What are you favourite biblical contradictions? Mine are the fact that Jesus died both the day before and after Passover depending on which gospel you read.
What are you favourite biblical contradictions?
Talk religion
Talk religion
What are you favourite biblical contradictions? Mine are the fact that Jesus died both the day before and after Passover depending on which gospel you read.
That we were sent to earth with free will to be tested but if God feels like it he can decide to harden your heart so he can carry out his plan to slaughter infants for the benefit of his chosen people
>slaughter infants for the benefit of his chosen people
pretty sure infants are slaughtered for YHWH. My source is the actual 10 commandments written on two stone tablets on Sinai.
Exodus 34:19-20
>Exodus 34:19-20
Ok, on v. 19 of Exodus chapter 34 only cattle is mentioned, no humans, so let's exclude it because it can in no case prove what you're trying to prove.
When it comes to v. 20, which does mention humans, the verse is as follows:
>But the firstling of an Asse thou shalt redeeme with a lambe: and if thou redeeme him not, then shalt thou breake his necke. All the first borne of thy sonnes thou shalt redeeme: and none shall appeare before me empty.
Exodus 34:20 KJV
First point: the ass (donkey) is an unclean animal, so it should first be "redeemed" with a lamb. What this implied is one gave a lamb to the priest and it remained in his possession with the character of a non-holy object (חולין — an ordinary animal). The firstborn ass was then permitted to the owner to be used for work (Bekhorot 9b). Should this NOT be done so, however (in other words, should the lamb not be given to the priest), the verse follows with the obligation to break the donkey's neck with a hatchet, slaying it in the process (Bekhorot 10b). The reason is he (the owner of the ass) has caused loss to the possessions of the priest (by not giving him the lamb) therefore must he suffer loss in his possessions (Mekhilta d'Rabbi Yishmael 13:13:2).
Second point: the first born of the sons must be redeemed. What must be done in this case? Well, as it turns out, Five Sela’im were the ransom fixed for him, as is said in Numbers 18:16: “And those that are to be redeemed, from a moneth old shalt thou redeeme according to thine estimation, for the money of fiue shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary, which is twentie gerahs.” So, the firstborn child cost a sacrifice of...that's right, five shekels. Nobody's being killed here.
In English, doc. Are you trying to say that it wasn't mass scale infanticide? israeli apologetics insist that God was just levying a first-born tax on all the Egyptians?
I'm explaining to you what those verses say and mean according to both israeli and Christian consensus. Feel free to do your own research or believe whatever you want. I'm not your dad, and whatever you believe won't change anything about any of those verses.
But am I reading this correctly? Is the israeli interpretation really that the OT understanding of "killing" was really just demands for financial compensation?
>Is the israeli interpretation really that the OT understanding of "killing" was really just demands for financial compensation?
No, the israeli interpretation is that Yahweh sustains himself off of blood (this is why israelites are not allowed to consume blood, they must feed it to Yahweh), and sometimes he demands the blood (or flesh) of gentiles.
>No, the israeli interpretation is that Yahweh sustains himself off of blood (this is why israelites are not allowed to consume blood, they must feed it to Yahweh), and sometimes he demands the blood (or flesh) of gentiles.
got a Biblical source to back that up? specifically the gentile part?
thatd be talmudic anon. im not anon, and im not sure specifically what he's referring to. but itd be in the talmud.
>Are you trying to say that it wasn't mass scale infanticide?
there was but only according to the Bible.
Ezekiel 20:25-26
25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live; 26 I defiled them through their gifts—the sacrifice of every firstborn—that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the Lord.’
Third and final point: concerning the 'none shall appear before me empty', according to the plain sense of the verse this is an independent statement and does not refer to the firstborn just mentioned — because in connection with the command concerning the firstborn there is no duty of appearing before the Lord; but it is another (a separate) prohibition merely connected by a conjunctive ו with the former statement and means: when you go up to the festival gathering to Jerusalem to appear before the Lord, none shall appear before Me empty; it is your duty to bring the burnt offering prescribed for the appearance before My face (Chagigah 7a). According to the Halachic explanation of the Boraitha this portion of the verse is redundant (since the same commandment already appears Exodus 23:15) and is consequently “free” (מופנה) to be used for a גז"ש (an analogy based on verbal similarity in two texts, viz., the word ריקם here and in the text Deuteronomy 15:13 לא תשלחנו ריקם “thou shalt not let him go away ריקם”) — it is repeated here after the law about the first born to teach you that the outfit given to a Hebrew slave when he leaves your service should consist of five Sela’im-worth of each of the things (mentioned Deuteronomy 15:14: thy sheep, thy threshing floor, and vinepress) just as the ransom of the firstborn is five Sela’im. Thus are we taught in Treatise Kiddushin 17a.
how to interpret all the laws in Leviticus that demand killing
for example anything in Leviticus 20
Which of the 27 verses of said chapter would you like me to explain?
There is no mention of killing anyone in the two verses I explained to you, so in those specific verses no one is being killed. I've never alluded to every single time the term "killing" is used in the Bible. Point me to specific verses and I'll explain them too if I can.
>Which of the 27 verses of said chapter would you like me to explain?
Leviticus 20:12 for example:
If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
Does this law says that if a man has sexual relations with his daughter in law, they are both to be killed?
I'm gonna use this trip as it's likely people will intervene and the discussion between us two will get muddied. Feel free to use one yourself so I can recognize you in subsequent posts.
So, let's look at Lev 20:12 KJV:
>And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they haue wrought confusion; their blood shall be vpon them.
First, On the term 'Confusion': The Hebrew term תֶּבֶל (tevel, “perversion”) derives from the verb “to mix; to confuse” (cf. KJV, ASV “they have wrought confusion”). In this case, it can be interpreted as confusion by perverting the order which God has appointed, and making the same offspring both his own child and his grandchild. That's what's being prevented from happening here. Makes sense, right?
In different translations of the verse, it gets translated as "they have committed a depravity". This comes from the Hebrew תֶּבֶל, a shameful act. Another meaning: They mingle (בּלל) the seed of the father with the seed of the son. — [see Torath Kohanim 20:108]
Is this verse condemning the man and his daughter-in-law who have sex to death? Yes.
And this was perfectly normal for the time.
As closing statement: keep in mind you (if you're the same person) were talking about "mass scale infanticide" before, which, evidently, the verse just analyzed definitely doesn't prove. It only proves the death penalty was to be applied to any incestuous man and daughter-in-law. See why it's important to take it one verse at a time?
Yeah these verse dont prove mass scale infanticide that much is true. Isnt it problematic though for a modern Christian that the LORD recommends the death penalty for many things.
>And this was perfectly normal for the time.
Why shouldnt these laws not be followed today. The 10 commandments certainly should according to the Church. also consider Matthew 5:17-18 where Jesus is also presumably including Leviticus under "Law"
I knew this reply was coming, no offense. You seem genuinely interested enough so I'll explain:
The word testament is another word for covenant (pact, agreement). The Old Testament (OT) is interchangeably referred to as "the Old Covenant" by learned Christians. So how is the New Testament (NT), which could consequently be called "the New Covenant", different? The terms OT and NT are often used as titles of two halves of the Bible. But the terms "books of the OT" and "books of the NT" get us closer to the meaning. If we said “books of the Old Covenant” and “books of the New Covenant,” we would be closer still. The literary work known as the OT is made up of 39 individual documents that give us the details of the Old Covenant, while the work known as the NT is made up of 27 individual documents that give us the details of the New Covenant.
The Old Covenant is the “working arrangement” that God had with Israel. He had chosen them for a special relationship that He did not have with any other group of people on earth. He took just a few patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob) and grew their descendants into a great nation and gave them a land (Canaan) and His law to live by (see Exodus 20 and following). The Israelites were to remain loyal to God, obeying Him and worshipping Him alone. If they did, He promised to bless them, and if they did not, He promised they would be chastened (see Deuteronomy 27—28). God established a sacrificial system that would allow them to be cleansed (temporarily) from their sins—but these sacrifices had to be repeated over and over. He ordained priests to represent the people before Him, as the people could never come directly into the presence of God. And even with all these accommodations, the nation as a whole was unfaithful and eventually fell under the judgment of God.
