Contradictions in the Bible

redleghunter · Dec 21, 2015

ChetSinger said:
Somebody should start a thread about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Fascinating subject, involving ancient Jewish inheritance customs.

Fyi, there's also Rabbinic tradition that says the curse was withdrawn, as evidenced by God's blessing upon Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:

Source: http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html

Thank you. I would agree the above is good external evidence based on known traditions of pre and post second Temple Judaism.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 21, 2015

Wgw said:
Not according to His divine essence; that would be dualism. However, I believe the doctrine of the Trinity to be logical, and regard your critique of it as unsound.

You quoted me but did not address a single thing I said.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 21, 2015

redleghunter said:
Have you examined your contentions in the Hebrew/Aramaic?

Jeremiah 36:30

לָכֵ֞ן כֹּֽה־אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה עַל־יְהֹֽויָקִים֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ יְהוּדָ֔ה לֹא־יִֽהְיֶה־לֹּ֥ו יֹושֵׁ֖ב
עַל־כִּסֵּ֣א דָוִ֑ד וְנִבְלָתֹו֙ תִּֽהְיֶ֣ה מֻשְׁלֶ֔כֶת לַחֹ֥רֶב בַּיֹּ֖ום וְלַקֶּ֥רַח בַּלָּֽיְלָה׃

Now the most literal word for word English translation I have access to is Young's Literal Translation (YLT):

'Therefore, thus said Jehovah, concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He hath none sitting on the throne of David, and his carcase is cast out to heat by day, and to cold by night;

'He shall have none': Strongs H3427 in the following manner: dwell (437x), inhabitant (221x), sit (172x), abide (70x), inhabit (39x), down (26x), remain (23x), in (22x), tarry (19x), set (14x), continue (5x), place (7x), still (5x), taken (5x), misc (23x).

to dwell, remain, sit, abide
(Qal)

to sit, sit down

to be set

to remain, stay

to dwell, have one's abode

yâshab, yaw-shab'; a primitive root; properly, to sit down (specifically as judge. in ambush, in quiet); by implication, to dwell, to remain; causatively, to settle, to marry:—(make to) abide(-ing), continue, (cause to, make to) dwell(-ing), ease self, endure, establish, × fail, habitation, haunt, (make to) inhabit(-ant), make to keep (house), lurking, × marry(-ing), (bring again to) place, remain, return, seat, set(-tle), (down-) sit(-down, still, -ting down, -ting (place) -uate), take, tarry.

The above fulfilled. Jehoiachin did not 'inhabit' 'make to keep' 'endure' 'dwell' the throne as he was removed by Nebuchadnezzar.

What is missing from the passage which would cause us to see this as an 'eternal' or 'beyond the horizon' type of curse?

The word 'owlam' is not evident in the curse of Jehoiakim.

owlam: Strongs H5769 in the following manner: ever (272x), everlasting (63x), old (22x), perpetual (22x), evermore (15x), never (13x), time (6x), ancient (5x), world (4x), always (3x), alway (2x), long (2x), more (2x), never (with H408) (2x), misc (6x)

ʻôwlâm, o-lawm'; or עֹלָם ʻôlâm; from H5956; properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always:—alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-)) ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).

Therefore, the curse of Jehoiakim is immaterial to the lineage of Jesus.

The maternal lineage does not directly link back Jehoiakim as we see in Luke 3:23-38.

Remember the line of Joseph, which is important was a legal claim to the line of David but not a blood claim. The only 'blood line' which would be human comes from blessed mother of Jesus Mary.

View attachment 167623

Fascinating. I admit that in my casual reading I cannot discern which lineage goes through Mary and which goes through Joseph. I am on the brink of conceding this point to you, but for the lingering question:

Why did you originally say that Jesus has dual royal bloodlines at the start, but yet now you retreat to refer to the Joseph line as "legal"? I assume it was just because you were being a little too loose? Matter of fact, I concede the point. No action required on your end.

Now please answer these questions which you have been dodging:

1. How do you know Satan has not corrupted the Bible?

2. How is the prophecy of the virgin birth not a deceptive cherry picking of an irrelevant passage?

3. Also, refresh my memory: have you ever given an answer to the questions in the OP?

Nihilist Virus · Dec 21, 2015

ChetSinger said:
Somebody should start a thread about the genealogies in Matthew and Luke. Fascinating subject, involving ancient Jewish inheritance customs.

A good idea, but I won't be involved as I just conceded the point.

Fyi, there's also Rabbinic tradition that says the curse was withdrawn, as evidenced by God's blessing upon Zerubbabel in Haggai 2:

Source: http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html

Pure conjecture. Another way of looking at it is that it's simply a contradiction. Or you can apply redleghunter's argument and no conjecture is required. However, if the rabbi did not cite redleghunter's argument, is that grounds for skepticism of his claims?

