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.
I think you have a profound misunderstanding of the Council. We shall have to agree to disagree agreeably."Moses is read in the synagogues each Sabbath." The point was, "Start here and go learn the rest."
Remember there is no punctuation in Hebrew.
People are very passionate as to what they comprehend being testified within the scriptures and a lot of the time it's not plain and simple. Given that what is known about Mk 16:9, "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20". A person may conclude slicing and dicing isn't necessarily a modern invention.Oh goodness, Pat, that's just awful! Dreadful. Horrid. Of the Devil.
"Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils". Mk 16:9
"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Lk. 24:1
ETC.
You have to do a lot of grammar gymnastics (not beyond revisionists like yourself of course) to annul and alter plain and simple verses like that. Go ahead, slice and dice and carve and serve up your interpretation of the Bible, I'll keep it plain and simple.
I think you have a profound misunderstanding of the Council. We shall have to agree to disagree agreeably.
The NT is written in Greek, not Hebrew. Attributing values to words that are not there is pure speculation. Ken is doing well in responding.
My point being, whether the NT was written in Greek or KJV English (that is a joke!) the mindset behind it was Hebraic
I'm of the school of thought that the "Hebraic mindset" approach to scripture is a little overrated on this forum. I agree of course that there is a Hebraic understanding and root, but I am also thoroughly convinced that the bulk of the NT was written to communicate with Gentiles, not just Jews. Hence, other cultural idioms are present. Furthermore, if God is in any way involved in the inspiration of scripture, we would hope that He intends to be clear enough to both Jew and Gentile. I don't believe the key to unlocking the whole of the NT is a degree in Rabbinics, and I find it interesting that much of the Rabbinic interpretation presented by posters on this forum are rather recent in comparison with the age of the NT.
The fact for me is that if one is to believe in God's sovereignty, He has preserved the NT in Koine Greek- and the study of the rules of grammar therefore take precedence over all traditional musings. Sure, when we come to an ambiguous or unclear passage, tradition is important- but I would say that the traditions of those who recognized and selected the texts as scriptural canon surely would outweigh the traditions of those who rejected them. IOW, the NT is the Church's statement of faith, not the Rabbis' plaything.
He said we need to believe/trust/have faith in him
This is why all questions of biblical accuracy are indeed salvational.
If you cannot trust him to say what he means, you cannot trust him at all.
No where in the Bible does it say belief in "Biblical accuracy" is necessary for salvation.This is why all questions of biblical accuracy are indeed salvational.
If you cannot trust him to say what he means, you cannot trust him at all.
Please do.
No where in the Bible does it say belief in "Biblical accuracy" is necessary for salvation.
Good job. I originally disagree with you, and thought no way could you prove it.... but you did! I wish I could memorize your post.1 Samuel 30.12: "He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, "To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?" He said, "I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago. " In this case "for three days and three nights' somehow was fulfilled when his master left him 'three days ago'.
Gen 42.16: "And he put them all in custody for three days. 18 On the third day, Joseph said to them, "Do this and you will live, for I fear God" and they are released ON that day (from the context of verses 25-26). In this case the 'for three days' meant only 'into the third day'
1 Kings 20.29: "For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined. " In this case we have 'for seven days' meant only 'into the seventh day'.
2 Chr 10.5: "And he said to them, 'Return to me again in three days" (NAS) with verse 12: "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying, 'Return to me on the third day." In this case 'in three days' is equivalent to 'on the third day'.
Esther 4.16: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" And then in 5.1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall. " In this case, "on the third day" is equivalent to "for three days, night or day".
That gives a little of a baseline that "3 days and nights" and be "on the 3rd day." It is an idiom, which all languages are full of. When I was a kid we used the term "booking" to mean "run fast." Somebody who dies doesn't literally, "kick the bucket." We even see this in the NT:
Matt 27.63: ""Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, `After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. "
Note that 'after three days' was somehow equivalent to 'until the third day' (not 'until the fourth day').