Jeremiah prophesied that judgment was coming upon the nation of Israel, but he also told the nation that something better was coming:
>“Indeed, a time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the Lord. “But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the Lord. “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds. I will be their God and they will be my people. “People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me. For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the Lord. “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done.”
Jeremiah 31:31-34 NET
In this new covenant, God said, sins will be finally forgiven, people will know God directly, and they will have His law written on their hearts so that they will want to obey Him. The law under the Old Covenant was never a means to salvation; rather, it led to condemnation as people repeatedly broke the law and violated the covenant.
Paul, citing many passages from the books of the Old Covenant, explains this in Romans 3:10–20 (can't quote it here due to restrictive character limit, feel free to look it up yourself).
The book of Hebrews is an extended discourse on the differences between the Old and New Covenants. Here is one passage dealing with the subject:
>For the law possesses a shadow of the good things to come but not the reality itself, and is therefore completely unable, by the same sacrifices offered continually, year after year, to perfect those who come to worship. For otherwise would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers would have been purified once for all and so have no further consciousness of sin? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
Hebrews 10:1-4 NET
>And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
Hebrews 10:11-18 NET
The New Covenant sacrifice of Jesus on behalf of His people means that sins can be forgiven once and for all.
Under the Old Covenant, only the priests could enter the Holy Place and only the high priest could enter the Most Holy Place once per year.
The author of Hebrews explains:
>But now Christ has come as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this creation, and he entered once for all into the Most Holy Place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so he himself secured eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our consciences from dead works to worship the living God. And so he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the eternal inheritance he has promised, since he died to set them free from the violations committed under the first covenant.
Hebrews 9:11-15 NET
Because of Christ, the high priest of the New Covenant, we can come into God’s presence:
>Therefore let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help.
Hebrews 4:16 NET
Another aspect of the New Covenant is that Gentiles can be “grafted into the tree of Israel” by faith in Jesus, the King and Messiah of Israel (see Romans 11:11–24). As James explained at the Jerusalem Council, “Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
Simeon has explained how God first concerned himself to select from among the Gentiles a people for his name. The words of the prophets agree with this, as it is written, ‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the fallen tent of David; I will rebuild its ruins and restore it, so that the rest of humanity may seek the Lord, namely, all the Gentiles I have called to be my own,’ says the Lord, who makes these things known from long ago.
Acts 15:14-18 NET
In summary, the Old Covenant was governed by a law that prescribed correct behavior and that the people continually broke. It contained a sacrificial system that only temporarily removed sins. The sacrifices were administered by priests who represented the people of Israel to God, but the people could not enter God’s presence themselves.
The New Covenant is governed by a law that is internalized by the people of God and energized by His Spirit. The sins of the people are forgiven and removed once and for all by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the people of God have direct, intimate access to Him. Finally, Gentiles who believe are included in the New Covenant.
TLDR: The hundreds of laws in the OT don't need to be kept by Christians since Jesus died to justify all sins of those who believe, which are all of the transgressions of the law. The OT law was the placeholder for Christ until He arrived:
>Thus the law had become our guardian until Christ, so that we could be declared righteous by faith.
Galatians 3:24 NET
That's why Christian salvation is through faith, not works, because we all break the law and if it depended on keeping the law none of us would ever be saved, for transgression of a single point of the law equals transgressing against the entire law:
>For the one who obeys the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.
James 2:10 NET
This is in fact a key difference between Christians and israelites, because they don't believe in Jesus being God so they still think the Old Covenant applies, and only to them at that. That's why they still speak of being "the chosen ones", why they still observe the Torah/Tanakh, and why they sacrifice chickens (e.g.) on certain days to "redeem" themselves.
I think the explanation has come full circle by now, but feel free to ask any question you might still have and I'll attempt to provide an answer.
Thanks for the rundown on the covenants though what I would also like to know in particular is what was meant by Matthew 5:17-18
Jesus came not to destroy the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them. In fact, the ceremonies, sacrifices, and other elements of the Old Covenant were only “a shadow of good things to come, and not the very Image of the things” (Hebrews 10:1). The tabernacle and temple were “holy places made with hands,” but they were never meant to be permanent; they were but “copies [representations] of the true things” (Hebrews 9:24). The Law had a built-in expiration date, being filled as it was with “external regulations applying until the time of the new order” (Hebrews 9:10).
In His fulfillment of the Law and Prophets, Jesus obtained our eternal salvation. No more were priests required to offer sacrifices and enter the holy place (Hebrews 10:8–14). Jesus has done that for us, once and for all. By grace through faith, we are made right with God: “Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances, that was against vs, which was contrary to vs, and tooke it out of the way, nayling it to his Crosse:” (Colossians 2:14).
There are some who argue that, since Jesus did not “abolish” the Law, then the Law is still in effect—and still binding on New Testament Christians. But Paul is clear that the believer in Christ is no longer under the Law: “But before faith came, wee were kept vnder the Law, shut vp vnto the faith, which should afterwards bee reuealed. Wherefore the Law was our Schoolemaster to bring vs vnto Christ, that we might be iustified by Faith. But after that Faith is come, we are no longer vnder a Schoolemaster.” (Galatians 3:23–25). We are not under the Mosaic Law but under “the law of Christ” (see Galatians 6:2: "Beare ye one anothers burthens, and so fulfill the Law of Christ.").
I'll repeat my question upthread. Was God lying or just mistaken when he said that the Mosiatic covenant would be forever, like in Deuteronomy 4:40?
He wasn't lying and he wasn't mistaken. It's what's to come.
But if what's to come is a repeated cycle of disobedience, punishment, return to the Mosiatic covenant, and reward for that obedience, where is the room for supercessionism or Christianity at all?
There's no cycle, but a timeline. It ends with New Heaven, New Earth and Jesus 4 ever.
What is the meaning of Jesus saying "Think not that I am come to destroy the law" when he actually did come to destroy the law? Why do you think he said "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" when he actually intended for many obligations, such as sacrifices, to pass from the law?
You've got to think of the context, too.
When Jesus began preaching, his opponents (jews, for the most part) circulated the false report that his teaching was contrary to the Scriptures. So Jesus had to set the record straight. The religious leaders held the Bible in high regard but didn’t understand its meaning. In the place of true righteousness, they had a system of rules and regulations that were so strict no one could follow them properly. Jesus didn’t follow their system of justification. The way that Jesus both lived and taught was so liberating, it seemed to them like false religion by contrast. They probably thought He had come to dismantle their entire belief system. Nothing like that.
The whole entire system of sins and justification wasn't being unraveled, it was being kept as it was. What changed was mainly the fact that justification from sin was to be reached through faith, not works. So transgressions of the law would still be transgressions of the law (sins), they just wouldn't be punished as long as true faith was had.
Jesus intended Christians to come to Him so that He'd show us the true ways of righteousness. We will be free to keep the laws of God, not as a restrictive set of rules which must be observed 100% for fear of consequences, but as a refreshing way of life that produces a harvest of righteousness. The law today is Jesus Christ.
They weren't destroyed or passed away. They were fulfilled by Christ Himself. See Colossians.
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
- Colossians 2:16-17
Amen.
The law was love (that Cain was guilty of transgression) and it was fulfilled in Christ. He (and God the father) so much love the world that whomever shall believe in Him shall have everlasting life and shall not perish.
Law of Moses condemns only and Jesus alone could fulfil it's many burdensome and complicated requirements. However, through Jesus' grace we can all fulfill the Law, which is two parts Love God with all your soul and all your mind and Do unto others that you want done unto yourself.
>TLDR: The hundreds of laws in the OT don't need to be kept by Christians since Jesus died to justify all sins of those who believe, which are all of the transgressions of the law. The OT law was the placeholder for Christ until He arrived:
Do you think God was lying, or simply mistaken, when you have the pronouncement in Deuteronomy 4:40?
>Deuteronomy 4:40
>you may live long in the land the Lord your God gives you for all time
Israelibros???
>Thou shalt keepe therefore his Statutes, and his Commandements, which I command thee this day; that it may goe well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy dayes vpon the earth, which the Lord thy God giueth thee, for euer.
Deuteronomy 4:40 KJV
This passage contains a conditional offer. Israel would have the Promised Land as they kept God’s “statutes and commandments.” The Israelites had to obey God’s statutes in order to remain in the land. History reveals that the Israelites often disobeyed, resulting in temporary times of exile from their land.