ChetSinger · Dec 21, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Pure conjecture. Another way of looking at it is that it's simply a contradiction. Or you can apply redleghunter's argument and no conjecture is required.

In Haggai 2:23, God does indeed bless Zerubabbel, descendant of Jeconiah and governor of Judah. That's not rabbinic conjecture, so the curse was eventually lifted.

Some rabbis have said the curse was lifted because Jeconiah later repented. If conjecture, why might they think that? Aside from possible extra-Biblical sources, God says in Jeremiah 18 that if evil people he has cursed turn from their evil that he will lift his curse.

As an aside, not only do multiple Jewish sources treat Haggai 2:23 as the lifting of the curse, but some even identify that blessing of Zerubabbel as a sign that he will be an ancestor of the Messiah! So Matthew's inclusion of Jeconiah's family may be a requirement, not a stumbling block.

More about that here: http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah

Nihilist Virus said:
However, if the rabbi did not cite redleghunter's argument, is that grounds for skepticism of his claims?

I don't think so, because you can't expect every rabbinical source to address every argument. That is, I don't put much stock in an argument from silence. And, I've heard redleghunter's argument from additional sources as well.

Such as here: http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html

redleghunter · Dec 21, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Fascinating. I admit that in my casual reading I cannot discern which lineage goes through Mary and which goes through Joseph. I am on the brink of conceding this point to you, but for the lingering question:

Why did you originally say that Jesus has dual royal bloodlines at the start, but yet now you retreat to refer to the Joseph line as "legal"? I assume it was just because you were being a little too loose? Matter of fact, I concede the point. No action required on your end.

I looked back and I did say 'dual blood lines.' One blood line leading by way of Joseph which is the legal as Joseph was not the biological father. The other through blessed Mary who carried and gave birth to Jesus Christ.

I should have made the delineations more evident earlier.

redleghunter · Dec 21, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Now please answer these questions which you have been dodging:

1. How do you know Satan has not corrupted the Bible?

2. How is the prophecy of the virgin birth not a deceptive cherry picking of an irrelevant passage?

3. Also, refresh my memory: have you ever given an answer to the questions in the OP?

Have not been dodging my friend, in fact with each turn of evidence I present I make the case for refuting #1 above. Just think, looking at the genealogy of Jesus Christ how many points of failure there could have been, and how many where Satan or man's lust for sin did attempt to thwart the will of YHWH. Yet YHWH knew it would be Mary to carry Jesus, Satan did not know. No matter how much the kings of Judah tried ignorantly to destroy the Promises of YHWH, YHWH stayed faithful and true to the promise, always at the 'wheel of the Ship of fates.'---God is all-knowing. Satan is not.

On #2 on the virgin birth. I will posit the prophecy and the proclamation of fulfillment below. I will use the literal word for YLT as we did for some other posts:

Isaiah 7:

10 And Jehovah addeth to speak unto Ahaz, saying:

11 `Ask for thee a sign from Jehovah thy God, Make deep the request, or make [it] high upwards.'

12 And Ahaz saith, `I do not ask nor try Jehovah.'

13 And he saith, `Hear, I pray you, O house of David, Is it a little thing for you to weary men, That ye weary also my God?

14 Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,

15 Butter and honey he doth eat, When he knoweth to refuse evil, and to fix on good.

Matthew 1:

20 And on his thinking of these things, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, `Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten [is] of the Holy Spirit,

21 and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.'

22 And all this hath come to pass, that it may be fulfilled that was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

23 `Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted `With us [he is] God.'

How is the above 'cherry picking' or 'deceptive at best?'

The Jews believed both from TaNaKh and tradition that the birth of Messiah would be special.

At the time of Mary’s pregnancy, the idea of a virgin birth was not completely foreign to the Jews’ understanding of their Scripture. Although they misinterpreted it, many of the rabbis exegeted Jeremiah 31:22 (“a woman shall encompass a man”) in a way that suggested the Messiah would have an unusual birth. Their fanciful explanation of that verse (“Messiah is to have no earthly father,” and “The birth of Messiah shall be like the dew of the Lord, as drops upon the grass without the action of man”) at least preserved the general idea that the Messiah’s birth would be unique. (http://www.gty.org/blog/B111223)--John MacArthur

So from the understanding above, the importance of recording the Virgin birth is not cherry picking, but confirming a fulfillment of prophecy.

