Taking Questions on Creationism

[Speedwell]

Hellenization was happening, yes, so that makes the NT untrue???

No, it makes your grammatical analysis nonsense. Hebrew was not a language in popular use at the time of Christ, which had nothing to do with "Hellenization. The people spoke Aramaic and Koine Greek. Further, challenging your resolution of the 'genealogies problem' is not the same thing as saying that the NT is untrue.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Sure

Thank you for acknowledging your mistake. That's extremely rare on these forums.

 

[inquiring mind]

No, it makes your grammatical analysis nonsense. Hebrew was not a language in popular use at the time of Christ, which had nothing to do with "Hellenization. The people spoke Aramaic and Koine Greek. Further, challenging your resolution of the 'genealogies problem' is not the same thing as saying that the NT is untrue.

I have no 'genealogies problem'... I presented one popular explanation for your problem with it.

 

[Speedwell]

I have no 'genealogies problem'... I presented one popular explanation for your problem with it.

I don't have a problem with it. I don't think anybody does. Bible critics sometimes bring it up, along with the other so-called 'synoptic problems' as a critique of literal inerrancy, not the truth of the NT. For my part, I find such discrepancies proof of authenticity. The Synoptic Gospels are "as told to" accounts written many decades after the events described. Consequently, if they agreed perfectly in every detail, it would be reasonable to suspect that they were forgeries.

However, if one requires an explanation of the difference between the two geneologies, I always have favored that of Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church Book 1 chapter 7).

 

[inquiring mind]

I don't have a problem with it. I don't think anybody does. Bible critics sometimes bring it up, along with the other so-called 'synoptic problems' as a critique of literal inerrancy, not the truth of the NT. For my part, I find such discrepancies proof of authenticity. The Synoptic Gospels are "as told to" accounts written many decades after the events described. Consequently, if they agreed perfectly in every detail, it would be reasonable to suspect that they were forgeries.

However, if one requires an explanation of the difference between the two geneologies, I always have favored that of Eusebius of Caesarea (History of the Church Book 1 chapter 7).

Thank you, I had not seen this. Interesting reading, found it online. Not "cherry picking" his work, but the following statement stood out in regard to both genealogies being right in their particular way:

"Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth."

Much more eloquent than my "The Gospel nails it" comment.

 

[Speedwell]

Thank you, I had not seen this. Interesting reading, found it online. Not "cherry picking" his work, but the following statement stood out in regard to both genealogies being right in their particular way:

"Whether then the case stand thus or not no one could find a clearer explanation, according to my own opinion and that of every candid person. And let this suffice us, for, although we can urge no testimony in its support, we have nothing better or truer to offer. In any case the Gospel states the truth."

Much more eloquent than my "The Gospel nails it" comment.

I'm glad you found it interesting. Eusebius is not without his flaws and biases, but it is a rare creationist who does not denounce the Fathers out of hand.

 

[46AND2]

I have no 'genealogies problem'... I presented one popular explanation for your problem with it.

Seems a rather lazy explanation if it doesn't even analyze the correct language.

 

[inquiring mind]

Seems a rather lazy explanation if it doesn't even analyze the correct language.

Well, it would to someone not paying attention to what's actually said. My statement was “applicable Hebrew uses”... language was mentioned by someone else not paying attention, and trying to cloud the issue.

 

[Aman777]

The original koine greek text. I suspect your command of greek is on a par with your command of hebrew, isn't it?

I'm as good as Online Strong's most of the time. Sometimes, I notice that they, like me, are Humans, thus subject to error. Don't you know that God classifies you as a non-believer, thus unable to understand Scripture? 1Co 2:14

 

[46AND2]

I'm as good as Online Strong's most of the time. Sometimes, I notice that they, like me, are Humans, thus subject to error. Don't you know that God classifies you as a non-believer, thus unable to understand Scripture? 1Co 2:14

Based on the massive amount of discordant interpretation within the Christian ranks, it would seem that believers are unable to understand it either.

 

[Aman777]

No original word? How can that be true? It must have been written down at some point.

The KJV translators were unable to support it archaically so they italicized the word showing that it was "fit" into place in the opinion of the educated translator. It's the same throughout the KJV and helps one understand the work they did, 400 years ago.

 

[Aman777]

Based on the massive amount of discordant interpretation within the Christian ranks, it would seem that believers are unable to understand it either.

God tells Daniel the only people who can understand Scripture are the people of the last days with the "increased knowledge" of our time.

Dan 12:4 ¶ But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

The irony is that Scripture will be confirmed to ALL flesh by the discoveries of Science in the last days. I've been collecting the accounts in Genesis which agree with Scripture, science, history and genetics. MichaelR came close to refuting one of them but no one else has even come close. Want to try to prove a single one of them wrong?