However, the end of this passage notes that God is giving Israel the Promised Land “for all time.” The Hebrew phrase translated “for all time” is a general statement, likely in reference to God’s original promise of a land to Abraham in Genesis 12.
There are both a conditional and unconditional aspect to God’s promise. God offered blessings within the Promised Land conditionally, related to the Israelites’ obedience. Yet God also made an unconditional vow that Israel would have the Promised Land “for all time.”
How long is “for all time”? In the book of Revelation, we see Israel as a central focus. In the end times, Israel faces many difficulties, yet that tribulation concludes with the Messiah reigning from His throne in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. The book concludes with a new heaven, new earth, and new Jerusalem. The promise of Deuteronomy 4:40 is a far-seeing promise, extending to the end of this world’s existence and even into the time of the new earth.
Yes, the offer is conditional, which is easily understood if you bothered to read the preceding verses, like 4:26 where heaven and earth are called as witnesses that they will utterly perish from the land that they are going to take possession of. And then you have the cycle of repentence, laid out in verses 29-31. But it's conditional on the commandments of the Mosiatic covenant. The ones being reviewed on THAT day. There's no room for supercessionism in there. So stop dodging the question. If you believe what you said up here
or here
that the Mosiatic covenant is no longer necessary, was God lying, or simply unable to realize what was going to happen?
>THAT day
Deuteronomy is in the OT, and part of the Old Covenant. He said that when it still applied. While the law applied, and while its statutes and commandments were kept by the Israelites (in the Old Covenant times), it'd go well with them and their children, and they'd be prolonged.
For that to still hold true today, it'd necessarily have to mean the israelites should convert to Christianity, because Jesus is the law now. So we could (theoretically) conclude from that stretch the israelites won't do well until they convert to Christianity, but all of that is, again, a stretch. You're the one making the connection in your post between the conditional clause of the isolated section of the verse in the times of the Mosaic Law and the present. As I said, and this is the last time I'm saying it: it's a verse from the OT and the conditional which you attribute to the Mosaic Law was in effect while that very law was in effect. It's a conditional clause in its nature, it's subject to change (as it has).
The unconditional part does still remain and will most likely extend until the times written about in Revelation.
Again, God neither lied, nor was wrong.
>You're the one making the connection in your post between the conditional clause of the isolated section of the verse in the times of the Mosaic Law and the present. As I said, and this is the last time I'm saying it: it's a verse from the OT and the conditional which you attribute to the Mosaic Law was in effect while that very law was in effect. It's a conditional clause in its nature, it's subject to change (as it has).
Well no, it isn't, because that is not the conditional part of the sentence. It is OBVIOUSLY not the conditional part of the clause, because of the immediately preceding verses, which indicate that clearly the Israelites are not going to be staying on the land forever. Your entire cope is idiotic. Note the use of the word למען. It's used to denote an action taken for a higher or larger purpose. The only conditional part is that תַּאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל-הָאֲדָמָה.
The unconditional part, that remains, כָּל-הַיָּמִים is שָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת-חֻקָּיו וְאֶת-מִצְוֺתָיו, אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם. There is no room for supercessionism.
>Again, God neither lied, nor was wrong.
So Christianity is false. Thank you for confirming that.
Schizo or autism, which is it?
Actual knowledge of the original language and able to parse the sentences, as opposed to an ignoramus who relies on a translation by people who think that תחש would translate to "Badger" out of a completely asinine etymological connection to the Latin "Taxus" which it sort of sounds like.
>Badger
Why are you sperging over tachash? I can't believe a israelite is getting mad at me in 2k22 in a 4cuck thread over the fact he's not God's special child no more. Get over it. And no, just read the verse. To clarify once again: the conditional part is Israel doing well IF the law is kept, while the unconditional is the land being given, which is referred to in Revelation (third time saying this, and you still don't get it). You can't argue with that because you know it to be true and you hate it. And no logical deductions are being followed or built in any of your posts so you simply cannot create preposterous "conclusions" out of thin air, moshe. "Ignoramus" he calls me, teehee.
>Why are you sperging over tachash?
Does your illiteracy extend to English as well as Hebrew? The reasoning behind translating it as "Badger" is completely idiotic. The KJV was written by people who had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about the language in question. To rely on the KJV means you know jack shit about Hebrew language and you don't care. Your "clarification" is wrong, and based (charitably) on your inability to read the sentence correctly. I have 'just read the verse', and what's more, I actually understood the grammar. Which states that the Mosiatic Covenant is forever. But because you can't admit that your tortured readings are in fact wrong, well, we have Christianity.
The sky. Biblical cosmology is a bit stupid.
>The KJV was written by people who had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever about the language in question.
They know more about it than you. Modern Hebrew is a corruption of the authentic Biblical Hebrew language, by the way. It was only revived/created in recent times.
>Which states that the Mosiatic Covenant is forever.
It was conditional, see Jeremiah 31.
"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."
- Jeremiah 31:31-33
Hebrews chapter 8 deals with what happened to this covenant. Now you're probably actually thinking of the covenant with Abraham, which was not conditional. That is actually referring to the "seed" of Abraham, which is Christ. Hence, in Genesis 22:17 it says this:
"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"
- Genesis 22:17
Notice, it says HIS enemies. Not theirs. It's a singular seed referring to Christ. And in the New Testament, Paul himself verifies this:
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ."
- Galatians 3:16
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
- Galatians 3:29
Then what does he mean what he says "I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven"?
>that blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the lip of the sea. And your Seed shall possess the gate of His enemies.
Genesis 22:17 KJ3
What's not to get? Just check the Easy-to-Read Version at this point.
Abraham's seed will be multiplied by God, and the resulting descendants (which make up said seed) of Abraham will conquer the cities of God's enemies. Notice how the 'H' in 'His' is capitalized, as it's referring to God's enemies.
>Then what does he mean what he says "I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven"?
That's referring to the people of God.
>Actual knowledge of the original language and able to parse the sentences
what did they mean by "firmament" in Genesis 1:6-8
The firmament is the sky. The waters above the firmament are clouds. It even says in Genesis 1 that birds were flying "above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" in Genesis 1:20.
People are trying to make this needlessly complicated because they have a problem with the Bible, so they want to disprove it.
How is the sky a "firmament"? In what way is it firm?
>"above the earth in the open firmament of heaven
well yeah they were flying in the firmament (bell), would be weird if it said birds were flying above the firmament
You can't fly through solid objects, thus proving it is like a "molten looking glass" as so accurately described in Job 37:18. It's a looking glass or mirror because it reflects light (scattering of blue light especially) and it is molten because it is a fluid and not a solid.
The firmament is the dome on top of our flat, stationary earth. Contains the moon and the sun (lights in the sky) and the stars (bio luminisence caused by sound in the waters above - thus is why it's said that stars sing) and the fallen Angels masquerading as planets (asteras planetas). Next question you fricking israelite Black person.
I consider of interest to add that the original 1611 KJV Bible labeled verses 11, 14, 17, 19 of Lev 20 in the chapter's introduction as "of incest".
i think youre thinking of moloch. if its yahweh too, id very much like to know. i know israelites practiced sacrifice of their firstborn at various periods, though i never specifically looked into whether it was for yahweh. child sacrifice was a dominant system employed in the phoenician and carthaginian periods, and israelites likely adopted the custom while under their stewardship. yahweh, to my understanding (biblically speaking) was supposed to be the solution to the problem of having to sacrifice your own child. they worshipped him, then they didnt, and returned to their ways in a cyclical pattern. apparently goats arent enough though, and gentile babies are required now. so either yahweh lied, the israelites lied about the covenant, or israelites worship another
>That we were sent to earth with free will to be tested
This is pop Christian theology that developed later. It’s not found in the Bible.
Quote the supposed verses.
>no replies
Regarding the alleged contradiction of the date of Jesus' death, here's firstly the explanation for John 19:14.
And secondly, the explanation for Mark 14:12.
To sum up the two explanations, when John mentions in John 18:28 that the israeli leaders did not want to defile themselves because they wanted to eat the Passover, he was referring to their desire to participate in the seven days of feasting which would begin that evening.
When John writes in John 19:14 that it was the day of preparation, he was referring to the preparations conducted on the fourteenth in order to remove all traces of leaven from the homes of the israelites. And when Mark mentions in Mark 14:12 that the Last Supper was on the first day of unleavened bread, the day when the Passover was killed, he was referring to the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan.