More:

Actually the Book of Genesis gives us the first glimpse that Christ’s birth would be special: “‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed’” (Genesis 3:15). Technically, the woman’s seed belongs to the man, but Mary’s impregnation by the Holy Spirit is the only instance in history that a woman had a seed within her that did not originate from a human man. (http://www.gty.org/blog/B111223)--John MacArthur

On #3, I will go back and look again. Again, I thought it evident from what has been posted I addressed the OP in both essence and substance.

redleghunter · Dec 21, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
It is a clear dichotomy that God either cannot or will not prevent these errors from occurring. Since he is omnipotent, he can prevent them, so the conclusion is that he chooses not to. Therefore, he either wants there to be errors in the Bible, or he simply does not care. Which is it and why?

I will have to violate your limited and very restrictive set of rules. The above is a false dichotomy. Which I acknowledge you say below cannot be allowed 'UNLESS one can explicitly say what the third possibility is....'

What you did above and in your defensive posture below, is set up left and right limits of what you think are acceptable boundaries.

You give two choices to "God can prevent errors"

1. 'God wants there to be errors.'

2. 'God simply does not care.'

I would have to assume #2 above involves maybe a personal experience where you believe God did not care for you or someone you know/knew. I ask because how would you know God had such a trait or attribute of 'not caring?' I believe you would have to present some evidence for such.

On #1 what do you base the assertion that "God wants there to be errors?"

So yes, you have set up a classic false dichotomy, and several posters here have shown that our understanding of God is not comprehensive. We have what is revealed of God through written scriptures and through His Holy Spirit guiding and enlightening us. For your OP to be valid you would have to know God comprehensively in order to put Him 'on trial.'

Nihilist Virus said:
The questions in this thread assume a false dichotomy.
Unless you can explicitly say what the third possibility is, I'm not interested in a proposal that goes something like, "There is a third possibility, even if we don't know what it is." This is analogous to claiming that there is an integer which is neither even nor odd, despite the fact that we haven't found it yet. No, there isn't.

redleghunter · Dec 21, 2015

ChetSinger said:
In Haggai 2:23, God does indeed bless Zerubabbel, descendant of Jeconiah and governor of Judah. That's not rabbinic conjecture, so the curse was eventually lifted.

Some rabbis have said the curse was lifted because Jeconiah later repented. If conjecture, why might they think that? Aside from possible extra-Biblical sources, God says in Jeremiah 18 that if evil people he has cursed turn from their evil that he will lift his curse.

As an aside, not only do multiple Jewish sources treat Haggai 2:23 as the lifting of the curse, but some even identify that blessing of Zerubabbel as a sign that he will be an ancestor of the Messiah! So Matthew's inclusion of Jeconiah's family may be a requirement, not a stumbling block.

More about that here: http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah

I don't think so, because you can't expect every rabbinical source to address every argument. That is, I don't put much stock in an argument from silence. And, I've heard redleghunter's argument from additional sources as well.

Such as here: http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html

The operative 'images' of the signet rings is important and adds to my point of the curse limited to the generation in question. Jehoiakim's son did not 'suffer the throne' meaning he did not endure the throne, it was taken from him, as the image of the signet ring is taken away. When we see YHWH give back the signet ring to Zerubabbel, the curse is lifted.

Perhaps off topic but it is important to look at the Davidic and Solomonic covenants. These covenants are conditional on obedience. The promise is to keep a king on the throne of David as long as the commandments and precepts are followed. If not exile and once repentance is at hand, restoration. So we see such in action in the OT.

I can lay out the various scriptures on this as well, but believe you are familiar with them.

ChetSinger · Dec 21, 2015

redleghunter said:
The operative 'images' of the signet rings is important and adds to my point of the curse limited to the generation in question. Jehoiakim's son did not 'suffer the throne' meaning he did not endure the throne, it was taken from him, as the image of the signet ring is taken away. When we see YHWH give back the signet ring to Zerubabbel, the curse is lifted.

Yes, I agree that the image of the signet ring ties it all together. In Jeremiah 22:24 Jeconiah is a signet ring that God tears off of his hand, and then in Haggai 2:23 God says that he will make Zerubabbel, Jeconiah's descendant, like a signet ring. The curse is undone.

createdtoworship · Dec 21, 2015

<Staff Edit>

I think that you don't like my posts because I cut off your attack of Christianity in the bud.

well I dismantled your argument,

in order for your argument to set, you would either need to rewrite the OP, and accept that you have allowed the opposing debate party to "change you."

or you would need to take my argument head on, which you will not do.

so either way I can safely say your argument and logic has been soundly defeated by default status.

so I will politely, bow out.

(on my agenda for tomorrow, I will look into this contradiction some more with some of the other posters view points and see what I feel about their perspectives)

If I find anything new, I may re-enter at a later date.

for now, thank you for the opportunity to debate, and I hope that you don't give up on the others so easily as you have done here today.

most likely I will not reply to your replies of this post, at least I will not be monitoring them.

so take it easy.

