br />
*[[Daniel 2]]<br />
*[[Daniel 3]]<br />
*[[Daniel 4]]<br />
*[[Daniel 5]]<br />
*[[Daniel 6]]<br />
*[[Daniel 7]]<br />
*[[Daniel 8]]<br />
*[[Daniel 9]]<br />
*[[Daniel 10]]<br />
*[[Daniel 11]]<br />
*[[Daniel 12]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Nahum_1&diff=14710Nahum 12007-12-12T09:32:58Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 88.191.21.87, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Nahum]] > [[Nahum 2|Next Chapter]]'''<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:1]] The burden of Nineveh. The book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:2]] Jehovah is a jealous God and avengeth; Jehovah avengeth and is full of wrath; Jehovah taketh vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth [wrath] for his enemies.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:3]] Jehovah is slow to anger, and great in power, and will by no means clear [the guilty]: Jehovah hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:4]] He rebuketh the sea, and maketh it dry, and drieth up all the rivers: Bashan languisheth, and Carmel; and the flower of Lebanon languisheth.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:5]] The mountains quake at him, and the hills melt; and the earth is upheaved at his presence, yea, the world, and all that dwell therein.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:6]] Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his wrath is poured out like fire, and the rocks are broken asunder by him.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:7]] Jehovah is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble; and he knoweth them that take refuge in him.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:8]] But with an over-running flood he will make a full end of her place, and will pursue his enemies into darkness.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:9]] What do ye devise against Jehovah? he will make a full end; affliction shall not rise up the second time.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:10]] For entangled like thorns, and drunken as with their drink, they are consumed utterly as dry stubble.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:11]] There is one gone forth out of thee, that deviseth evil against Jehovah, that counselleth wickedness.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:12]] Thus saith Jehovah: Though they be in full strength, and likewise many, even so shall they be cut down, and he shall pass away. Though I have afflicted thee, I will afflict thee no more.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:13]] And now will I break his yoke from off thee, and will burst thy bonds in sunder.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:14]] And Jehovah hath given commandment concerning thee, that no more of thy name be sown: out of the house of thy gods will I cut off the graven image and the molten image; I will make thy grave; for thou art vile.<br />
<br />
[[Nahum 1:15]] Behold, upon the mountains the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace! Keep thy feasts, O Judah, perform thy vows; for the wicked one shall no more pass through thee; he is utterly cut off.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Ezekiel&diff=13753Ezekiel2007-12-06T09:33:35Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 216.58.96.135, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Ezekiel 1]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 2]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 3]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 4]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 5]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 6]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 7]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 8]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 9]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 10]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 11]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 12]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 13]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 14]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 15]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 16]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 17]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 18]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 19]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 20]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 21]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 22]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 23]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 24]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 25]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 26]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 27]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 28]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 29]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 30]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 31]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 32]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 33]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 34]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 35]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 36]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 37]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 38]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 39]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 40]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 41]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 42]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 43]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 44]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 45]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 46]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 47]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 48]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Acts&diff=13781Acts2007-12-06T09:33:11Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 216.58.96.135, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Acts 1]]<br />
*[[Acts 2]]<br />
*[[Acts 3]]<br />
*[[Acts 4]]<br />
*[[Acts 5]]<br />
*[[Acts 6]]<br />
*[[Acts 7]]<br />
*[[Acts 8]]<br />
*[[Acts 9]]<br />
*[[Acts 10]]<br />
*[[Acts 11]]<br />
*[[Acts 12]]<br />
*[[Acts 13]]<br />
*[[Acts 14]]<br />
*[[Acts 15]]<br />
*[[Acts 16]]<br />
*[[Acts 17]]<br />
*[[Acts 18]]<br />
*[[Acts 19]]<br />
*[[Acts 20]]<br />
*[[Acts 21]]<br />
*[[Acts 22]]<br />
*[[Acts 23]]<br />
*[[Acts 24]]<br />
*[[Acts 25]]<br />
*[[Acts 26]]<br />
*[[Acts 27]]<br />
*[[Acts 28]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Category:Other&diff=42682Category:Other2007-12-06T09:32:15Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 216.58.96.135, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>This is for miscellaneous items that people have commented on.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_1:5&diff=30335Luke 1:52007-12-03T10:09:57Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 61.147.113.209, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Luke 1:4|Previous Verse]] < [[Luke 1]] > [[Luke 1:6|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
There was in the days of Herod, king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Luk&chapter=1&verse=5&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=luke%201:5;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Luke&chapter=1&verse=5 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Luke+1.5 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Luke_Chapter_1,_Verse_5 BibleWiki]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Numbers&diff=13743Numbers2007-11-29T17:30:37Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of BoricBasce, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Numbers 1]]<br />
*[[Numbers 2]]<br />
*[[Numbers 3]]<br />
*[[Numbers 4]]<br />
*[[Numbers 5]]<br />
*[[Numbers 6]]<br />
*[[Numbers 7]]<br />
*[[Numbers 8]]<br />
*[[Numbers 9]]<br />
*[[Numbers 10]]<br />
*[[Numbers 11]]<br />
*[[Numbers 12]]<br />
*[[Numbers 13]]<br />
*[[Numbers 14]]<br />
*[[Numbers 15]]<br />
*[[Numbers 16]]<br />
*[[Numbers 17]]<br />
*[[Numbers 18]]<br />
*[[Numbers 19]]<br />
*[[Numbers 20]]<br />
*[[Numbers 21]]<br />
*[[Numbers 22]]<br />
*[[Numbers 23]]<br />
*[[Numbers 24]]<br />
*[[Numbers 25]]<br />
*[[Numbers 26]]<br />
*[[Numbers 27]]<br />
*[[Numbers 28]]<br />
*[[Numbers 29]]<br />
*[[Numbers 30]]<br />
*[[Numbers 31]]<br />
*[[Numbers 32]]<br />
*[[Numbers 33]]<br />
*[[Numbers 34]]<br />
*[[Numbers 35]]<br />
*[[Numbers 36]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[:Category:Numbers]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=1_Peter_3&diff=149621 Peter 32007-11-25T20:42:44Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 63.147.134.5, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[1 Peter 2|Previous Chapter]] < [[1 Peter]] > [[1 Peter 4|Next Chapter]]'''<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:1]] In like manner, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your won husbands; that, even if any obey not the word, they may without the word be gained by the behavior of their wives;<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:2]] beholding your chaste behavior [coupled] with fear.<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:3]] Whose [adorning] let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on apparel;<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:4]] but [let it be] the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptible [apparel] of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:5]] For after this manner aforetime the holy women also, who hoped in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands:<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:6]] as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose children ye now are, if ye do well, and are not put in fear by any terror.<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:7]] Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with [your wives] according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered.<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:8]] Finally, [be] ye all likeminded, compassionate, loving as brethren, tenderhearted, humbleminded:<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:9]] not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling; but contrariwise blessing; for hereunto were ye called, that ye should inherit a blessing.<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:10]] For, He that would love life, And see good days, Let him refrain his tongue from evil, And his lips that they speak no guile:<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:11]] And let him turn away from evil, and do good; Let him seek peace, and pursue it.<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:12]] For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, And his ears unto their supplication: But the face of the Lord is upon them that do evil.<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:13]] And who is he that will harm you, if ye be zealous of that which is good?<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:14]] But even if ye should suffer for righteousness` sake, blessed [are ye:] and fear not their fear, neither be troubled;<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:15]] but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: [being] ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear:<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:16]] having a good conscience; that, wherein ye are spoken against, they may be put to shame who revile your good manner of life in Christ.<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:17]] For it is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing.<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:18]] Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:19]] in which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison,<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:20]] that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:21]] which also after a true likeness doth now save you, [even] baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ;<br />