Thus the comparison of the crucifixion account with the instructions regarding the Passover that are found in the Old Testament reveals to us that both John and Mark are correct. Jesus died during the day of preparation which was after the evening of the Passover proper but before the first feast of the Passover week. There is no contradiction between the two accounts. They are simply describing an event which the average, gentile American knows practically nothing about.
>John 19:14
"The priests had the entire afternoon of the 14th Nisan ... this is the time Jesus was dying on the cross"
>Mark 14:12
"Indicates that Nisan 14 (Thursday) was what Mark had in mind"
Jesus died the following morning aka Nisan 15
They are different days. In Mark Jesus died after passover (Nisan 15), in John he died before passover (Nisan 14). Your sources back this up
>The priests had the entire afternoon of the 14th Nisan
Yes, but the day change happens when the sun sets according to Hebrew calendar, so anything after dark would be in the 15th of Nisan.
Cope! In John, Friday morning and afternoon are the 14th Nisan (Day of Preparation for Passover). In Mark, on the 14th Nisan (when the Passover lamb is sacrificed) Jesus has dinner, and then the next day (Mark 15:25) they crucify him. That means the day they crucify him is Nisan 15 and a Friday.
The context here is
who claims "thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies" refers to Jesus. This is backed up in Galatians. Does God switch halfway through his sentence from talking about the actual progeny of Abraham to Jesus or is this a bunch of bullshit?
>In John, Friday morning and afternoon are the 14th Nisan
According to who? The preparation for the passover is always placed the day before, on Thursday. This would be when the Last Supper took place, the evening of the 14th/15th Nisan (date changed at sunset).
>(Day of Preparation for Passover)
It only says it was the preparation of the Passover. It doesn't say "the day of the preparation for Passover". See John 19:14. "And it was the preparation of the passover."
The passover was a seven-day long feast, according to Leviticus 23:34. There would be preparations for each day.
>day of preparation for passover
I was responding to the biblical commentaries that were posted by the other apologist. See
.
John 19:14 - Jesus's crucifiction starts around noon on 14 Nisan.
Mark 14:12 - On 14 Nisan, Jesus plans dinner, and then goes for a walk in the garden. We know this is the 14th because this was the day the lamb was sacrificed.
Mark 15:25 At 9am on 15 Nisan Jesus is crucified
>John 19:14 - Jesus's crucifiction starts around noon on 14 Nisan.
No, it was 15 Nisan. They had to prepare for the passover feast every day for seven days. See Leviticus 23.
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD.
On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein.
Seven days ye shall offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD:"
- Leviticus 23:34-36
>Does God switch halfway through his sentence from talking about the actual progeny of Abraham to Jesus
Didn't you see where it says in Galatians 3:29, "And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."
It also says in Galatians,
"To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.
6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
7 Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ."
- Galatians 4:5-7
>Now to Abraham and his descendant were the promises made. He says not, And to descendants, as of many; but as of one, And to your descendant, who is Christ.
Galatians 3:16 KJ2000
The descendant is Jesus Christ.
that's evidence that the gospels were written by real people independently attesting to events they personally witnessed you dummy, since if they were getting together to conspire to make up a religion then they'd make their versions of events match.
This just shows that they might have slightly different recollections of little details like whether passover was the day before or the day after, but they all recalled Jesus being crucified and resurrected.
all the vaticinium ex eventu in the book of daniel, by jesus in mark 13:14, and again in luke 21:20, matt 23:38, etc
i mean, the entire siege of jerusalem is one giant shitshow in regards to demonstrably intentional self-fulfilling prophecies. it is (surprisingly) a consensus among biblical scholars. https://files.catbox.moe/tzx129.jpg
A cute one I like is how the genealogies of the book of Chronicle contradict the Exodus story.
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2017/01/09/the-story-of-ezer-and-elead-and-what-it-means-for-the-exodus/
That verse is saying the men of Gath came down into the land of Goshen to steal cattle and killed some of Ephraim's sons. Not a contradiction.
It actually says that Ephraim's sons "came down" into the land of Gath (which is geographically lower than the hill country ascribed to the Tribe of Ephraim) to steal cattle... Basic reading comprehension.
Then Ephraim's daughter went ahead and founded sites in Canaan, which I assume you'll say she travelled all the way from Egypt to do that?
But okay, what about this one?
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/exodus-and-the-plagues-of-egypt/
1 Chronicles 7:21
"And Zabad his son, and Shuthelah his son, and Ezer, and Elead, whom the men of Gath that were born in that land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle."
They (the gittites) came down to take away their (Zabad, Shuthelah and Ezer and Elead) cattle.
>But okay, what about this one?
What exactly are you saying is wrong with the Exodus account?
>What exactly are you saying is wrong with the Exodus account?
Full of contradictions.
Read the blogpost:
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/2014/11/20/exodus-and-the-plagues-of-egypt/
And I'll link you to the entire book of Exodus for the answer to whatever your blog says. You can read that to find your answer.
>No, you don't get it, all the contradictions prove that the Bible was true.
t. christian larper in full cope mode
Jesus of Nazareth's last words before dying on the cross vary wildly.
>Mark 15:34 and Matthew 27:46
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me!?"
>Luke 23:46
"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."
>John 19:30
"It is finished."
There's also this stuff, which is why the legend of the immortal Wandering israelite was created as cope after everybody who'd been alive contemporaneous with Jesus of Nazareth died of old age.
>Matthew 16:28
“Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
> Luke 21:32-33
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. ”
You actually forgot something: Mark's version has Jesus quoting the psalm in Aramaic, while Matthew's has it in Hebrew. Which was it?
and in which language were Mark and Matthew written?
Greek, but they contain embedded quotes. Both Mark and Matthew give what Jesus supposedly said in the original, and then translate it to "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me", but the supposed quotes they give, while accurately translating to that (Gospel translations of Hebrew and Aramaic are frequently bad) differ from each other.
What reason is there to think Jesus didn't actually say both?
>Jesus of Nazareth's last words before dying on the cross vary wildly.
So each Gospel says "these are the last words"? Because if not, then it simply means Jesus Christ said all of those things at various points during the time He was being crucified.
>There's also this stuff, which is why the legend of the immortal Wandering israelite was created
That's an extrabiblical myth, and I don't accept it as truth. Also, the quotations you gave are literally fulfilled in the very next passage where Jesus is transfigured in front of some of the disciples. See the very next verse in Matthew.
"And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
And was transfigured before them:"
- Matthew 17:1-2
>So each Gospel says "these are the last words"? Because if not, then it simply means Jesus Christ said all of those things at various points during the time He was being crucified.
Same with the death of Judah. One gospel says he hanged himself the other says he tripped and his guts spilled out. Neither says how he died and there is no contradiction
It doesn't say he tripped. Here is what Acts 1:18 actually says:
"Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."
If he hanged himself, but then in an abnormal sequence of events he fell from where he was hanging and his bowels burst out, that would meet both accounts easily. Acts chapter 1 never said that he tripped, only that he "fell."
>Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity
in the other version he tosses the coins in the temple
Yes after it was already too late.
He didn't trip, he fell down a ravine or a great height, then hit the ground so hard his guts "spilled out"
Yes. Luke and John explicitly state that he died upon saying their versions of his last words. Matthew and Mark mention him saying their version, then Mark adds that he wordlessly screamed before dying.
>Also, the quotations you gave are literally fulfilled in the very next passage where Jesus is transfigured in front of some of the disciples. See the very next verse in Matthew.
Maximum cope.
Jesus explicitly saying there's someone superior to him (his Father) in Mark, Matthew and Luke, for then heavily imply he's at the same level as his heavenly father in John
John 14:28
?
John's first chapter, then John 18:5-6, then the rest of John
so do atheists think Catholics at the early councils would just let books with contradictions stay in the bible?
Yes, the same way Church fathers thought that things like "Nazarene" was somehow etymologically derived from the Nazirite vow, or the gospel authors mistook tetrarchs for kings, or Paul thought that the shedding of blood was required for forgiveness under the Mosiatic Law. By and large, these were not smart people.
The different patrilineal genealogies of Jesus
>The different patrilineal genealogies of Jesus
> patrilineal
no, one lineage is for Joseph and one for Marry
"Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli..."
