Matthew 27:9-10 cites Jeremiah.

[37818]

the WORD happens to be masculine, it does NOT follow that in every instance, it should mean "male". The Greek word "ἄνθρωπος" is a masculine noun. so, so we always translate this as "male" even though there are many instances where it definitely includes females? Genesis 1:27 reads "So God created man in His own image", where in the LXX, "man" is "ἄνθρωπος", does this mean that only "males" are created in the "Image of God", and not "females"?

I am still waiting for your clear response to Matthew 27:9?

You did not wait.

 

[SavedByGrace]

37818, there is nothing funny in what I say in #20, it shows your ignorance in the seriousness of Bible study!

 

[37818]

so the Holy Spirit, according to you, made a MISTAKE, because this quotation is NOT from Jeremiah, but clearly is Zachariah! Can you not see the problem here with the "traditional" reading? It is from the devil so that people can say that the Word of God is not Perfect, as it has blatant errors!!!

You are the one believing the Holy Spirit made a mistake having the writer of the Matthew account cite what "was spoken by Jeremy the prophet."

 

[SavedByGrace]

You are the one believing the Holy Spirit made a mistake having the writer of the Matthew account cite what "was spoken by Jeremy the prophet."

you don't understand English! I REJECT the reading "Jeremiah" as the work of the devil!

 

[37818]

you don't understand English! I REJECT the reading "Jeremiah" as the work of the devil!

Your choice.

Brings to mind what Jesus had said to unbelievers, John 8:47, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
And also brings to mind a warning by the Apostle Peter, 2 Peter 2:12, ". . . speak evil of the things that they understand not; . . ."

 

[SavedByGrace]

Your choice.

Brings to mind what Jesus had said to unbelievers, John 8:47, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
And also brings to mind a warning by the Apostle Peter, 2 Peter 2:12, ". . . speak evil of the things that they understand not; . . ."

whether you can admit it or not, by accepting the reading of your OP with "Jeremiah", as the work of Matthew, you ARE saying that the Bible has errors!

 

[37818]

Two facts. The common reading of Matthew 27:9-10.
That there are two currently known editions/versions of the book of JJeremiah which lack those words.

 

[37818]

whether you can admit it or not, by accepting the reading of your OP with "Jeremiah", as the work of Matthew, you ARE saying that the Bible has errors!

That is your false accusation of me.

 

[37818]

@SavedByGrace, I would like to hear your explanation that you would give someone as to how to know God and to be sure of eternal life. (see my signature, 1 John 5:1)

 

[SavedByGrace]

@SavedByGrace, I would like to hear your explanation that you would give someone as to how to know God and tobe sure of eternal life. (see my signature, 1 John 5:1)

very simple, REPENT from your personal sins against God, and BELIEVE in your heart that Jesus Christ is THE Saviour, and died for your sins! This is a "sinners prayer" that I have used for many years:

Dear Lord, I admit that I am a sinner, and have sinned against You. I need your forgiveness. I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins in my place on the cross, to save me from hell. I confess my sins before You, and am willing to turn from them, by Your Grace. I ask for Your forgiveness, and that You please wash me clean by the blood of Jesus. I ask that You please send Your Holy Spirit into my life, and enable me to live a life that pleases You in every way. I thank You for your Mercy, Forgiveness and Love, and for making me Your child, and allowing me into You Kingdom. Please help me understand the Holy Bible whenever I read it. In Jesus Precious Name. Amen!

 

[37818]

very simple, REPENT from your personal sins against God, and BELIEVE in your heart that Jesus Christ is THE Saviour, and died for your sins! This is a "sinners prayer" that I have used for many years:

Dear Lord, I admit that I am a sinner, and have sinned against You. I need your forgiveness. I believe that Jesus Christ died for my sins in my place on the cross, to save me from hell. I confess my sins before You, and am willing to turn from them, by Your Grace. I ask for Your forgiveness, and that You please wash me clean by the blood of Jesus. I ask that You please send Your Holy Spirit into my life, and enable me to live a life that pleases You in every way. I thank You for your Mercy, Forgiveness and Love, and for making me Your child, and allowing me into You Kingdom. Please help me understand the Holy Bible whenever I read it. In Jesus Precious Name. Amen!

Good. Can you present the step by step Scriptures for this explanation as you gave it? And can you present this from the gospel according to John or from the book of Romans?

 

[SavedByGrace]

Good. Can you present the step by step Scriptures for this explanation as you gave it? And can you present this from the gospel according to John or from the book of Romans?

which part is not from Scripture?