<br />
[[1 Peter 3:22]] who is one the right hand of God, having gone into heaven; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Prayer_of_Azariah&diff=13810Prayer of Azariah2007-11-25T20:40:29Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 66.201.45.162, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Prayer of Azariah 1]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Hebrews&diff=13795Hebrews2007-11-23T16:39:08Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 70.88.188.14, changed back to last version by Kirbybot</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Hebrews 1]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 2]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 3]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 4]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 5]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 6]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 7]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 8]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 9]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 10]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 11]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 12]]<br />
*[[Hebrews 13]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Job_15&diff=14261Job 152007-11-23T16:36:02Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 210.22.158.132, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Job 14|Previous Chapter]] < [[Job]] > [[Job 16|Next Chapter]]'''<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:1]] Then answered Eliphaz the Temanite, and said,<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:2]] Should a wise man make answer with vain knowledge, And fill himself with the east wind?<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:3]] Should he reason with unprofitable talk, Or with speeches wherewith he can do no good?<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:4]] Yea, thou doest away with fear, And hinderest devotion before God.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:5]] For thine iniquity teacheth thy mouth, And thou choosest the tongue of the crafty.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:6]] Thine own mouth condemneth thee, and not I; Yea, thine own lips testify against thee.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:7]] Art thou the first man that was born? Or wast thou brought forth before the hills?<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:8]] Hast thou heard the secret counsel of God? And dost thou limit wisdom to thyself?<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:9]] What knowest thou, that we know not? What understandest thou, which is not in us?<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:10]] With us are both the gray-headed and the very aged men, Much elder than thy father.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:11]] Are the consolations of God too small for thee, Even the word that is gentle toward thee?<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:12]] Why doth thy heart carry thee away? And why do thine eyes flash,<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:13]] That against God thou turnest thy spirit, And lettest words go out of thy mouth?<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:14]] What is man, that he should be clean? And he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:15]] Behold, he putteth no trust in his holy ones; Yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight:<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:16]] How much less one that is abominable and corrupt, A man that drinketh iniquity like water!<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:17]] I will show thee, hear thou me; And that which I have seen I will declare:<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:18]] Which wise men have told From their fathers, and have not hid it;<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:19]] Unto whom alone the land was given, And no stranger passed among them):<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:20]] The wicked man travaileth with pain all his days, Even the number of years that are laid up for the oppressor.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:21]] A sound of terrors is in his ears; In prosperity the destroyer shall come upon him.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:22]] He believeth not that he shall return out of darkness, And he is waited for of the sword.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:23]] He wandereth abroad for bread, [saying], Where is it? He knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:24]] Distress and anguish make him afraid; They prevail against him, as a king ready to the battle.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:25]] Because he hath stretched out his hand against God, And behaveth himself proudly against the Almighty;<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:26]] He runneth upon him with a [stiff] neck, With the thick bosses of his bucklers;<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:27]] Because he hath covered his face with his fatness, And gathered fat upon his loins;<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:28]] And he hath dwelt in desolate cities, In houses which no man inhabited, Which were ready to become heaps;<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:29]] He shall not be rich, neither shall his substance continue, Neither shall their possessions be extended on the earth.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:30]] He shall not depart out of darkness; The flame shall dry up his branches, And by the breath of [God`s] mouth shall he go away.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:31]] Let him not trust in vanity, deceiving himself; For vanity shall be his recompense.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:32]] It shall be accomplished before his time, And his branch shall not be green.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:33]] He shall shake off his unripe grape as the vine, And shall cast off his flower as the olive-tree.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:34]] For the company of the godless shall be barren, And fire shall consume the tents of bribery.<br />
<br />
[[Job 15:35]] They conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity, And their heart prepareth deceit.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Jude&diff=13802Jude2007-11-23T13:12:57Z<p>Robert Stevens: revert</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Jude 1]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=1_Corinthians_14:34&diff=341461 Corinthians 14:342007-11-18T23:04:36Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 85.234.131.132, changed back to last version by Equinox</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[1 Corinthians 14:33|Previous Verse]] < [[1 Corinthians 14]] > [[1 Corinthians 14:35|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
let the women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the law. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Verses 34 through 36 may have been added to 1 Corinthians by later Christians scribes. There are a several reasons why many scholars suspect this to be the case. <br />
<br />
First, in our oldest manuscripts, these verses are sometimes placed in different places, such as at the end of the chapter (after verse 1Cor 14:40). <br />
<br />
Secondly, they interrupt the topic so that 1 Cor 14 flows better without them. This can be seen by comparing the passage with and without them:<br />
<br />
<br />
With 34-36:<br />
<br />
''31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.'' <br />
''As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.'' <br />
''36Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached? 37If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored.''<br />
''39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.''<br />
<br />
<br />
Without 33-36:<br />
<br />
''31For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. 32The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. 33For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints, if anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted, let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command. 38If he ignores this, he himself will be ignored. ''<br />
''39Therefore, my brothers, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 40But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.''<br />
<br />
<br />
Before verses 33-36, Paul is talking about how to have orderly prophecy. After verses 33-36, Paul is talking about how to have orderly prophecy. <br />
<br />
<br />
Third, we don’t have 1st, 2nd or 3rd century manuscripts of this section of Corinthians, so Christian scribes had a long time during which they could have added these verses and we wouldn't be able to see the change. Our oldest manuscript that has this section of Corinthians is from the 4th century, about 300 years after Paul probably wrote 1 Corinthians. Of course, it only takes a minute to change a text.<br />
<br />
<br />
Fourth, verses 33-36 don’t fit with what Paul says just three chapters earlier (in chapter 11), where he says that women '''can''' prophesy as long as they cover their heads. <br />
<br />
<br />