-Luke 3:23
"Elihud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob, 16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah."
-Matthew 1:15
Massive cope.
>That Luke gives Jesus his maternal genealogy is further supported by several facts
>he traces Christ through his actual mother
"Joseph, the son of Heli"
>he notes Jesus was "as was supposed"
The Matthew genealogy, supposedly the patrilineal one, also specifies Joseph wasn't the father of Jesus. There isn't anything to read into here
>Luke's interest as a doctor in mothers and births
Massive amounts of cope
>Two genealogies have some names in common
The genealogies themselves are massively problematic, it takes Luke 10 more generations to get to David. Its also suspicious that the names are not only in common, they are consecutive, and mentioned in Chronicles
Come on
It's actually necessary to know this information about our Lord and Savior, for inheritance reasons. It's always been the case that genealogies are given by male line, so in the case of Luke chapter 3 we see Heli presented as the father-in-law of Joseph.
There is no textual evidence of this. Joseph is the son of Heli. Luke earlier states "Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary." He is establishing his previous point.
Luke 3:23 literally says, "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,"
So since Joseph wasn't the biological father of Jesus, neither did Heli have to be the biological father of Joseph. Also, the genealogy given in Luke differs from the others because it is given in reverse order. And rather than talking about who begets who, it is about who was the son of who. It also gives Adam as the son of God in verse 38.
>since Joseph wasn't the biological father of Jesus
He wasn't the biological father of Jesus because it was a virgin birth:
>Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Matthew 1:23 KJ2000
>He wasn't the biological father of Jesus because it was a virgin birth:
Yes, and similarly Luke 3:38 lists Adam as being a son of God. So clearly, this list includes father-in-law and it isn't like Matthew 1 where it strictly deals with who "begat" whom.
>Adam as being a son of God
He was a son of God, not a begotten son of God.
>For God so loved the world, that he gave his ONLY begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16 KJ2000 [emphasis added]
>He was a son of God, not a begotten son of God.
You are proving the point that Joseph was not a begotten son of Heli according to the same list in Luke 3.
No, I'm not.
That's how Luke's genealogy works, so it's not a contradiction.
Show the verse where it's stated "that's how it works" to prove you're not just deriving your own subjective understanding from a listed genealogy.
Because of the Jesus to Joseph and Adam to God connection. Luke 3 and whatever those two verses are.
I posted this
long ago. Read it.
This is not information, it's an ad hoc attempt to fix a biblical contradiction that doesn't work because the text itself tells you what's going on
Accept this fact, and move on. It's really not that important either way, it's not disproving Christianity or Jesus' message
Peter said there would be scoffers in the last days, and we see that fulfilled in people who try to claim the Bible is inaccurate when it is very accurate.
"Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation."
- 2 Peter 3:3-4
"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
- 2 Timothy 3:1-4
Amen.
>KJVtard
ayy it's always you stupid fricks
>the Bible is inaccurate when it is very accurate.
So accurate it tells us there is a firm structure in the sky preventing the waters from coming down on us. They really got that part right.
Another one is locusts walking on 4 legs. Don't give me that "walking leg" bs, they walk using all 6 legs.
>So accurate it tells us there is a firm structure in the sky preventing the waters from coming down on us.
Have you ever heard of clouds, anon?
>When Hashem uses the word "CHADASHA" he has thereby made the Brit HaRishonah yeshanah and a Brit thus made aging, is near to being yakhlof.
Yehudim in Moshiach 8:13 OJB
There, not KJV.
>KJVtards getting uppity again
I don't understand how in his own words Jesus was supposed to be buried for "three whole nights" but he rose after just two nights (Friday night, Saturday night).
Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
>leftist comic
looks like a gigantic cope
What ist his cope source? FIRM, from FIRMUS, it connotes a hardness, in fact in other languages it is translated as such. How is a region of air a hardness? This is why I think christianity is full schizo, rather than "the truth" it claims to be it's like it lives on another planet.
The definition of the word "firmament" from Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828.
How does that answer the question "How is the sky a 'firmament'"? You just gave a circular definition. In what way is the sky "firm"?
The fricking Webster dictionary just gave you the fricking answer you moronic son of a prostitute. Learn how to fricking read, moron.
It's not an answer, it's an obvious cope.
>ummm actually "hardness" means "expanse", sweetie
Then why not write "expanse"? Why use the word that is the complete opposite of "not conveying a sense of solidity", namely "firmness"?
Sounds like it's making excuses.
You're literally fricking brainless. It's astonishing. Seriously, have a nice day, do your parents a favor.
Can you explain why they described the sky, an open fricking expanse, as a "firmament", as in something firm, hard?
You're talking about why they used that English word in the KJV and other English translations? Sure thing, see attached.
Answer
.
I'll answer this because the Christians are too cowardly to. The reason why it is a firmament is because the early canaanites believed the reason why the sky was blue and it rained because there was water up there. The reason why they were dry was because of a dome separating the upper oceans from the Earth. This is well-attested in Genesis and Psalms, as well as contemporary near-eastern religions. The septuagint uses a word that means "firm".
But there is no firm dome and there are no upper oceans up there.
>The septuagint uses a word that means "firm".
Indeed and the same word is used in other languages. A "hardness".
Yes, the Christians and israelites believe in a primitive cosmology that no thinking person should accept
Maybe Luke was just being thorough? His stated intentions for the book are in Luke 1:3: "With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account" for posterity. And beyond Jesus not being the son of Joseph, which is acknowledged in Matthew as well, all the figures attested to in the old testament have their progeny listed. The whole Mary theorem is cope and motivated reasoning, the Jacob is Heli's brother and adoptive father of Joseph angle is more compelling.
The previous line was claiming that the usage of "seed" in the singular was explicitly referring to jesus.
There have been doubters since the early church, have the last 1900 years been the end times?
Mary would have to be of Judah in order for the inheritance of the kingship to pass to Jesus, and Joseph had the title to it but was unable to sit on the throne due to Jeremiah 22:28-30. The virgin birth and inheritance by the rule of Deuteronomy 25:5-6 was the only way for this to be restored. So we had to have Mary's genealogy to determine that, which is what Luke gives us.
>How is the sky a 'firmament'"? You just gave a circular definition. In what way is the sky "firm"?
You are interpreting the English translation of a Hebrew word too much. the Hebrew word for "firmament" doesnt contain "firm" in it. Luckily for you the Hebrew words does actually describe a firm dome like structure
Because it's immovable and fixed
That's true, it's held to the earth by gravity. Air and the atmosphere actually does have weight, which is why it's remarkable that such an early book like Job would say that the sky is a molten looking glass (reflects light while being a fluid) or that the clouds are balanced (Job 37:16), which is true since air has its own weight, has density and takes up volume just as clouds do.
Or that the Bible would say that the earth hangs upon nothing (Job 26:7). Or the fact it first mentions hell and the lake of fire, at a time long before the mantle of the earth was discovered in modern times.
In the hebrew the word you've translated as 'glass' is actually מוּצָֽק׃, cast metal. It's saying the sky is strong as a mirror of cast metal. Even the KJV says 'looking glass', which is just a synonym of mirror. I know you're just having fun with this thread but I think this is interesting.
>In the hebrew the word you've translated as 'glass'
I didn't translate it as "glass," the KJV says looking glass, which is sort of an old fashioned way of saying "mirror."
Also, there is another word there which we should note, meaning "molten", that appears beside the above word and is translated as "molten" in English, in the phrase of Job 37:18 "molten" looking glass. Its main definitions are "to pour out" or "be poured out" (as used in other passages) as well as "be molten" in the sense of being like a metal above its melting point; in other words, like a fluid rather than a solid. And interestingly enough, we discover that the sky actually is a fluid that reflects or refracts light (hence like a mirror) through Rayleigh scattering, though this was discovered scientifically only much later.
Note: Applied in the past tense, the word "molten" can also be used for something that WAS melted, such as a "molten image" which was first melted, then shaped and eventually it cooled down into a solid object - but in these cases the word "molten" there signifies the fact that it was (or currently still is) melted and in a fluid state. This was in order for it to be shaped.
>I didn't translate it as "glass," the KJV says looking glass, which is sort of an old fashioned way of saying "mirror."