 

[Van]

Here is the NET footnote:

10tc The problematic citing of Jeremiah for a text which appears to come from Zechariah has prompted certain scribes to alter it. Codex 22 has Ζαχαρίου (Zacariou, “Zechariah”) while Φ 33 omit the prophet’s name altogether. And codex 21 and the Latin ms l change the prophet’s name to “Isaiah,” in accordance with natural scribal proclivities to alter the text toward the most prominent OT prophet. But unquestionably the name Jeremiah is the wording of the original here, because it is supported by virtually all witnesses and because it is the harder reading. See D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” EBC 8:562-63, for a discussion of the textual and especially hermeneutical problem.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Here is the NET footnote:

10tc The problematic citing of Jeremiah for a text which appears to come from Zechariah has prompted certain scribes to alter it. Codex 22 has Ζαχαρίου (Zacariou, “Zechariah”) while Φ 33 omit the prophet’s name altogether. And codex 21 and the Latin ms l change the prophet’s name to “Isaiah,” in accordance with natural scribal proclivities to alter the text toward the most prominent OT prophet. But unquestionably the name Jeremiah is the wording of the original here, because it is supported by virtually all witnesses and because it is the harder reading. See D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” EBC 8:562-63, for a discussion of the textual and especially hermeneutical problem.

So the Bible which is supposed to be the Infallible Word of God Is clearly in error. If not then explain how with the reading Jeremiah

 

[Van]

So the Bible which is supposed to be the Infallible Word of God Is clearly in error. If not then explain how with the reading Jeremiah

Most think the original autographs were completely accurate, as most also believe God inspired every word. However, most do not think errors have not been introduced accidentally and on purpose.

For example that copies that do not have Jeremiah are thought by many scholars to be corruptions.

Could Jeremiah be an early corruption of the original autograph, with Zechariah as the original? I sure do not know.

Could Jeremiah written what was referenced in a "lost" document? I sure do not know.

What I do know is God's word is reliable, trustworthy, and is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." And I wholeheartedly believe "the original autographs were completely accurate."

 

[SavedByGrace]

What I do know is God's word is reliable, trustworthy, and is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." And I wholeheartedly believe "the original autographs were completely accurate."

you say this, and then accept a reading that is 100% FALSE! I don't care about so called "evidence" of so called "experts". When there is a reading that is correct, that Zachariah is here, even though it might have ONE Greek manuscript it is the CORRECT one. But, the evidence for Zachariah is known to Origen in the early 3rd century, who saw this in his Greek New Testament. Then in the next century, by the very able scholar, Jerome, who had access to many Greek and Latin manuscripts, who also knew the reading Zachariah. As well as Augustine. It is also found in the Old Latin, which dates from the 2nd century. This is MORE than sufficent for me, to say without any doubt, that Matthew wrote Zachariah. As I do NOT believe there to be ONE error in the entire Original Autographs, as this is IMPOSSIBLE!

 

[Van]

you say this, and then accept a reading that is 100% FALSE! I don't care about so called "evidence" of so called "experts". When there is a reading that is correct, that Zachariah is here, even though it might have ONE Greek manuscript it is the CORRECT one. But, the evidence for Zachariah is known to Origen in the early 3rd century, who saw this in his Greek New Testament. Then in the next century, by the very able scholar, Jerome, who had access to many Greek and Latin manuscripts, who also knew the reading Zachariah. As well as Augustine. It is also found in the Old Latin, which dates from the 2nd century. This is MORE than sufficent for me, to say without any doubt, that Matthew wrote Zachariah. As I do NOT believe there to be ONE error in the entire Original Autographs, as this is IMPOSSIBLE!

Me thinks thou protest too much...

Could Jeremiah be an early corruption of the original autograph, with Zechariah as the original? I sure do not know.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Me thinks thou protest too much...

because I believe in a 100% Original Bible with ZERO errors! And I will NOT accept CORRUPT readings that make the Bible fallible! If this means that I protest too much, then, so be it, as I am 100% sure that neither Jesus Christ, or Paul would accept any less!

 

[Van]

because I believe in a 100% Original Bible with ZERO errors! And I will NOT accept CORRUPT readings that make the Bible fallible! If this means that I protest too much, then, so be it, as I am 100% sure that neither Jesus Christ, or Paul would accept any less!

Your view is fine for you, but to expect others to claim gnostic knowledge that Matthew wrote Zechariah rather than Jeremiah is provincial to put it mildly.

 

[SavedByGrace]

Your view is fine for you, but to expect others to claim gnostic knowledge that Matthew wrote Zechariah rather than Jeremiah is provincial to put it mildly.

whatever!