Verses 33-36 mirror what is said in 1Tm 2:11. Scholars have long recognized that 1Tm is probably not actually by Paul (though it claims to be by Paul), but is a forgery. Perhaps Christian Scribes, knowing what “Paul” says in 1Tm, and agreeing with it themselves (if they didn’t like women speaking in church), added verses 33-36 in the margin, after which some later scribes incorporated it into the text, sometimes after verse 33, sometimes after verse 40? That seems to be a plausible explanation of the four points above.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=1Cr&chapter=14&verse=34&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2014:34;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians14.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Corinthians&chapter=14&verse=34 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=1%20Corinthians+14.34 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B46C014.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/1%20Corinthians_Chapter_14,_Verse_34 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:1 Corinthians]]<br />
[[Category:Transmission]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User:Peter_Kirby&diff=13726User:Peter Kirby2007-11-16T16:40:40Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 38.117.88.72, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>I'm the founder of ErrancyWiki.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_2:10&diff=28654Matthew 2:102007-11-09T09:23:04Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 85.10.201.221, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Matthew 2:9|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 2]] > [[Matthew 2:11|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And when they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=2&verse=10&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%202:10;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew2.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=2&verse=10 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+2.10 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C002.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_2,_Verse_10 BibleWiki]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Job&diff=13767Job2007-11-09T09:22:40Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 212.124.234.37, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Job 1]]<br />
*[[Job 2]]<br />
*[[Job 3]]<br />
*[[Job 4]]<br />
*[[Job 5]]<br />
*[[Job 6]]<br />
*[[Job 7]]<br />
*[[Job 8]]<br />
*[[Job 9]]<br />
*[[Job 10]]<br />
*[[Job 11]]<br />
*[[Job 12]]<br />
*[[Job 13]]<br />
*[[Job 14]]<br />
*[[Job 15]]<br />
*[[Job 16]]<br />
*[[Job 17]]<br />
*[[Job 18]]<br />
*[[Job 19]]<br />
*[[Job 20]]<br />
*[[Job 21]]<br />
*[[Job 22]]<br />
*[[Job 23]]<br />
*[[Job 24]]<br />
*[[Job 25]]<br />
*[[Job 26]]<br />
*[[Job 27]]<br />
*[[Job 28]]<br />
*[[Job 29]]<br />
*[[Job 30]]<br />
*[[Job 31]]<br />
*[[Job 32]]<br />
*[[Job 33]]<br />
*[[Job 34]]<br />
*[[Job 35]]<br />
*[[Job 36]]<br />
*[[Job 37]]<br />
*[[Job 38]]<br />
*[[Job 39]]<br />
*[[Job 40]]<br />
*[[Job 41]]<br />
*[[Job 42]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Acts_5:38&diff=32531Acts 5:382007-11-02T10:06:13Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 66.232.119.137, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Acts 5:37|Previous Verse]] < [[Acts 5]] > [[Acts 5:39|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will be overthrown: (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Act&chapter=5&verse=38&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=acts%205:38;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts5.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Acts&chapter=5&verse=38 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Acts+5.38 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B44C005.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Acts_Chapter_5,_Verse_38 BibleWiki]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Acts_5:37&diff=32530Acts 5:372007-10-31T09:32:40Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 69.41.185.180, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Acts 5:36|Previous Verse]] < [[Acts 5]] > [[Acts 5:38|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the enrolment, and drew away [some of the] people after him: he also perished; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered abroad. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Act&chapter=5&verse=37&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=acts%205:37;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts5.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Acts&chapter=5&verse=37 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Acts+5.37 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B44C005.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Acts_Chapter_5,_Verse_37 BibleWiki]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_22:20&diff=31318Luke 22:202007-10-17T13:09:11Z<p>Robert Stevens: categories</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Luke 22:19|Previous Verse]] < [[Luke 22]] > [[Luke 22:21|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
All of this verse, and part of the preceding verse may have been added later by a Christian who wanted to change the theological message of the Gospel ascribed to Luke. There are several reasons to think this, one being that some of our older manuscripts read <br />
<br />
"This is my body. But behold, the hand of the...." instead of <br />
<br />
<br />
"This is my body '' '''which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you.''' '' But behold, the hand of ...."<br />
<br />
In addition to this, the inserted text shows a belief that it's Jesus' death that atones for sins, which Luke apparently didn't believe. When one of his sources (Mark) says this in Mk 10:45 and Mk 15:39, Luke deletes those words, and never, in either Luke nor Acts, does Luke ever say that it's Jesus' death that brings salvation, but rather that it is the believer's repentence when faced with that death that brings salvation.<br />
<br />
For more on this, see Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus", pg. 166.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Luk&chapter=22&verse=20&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=luke%2022:20;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Luke&chapter=22&verse=20 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Luke+22.20 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C022.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Luke_Chapter_22,_Verse_20 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Luke]]<br />
[[Category:Transmission]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke_22:19&diff=31317Luke 22:192007-10-17T13:08:24Z<p>Robert Stevens: categories</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Luke 22:18|Previous Verse]] < [[Luke 22]] > [[Luke 22:20|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave to them, saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Part of this verse, and all of the following verse may have been added later by a Christian who wanted to change the theological message of the Gospel ascribed to Luke. There are several reasons to think this, one being that some of our older manuscripts read <br />
<br />
"This is my body. But behold, the hand of the...." instead of <br />
<br />
<br />
"This is my body '' '''which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me. And the cup in like manner after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood, [even] that which is poured out for you.''' '' But behold, the hand of ...."<br />
<br />
In addition to this, the inserted text shows a belief that it's Jesus' death that atones for sins, which Luke apparently didn't believe. When one of his sources (Mark) says this in Mk 10:45 and Mk 15:39, Luke deletes those words, and never, in either Luke nor Acts, does Luke ever say that it's Jesus' death that brings salvation, but rather that it is the believer's repentence when faced with that death that brings salvation.<br />
<br />
For more on this, see Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus", pg. 166.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
Edit this section if you doubt error.<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Luk&chapter=22&verse=19&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=luke%2022:19;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/luke/luke22.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Luke&chapter=22&verse=19 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Luke+22.19 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B42C022.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Luke_Chapter_22,_Verse_19 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Luke]]<br />
[[Category:Transmission]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Hosea_4&diff=14675Hosea 42007-10-16T09:28:48Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of DroncAmona, changed back to last version by Kirbybot</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Hosea 3|Previous Chapter]] < [[Hosea]] > [[Hosea 5|Next Chapter]]'''<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:1]] Hear the word of Jehovah, ye children of Israel; for Jehovah hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor goodness, nor knowledge of God in the land.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:2]] There is nought but swearing and breaking faith, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery; they break out, and blood toucheth blood.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:3]] Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one that dwelleth therein shall languish, with the beasts of the field and the birds of the heavens; yea, the fishes of the sea also shall be taken away.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:4]] Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove; for thy people are as they that strive with the priest.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:5]] And thou shalt stumble in the day, and the prophet also shall stumble with thee in the night; and I will destroy thy mother.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:6]] My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:7]] As they were multiplied, so they sinned against me: I will change their glory into shame.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:8]] They feed on the sin of my people, and set their heart on their iniquity.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:9]] And it shall be, like people, like priest; and I will punish them for their ways, and will requite them their doings.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:10]] And they shall eat, and not have enough; they shall play the harlot, and shall not increase; because they have left off taking heed to Jehovah.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:11]] Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the understanding.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:12]] My people ask counsel at their stock, and their staff declareth unto them; for the spirit of whoredom hath caused them to err, and they have played the harlot, [departing] from under their God.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:13]] They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains, and burn incense upon the hills, under oaks and poplars and terebinths, because the shadow thereof is good: therefore your daughters play the harlot, and your brides commit adultery.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:14]] I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for [the men] themselves go apart with harlots, and they sacrifice with the prostitutes; and the people that doth not understand shall be overthrown.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:15]] Though thou, Israel, play the harlot, yet let not Judah offend; and come not ye unto Gilgal, neither go ye up to Beth-aven, nor swear, As Jehovah liveth.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:16]] For Israel hath behaved himself stubbornly, like a stubborn heifer: now will Jehovah feed them as a lamb in a large place.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:17]] Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:18]] Their drink is become sour; they play the harlot continually; her rulers dearly love shame.<br />
