TLK Valentine
I've already read the books you want burned.
- Apr 15, 2012
- 64,493
- 30,322
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Agnostic
- Marital Status
- Single
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So in other words, you don’t think the message got lost, instead, you think the writers fabricated the stories?
But I asked if the message got lost, and the answer was, no. How was the message obscured? I’m just unaware of this belief about the Bible. What would be the motive to obscure the intended message?I think they altered the stories. Big difference.
But I asked if the message got lost, and the answer was, no. How was the message obscured? I’m just unaware of this belief about the Bible. What would be the motive to obscure the intended message?
No, in that example, "everybody" is plural meaning more than one.Actually, they/them can be singular. Consider the following:
Which of these two sentences is grammatically correct?
1, of course, because the word "everybody" is grammatically singular.
- Everybody is going to be at Bob's party.
- Everybody are going to be at Bob's party.
Again; plural. They and them in this instance implies more than one person showing up at 6:30, not a single person.Now, let's add to our grammatically correct sentence:
Everybody is going to be at Bob's party. They will get there by 6:30, and I'm going to be there waiting for them.
Or altered them, which has been reasonably suggested as more likely. The message is not lost, it resides in the altered stories. I was under the impression that you believed in the divine inspiration of scripture. Pardon me if I was mistaken.So in other words, you don’t think the message got lost, instead, you think the writers fabricated the stories?
No, in that example, "everybody" is plural meaning more than one.
Again… the Bible might be mythology, the same as any other mythology.So in other words, you don’t think the message got lost, instead, you think the writers fabricated the stories?
So if it’s altered, they are known changes, but if it’s obscured, then the changes are concealed. If you will, can you offer an example of Scripture being modified, changed enough to convey a different message?Or altered them, which has been reasonably suggested as more likely. The message is not lost, it resides in the altered stories. I was under the impression that you believed in the divine inspiration of scripture. Pardon me if I was mistaken.
So if it’s altered, they are known changes, but if it’s obscured, then the changes are concealed.
So let me see if I can piece this together. [The Bible doesn’t describe reality.] But clearly the Bible’s claim is that a real Deity exists. [It’s not any different than any other mythology.] But Greek mythology in particular had a plurality of deities. Maybe their purpose was mainly to offer allegories, but the Bible made many predictions.
True! But the subject is “everybody” the predicate is what they are doing (going to Bob’s party), so while the subject is plural, the predicate is singular due to everybody doing the same thing; the predicate is singular; not the subject.And yet grammatically, it uses the singular form verb "is" as opposed to the plural form "are."
Again; the subject is everybody; plural. The predicate (what they want) is singularAnother example: which sentence is grammatically correct?
1. Everybody wants the new iPhone.
2. Everybody want the new iPhone.
We've got the verb "to want" in the simple present tense, expressed in both its third-person singular and third-person plural forms. Which one is correct?
Go on, I'll wait...
If you will, can you offer an example of Scripture being modified, changed enough to convey a different message?Not at all. "Obscured" could also mean that the troublesome messages were omitted entirely.
The Bible made many predictions after they happened... kind of the opposite of a "prediction," really.
The burden of proof is on the person claiming the Bible corresponds to reality.If you will, can you offer an example of Scripture being modified, changed enough to convey a different message?
If you will, can you offer an example of Scripture being modified, changed enough to convey a different message?
True! But the subject is “everybody” the predicate is what they are doing (going to Bob’s party), so while the subject is plural, the predicate is singular due to everybody doing the same thing; the predicate is singular; not the subject.
Again; the subject is everybody; plural. The predicate (what they want) is singular
The Bible wouldn’t need to have make-believe proof of fulfilled prophecy, if the stories recount actual events in history.Certainly! But to do that, we'll have to look at the Gospels...
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Now look at Matthew 13:55, allegedly the same incident: Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Can you spot the alteration Matthew made? I can.
And... I can tell you why he altered it... but first things first: Spot the alteration.
I disagree! The subject is concerning the person involved, the verb describes what he is doing. You can have a single person doing multiple things, or multiple people doing a single thing.And the verb is to agree in number with the subject, not the predicate.
Marks Gospel mentions that the sisters there were present, and Matthews Gospel does not include those words. I wouldn’t call it an alteration. That’s Matthew’s account. He wasn’t saying the sisters weren’t there.
I disagree!
The subject is concerning the person involved, the verb describes what he is doing. You can have a single person doing multiple things, or multiple people doing a single thing.
Oh, I see, your problem is not with the omission of the sisters, as they are mentioned in the next verse (Mt 13:56). You're noticing that Matthew uses the name Joseph and Mark uses Joses.Certainly! But to do that, we'll have to look at the Gospels...
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.
Now look at Matthew 13:55, allegedly the same incident: Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas?
Can you spot the alteration Matthew made? I can.
And... I can tell you why he altered it... but first things first: Spot the alteration.
Oh, I see, your problem is not with the omission of the sisters, as they are mentioned in the next verse (Mt 13:56). You're noticing that Matthew uses the name Joseph and Mark uses Joses.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?