-gl

Nihilist Virus · Dec 22, 2015

ChetSinger said:
In Haggai 2:23, God does indeed bless Zerubabbel, descendant of Jeconiah and governor of Judah. That's not rabbinic conjecture, so the curse was eventually lifted.

Some rabbis have said the curse was lifted because Jeconiah later repented. If conjecture, why might they think that? Aside from possible extra-Biblical sources, God says in Jeremiah 18 that if evil people he has cursed turn from their evil that he will lift his curse.

As an aside, not only do multiple Jewish sources treat Haggai 2:23 as the lifting of the curse, but some even identify that blessing of Zerubabbel as a sign that he will be an ancestor of the Messiah! So Matthew's inclusion of Jeconiah's family may be a requirement, not a stumbling block.

More about that here: http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/prophecy/jeconiah

I don't think so, because you can't expect every rabbinical source to address every argument. That is, I don't put much stock in an argument from silence. And, I've heard redleghunter's argument from additional sources as well.

Such as here: http://christianthinktank.com/fabprof4.html

Until you show that Jehoiachin repented in that dungeon, this is still all conjecture. Still I'll concede this point instead of looking into it all because I'd rather get back to the main points I have. Also there are other things which disqualify Jesus as the messiah, so this isn't all that needed.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 22, 2015

redleghunter said:
Have not been dodging my friend, in fact with each turn of evidence I present I make the case for refuting #1 above. Just think, looking at the genealogy of Jesus Christ how many points of failure there could have been, and how many where Satan or man's lust for sin did attempt to thwart the will of YHWH. Yet YHWH knew it would be Mary to carry Jesus, Satan did not know. No matter how much the kings of Judah tried ignorantly to destroy the Promises of YHWH, YHWH stayed faithful and true to the promise, always at the 'wheel of the Ship of fates.'---God is all-knowing. Satan is not.

This is a colossal failure of an argument.

My argument is that you can't know if Satan has corrupted the Bible or not. Or, more accurately, I'm asking how you can know he didn't. Your response is that you know Satan hasn't corrupted the Bible because he hasn't corrupted the lineage of Mary (how is this relevant to corrupting scriptures?), and then you even admit he could not have predicted the lineage of Jesus in the first place (so what was he supposed to do?).

I am saying that Satan is more powerful than any human, or at least equally powerful, so if we have corrupted the Bible with our own blunders then surely he's found a way to do something as well. Not only is your argument completely off the topic of scripture, but it expects Satan to act beyond his own ability and then claims victory when he does not.

Utterly nonsensical.

Address my question please:

It is well within the power of Satan to alter the Bible, and he is motivated to do so, so HOW do you KNOW he hasn't? And yes, I CANNOT PROVE that he has altered the Bible. I am simply asking a QUESTION, not making a case. Please answer it.

On #2 on the virgin birth. I will posit the prophecy and the proclamation of fulfillment below. I will use the literal word for YLT as we did for some other posts:

Isaiah 7:

10 And Jehovah addeth to speak unto Ahaz, saying:

11 `Ask for thee a sign from Jehovah thy God, Make deep the request, or make [it] high upwards.'

12 And Ahaz saith, `I do not ask nor try Jehovah.'

13 And he saith, `Hear, I pray you, O house of David, Is it a little thing for you to weary men, That ye weary also my God?

14 Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the Virgin is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel,

15 Butter and honey he doth eat, When he knoweth to refuse evil, and to fix on good.

Matthew 1:

20 And on his thinking of these things, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, `Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten [is] of the Holy Spirit,

21 and she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.'

22 And all this hath come to pass, that it may be fulfilled that was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying,

23 `Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted `With us [he is] God.'

How is the above 'cherry picking' or 'deceptive at best?'

The Jews believed both from TaNaKh and tradition that the birth of Messiah would be special.

At the time of Mary’s pregnancy, the idea of a virgin birth was not completely foreign to the Jews’ understanding of their Scripture. Although they misinterpreted it, many of the rabbis exegeted Jeremiah 31:22 (“a woman shall encompass a man”) in a way that suggested the Messiah would have an unusual birth. Their fanciful explanation of that verse (“Messiah is to have no earthly father,” and “The birth of Messiah shall be like the dew of the Lord, as drops upon the grass without the action of man”) at least preserved the general idea that the Messiah’s birth would be unique. (http://www.gty.org/blog/B111223)--John MacArthur

So from the understanding above, the importance of recording the Virgin birth is not cherry picking, but confirming a fulfillment of prophecy.

More:

Actually the Book of Genesis gives us the first glimpse that Christ’s birth would be special: “‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed’” (Genesis 3:15). Technically, the woman’s seed belongs to the man, but Mary’s impregnation by the Holy Spirit is the only instance in history that a woman had a seed within her that did not originate from a human man. (http://www.gty.org/blog/B111223)--John MacArthur

Please re-read my argument on this issue. Your response is just a regurgitation of scripture and is not an actual argument at all.