<br />
[[Hosea 4:19]] The wind hath wrapped her up in its wings; and they shall be put to shame because of their sacrifices.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Hosea&diff=13754Hosea2007-10-16T09:27:56Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 200.1.123.30, changed back to last version by Kirbybot</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Hosea 1]]<br />
*[[Hosea 2]]<br />
*[[Hosea 3]]<br />
*[[Hosea 4]]<br />
*[[Hosea 5]]<br />
*[[Hosea 6]]<br />
*[[Hosea 7]]<br />
*[[Hosea 8]]<br />
*[[Hosea 9]]<br />
*[[Hosea 10]]<br />
*[[Hosea 11]]<br />
*[[Hosea 12]]<br />
*[[Hosea 13]]<br />
*[[Hosea 14]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Leviticus_24&diff=13924Leviticus 242007-10-12T12:36:51Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 157.102.7.19, changed back to last version by Kirbybot</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Leviticus 23|Previous Chapter]] < [[Leviticus]] > [[Leviticus 25|Next Chapter]]'''<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:1]] And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:2]] Command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:3]] Without the veil of the testimony, in the tent of meeting, shall Aaron keep it in order from evening to morning before Jehovah continually: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:4]] He shall keep in order the lamps upon the pure candlestick before Jehovah continually.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:5]] And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth parts [of an ephah] shall be in one cake.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:6]] And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before Jehovah.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:7]] And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto Jehovah.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:8]] Every sabbath day he shall set it in order before Jehovah continually; it is on the behalf of the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:9]] And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of Jehovah made by fire by a perpetual statute.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:10]] And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp:<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:11]] and the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother`s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:12]] And they put him in ward, that it might be declared unto them at the mouth of Jehovah.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:13]] And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying,<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:14]] Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:15]] And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:16]] And he that blasphemeth the name of Jehovah, he shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the sojourner, as the home-born, when he blasphemeth the name [of Jehovah], shall be put to death.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:17]] And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:18]] And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good, life for life.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:19]] And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him:<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:20]] breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be rendered unto him.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:21]] And he that killeth a beast shall make it good: and he that killeth a man shall be put to death.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:22]] Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the sojourner, as for the home-born: for I am Jehovah your God.<br />
<br />
[[Leviticus 24:23]] And Moses spake to the children of Israel; and they brought forth him that had cursed out of the camp, and stoned him with stones. And the children of Israel did as Jehovah commanded Moses.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=User:RockOfVictory&diff=46296User:RockOfVictory2007-09-27T15:37:40Z<p>Robert Stevens: revert</p>
<hr />
<div>I generally sit on the "con" side of the errancy fence.<br />
<br />
See my Wikipedia profile for more about me: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RockOfVictory User:RockOfVictory]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=2_Samuel_21:8&diff=199472 Samuel 21:82007-09-24T12:53:57Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 81.252.136.133, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[2 Samuel 21:7|Previous Verse]] < [[2 Samuel 21]] > [[2 Samuel 21:9|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she bare to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
According to [[2 Samuel 6:23]], Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no children.<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
Moved From Con:<br />
<br />
"See [http://www.tektonics.org/lp/michalkids.html Tekton].<br />
<br />
The five sons were those of Adriel, the husband of Morab. Morab was Michal's sister. It is possible that Michal, being childless, helped raise Morab's sons and, in the role of a "nanny" was considered to be their adopted mother.<br />
<br />
For the pure inerrancy view in depth read - [http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HebrewsJesus.html 2 Samuel 21:8 Michal or Merab? - by Will Kinney]<br />
The article above actually takes a 'scribal error' view, although the explanation above does not."<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW</font>:<br />
What's listed above is Trivia and not good Evidence and therefore does not meet the minimum reasonableness standards of ErrancyWiki required for a Pro or Con argument. It's all Speculation with no Reasonable Basis for a Defense. If you want to try and improve it (which right now I don't see as possible) first give what you consider the one best Basis for a Defense.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:31, 27 Dec 2006 (CST)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=2Sm&chapter=21&verse=8&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=2%20samuel%2021:8;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2samuel/2samuel21.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=2%20Samuel&chapter=21&verse=8 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=2%20Samuel+21.8 Perseus]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/2%20Samuel_Chapter_21,_Verse_8 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:2 Samuel]]<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]<br />
[[Category:Con]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:7&diff=10456Matthew 1:72007-08-31T10:41:32Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 204.39.95.9, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Template:Featured Smackdown}}<br />
<br />
'''[[Matthew 1:6|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:8|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa; (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
<br />
<br />
To my honored Teacher Rabbi Maimonides as I lay (what's left of) your Tormentor at your feet.<br />
<br />
<br />
Generally, the oldest extant Greek manuscripts such as the Sinaitic and Vatican codices have the Greek equivalent of the English “Asaph” instead of “Asa” who according to the Tanakh should be in this location. The NASB has a footnote for Matthew 1:7 indicating that the Greek word was the equivalent of the English “Asaph”. "Asaph" was a famous Psalmist so "Matthew" appears to have either confused him with King Asa or again simply copied an existing error in the Greek. <br />
<br />
Now let's test drive a special option Peter Kirby has installed here, the HTML Bible by verse:<br />
<br />
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Byzantine Majority -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945; <br />
<br />
Alexandrian -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945;&#966; <br />
<br />
Hort and Westcott -<br><br />
&#963;&#959;&#955;&#959;&#956;&#969;&#957; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956; &#961;&#959;&#946;&#959;&#945;&#956;&#32;&#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957; &#964;&#959;&#957;&#32;&#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#945;&#946;&#953;&#945; &#948;&#949; &#949;&#947;&#949;&#957;&#957;&#951;&#963;&#949;&#957;&#32;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#945;&#963;&#945;&#966; <br />
<br />
<br />
JW:<br />
"Asa"/"Asaph" is the last word of the sentence. Note that TR has "Asa" and WH has "Asaph". Raymond Brown, The International Critical Commentary and UBS confirm "Asaph" as '''likely''' original. From A TEXTUAL COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT by Bruce M. Metzger:<br />
<br />
"1.7–8 ????, ???? {B}<br />
It is clear that the name “Asaph” is the earliest form of text preserved in the manuscripts, for the agreement of Alexandrian (? B) and other witnesses (f 1 f 13 700 1071) with Eastern versions (cop arm eth geo) and representatives of the Western text (Old Latin mss and D in Luke [D is lacking for this part of Matthew]) makes a strong combination. Furthermore, the tendency of scribes, observing that the name of the psalmist Asaph (cf. the titles of Pss 50 and 73 to 83) was confused with that of Asa the king of Judah (1 Kgs 15.9 ff.), would have been to correct the error, thus accounting for the prevalence of ??? in the later Ecclesiastical text and its inclusion in the Textus Receptus.1<br />