 

[46AND2]

God tells Daniel the only people who can understand Scripture are the people of the last days with the "increased knowledge" of our time.

Dan 12:4 ¶ But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

The irony is that Scripture will be confirmed to ALL flesh by the discoveries of Science in the last days. I've been collecting the accounts in Genesis which agree with Scripture, science, history and genetics. MichaelR came close to refuting one of them but no one else has even come close. Want to try to prove a single one of them wrong?

Nah, you never admit when you are wrong, so the whole effort would be pointless. You were quite obviously wrong about Genesis 1:21 and 1:25, and that was just grammar. If you refuse to admit your error on something as simple as that, I have no inclination to pursue anything more substantial.

 

[Aman777]

Nah, you never admit when you are wrong, so the whole effort would be pointless. You were quite obviously wrong about Genesis 1:21 and 1:25, and that was just grammar. If you refuse to admit your error on something as simple as that, I have no inclination to pursue anything more substantial.

How was I wrong about Gen 1:21 and Gen 1:25? Genesis 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moveth" was created from water on the 5th Day.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after His kind, (Jesus kind) and cattle after Their (Trinity) kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His (Jesus kind) kind: and God (Trinity) saw that it was good. (Perfect)

Only God is good/perfect in all His creations when they are finished or brought to perfection at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. Genesis 2:1

 

[46AND2]

How was I wrong about Gen 1:21 and Gen 1:25? Genesis 1:21 shows that "every living creature that moveth" was created from water on the 5th Day.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after His kind, (Jesus kind) and cattle after Their (Trinity) kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after His (Jesus kind) kind: and God (Trinity) saw that it was good. (Perfect)

Only God is good/perfect in all His creations when they are finished or brought to perfection at the end of the present 6th Day/Age. Genesis 2:1

Read from here to the end of the thread.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm as good as Online Strong's most of the time. Sometimes, I notice that they, like me, are Humans, thus subject to error.

It's great that you admit to making errors. It would be even better if you'd admit to the errors many users have repeatedly demonstrated you making.

Don't you know that God classifies you as a non-believer, thus unable to understand Scripture? 1Co 2:14

Hmmm, given that that is not what that passage says, I feel safe stating that I probably understand it better than you. Of course, you have your own interpretation of many passages in the bible which contradict what is actually written, don't you?

 

[Kylie]

It's not a "no." The passages are listed after the applicable Hebrew uses of the word "son." Have you read them? Here they are again:
"(1) in the sense used today of a one-generation offspring; (2) in the sense of a descendant, whether a grandson or a more remote descendant many generations previous, e.g., Matthew 1:1; 21:9; 22:42 (“begat” had this same flexibility in application); (3) as a son-in-law (the Jews had no word to express this concept and so just used “son”—e.g., 1 Samuel 24:16; 26:17); (4) in accordance with the Levirate marriage law (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; cf. Matthew 22:24-26), a deceased man would have a son through a surrogate father who legally married the deceased man’s widow (e.g., Ruth 2:20; 3:9,12; 4:3-5); and (5) in the sense of a step-son who took on the legal status of his step-father—the relationship sustained by Jesus to Joseph (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Luke 3:23; 4:22; John 6:42)."

Yeah, I read them. There's nothing in Matthew 13:55 to indicate that the word is being used to mean a stepson who took on the legal status of his step father. Can you back up the claims you made, or is showing me passages that use the word "son" the best you can do?

My point was that you're referring to females, which is a different situation. You can research it and see if it was the same during the 1st century... but these are the verses referring to the situation with Jesus and Joseph.

I think you are quibbling over a little detail in order to avoid discussing the issue. If it helps you comprehend what I'm saying, feel free to imagine me as a man.

 

[Kylie]

The KJV translators were unable to support it archaically so they italicized the word showing that it was "fit" into place in the opinion of the educated translator. It's the same throughout the KJV and helps one understand the work they did, 400 years ago.

And you have ignored my ACTUAL question.

I'm not asking what the earliest word in English version was. I'm asking what it was in the oldest surviving copies of the text is. In Aramaic or Hebrew or whatever it is written in.

 

[46AND2]

And you have ignored my ACTUAL question.

I'm not asking what the earliest word in English version was. I'm asking what it was in the oldest surviving copies of the text is. In Aramaic or Hebrew or whatever it is written in.

That's what he means. The actual text says: "...son of Joseph, of Heli." in the original Koine Greek. There was no "son" in front of "of Heli."

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That's what he means. The actual text says: "...son of Joseph, of Heli." in the original Koine Greek. There was no "son" in front of "of Heli."

And there we see the non-linguist pretending to understand a language he's never studied. Priceless.