I said this:

So if you read, for example, Matthew 1, you see the "virgin birth" prophecy. Most Bibles will have the footnote showing this is referring to Isaiah 7:14. Read that verse in context, going as far back and as far forward as you like; you will see that the passage is about the king of Judah who is grieved because his city is about to be sacked. Isaiah approaches the king and tells him that Judah will not be sacked, and that the king may ask the Lord a sign. The king refuses, likely out of reverence to Deuteronomy 6:16, and then Isaiah says that one will be given anyway: that a "virgin" (or young woman) will give birth to a child named Emmanuel (this is already not Jesus), and before the child is old enough to understand the difference between good and evil Judah's enemies will be destroyed. So how is it that the birth of a baby by a different name 500 years later is confirmation of this prophecy? Pushing this square peg into the round hole constitutes dishonesty.

On #3, I will go back and look again. Again, I thought it evident from what has been posted I addressed the OP in both essence and substance.

On points #1 and #2, you have lobbed an ugly, wounded duck at me here. On point #3, you may well have addressed it; I asked you to refresh my memory. Hopefully you can lend me this courtesy, since I've gone through the trouble of digging up my argument on point #2 since you clearly had forgotten it.

redleghunter said:
I will have to violate your limited and very restrictive set of rules. The above is a false dichotomy. Which I acknowledge you say below cannot be allowed 'UNLESS one can explicitly say what the third possibility is....'

What you did above and in your defensive posture below, is set up left and right limits of what you think are acceptable boundaries.

You give two choices to "God can prevent errors"

1. 'God wants there to be errors.'

2. 'God simply does not care.'

I would have to assume #2 above involves maybe a personal experience where you believe God did not care for you or someone you know/knew. I ask because how would you know God had such a trait or attribute of 'not caring?' I believe you would have to present some evidence for such.

On #1 what do you base the assertion that "God wants there to be errors?"

So yes, you have set up a classic false dichotomy, and several posters here have shown that our understanding of God is not comprehensive. We have what is revealed of God through written scriptures and through His Holy Spirit guiding and enlightening us. For your OP to be valid you would have to know God comprehensively in order to put Him 'on trial.'

Another wounded duck. I am disappointed. My dichotomy is false in your world because you assume that God exists a priori, and you don't like the two choices, so you conclude there must be a third one.

I had given you the benefit of the doubt far too long. Crandaddy, from the earlier parts of this thread, denied that he believes in Christianity a priori and was therefore obliterated in debate. He's been gone for weeks now. It is apparent that you start with the assumption that Christianity is true, and work from there, as shown by the way you address this dichotomy. You would never give such accommodations to the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

Since you start with this position, debate with you is pointless and the world of apologetics is closed to you.

ChetSinger · Dec 22, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Until you show that Jehoiachin repented in that dungeon, this is still all conjecture. Still I'll concede this point instead of looking into it all because I'd rather get back to the main points I have. Also there are other things which disqualify Jesus as the messiah, so this isn't all that needed.

That he repented is conjecture. That the curse was lifted on his descendants is not. Would you agree with that?

createdtoworship · Dec 22, 2015

redleghunter said:
Have you examined your contentions in the Hebrew/Aramaic?

Jeremiah 36:30

לָכֵ֞ן כֹּֽה־אָמַ֣ר יְהוָ֗ה עַל־יְהֹֽויָקִים֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ יְהוּדָ֔ה לֹא־יִֽהְיֶה־לֹּ֥ו יֹושֵׁ֖ב
עַל־כִּסֵּ֣א דָוִ֑ד וְנִבְלָתֹו֙ תִּֽהְיֶ֣ה מֻשְׁלֶ֔כֶת לַחֹ֥רֶב בַּיֹּ֖ום וְלַקֶּ֥רַח בַּלָּֽיְלָה׃

Now the most literal word for word English translation I have access to is Young's Literal Translation (YLT):

'Therefore, thus said Jehovah, concerning Jehoiakim king of Judah: He hath none sitting on the throne of David, and his carcase is cast out to heat by day, and to cold by night;

'He shall have none': Strongs H3427 in the following manner: dwell (437x), inhabitant (221x), sit (172x), abide (70x), inhabit (39x), down (26x), remain (23x), in (22x), tarry (19x), set (14x), continue (5x), place (7x), still (5x), taken (5x), misc (23x).

to dwell, remain, sit, abide
(Qal)

to sit, sit down

to be set

to remain, stay

to dwell, have one's abode

yâshab, yaw-shab'; a primitive root; properly, to sit down (specifically as judge. in ambush, in quiet); by implication, to dwell, to remain; causatively, to settle, to marry:—(make to) abide(-ing), continue, (cause to, make to) dwell(-ing), ease self, endure, establish, × fail, habitation, haunt, (make to) inhabit(-ant), make to keep (house), lurking, × marry(-ing), (bring again to) place, remain, return, seat, set(-tle), (down-) sit(-down, still, -ting down, -ting (place) -uate), take, tarry.