Although most scholars are impressed by the overwhelming weight of textual evidence supporting ????, Lagrange demurs and in his commentary prints ??? as the text of Matthew. He declares (p. 5) that “literary criticism is not able to admit that the author, who could not have drawn up this list without consulting the Old Testament, would have taken the name of a psalmist in place of a king of Judah. It is necessary, therefore, to suppose that ???? is a very ancient [scribal] error.” Since, however, the evangelist may have derived material for the genealogy, not from the Old Testament directly, but from subsequent genealogical lists, in which the erroneous spelling occurred, the Committee saw no reason to adopt what appears to be a scribal emendation in the text of Matthew."<br />
<br />
On a related note Origen's Hexapla from the early third century may have been an important source of correction for this type of name error for later Greek manuscripts as you wouldn't need to know Hebrew here to observe that Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotian all used "Asa" instead of "Asaph" for the genealogy in the Jewish Bible. Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time. <br />
<br />
Now let's look at the Hebrew Genealogy for "Asa":<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 3:10 <br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a03.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ?????-????????, ?????????; ???????? ????? ????? ?????, ??????????? ??????. 10 And Solomon's son was Rehoboam; Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son; " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asa) is the 4th Hebrew word from the left.<br />
<br />
Now the Hebrew Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Kings 15:8<br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt09a15.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ???????????? ???????? ???-????????, ????????????? ????? ??????? ??????; ??????????? ????? ?????, ??????????. {?} 8 And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David; and Asa his son reigned in his stead. " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asa) is the 3rd Hebrew word from the left.<br />
<br />
We can see in the Masoretic text here that "Asa" is spelled consistently. Reading the related Narrative shows that "Asa" was a relatively important King.<br />
<br />
Now let's search the Hebrew for "Asaph" by Genealogy:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 6 <br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a06.htm<br />
<br />
" ?? ???????? ?????, ??????? ???-????????--????? ????-????????????, ????-????????. 24 And his brother Asaph, who stood on his right hand; even Asaph the son of Berechiah, the son of Shimea; "<br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asaph) is the fifth Hebrew word from the left and differs from "Asa" with the last letter being " ? " instead of " ? ".<br />
<br />
Now by Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 16<br />
<br />
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt25a16.htm<br />
<br />
" ? ????? ???????, ???????????? ?????????; ???????? ?????????????? ????????? ???????????? ?????????? ??????????? ??????? ????? ?????????, ???????? ???????? ?????????????, ???????, ??????????????? ??????????. 5 Asaph the chief, and second to him Zechariah, Jeiel, and Shemiramoth, and Jehiel, and Mattithiah, and Eliab, and Benaiah, and Obed-edom, and Jeiel, with psalteries and with harps; and Asaph with cymbals, sounding aloud; " <br />
<br />
" ????? " (Asaph) is the first Hebrew word on the right. <br />
<br />
We can see in the Masoretic text here that "Asaph" is spelled consistently. Reading the related Narrative shows that "Asaph" was also a relatively important person.<br />
<br />
Now let's look at the Greek Genealogy for "Asa":<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 3:10 <br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=3&verse=10<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles <br />
"3:10 ???? ??????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ?????"<br />
<br />
"???" (Asa) is in the middle. Note that the LXX has the correct name here per the Hebrew Bible. <br />
<br />
Now the Greek Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Kings 15:8<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible<br />
<br />
"15:8 ??? ???????? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ??? ???????? ??? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????"<br />
<br />
Again, the correct word "???" (Asa) 5th word from the end. <br />
<br />
Now let's search the Greek for "Asaph" by Genealogy:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 9<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=9&verse=15<br />
<br />
"1 Chronicles <br />
9:15 ??? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????"<br />
<br />
"????" (Asaph) is where it's supposed to be as the last word. <br />
<br />
Now let's search the Greek for "Asaph" by Narrative:<br />
<br />
1 Chronicles 16<br />
<br />
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=1%20Chronicles&chapter=16&verse=5<br />
<br />
"5 ???? ? ????????? ??? ?????????? ???? ???????? ???? ????????? ???? ????????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?? ???????? ??????? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ?? ????????? ????????"<br />
<br />
Again, "????" (Asaph) is where it's supposed to be as the first word.<br />
<br />
And now, the meaning of the names:<br />
<br />
http://www.ccel.org/bible_names/bible_names.html#A<br />
<br />
"Asa, physician; cure"<br />
<br />
"Asaph, who gathers together"<br />
<br />
Quite the difference.<br />
<br />
One more thing. The usual Christian Apology is that ancient documents show variation in the Greek spelling of "Asa's" name so "Matthew's" use of "Asaph" is just a variation and not a mistake. As near as I can tell most of these "ancient documents" are still hiding in a cave somewhere with the WMDs waiting to be discovered. Josephus though, does use a variation himself:<br />
<br />
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0145:book=8:section=290<br />
<br />
"[290] Ho de tôn Hierosolumôn basileus Asanos" (??????).<br />
<br />
"Asanos" instead of "Asa". However, "Asanos" is still not "Asaph" and the LXX "Matthew's" readers would have been referring to still had "Asa". Maybe the Christians changed Joshepus here to support "Matthew". Just kidding! <br />
<br />
<br />
So in '''Summary''', the evidence that "Matthew's" apparent use of "Asaph" at 1:7 is an '''Error''', ranked by weight of evidence is: <br />
<br />
1) According to the Masoretic text "Asa" was the '''correct''' name for the genealogy "Matthew" was trying to present and the textual evidence above indicates that "Matthew's" "Asaph" was likely original. <br />
<br />
2) The detailed '''narrative''' from the Jewish Bible also confirms "Asa" as correct. <br />
<br />
3) The '''LXX''' also has "Asa" for the genealogy and narrative which is further evidence that the Greek "???" was the correct name here. <br />
<br />
4) "Asa" and "Asaph" are two '''different''' names in the original Hebrew used to refer to different people in the Jewish Bible. This time both refer to relatively important people. Asa, the good king and Asaph, chief Psalmist of David.<br />
<br />
5) There is '''no''' evidence in the Jewish Bible that "Asa" and "Asaph" were anything other than two distinct names. <br />
<br />
6) Subsequent Christian copyists gradually '''changed''' the name from "Asaph" to "Asa" implying they recognized that "Asaph" was an error.<br />
<br />
7) A one letter difference is a '''big''' difference in the compact and small word Biblical Hebrew. <br />
<br />
8) There are many '''more''' examples of "Matthew's" problems with names in the genealogy. <br />
<br />
9) '''Origen''' confesses to us that in his time the Greek manuscripts were filled with errors regarding Hebrew names. This would have been well before any extant manuscripts. <br />
<br />
10) The meaning of "Asa" and "Asaph" in Hebrew is '''different'''. <br />
<br />
11) In 13:35 "Matthew" quotes a Psalm of Asaph (78) indicating the use of "Asaph" may have been intentional.<br />
<br />
12) Messianic '''Apologist''' Schmuel confesses to us that if "Asaph" is original then 1:7 is in error.<br />
<br />
<br />
The evidence that "Matthew's" use of "Asaph" at 1:7 is '''not an Error''', ranked by weight of evidence is: <br />
<br />
1) It's possible that "Matthew" '''originally''' wrote "Asa".<br />
<br />
2) "Asa" and "Asaph" differ by '''one''' letter in the Hebrew and Greek so it's possible they could refer to the same person. <br />
<br />
3) Josephus has a variant spelling of "Asa" so it's possible that '''variant''' spellings at the time were an acceptable convention.<br />
<br />
<br />
In my opinion, the weight of the Evidence above is that '''"Asa" is the correct''' name at this point in the genealogy and "Matthew's" use of a different name ("Asaph") is an '''Error'''. Let me also point out something for the benefit of Fundamentalists here. If you want to believe that "Asa" and "Asaph" referred to the same person then "Matthew's" use of "Asa" would still have been a better choice and therefore, the existing genealogy by "Matthew" is not "perfect". <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
Update --[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:45, 11 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
===Issues of errancy: Textus Receptus vs. other manuscripts===<br />
There is a huge irony trying to claim this as a smackdown error against the New Testament, since it is only based upon a corruption that is not in the historic New Testaments (Greek Received Text, Tyndale, Geneva, Luther, King James Bible, etc) but only in the modern eclectic alexandrian texts, which only became an issue by the dubious Westcott & Hort work, and are defended by nobody anywhere as inerrant. <br />
<br />
This, btw, is a very frequent modus operandi of errantists, to attack the corruptions in the alexandrian text that are in the 'modern versions'. For them it is like an easy duckshoot. This is not the place to go into the whole history of the alexandrian text, suffice to say they are rife with geographical, historical, grammatical, logical and internal consistency blunders. One simple example is that a demoniac/swine incident is placed at Gerash (Jerash), 30 miles deep into Jordan, with no relationship whatsoever to the Sea of Galilee, <br />
<br />
Even worse, Peter Kirby is well aware of this distinction, from my own discussions with him on other issues, especially Mark 1:2 !<br />
<br />
Here are two excerpts from articles from those who defend the historic Bible, simply agreeing that this is a modern version blunder, and to demonstrate that this is a well-known modern version corruption. <br />
<br />
These men actually defend God's Word as inspired and preserved. And Thomas Strouse goes into some of the contradictory idiosyncrasies of one modern version errant translation.<br />
<br />