I said as much. It's unhelpful to use the 'looking glass' translation since it reflects Elizabethan usage and confuses moderns.
Refraction has nothing to do with Rayleigh scattering, btw.
*Neither reflection nor refraction has anything to do with it
Inaccurate statement. Dispersion and scattering are dependent on the index of refraction, and total internal reflection of light occurs in the atmosphere when the angle of incidence is less than the critical angle. You can even get double-reflected light. The blue light generally scatters more, and thus can be seen as the color of light at most angles in the sky, rather than red due to the index of refraction of the atmosphere, which acts as the transmission medium.
Also, Rayleigh scattering (and most of the light that comes from other illuminated objects) are caused by what's known as "diffuse reflection," basically where the light is sent in many different directions, basically you are seeing the part of the beam of light that loses its "focus" and goes in other directions. Laser light, for example, that isn't pointed directly at your face can be seen indirectly through the part that is diffused, the diffused part is much less intense and more "spread out" than the beam itself. When the beam crosses through mist or smoke for example, more light is diffused, making it easier to see indirectly. This is considered "diffuse reflection" and thus, a form of reflection. It's really obvious this is the case as the amount of diffusion you get is dependent on wavelength and index of refraction.
>Or that the Bible would say that the earth hangs upon nothing
because it stands on columns silly. Theres a passage for that but you will say its just metaphorical either way
Yeah, pillars that go in all directions toward the core of the earth, extending from the crust down to the mantle, anon. Why would you think that's metaphorical?
What mantle? Thats not in the Bible.
See
See Genesis 1:6-8
So?
>2 Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan; she was from Jerusalem.
>2 Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.
>2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was TWENTY-TWO years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel.
>2 Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was FORTY-TWO years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri.
>Matthew 1:16
And JACOB BEGOT JOSEPH the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.
>Luke 3:23
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of JOSEPH, THE SON OF HELI.
>Mark 11:12-14
The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, “May no one ever eat fruit from you again.” And his disciples heard him say it.
Wouldn't an all-knowing God know if there are fruits on a tree? Or was Jesus not God when this happened.
>Matthew 24:36
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
The Son is not all-knowing and therefore not God.
>Kings & Chronicles
Both of the examples you listed are examples of personages who had multiple reigns.
>Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23
Jacob is Joseph's physical father, Heli is Joseph's father-in-law and Mary's father.
>Mark 11:12-14
It was all meant to symbolize what happened with the israelites after they brought forth no fruit. See the other parables involving figs and vineyards. It goes back to the Old Testament.
Isaiah 5:1-6
"Now will I sing to my wellbeloved a song of my beloved touching his vineyard. My wellbeloved hath a vineyard in a very fruitful hill:
2 And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine, and built a tower in the midst of it, and also made a winepress therein: and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.
3 And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard.
4 What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?
5 And now go to; I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down:
6 And I will lay it waste: it shall not be pruned, nor digged; but there shall come up briers and thorns: I will also command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it."
Definitely not a contradiction.
>Matthew 24:36
In Jesus' divine nature, He is omniscient (comp. John 21:17), while in His human nature He is like others. This verse speaks to that truth. Similar to passages like Luke 2, which says "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." Again, not a contradiction.
For the multiple reigns aspect, see the following chart which shows how sometimes multiple different starting points are mentioned when a king begins to co-reign or reign solely, sometimes in the north and sometime in Jerusalem.
The example of Ahaziah in particular is a case of this. He was nominal king over the northern kingdom at the age of 22, but his reign in Jerusalem didn't start until he was 42 and only lasted one year, according to both Kings and Chronicles.
Meanwhile, Jehoiachin was promoted to co-ruler ten years before he became sole ruler, but that only lasted for 3 months and 10 days after his father Jehoiakim's death before he surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar.
In both Kings and Chronicles, Jehoiachin was succeeded by Zedekiah after being overthrown, and never ruled again. No separate reign.
Also, does Jesus switch between his two natures? If they are both there simultaneously, then either he is lying by saying the Son doesn't know, or there are two Jesuses, one man and one God, which I don't think you would believe.
>In both Kings and Chronicles, Jehoiachin was succeeded by Zedekiah after being overthrown, and never ruled again. No separate reign.
The first reign was as a co-reign with his father. Many times in those days kings would promote their son or designated heir to the equal rank as themselves for various reasons. Jerusalem was in a dire situation during Jehoiakim's reign, so he'd want to designate his successor early.
This is some bizarre cope. How can there be two kings, assuming that they were on a dire situation?
The Persian kings would often designate their son and heir as being of equal rank to themselves. Nabopolassar (the father of Nebuchadrezzar), the Assyrians, the Persian kings, they all did it. Augustus even designated Tiberius as Princeps in 12 AD when he was terminally ill, so Tiberius by some accounts is said to reign from 12 rather than from 14 which is when Augustus died.
heraclius had a co reign with his son, most of the solidus coins from his reign have both him and his son on them
But Heraclius admitted to co-ruling with his son, and did not claim to not be, and did not hold a position that required there to be no co-rulers.
Your seething on Jesus is a sight to behold. I can see the rat faced israelite wringing his hands and hating Jesus like Talmud thought him from early childhood.
Synagogue of Satan Edomite, the time has arrived to meet jesus face to face. I hope you accept the Truth but I know you wont. Happy boiling Chaim Curseberg.
Kings and Chronicles are in the Old Testament, why would a israelite make fun of them? moron
Well, the modern-day people who identify as "Jews" do not actually keep the Old Testament, as a matter of fact. They only have the Talmud, which is a bunch of lies and slanders against the Son of God and the prophets. So it would make sense that they would mock and make light of Kings and Chronicles. Just as they claim to be israelites and they claim to follow the Old Testament, both claims are actually lies.
"For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" - John 5:46
>The lineage of Mary and Joseph just happened to have a Zerubabbel son of Shealtiel descended directly from King David
>Jehoiachin happened to have two separate reigns, both of which lasted three months and ended with him getting deposed by Zedekiah
>When John says "Now before the feast of passover" he is really saying "Now, during the feast of passover"
>Jesus's last words were "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? It is finished. Into your hands I commit my spirit. "
>They simply forgot to include the second demon-possesed attacker
>When they said "three days and three nights" they really meant "three days and two nights"
>Ahaziah was coregent for a year, deposed, and then then came back 20 years later for another year, and also dies in a different way.
This is 2000 years of Christian apologetics at work
>Jehoiachin happened to have two separate reigns, both of which lasted three months and ended with him getting deposed by Zedekiah
No, the first one lasted from age eight to eighteen. Reading comprehension.
>When they said "three days and three nights" they really meant "three days and two nights"
After three days is the same thing as on the third day, see 1 Kings 12:5 and compare it with 1 Kings 12:12.
"And he said unto them, Depart yet for three days, then come again to me. And the people departed."
- 1 Kings 12:5
"So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day."
- 1 Kings 12:12 KJV
>Ahaziah was coregent for a year, deposed,
He was nominal regent of the northern kingdom from starting at age 22. Later, he became the actual king of Judah, the southern kingdom, at the age of 42 and reigned in Jerusalem for one year, as both accounts state. Neither account gives us his reign length of his nominal reign, but based on the information one might assume it was 21 years, or thereabouts.
>They simply forgot to include the second demon-possesed attacker
Matthew included them both though so that's not even true.
>When John says "Now before the feast of passover" he is really saying "Now, during the feast of passover"
The feast was observed for seven days, not only one. See Leviticus 23:34-36.
"Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the LORD." - Leviticus
Notice: seven days, not one day.
>This is 2000 years of Christian apologetics at work
No, this is what actually happened, and the Bible is telling us very exact details, enabling us to know exactly what happened. The Bible is documentation of real events. It's reality, and reality is nuanced sometimes. If any of these issues you raised are your ultimate stumbling block for belief, then I advise you to consider what has been said.
>Why are there two demon-possessed men in the Gerasene tombs in Matthew, but only one in Mark and Luke?
See pic rel, moron.
Even the trigay will have to concede this one
2Sa8.4:
David took from him one thousand chariots, [a]seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Also David hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots.
1Ch18.4:
David took from him one thousand chariots, [a]seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. Also David [b]hamstrung all the chariot horses, except that he spared enough of them for one hundred chariots.
Hey an actual textual contradiction with sources neat.