The above fulfilled. Jehoiachin did not 'inhabit' 'make to keep' 'endure' 'dwell' the throne as he was removed by Nebuchadnezzar.

What is missing from the passage which would cause us to see this as an 'eternal' or 'beyond the horizon' type of curse?

The word 'owlam' is not evident in the curse of Jehoiakim.

owlam: Strongs H5769 in the following manner: ever (272x), everlasting (63x), old (22x), perpetual (22x), evermore (15x), never (13x), time (6x), ancient (5x), world (4x), always (3x), alway (2x), long (2x), more (2x), never (with H408) (2x), misc (6x)

ʻôwlâm, o-lawm'; or עֹלָם ʻôlâm; from H5956; properly, concealed, i.e. the vanishing point; generally, time out of mind (past or future), i.e. (practically) eternity; frequentatively, adverbial (especially with prepositional prefix) always:—alway(-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, (n-)) ever(-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end).

Therefore, the curse of Jehoiakim is immaterial to the lineage of Jesus.

The maternal lineage does not directly link back Jehoiakim as we see in Luke 3:23-38.

Remember the line of Joseph, which is important was a legal claim to the line of David but not a blood claim. The only 'blood line' which would be human comes from blessed mother of Jesus Mary.

View attachment 167623

95. The Qal Imperfect (qmf) indicates, in the active voice, simple, imperfective action, viewed as part of a whole event or situation. “If the priest that is anointed do sin …” (Lev. 4:3); “And Moab was sore afraid of the people …” (Num. 22:3). See also 2, 43, 92.

Zodhiates, S., & Baker, W. (2000). The complete word study Bible: King James Version (electronic ed.). Chattanooga: AMG Publishers.

this tense in the active mood suggests a "permanent successor" that is being removed from this ruler.

redleghunter · Dec 22, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
This is a colossal failure of an argument.

My argument is that you can't know if Satan has corrupted the Bible or not. Or, more accurately, I'm asking how you can know he didn't. Your response is that you know Satan hasn't corrupted the Bible because he hasn't corrupted the lineage of Mary (how is this relevant to corrupting scriptures?), and then you even admit he could not have predicted the lineage of Jesus in the first place (so what was he supposed to do?).

I am saying that Satan is more powerful than any human, or at least equally powerful, so if we have corrupted the Bible with our own blunders then surely he's found a way to do something as well. Not only is your argument completely off the topic of scripture, but it expects Satan to act beyond his own ability and then claims victory when he does not.

Utterly nonsensical.

Address my question please:

It is well within the power of Satan to alter the Bible, and he is motivated to do so, so HOW do you KNOW he hasn't? And yes, I CANNOT PROVE that he has altered the Bible. I am simply asking a QUESTION, not making a case. Please answer it.

You make the baseless assumption that Satan has the power to alter the Bible. I gave you Biblical evidence such was tried and failed. If you are going to take issue with the object of your attack "God and His revelation to mankind" impeaching the very witness you prosecute is absurd. Satan tried real hard in Matthew 4 to tempt YHWH manifest in the flesh. He failed. How much more, now Glorified, is Christ in resisting the attempts of Satan? 'For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.'

Please re-read my argument on this issue. Your response is just a regurgitation of scripture and is not an actual argument at all.

I said this:

So if you read, for example, Matthew 1, you see the "virgin birth" prophecy. Most Bibles will have the footnote showing this is referring to Isaiah 7:14. Read that verse in context, going as far back and as far forward as you like; you will see that the passage is about the king of Judah who is grieved because his city is about to be sacked. Isaiah approaches the king and tells him that Judah will not be sacked, and that the king may ask the Lord a sign. The king refuses, likely out of reverence to Deuteronomy 6:16, and then Isaiah says that one will be given anyway: that a "virgin" (or young woman) will give birth to a child named Emmanuel (this is already not Jesus), and before the child is old enough to understand the difference between good and evil Judah's enemies will be destroyed. So how is it that the birth of a baby by a different name 500 years later is confirmation of this prophecy? Pushing this square peg into the round hole constitutes dishonesty.

Are you sure the prophecy was for the king of Judah Ahaz?

Isaiah 7:

13 Then he said, “Hear, house of David! Is it too little for you to make men weary, that you should also make my God weary? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look! the virgin is with child and she is about to give birth to a son, and she shall call his name ‘God with us.’