http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/A_BIBLICAL_CREDIBILITY_CRISIS_word.pdf<br />
http://floydjones.org/which.pdf - Which Version is the Bible<br />
<br />
A BIBLICAL CREDIBILITY CRISIS - Wilbur Pickering<br />
Moreover, the “minority text” has introduced some unequivocal errors which make the doctrine of inerrancy indefensible. For example, Matthew 1:7 and 1:10 list Asaph and Amos, two non-existent kings, in Christ’s genealogy whereas the Traditional Text correctly reads “Asa” and “Amon”.<br />
<br />
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/shouldfundamentalists-nasv.html Dr. Thomas Strouse<br />
Matthew 1:7-8; 10 However, Aleph and B, the two major manuscripts behind the Critical Text, read Asaph for Asa and Amos for Amon, respectively.<br />
Although Asaph the psalmist and Amos the prophet were godly men, they have no place in the royal genealogy of Christ.<br />
(more on url site, truncated to be sure to be in 'fair use')<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 04:18, 13 Nov 2005 (CST) Steven Avery Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
====Avery: Response 1====<br />
<br />
"11) Messianic Apologist Schmuel confesses to us that if "Asaph" is original than 1:7 is in error."<br />
<br />
LOL.. 'confesses to us' ????? :-) <br />
Au contraire.<br />
<br />
a) J'Accuse the alexandrian modern versions of being corrupt, full of errors, omissions, corruptions, from geographical impossibilities to grammatical abominations to logical contradictions to various other types of blunders, ironically the errors themselves generally based on minimal textual evidence.<br />
<br />
b) J'Accuse the methodologies of 'modern scientific textual criticism" of guaranteeing the creation of a corrupt text full of these blunders and errors, by gerry-rigging ascriptural theories of anti-inspiration for their false agenda, and then falsely pretending that their fabricated and clearly bankrupt text created is somehow closer to the 'original autographs'.<br />
<br />
c) J'Accuse modern liberal textual theories of desparately trying to bypass the true Bible New Testament, most especially the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, because of the Authority, the full and final authority, inherent in the Word of God.<br />
<br />
d) J'Accuse the enemies of the Gospel, who themselves have the strangest and most humorous theories of the creation and propagation of the NT text, of utilizing simply for convenience the false theories of a-b-c, for their agenda, their purposes of fighting the Word of God. They are aware that by putting forth a phoney facade of textual criticism, they can fight against what they can affectionately call the Duckshoot Text rather than against the inspired and preserved Word of God.<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 09:26, 17 Nov 2005 (CST) Steven Avery Queens, NY schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
===Response to Con===<br />
It is possible that there is more than one person with the name Asa, or Asaph.<br />
<br />
--------------------<br />
<br />
Tis not clear whose response this is above. <br />
To be clear that might be the response of a textual liberal trying to salvage his modern version duckshoot text. <br />
<br />
However I will use this space to note one entry from Joe that appears to be deliberately confusing, since it is amazingly an attack on the accurate, unerrant New Testament text !<br />
<br />
JW<br />
"Pity that the Hebrew column of the Hexapla found a final resting spot on the same shelf as the original KJV. Would have Saved us all a lot of time."<br />
<br />
The King James Bible does in fact match the Hebrew Bible here perfectly, so this is a very strange comment. <br />
<br />
In line with this, perhaps the time would be saved if supposed 'errors' were not brought forth ('smackdown' status, no less) that simply are not errors in the historic Bibles, the only Bibles that are defended as truly inerrant (in their tangible, 'hold-in-your-hands' state). <br />
<br />
Or at least they should have a clear disclaimer at top -<br />
"This argument does not apply to the historic Bibles based on the Received Text, such as the King James Bible, Geneva, Tyndale, Luther (German), etc"<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 06:00, 8 Dec 2005 (CST)Shalom, Steven Avery schmuel@nyc.rr.com<br />
<br />
===Beating up KJV Only folks is hardly a bragging right===<br />
<br />
Anyone can do that...it's rather easy, in fact, since their own arguments against the "liberal" translations often work equally well against their own position.<br />
<br />
As to the allegation of error, there are two points that can be contested:<br />
<br />
#The facticity of the typographical error.<br />
#The distinction between typographical error and errors of content.<br />
<br />
'''The facticity of the typographical error'''<br />
<br />
It is admitted above that the LXX has various spellings for the name Asa, therefore it is possible that Matthew used one of these variations (or perhaps one that was popular at the time he wrote), and that this is not a typographical error.<br />
:The reading ????? (Asaf), a variant spelling on ???? (Asa), is found in the earliest and most widespread witnesses (Ì1vid ? B C [Dluc] Ë1,13 700 pc it co). Although Asaph was a psalmist and Asa was a king, it is doubtful that the author mistook one for the other since other ancient documents have variant spellings on the king’s name (such as “Asab,” “Asanos,” and “Asaph”). Thus the spelling ????? that is almost surely found in the original of Matt 1:7-8 has been translated as “Asa” in keeping with the more common spelling of the king’s name. (NET Bible note on Matt. 1:7)<br />
In other words, there is no proof for a ''necessary'' error here &mdash; there is an alternate explanation that doesn't require accepting the allegation of typographical error.<br />
<br />
'''The distinction between typographical error and errors of content'''<br />
<br />
Even granting a typographical error, this does not challenge the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. ''The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy'', a standard formal expression of the doctrine, states:<br />
:We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, '''irregularities of grammar or spelling''', &c (Art. 13)<br />
A typographical error on the spelling of a name does not imply anything about the truthfulness of the content. Asa certainly is the correct person, as your review of the Hebrew geneologies shows.<br />
<br />
Thus on two counts the charge of errancy can be disputed: a typographical error is not ''necessary'' to explain the variant spelling, and even granting a typographical error, it would not effect the doctrine of inerrancy. Pretty far from a "smackdown" &mdash; more like a "love tap" if anything!<br />
<br />
[[User:4.253.64.77|4.253.64.77]] 07:47, 3 Apr 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
===TR v. Other Manuscripts: Joseph Wallack===<br />
JW:<br />
Shalom Schmuel, you've been ...expected. I'm perfectly willing to consider the Textual Analysis issue. No one should stop their evidence at Appeal To Authority. Can you transform the above into an Argument? In other words, list your Key Points, consider opposing Points and analyze how both make your conclusion the more likely one. Right now, the main Assertions I see above are:<br />
<br />
1)"which only became an issue by the dubious Westcott & Hort work" <br />
<br />
2)"the alexandrian text, suffice to say they are rife with geographical, historical, grammatical, logical and internal consistency blunders."<br />
<br />
3)"Thomas Strouse goes into some of the contradictory idiosyncrasies of one modern version errant translation."<br />
<br />
Right now you don't have a complete Argument, you just have a few Assertions which you claim support your Conclusion. I know you don't play the Apologist Game of intentionally refusing to do anything other than refer to Apologist arguments and then primarily claiming that your opponent doesn't understand the Apologist Argument you refer to (in order to distract). <br />
<br />
Please try and present a more complete Argument even if that means cutting and pasting someone else's. Thanks.<br />
<br />
Joseph<br />
<br />
===TR v. Other Manuscripts: Steven Avery===<br />
Sure<br />
<br />
1) The only New Testament defended as inerrant is the historic Bible,<br />
the Received Text, and most especially the majestic English translation, the King James Bible, always the point of comparision for the lessers.<br />
<br />
2) This is the true scriptures. <br />
<br />
3) In the historic Bible, there is no error with Asa. All TR Bibles (Tyndale, Geneva, KJB, Luther, others and modern TR vresions) have no error here.<br />
<br />
4) The same point answers a few dozen of your most significant attempts to find an error in the New Testament. And you are welcome to cut-and-paste this 1-2-3-4 (or link to this page) to answer those dozens of claims of error. <br />
<br />
That should do :-)<br />
<br />
Additional note to (2). There is little point or sense in debating what is the true scriptures with one like yourself that believes the New Testament is simply a bunch of junque and confusions and deceptions and errors. You of course will embrace any argument that creates an errant text, (since an errant text is your goal and hope and dream) such as the W&H textual position (e.g through overuse of lectio difficilior). <br />
<br />
And basically every modern version user will agree with you that they have an errant text, full of errors, anyway (they like to call them 'scribal errors', although their problems are far deeper than that). The whole inerrancy discussion then becomes a waste of time, since they agree with you out of the box. <br />
<br />
Your idea that my defending the true Bible is an "Appeal to Authority" is, in an ironic sense, 100% right. The King James Bible remains today the 'Final Authority' (see William Grady book).<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 17:29, 14 Nov 2005 (CST) Shalom, Steven Avery<br />
<br />
====Avery: Response 2====<br />
Joe<br />
"I'm perfectly willing to consider the Textual Analysis issue"<br />
<br />
What you, Joe W, will 'consider' is essentially irrelevant. <br />
The issue is integrity on the wiki. <br />
<br />
We know your desire is always to fabricate an error in the NT text, so you will argue, ironically, that, the true (original) text is the false (errant) text. Those who accept the Authority of the Bible and defend its inerrancy in the historic text, really do not care a whit what an unbeliever with an agenda will 'consider'.<br />
<br />
Now this wiki entry should, for honesty, have a large disclaimer -<br />
<br />
<b> This claimed 'smackdown' error in Matthew 1:7 does not relate at all to the historic English Bible (the King James Bible or any Reformation Bibles, English, German, Spanish, or other languages). </b><br />
<br />
In addition, in smaller letters, but also clear and on top- <br />
<br />