Yep seems to check out that someone miswrote the wrong number along the way.
2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chron. 19:18 together shows that “horsemen” can also be called “footmen.” But the reverse does not follow: a footman is not necessarily a horseman. Therefore the horsemen are a subset of the footmen, and are counted among the footmen at the same time. So then, 20k footmen and 7k horsemen represents 20k total soldiers, with 7k mounted.
Also, a horseman may be counted as a horseman at the start of the battle, but if he is dismounted, he will cease to be a mounted unit. So the difference is explained that of the 7,000 initial horsemen mentioned in 1 Chron. 18:4, 6,300 were dismounted by the end of the battle and only 700 were left that were captured by David in 2 Samuel 8:4. The account of 1 Chronicles takes a broader view by describing the forces as they were that went into the battle, while the account in 2 Samuel tells us the number of the captured forces at the conclusion. Some of the horsemen ceased to be horsemen during the course of the battle. All along, they were counted among the numbers of footmen.
That seems like an incredibly tortured reading. Why should I accept this 6300 dismounted horsemen theory when the alternate (someone miscopied 700 as 7000 or vice versa) makes so much more sense?
First explain why it's wrong. If you can't then that ends it; you cannot explain what the contradiction actually is.
>First explain why it's wrong
7000 horsemen is a different number of horsemen than 700.
Of course you can come up with an outlandish explanation of ANY data that doesn't change your belief that scripture is the direct word of God, inerrant in all ways, but it just gets sillier and sillier. Eventually, you should jettison the source of the silliness. If you hand someone 2nd Samuel, they'll read it and think David had 700 horsemen (and no more). If you hand someone 1st Chronicles, they'll read it and think David had 7000 horsemen.
>Of course you can come up with an outlandish explanation of ANY data that doesn't change your belief that scripture is the direct word of God, inerrant in all ways, but it just gets sillier and sillier.
Not really. If you look here
it's clearly pointed out at the beginning how a comparison of two other passages, 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 shows that horsemen are also counted as footmen. So if 6,300 horsemen were dismounted, that would result in only 700 remaining. It's really not that farfetched or impossible honestly.
>Of course you can come up with an outlandish explanation of ANY data
That's not true at all. For instance, when the modern versions that change certain parts of scripture create contradictions, there really is no way to explain them. I can give you two examples right off the bat. In Genesis 5, the Septuagint (a Greek translation that comes to us from Origen) version changes a lot of the ages of the patriarchs around, to the result that the grandfather of Noah is said to outlive the Flood by fourteen years. In the original Hebrew, his year of death is stated to be the exact same year as the Flood.
As an aside, this is interesting because the name of Noah's grandfather, Methuselah, means "his death shall bring". It wasn't until this man died that God brought the flood, according to the original Old Testament and King James Bible. But some modern versions have the numbers wrong, creating a contradiction, especially where it says in 1 Peter 3:20 that "eight souls were saved by water" in reference to Noah's flood. The eight would be Noah, his three sons, and each of their wives. There's no space there for Methuselah. So clearly, we see which version of Genesis then is true (KJV, original languages) and which one (the Greek Septuagint) has a contradiction.
(1/2)
A second example of a contradiction in a more modern translation of a modified version of the Greek New Testament is in Mark 1:2 (see NIV or most modern translations in this verse for instance).
Mark quotes from Malachi in this verse and from Isaiah in the next verse. But the modern versions change the words "As it is written in the prophets" to the phrase "As it is written in Isaiah the prophet". See the difference? In the modern versions, it states that a prophecy quoted from Malachi (which is only found there) is "written" in the prophet Isaiah, namely the quotation of Mark 1:2. You can read the entire book of Isaiah and never find the quote of Mark 1:2, because it's actually from Malachi chapter 3. So this is a real contradiction, but it only exists in the modern perversions of the Bible, not in the textus receptus or in translations of such, like the KJV.
>So if 6,300 horsemen were dismounted, that would result in only 700 remaining. It's really not that farfetched or impossible honestly.
Do you believe a reasonable person could read 2 Samuel without 1 Chronicles and conclude that there were 7000 soldiers with horses instead of 700? I don't think any reasonable person could. If you write a book so that everyone who reads it takes it to mean X and X is false, then the book contains an error. Maybe it's a tiny irrelevant error (who cares if it's 700 or 7000?) but an error.
>Do you believe a reasonable person could read 2 Samuel without 1 Chronicles and conclude that there were 7000 soldiers with horses instead of 700?
No because it doesn't have that extra information. We gain the full picture by combination of passages. There are many such cases.
>If you write a book so that everyone who reads it takes it to mean X and X is false,
No, it's true. There were 7000 mounted troops at the start and at the end of the battle there were 700 left. The other 6,300 were dismounted and so were removed from the total of horsemen, though not from the total of footmen.
>Maybe it's a tiny irrelevant error (who cares if it's 700 or 7000?) but an error.
It was literally 7000 at one time and 700 at another. Nobody is saying it was both at the same time or that it is unclear. Just read the original explanation if it's hard for you to grasp this.
People only like the scribal error response because they want to be able to dismiss the Bible from further consideration. That's why they like it so much and feel so strongly about it. They are only interested to find an excuse, and saying there was an error gives them what they want, but they can never find a real one, because there is no real error anywhere no matter where you look. At least not in the KJV or received text. People who want to find scribal errors so badly just want an excuse, ANY excuse, to sin. They want an excuse so that they can sin, and that's what this is motivated by and about.
>just want an excuse, ANY excuse, to sin.
And that's why they keep looking for some random issue to complain about, and when one doesn't work they move from one to the next, but the problem is it doesn't work. There is no contradictions anywhere. That's why they keep moving from one to the next and never solidify on anything because there is always an answer.
>No, it's true
It's true that there were 700 and no more soldiers with horses? I thought your position was that there were 7000 soldiers with horses? Which is it?
>People only like the scribal error response because they want to be able to dismiss the Bible from further consideration.
I'm literally Christian. I follow the teachings of the Bible. I also know that the Bible is insufficient to determine how many horsemen (if any) there were. Maybe there were 700. Maybe there were 7000. I think it's laughable to believe that the bible tells us one way of the other.
>I thought your position was that there were 7000 soldiers with horses? Which is it?
Read
I wrote: "There were 7000 mounted troops at the start and at the end of the battle there were 700 left."
How do you not get this? The number changed between the start and the end of the battle. At the start, it was 7000. At the end, it was 700. The remaining 6,300 were dismounted during the battle.
I have said this in this thread three times in three posts by now, including in the original explanation. How is that not clear, anon?
Great, that's what I thought your position was. I was confused because you said "No, it's true" in response to my statement "If you write a book so that everyone who reads it takes it to mean X and X is false, then your book contains an error" Whoever wrote 2 Samuel wrote it so that everyone who reads it takes it to mean that there were 700 and no more soldiers with horses involved in this battle at any point.
Since I don't think you believe that there were 700 and no more soldiers with horses involved in this battle at any point, I think what you meant to say was "Correct. It's false."
>Whoever wrote 2 Samuel wrote it so that everyone who reads it takes it to mean that there were 700 and no more soldiers with horses involved in this battle at any point.
But it doesn't say in 2 Samuel that "there were no other horsemen involved in this battle at any point."
You are correct, it doesn't. So does that mean our disagreement is with this?
>If you write a book so that everyone who reads it takes it to mean X and X is false, then your book contains an error
If so, I'm happy to say that's a semantic disagreement among brothers in Christ
Or is our disagreement with this?
>whoever wrote 2 Samuel wrote it so that everyone who reads it will take it to mean that there were 700 and no more horsemen involved with this battle at any point
If that's the case, I don't feel like you are being honest with yourself.
>There are many such cases.
I bet.
The discrepancy is explained in the NASB footnote:
>Here LXX reads as 1 Chr 18:4; partial DSS text appears to also
Again, a matter of which manuscript to trust, not an "error" of any kind.
this is a MUCH better response than
Perhaps but it still doesn't mean "the Bible has an error". Whatever copyist made a mistake. The Bible itself doesn't "have an error" and pretending it does due to ascribing inerrancy to a human copyist is dishonest and illogical. The Bible itself, the word itself, is perfect and divine. Humans copying from manuscripts are not.
It says in Luke 16:17, "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail."
It says in Psalm 119:160, "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."