What we have above is a near figurative prophecy and fulfillment which had meaning for Ahaz. With also a later literal fulfillment of 'God with us' for the house of David. Matthew was spot on.

Frankly, it is not odd for there to be prophecies within prophecies, or 'double fulfillments' of prophecies. There are several in the TaNaKh. Take a look at Acts chapter 2. Peter cites the prophet Joel. Most of what he cited will be fulfilled on the last day, the Day of the LORD. However, the partial present fulfillment was the Disciples clothed in God's Spirit.

As with this prophecy and the skepticism of such, I would be remiss if I did not point out your contention was answered in the 18th Century by John Gill:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign
Whether they would ask one or not; a sign both in heaven and earth, namely, the promised Messiah; who being the Lord from heaven, would take flesh of a virgin on earth; and who as man, being buried in the heart of the earth, would be raised from thence, and ascend up into heaven; and whose birth, though it was to be many years after, was a sign of present deliverance to Judah from the confederacy of the two kings of Syria and Israel; and of future safety, since it was not possible that this kingdom should cease to be one until the Messiah was come, who was to spring from Judah, and be of the house of David; wherefore by how much the longer off was his birth, by so much the longer was their safety. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son;
this is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age; in like manner, Aben Ezra and Kimchi object to it; and besides, his mother could not be called a "virgin": and for the same reason it cannot be understood of any other son of his either by his wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young woman; moreover, no other son of his was ever lord of Judea, as this Immanuel is represented to be, in ( Isaiah 8:8 ) nor can it be interpreted of Isaiah's wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could never call her a "virgin", who had bore him children, one of which was now with him; nor indeed a "young woman", but rather "the prophetess", as in ( Isaiah 8:3 ) nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be, in the place before cited: but the Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned, as ( Genesis 24:43 ) ( Exodus 2:8 ) ( Psalms 68:25 ) ( Song of Solomon 1:3 ) ( 6:8 ) and even in ( Proverbs 30:19 ) which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted; since it does not appear that the maid and the adulterous woman are one and the same person; and if they were, she might, though vitiated, be called a maid or virgin, from her own profession of herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or as she was antecedent to her defilement; which is no unusual thing in Scripture, see ( Deuteronomy 22:28 ) to which may be added, that not only the Evangelist Matthew renders the word by (paryenov) , "a virgin"; but the Septuagint interpreters, who were Jews, so rendered the word hundreds of years before him; and best agrees with the Hebrew word, which comes from the root (Mle) , which signifies to "hide" or "cover"; virgins being covered and unknown to men; and in the eastern country were usually kept recluse, and were shut up from the public company and conversation of men: and now this was the sign that was to be given, and a miraculous one it was, that the Messiah should be born of a pure and incorrupt virgin; (John Gill, 1697-1771, John Gill's exposition of the Bible) (http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/isaiah-7-14.html)

Emmanuel? Means 'God with us.' This perfectly describes the Christ child. The child referenced in Isaiah was not YHWH manifest in the flesh.

Seems you are dipping your feet in the 'pool' of theology with some of your claims. So answered you with such. Let's be honest, no matter the theological presentation, you will deny the claims. Impeaching the witness without further examination. That is specious apologetics.

On points #1 and #2, you have lobbed an ugly, wounded duck at me here. On point #3, you may well have addressed it; I asked you to refresh my memory. Hopefully you can lend me this courtesy, since I've gone through the trouble of digging up my argument on point #2 since you clearly had forgotten it.

The 'duck' is still quacking unaware of any injuries. Perhaps the 'bird shot' was ineffective or the marksmen shot the wrong target.

Another wounded duck. I am disappointed. My dichotomy is false in your world because you assume that God exists a priori, and you don't like the two choices, so you conclude there must be a third one.

I had given you the benefit of the doubt far too long. Crandaddy, from the earlier parts of this thread, denied that he believes in Christianity a priori and was therefore obliterated in debate. He's been gone for weeks now. It is apparent that you start with the assumption that Christianity is true, and work from there, as shown by the way you address this dichotomy. You would never give such accommodations to the Koran or the Book of Mormon.

Duck still quacking. Your very base assertion and threadbare argument involves putting God and His revelation (TaNaKh and Brit HaHadashah (NT)) on trial. You set up pre-determined boundaries in which God is limited to actions and choices. The very revelation of God is that He is sovereign in His design and will. You offered two possibilities, one was "God wants there to be errors, and the other was "God does not care." This is a fundamental attribution error. Why I asked you if there was something personal in your life in which you came to this fundamental error.

In my previous response I was fair in couching my words to offer you had an incomplete statement on attributes. It was an opportunity for you to express that just perhaps you have not covered all the bases.