Please note that this claimed error has not been shown at all to be in any of the following- <b> <br />
a) Vast majority of Greek manuscripts, (which have Asa), or the<br />
b) Latin Vulgate and its English translation, the Douay-Rheims, or the<br />
c) Old Latin manuscripts, or the<br />
d) Aramaic Peshitta. <br />
e) Early church writers, Greek, Latin or Aramaic </b><br />
<br />
With two such disclaimers, bold and clear in the introduction, the wiki would then gain some errancy integrity.<br />
<br />
[[User:24.193.219.212|24.193.219.212]] 11:07, 17 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Wiki Integrity Notice===<br />
Integrity of this Wiki is monitored and maintained by the Administration, and as such the rule regarding integrity is stated as "Dual point of view is maintained." While Mr. Avery is to be commended for his concern for the integrity of this wiki, it might be best to note that your interpretation of "integrity" may or may not agree with the Wiki Administrators.<br />
<br />
Thank you,<br />
<br />
--[[User:JustinEiler|JustinEiler]] 14:05, 17 Nov 2005 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Spelling ==<br />
<br />
'''ABIJAH'''<br />
<br />
Matthew: ????<br />
<br />
1 Chr. 3.10: ????<br />
<br />
Josephus: ????? O?????<br />
<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 11:16, 10 Jun 2006 (CDT)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=7&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:7;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=7 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.7 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_7 BibleWiki]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Contradictions]]<br />
[[Category:Matthew]]<br />
[[Category:Pro]]<br />
[[Category:Con]]<br />
[[Category:Neutral]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew&diff=10453Matthew2007-08-31T10:40:32Z<p>Robert Stevens: revert</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Matthew 1]]<br />
*[[Matthew 2]]<br />
*[[Matthew 3]]<br />
*[[Matthew 4]]<br />
*[[Matthew 5]]<br />
*[[Matthew 6]]<br />
*[[Matthew 7]]<br />
*[[Matthew 8]]<br />
*[[Matthew 9]]<br />
*[[Matthew 10]]<br />
*[[Matthew 11]]<br />
*[[Matthew 12]]<br />
*[[Matthew 13]]<br />
*[[Matthew 14]]<br />
*[[Matthew 15]]<br />
*[[Matthew 16]]<br />
*[[Matthew 17]]<br />
*[[Matthew 18]]<br />
*[[Matthew 19]]<br />
*[[Matthew 20]]<br />
*[[Matthew 21]]<br />
*[[Matthew 22]]<br />
*[[Matthew 23]]<br />
*[[Matthew 24]]<br />
*[[Matthew 25]]<br />
*[[Matthew 26]]<br />
*[[Matthew 27]]<br />
*[[Matthew 28]]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[:Category:Matthew]]<br />
*[[Matthew placed first]]<br />
*[[Title]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1&diff=10464Matthew 12007-08-29T08:27:01Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 194.104.99.10, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Matthew]] > [[Matthew 2|Next Chapter]]'''<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:1]] The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:2]] Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judah and his brethren;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:3]] and Judah begat Perez and Zerah of Tamar; and Perez begat Hezron; and Hezron begat Ram;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:4]] and Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon; and Nahshon begat Salmon;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:5]] and Salmon begat Boaz of Rahab; and Boaz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:6]] and Jesse begat David the king. And David begat Solomon of her [that had been the wife] of Uriah;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:7]] and Solomon begat Rehoboam; and Rehoboam begat Abijah; and Abijah begat Asa;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:8]] and Asa begat Jehoshaphat; and Jehoshaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Uzziah;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:9]] and Uzziah begat Jotham; and Jotham begat Ahaz; and Ahaz begat Hezekiah;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:10]] and Hezekiah begat Manasseh; and Manasseh begat Amon; and Amon begat Josiah;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:11]] and Josiah begat Jechoniah and his brethren, at the time of the carrying away to Babylon.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:12]] And after the carrying away to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Shealtiel; and Shealtiel begat Zerubbabel;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:13]] and Zerubbabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:14]] and Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:15]] and Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:16]] and Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:17]] So all the generations from Abraham unto David are fourteen generations; and from David unto the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto the Christ fourteen generations.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:18]] Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:19]] And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:20]] But when he thought on these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:21]] And she shall bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name JESUS; for it is he that shall save his people from their sins.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:22]] Now all this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:23]] Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:24]] And Joseph arose from his sleep, and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took unto him his wife;<br />
<br />
[[Matthew 1:25]] and knew her not till she had brought forth a son: and he called his name JESUS.</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Luke&diff=10455Luke2007-08-29T08:25:39Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 194.104.99.10, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Luke 1]]<br />
*[[Luke 2]]<br />
*[[Luke 3]]<br />
*[[Luke 4]]<br />
*[[Luke 5]]<br />
*[[Luke 6]]<br />
*[[Luke 7]]<br />
*[[Luke 8]]<br />
*[[Luke 9]]<br />
*[[Luke 10]]<br />
*[[Luke 11]]<br />
*[[Luke 12]]<br />
*[[Luke 13]]<br />
*[[Luke 14]]<br />
*[[Luke 15]]<br />
*[[Luke 16]]<br />
*[[Luke 17]]<br />
*[[Luke 18]]<br />
*[[Luke 19]]<br />
*[[Luke 20]]<br />
*[[Luke 21]]<br />
*[[Luke 22]]<br />
*[[Luke 23]]<br />
*[[Luke 24]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Ezekiel&diff=10461Ezekiel2007-08-29T08:24:34Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 203.81.29.204, changed back to last version by JoeWallack</p>
<hr />
<div>*[[Ezekiel 1]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 2]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 3]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 4]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 5]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 6]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 7]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 8]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 9]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 10]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 11]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 12]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 13]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 14]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 15]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 16]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 17]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 18]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 19]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 20]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 21]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 22]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 23]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 24]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 25]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 26]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 27]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 28]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 29]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 30]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 31]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 32]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 33]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 34]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 35]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 36]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 37]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 38]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 39]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 40]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 41]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 42]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 43]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 44]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 45]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 46]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 47]]<br />
*[[Ezekiel 48]]</div>Robert Stevenshttp://errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Matthew_1:18&diff=10460Matthew 1:182007-08-29T08:24:13Z<p>Robert Stevens: Reverted edit of 211.144.82.7, changed back to last version by Robert Stevens</p>
<hr />
<div>'''[[Matthew 1:17|Previous Verse]] < [[Matthew 1]] > [[Matthew 1:19|Next Verse]]'''<br />
<br />
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. (ASV)<br />
<br />
==Pro==<br />
Edit this section if you suspect error.<br />
<br />
===Inconsistency of Virgin Birth Story With the Rest Of "Matthew"===<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
A critical question regarding the Christian Bible is was the<br />
"virgin birth" story in "Matthew" written by the original author or <br />
was it later added. An increasing number of Christian Bible scholars <br />
are accepting that 1st century Judaism had no conception (pun <br />
intended) of a virgin birth and that combined with the observation <br />
that the supposed virgin birth of Jesus causes many awkward <br />
inconsistencies in Matthew with other verses which imply a<br />
normal birth, the virgin birth story may have been added to Matthew<br />
after it was first written. "The Interpreter's One-Volume<br />
Commentary" which is one of the two main Christian Bible<br />
commentaries now found in the big bookstores writes: "Neither<br />
Mark, nor John,nor Paul has any hint of the virgin birth story; it<br />
seems to have become important for the church only in the 2nd cent.<br />
As a way of combating the charge that Jesus was not truly human."<br />
The implication is that the authors of the Commentary suspect that <br />
the virgin birth story was added to Matthew in the 2nd century.<br />