I see what you are saying, but I would still disagree with Pat. We can learn from inaccurate sources. We do so all the time. Consider that Newton's physics were flawed, yet they worked for us for centuries. We know that Einsteins physics are similarly flawed, but look at the amazing things it has brought us. Now when you have a document that is inspired (but flawed) then how much more can we learn from it! The Bible itself makes no claims to being inerrant. Only to being inspired.I think Pat's point is that if salvation is something we derive from Scripture, and Scripture is not accurate, then salvation can also be inaccurate because the origin of it would then come from an inaccurate source. It isn't that one must believe a doctrine of inaccuracy... my gosh, that person would pass away from cognitive dissonance if they ever stood among a group who understood and were having a deep discussion on textual criticism.
I see what you are saying, but I would still disagree with Pat. We can learn from inaccurate sources. We do so all the time. Consider that Newton's physics were flawed, yet they worked for us for centuries. We know that Einsteins physics are similarly flawed, but look at the amazing things it has brought us. Now when you have a document that is inspired (but flawed) then how much more can we learn from it! The Bible itself makes no claims to being inerrant. Only to being inspired.
1 Samuel 30.12: "He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights. 13 David asked him, "To whom do you belong, and where do you come from?" He said, "I am an Egyptian, the slave of an Amalekite. My master abandoned me when I became ill three days ago. " In this case "for three days and three nights' somehow was fulfilled when his master left him 'three days ago'.
Gen 42.16: "And he put them all in custody for three days. 18 On the third day, Joseph said to them, "Do this and you will live, for I fear God" and they are released ON that day (from the context of verses 25-26). In this case the 'for three days' meant only 'into the third day'
1 Kings 20.29: "For seven days they camped opposite each other, and on the seventh day the battle was joined. " In this case we have 'for seven days' meant only 'into the seventh day'.
2 Chr 10.5: "And he said to them, 'Return to me again in three days" (NAS) with verse 12: "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day as the king had directed, saying, 'Return to me on the third day." In this case 'in three days' is equivalent to 'on the third day'.
Esther 4.16: "Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day. I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.'" And then in 5.1: "On the third day Esther put on her royal robes and stood in the inner court of the palace, in front of the king's hall. " In this case, "on the third day" is equivalent to "for three days, night or day".
That gives a little of a baseline that "3 days and nights" and be "on the 3rd day." It is an idiom, which all languages are full of. When I was a kid we used the term "booking" to mean "run fast." Somebody who dies doesn't literally, "kick the bucket." We even see this in the NT:
Matt 27.63: ""Sir," they said, "we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, `After three days I will rise again.' 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. "
Note that 'after three days' was somehow equivalent to 'until the third day' (not 'until the fourth day').
But according to Ken's stunning exposition (which certainly changed my mind), the three days and three nights were probably what WE would call three days and two nights.Yet you didn't use the one tenahk reference that Yeshua used, so I think we need to use that as our reference.
17 And the L-RD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights. Jonah 1
שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה יָמִ֖ים וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה לֵילֹֽות
This clearly says three days and three nights
"An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as* JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt 12
* word in Greek meaning exactly as or same as
This is showing the period of 72 hours broken down as
12d+12n+12d+12n+12d+12n
Yet you didn't use the one tenahk reference that Yeshua used, so I think we need to use that as our reference.
17 And the L-RD appointed a great fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was in the stomach of the fish three days and three nights. Jonah 1
שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה יָמִ֖ים וּשְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה לֵילֹֽות
This clearly says three days and three nights
"An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; 40 for just as* JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Matt 12
* word in Greek meaning exactly as or same as
This is showing the period of 72 hours broken down as
12d+12n+12d+12n+12d+12n
I certainly don't disagree... consider that Paul used pagan sources a few times to make points depending on who he was talking to. For example:
Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Paul used two pagan quotes in the hope of sparking a discussion at the Areopagus. The phrase “in him we live and move and have our being” is found in the poem Cretica, written by Epimenides in the 6th century BC, although in the poem the description is applied to Zeus. Paul then builds on this quote, adding “your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring’.” This is a direct quote from the Stoic thinker Aratus [Phainomena 5], although Aratus ascribes the origin of humanity, again, to Zeus. GASP!When he spoke of being a gentile to a gentile or a Jew to a Jew... he wasn't speaking about compromise but rather in how we reach out to others "on the levels they are on." If speaking to one who understood these references and through that connection he could plant a seed about the "True God," then he will have helped another take a step forward using an inaccurate source.
This all goes, I believe, a little beyond Pat's comment... but should serve us well to consider these things.
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?