Since you start with this position, debate with you is pointless and the world of apologetics is closed to you.

Perhaps the world of self immolation apologetics. I reject the notion of partial or full impeachment of the Nature of God as revealed in order to reach a pre-determined fallible human understanding. Your contention is against God and His oversight of His revelation. Your OP basically says "how can Christians call inerrant the Scriptures of God when He obviously does care their are errors or purposely allows such to happen." This is your fundamental attribution error.

Now some, and I have too, have addressed your subjective grievances. So that is now what this thread has become...dueling theological proofs. Perhaps you should posit such contentions now theologically as it is well noted you are an atheist and/or just don't like God because He is a 'big meanie' who lets us wallow in error until He throws us a few more bread crumbs.[/QUOTE]

Nihilist Virus · Dec 22, 2015

redleghunter said:
You make the baseless assumption that Satan has the power to alter the Bible.

Did not read the rest of this. You may have made excellent points but they have gone to waste. Figure out what is wrong with the quoted block above and we can continue. I'm fine with never speaking with you again. This is getting quite out of hand.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 22, 2015

ChetSinger said:
That he repented is conjecture. That the curse was lifted on his descendants is not. Would you agree with that?

Sure.

redleghunter · Dec 22, 2015

Nihilist Virus said:
Did not read the rest of this. You may have made excellent points but they have gone to waste. Figure out what is wrong with the quoted block above and we can continue. I'm fine with never speaking with you again. This is getting quite out of hand.

Your contention is that Satan can alter the Bible. I answered you several times. You just don't like the answer.

Answer again:

Matthew 4:

Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil, 2 and after he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he was hungry. 3 And the tempter approached and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, order that these stones become bread.” 4 But he answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man will not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God.”

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the highest point of the temple 6 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down! For it is written,

‘He will command his angels concerning you,’

and

‘On their hands they will lift you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

7 Jesus said to him, “On the other hand it is written, ‘You are not to put the Lord your God to the test."

8 Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and he said to him, “I will give to you all these things, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Go away, Satan, for it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’” 11 Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and began ministering to him. (LEB)

Dueling TaNaKh above no? Who set the record straight? Who confirmed the truth of TaNaKh above?

The above 'personifies' your contention of 'how do we know Satan has not corrupted the Scriptures.' We do know. However, you exclude an important revealed attribute of a sovereign God, which is the preservation of truth.

Satan exhibits above that 'he' does not need to corrupt the letter of Scriptures to deceive. He quoted directly from TaNaKh. It was the understanding that was corrupt. Satan's focus was on material comfort and power. Jesus Christ clearly rebuked Satan turning the focus from self to God. Where the focus of truth resides. Not leaning on our own understanding.

Nihilist Virus · Dec 22, 2015

redleghunter said:
Your contention is that Satan can alter the Bible. I answered you several times. You just don't like the answer.

Answer again:

Matthew 4:

Then Jesus was led up into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the devil, 2 and after he had fasted forty days and forty nights, then he was hungry. 3 And the tempter approached and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, order that these stones become bread.” 4 But he answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man will not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes out of the mouth of God.”

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and placed him on the highest point of the temple 6 and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down! For it is written,

‘He will command his angels concerning you,’

and

‘On their hands they will lift you up,
lest you strike your foot against a stone.’”

7 Jesus said to him, “On the other hand it is written, ‘You are not to put the Lord your God to the test."

8 Again the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory, 9 and he said to him, “I will give to you all these things, if you will fall down and worship me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him, “Go away, Satan, for it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’” 11 Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and began ministering to him. (LEB)

Dueling TaNaKh above no? Who set the record straight? Who confirmed the truth of TaNaKh above?

The above 'personifies' your contention of 'how do we know Satan has not corrupted the Scriptures.' We do know. However, you exclude an important revealed attribute of a sovereign God, which is the preservation of truth.

Satan exhibits above that 'he' does not need to corrupt the letter of Scriptures to deceive. He quoted directly from TaNaKh. It was the understanding that was corrupt. Satan's focus was on material comfort and power. Jesus Christ clearly rebuked Satan turning the focus from self to God. Where the focus of truth resides. Not leaning on our own understanding.

Nihilist Virus said:
Now please answer these questions which you have been dodging:

1. How do you know Satan has not corrupted the Bible?

Nihilist Virus said:
Address my question please:

It is well within the power of Satan to alter the Bible, and he is motivated to do so, so HOW do you KNOW he hasn't? And yes, I CANNOT PROVE that he has altered the Bible. I am simply asking a QUESTION, not making a case. Please answer it.

Contradictions in the Bible

Thank You Jesus!

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Thank You Jesus!

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

Thank You Jesus!

Infectious idea

Infectious idea

Thank You Jesus!

Infectious idea

Similar threads