<br />
Mark, likely the first Gospel written, has no virgin birth story and<br />
it's generally accepted that "Matthew" used Mark as a primary source <br />
for his Gospel (the other main Christian commentary in the big <br />
bookstores, "The New Jerome Biblical Commentary", actually lists <br />
Mark before Matthew in its detailed commentary). In Mark, Jesus is <br />
told by God that he is God's son at his baptism.Not something that <br />
would need to be done to a virgin birth and literally son of God <br />
product.<br />
<br />
In "Birth Of The Messiah", Father Raymond Brown, who may have<br />
been the top Christian Bible scholar of our time, demonstrates in<br />
detail how Matthew generally presents formula type accounts of Jesus<br />
which closely parallel formula type accounts in the Tanakh as to<br />
structure. Brown shows how the virgin birth account and references to<br />
it along with verses next to these accounts in Matthew seem to<br />
consist of a mixture of formula accounts but when you separate the<br />
likely virgin birth references from non-virgin birth verses you can<br />
recreate the usual formula patterns indicating that a virgin birth<br />
story was subsequently weaved into an original Matthew which lacked<br />
one.<br />
<br />
Another reason the virgin birth story may not be original to <br />
"Matthew" is that "Matthew" has a theme of presenting his version of<br />
Jesus as the new Moses and there does not appear to be any reference<br />
to Moses in the virgin birth story of "Matthew".<br />
<br />
The following Textual problems suggest that the virgin birth story<br />
is not original to "Matthew":<br />
<br />
Matthew 1: (KJV)<br />
<br />
"18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:"<br />
<br />
The Greek word for birth here, "genesis" is exactly the same Greek <br />
word used in Matthew 1:1, "a record of the genealogy" and has a wide <br />
range of meaning such as "birth", "creation" and "genealogy". Church <br />
Fathers generally used the Greek word "gennesis", which has a more <br />
limited meaning of "birth" to describe the nativity. Thus, it is <br />
extremely unlikely that the same author would have used the exact <br />
same Greek word in Matthew 1:1 and 1:18 to describe a genealogy and <br />
a birth. The genealogy and birth stories are probably from two <br />
different sources.<br />
<br />
<br />
Matthew 1: (KJV)<br />
<br />
"18…When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before<br />
they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19<br />
Then Joseph her husband,"<br />
<br />
Mary has gone from engaged to married after a mere thirteen words, a<br />
record that would stand until Liz Taylor two thousand years later.<br />
The mention in the genealogy of the four women is highly unusual<br />
(unparalleled?) for a 1st century Jewish writing. The common link is<br />
the questionable sexual morals of the four. Unnecessary apology if<br />
there was a virgin birth.<br />
<br />
<br />
Matthew 1: (KJV)<br />
<br />
"19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to<br />
make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily."<br />
<br />
The word that KJV has translated as "privily" is normally<br />
translated as "quietly". Under Jewish law at the time Joseph<br />
would have had to deliver a writ of repudiation before two witnesses<br />
so it would have been tough to keep it "quiet" unless the<br />
witnesses Joseph had in mind were the blind and mute men of Chapter 9.<br />
<br />
<br />
Matthew 1: (KJV)<br />
<br />
"20… fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife"<br />
<br />
The literal translation of the Greek is, "do not be afraid to<br />
take Mary your wife" which is an incomplete sentence making the<br />
meaning ambiguous. Does it mean take as in sexually, take as in<br />
accept or take as in bring home? Most of the main Christian Bibles<br />
have added words in their translations to give the appearance of a<br />
complete sentence (the relatively newer RSV being the exception):<br />
NIV "do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife"<br />
NASB "do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife"<br />
RSV "do not fear to take Mary your wife"<br />
Darby "fear not to take to [thee] Mary, thy wife"<br />
YLT "thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife"<br />
WE "do not fear to take Mary to be your wife"<br />
<br />
<br />
It's possible that "Matthew" was originally written with a virgin<br />
birth story but if so the rest of "Matthew" is still inconsistent <br />
with it with the following textual problems:<br />
<br />
====Why Does The Son Of God Need A Baptism?====<br />
<br />
Matthew 3: (KJV)<br />
<br />
14 "But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of<br />
thee, and comest thou to me? 15 And Jesus answering said unto him,<br />
Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all<br />
righteousness. Then he suffered him."<br />
<br />
The Greek word that "Matthew" uses for "fulfill" is<br />
generally the same word used by Matthew to claim fulfillment of<br />
prophecies from the Tanakh. There is no prophecy in the Tanakh that<br />
the Messiah would be baptized in a river. As far as performing a<br />
commandment from the Tanakh there is no commandment requiring baptism<br />
in a river as a general type of atoning or purification ritual. A<br />
related question is, "who baptized John with water?" Matthew<br />
has to copy Mark's baptism story but the purpose of Mark's<br />
story was to show Jesus becoming the son at the baptism. Matthew<br />
presents a perfect Jesus so he is left with no good explanation for<br />
why a sinless person would need a baptism for repentance.<br />
<br />
<br />
====John the Baptist Unaware of the Virgin Birth====<br />
<br />
Matthew 11: (KJV)<br />
<br />
2 "Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he<br />
sent two of his disciples, 3 And said unto him, Art thou he that<br />
should come, or do we look for another?"<br />
<br />
Strange question to ask of someone who was the virgin birth son of<br />
God and was told by God at the baptism he performed that Jesus was<br />
God's son.<br />
<br />
<br />
====Jesus' Hometown Unaware of the Virgin Birth====<br />
<br />
<br />
Matthew 13: (KJV)<br />
<br />
54 "And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in<br />
their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence<br />
hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? 55 Is not this the<br />
carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren,<br />
James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?"<br />
<br />
Once again, strange question.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:23, 6 Jan 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 20:13, 25 Feb 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Con==<br />
<br />
==Neutral==<br />
Edit this section to note miscellaneous facts.<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
Literally, the Greek reads "having in the womb" and not<br />
"with child". In any case, there is no definite article,<br />
"the", in front of "Holy Ghost" in almost all Greek<br />
manuscripts. The best translation would be "found to be pregnant<br />
through Holy Spirit". Christian translators have provided the<br />
"the" in English translations (found to be with child of the<br />
Holy Spirit) in order to support their pre-conceived belief that <br />
the Holy Spirit is a separate person.<br />
<br />
Even though "the" is absent in the Greek it could be properly<br />
translated into English if the '''Context''' supports it.<br />
Another reason for "the" could be just to indicate it's the<br />
holy spirit of God and not a separate entity.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 08:42, 20 Jan 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Movement of Con Argument to Neutral'''<br />
<br />
"The basic fact is in error in the "Pro" position.<br />
Please check your text. <br />
The Greek TR has an important one-letter distinction<br />
that is a separate word. <br />
<br />
Matthew 1:18 (KJB)<br />
Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise:"<br />
<br />
> The Greek word for birth here, "genesis" is exactly the same Greek word used in Matthew 1:1...<br />
<br />
Nope.<br />
Matthew 1:1 is 'genesis' translated as generation (also <br />
translated as nature) never as birth, nor as genealogy, <br />
which is a separate and distinct word used in the Pastorals.<br />
<br />
The Greek TR on Matthew 1:18 is 'gennesis' and that is birth.<br />
<br />
The KJB, following the Reformation TR text, is perfectly accurate.<br />
<br />
[[User:Steven Avery|Steven Avery]]"<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Reason for Move'''<br />
<br />
<font color=blue>JW:</font><br />
<br />
I have Edited Pro and Clarified the error since the Con post. The claimed error is the '''Inconsistency''' of the virgin birth story with the rest Of "Matthew". In order to defend against error here Con must either argue that the virgin birth story is not inconsistent with the rest of "Matthew" or that being inconsistent is not an error. <br />
<br />
The Con argument asserted that the key to the Pro argument was a specific word used by Pro that Pro selected based on inferior text. However, the related example cited by Pro is only used to point out that the virgin birth story may not have been original to "Matthew" or at least to "Matthew's" source for the Infancy Narrative. <br />
<br />
While Pro ''thinks'' that the virgin birth story was added to the original "Matthew", at this time Pro can not prove it and therefore does not claim it as an error. Alternatively, if "Matthew" was the one who added the virgin birth story to an existing Infancy Narrative, that by itself is also not claimed as an error by Pro. <br />
<br />
However, Pro is using the Textual problems created by either having the virgin birth story added to the original "Matthew" or having "Matthew" add it to an original Infancy Narrative as evidence that the virgin birth story is inconsistent with the rest of "Matthew". The explanation being the rest of "Matthew" had a primary source of "Mark" which lacked a virgin birth.<br />
<br />
--[[User:JoeWallack|JoeWallack]] 09:15, 27 Feb 2007 (CST)<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/c.pl?book=Mat&chapter=1&verse=18&version=rsv RSV]<br />
*[http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=matthew%201:18;&version=31; NIV]<br />
*[http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew1.htm NAB]<br />
*[http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Matthew&chapter=1&verse=18 Zhubert]<br />
*[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Matthew+1.18 Perseus]<br />
*[http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C001.htm HTML Bible]<br />
*[http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Matthew_Chapter_1,_Verse_18 BibleWiki]</div>Robert Stevens