When you say that a scribal error crept in and the original word, number or whatever was lost, you are saying that some of God's words were not true from the beginning and that some of them do not endure forever. You are saying that some parts of the original word passed away, even though Jesus explicitly said it never will. Suggesting that there are scribal errors everywhere, is contradicting the actual prophecies of scripture. And everyone knows it. It's no use trying to deny this fact, anon. You're saying that what Jesus said isn't really true.
People who claim that error(s) made it into the final text are saying that the prophecy about Scriptural preservation was not fulfilled, despite this being in Scripture. Saying that it is merely a "copyist mistake" is more than just a lazy answer in these cases, it is actually deliberately sabotaging the integrity of scripture; which many do while pretending to not be. Because now you're saying that an unknown number of said mistakes exist, even though in reality - there are none. If there were all these copyist errors, then the scripture about God's word being pure and preserved would be meaningless.
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
- Psalm 12:6-7
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
- 1 Peter 1:23-25
You must understand the manuscripts themselves aren't the final word. They've been transcribed from other, more ancient ones. We cannot be humanly sure all manuscripts which we have today are 100% correct (and they can't all be, for they contradict each other). At this point in time, we must choose which manuscripts to trust as right (which is mostly done by majority consensus). This doesn't mean, as I said, that there's an error in the text itself or in the word of God. The word HAS been kept, and it IS perfect. It's not about that. I'm saying humans make mistakes when transcribing, which they do, because mere humans aren't perfect, and mistakes happen, even when it comes to transcribing a perfect text. It's not the text that's at fault, but the faulty individual who made the mistake.
Can you please direct me to this word for word perfect bible? Any language is fine, English, Hebrew, etc. If there is no such thing, then what are you defending? One of you seems to be KJV only. Meaning, are you KJV only, or is
>Can you please direct me to this word for word perfect bible?
The TR in Greek for the New Testament and the original Hebrew and Syriac-Aramaic Hebrew for the Old Testament. Stephanus, Beza and ultimately John Mill all compiled good copies of the TR. Daniel Bomberg was one of many people that published a copy of the Hebrew Tanakh, and his 2nd edition of 1525 is what the KJV translated from so I can recommend it.
>Any language is fine, English, Hebrew, etc.
The KJV in English is the preserved word of God for English speakers. I'm still researching foreign translations but I can recommend the Peking Committee Bible for vernacular Mandarin and the 1602 Purified translation for Spanish as being good TR translations in their respective languages.
>One of you seems to be KJV only.
Nope, not me.
>the 1602 Purified translation for Spanish
No thanks, we've got our own perfect Bible, and it came out 1569: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblia_del_oso
I don't need a 2019 Mexican revision of a revision of a revision of a revision [...] with all kinds of different clueless tryhard modern authors who suck up to the KJV involved for my SPANISH (not Mexican, not English, but Spanish) Bible.
>No thanks, we've got our own perfect Bible, and it came out 1569: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblia_del_oso
You read the original Reina? Do you have a copy of it? And it's not the 1602 Valera Bible that removed many of the Vulgate readings? What are your thoughts on the Enzinas 1543 and Pineda 1556 translations?
As far as the 1569 Biblia del oso: What about its use of "piedra" in Matthew 16:18 instead of "roca" for the statement, "upon this rock I will build my church."
Do you think "piedra" is a better word to use here?
What about the fact that the 1569 Biblia del oso is missing the word "infalibles" in Acts 1:3? It should read like this, to be accurate to Greek: "de haber padecido se mostró vivo por muchas pruebas infalibles,"
The 1569 says, "de haber padecido se mostró vivo por muchas pruebas infalibles,"
Also, are you aware most Spanish speakers use either the 1909 or 1960 Reina-Valera, right? Can I ask what's your view of those versions? Thanks, I'm interested to hear if you have anything to say on this.
>The 1569 says, "de haber padecido se mostró vivo por muchas pruebas infalibles,"
Oh my bad, I accidentally copied the same text from the 1602 version again, sorry.
The 1569 says: "de auer padecido, se presentó biuo en muchas prueuas,"
Btw, before I forget, the "infalibles" reading in Acts 1:3 actually comes from the little-known 1865 Mora-Pratt revision of the 1602 Valera. It isn't copied from the KJV or anything like that. From what I found, most of 1602P's choices were a combination of the original 1602 and the 1865 revision, with limited influence from the later versions like the Antigua (particularly in word updates like "salud" being given as "salvación"). They also borrowed word choices in certain places from the old 1543 Enzinas translation, like 1 Timothy 4:13 and Ephesians 2:2. But you can ignore me.
I have a copy of the RVAntigua which I bought long ago, but I normally read the Biblia del Oso online. I find the terminology and language of the latter wonderful and inspiring. I know the Valera version is great and I don't deny it: I appreciate it too. What I can't stand are for one latin american priests and for two modern scholars who think they know better than the legends themselves did centuries ago. I take each version for what it is. I don't argue about specificities because others' preferences are trivial to me, but I don't appreciate the KJV, an English Bible, being used as a standard for a Spanish Bible, so I don't care if some verses are different, I can more than live with that. English protestants have been playing their part in trying to defame Spain for centuries, I don't think fellating their king's bible is the brightest move here. I'm also not moved by prejudice either, I'm simply indifferent to the supposed standard set by the KJV. I enjoy the Oso and Cántaro (with a definite preference for the former) and don't have an actual issue with the KJV either. That's all I care to say.
Alright then.
Ever heard of KJ3? If so, what do you think of it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green%27s_Literal_Translation
I will work on doing a more thorough comparison of the KJV compared to this. But here is a quick list of differences.
First, look at what changed in Colossians 2:2.
KJV: "to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ;"
- Colossians 2:2b
LITV/KJ3: "to the full knowledge of the mystery of God, even of the Father and of Christ,"
This is a statement of the Trinity (i.e. the mystery of the Trinity). The Greek word for "and" appears two times, in front of the word for Father AND in front of the word for Christ. Almost every modern version changes this verse. Some simply remove the words, "and of the Father" while others change it to say "of God, even the Father..." or simply "of God the Father..." None of these modifications of Colossians 2:2 are accurate to the Greek New Testament.
But the Greek NT actually says "Of God, AND of the Father, AND of Christ." The Three Persons of the Godhead. The KJV matches it.
The KJ3/LITV also has some unusual readings, here are a couple of comparisons:
2 Peter 1:20 KJV: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."
KJ3/LITV: "knowing this first, that every prophecy of Scripture did not come into being of its own interpretation;"
Acts 24:15 KJV: And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
KJ3/LITV: "having hope toward God, which these themselves also admit, of a resurrection being about to be of the dead, both of just and unjust ones."
The LITV or KJ3 differs from the KJV (1769/1900) in the following additional passages:
-2 Thess. 2:2 "is at hand" changed to "has come" (this passage is very relevant to the rapture)
-Titus 2:7 "in doctrine uncorruptness" changed to "in doctrine, in purity, sensibleness, incorruption," (LITV is no longer in the actual Greek word order; and the word "uncorruptness" should modify the word "doctrine")
(1/2)
The LITV or KJ3 differs from the KJV (1769/1900) in the following additional passages:
-Hebrews 1:8 "unto the Son" is changed to "as to the Son" (this verse shows God talking directly to the Son in the KJV, but it's not clear in the LITV or KJ3 whether it is God talking directly to the Son or merely "about" the Son)
-John 16:10 "my Father" is changed to "the Father" (same as the critical text)
-Acts 9:29 the words "in the name of the Lord Jesus" are removed in the LITV (same as the critical text)
-1 Corinthians 9:21 the word "to" changed to "of" twice (completely changes the meaning, not enough space here to explain, but it is the same change as the modern translations again)
-2 Timothy 2:7 "and the Lord give" changed to "for the Lord will give"
-1 Peter 1:18 the words "by tradition" removed
-John 5:39 the imperative command "Search the scriptures" is changed to an indicative statement, "You search the scriptures..."
-2 Samuel 21:19 the words "the brother of" are removed, meaning Elhanan killed Goliath rather than the brother of Goliath (contradicts where this is also stated in 1 Chronicles 20:5)
-Isaiah 14:12 the word "Lucifer" is changed to the words "shining star"
-In 2 Corinthians 2:17, the phrase "corrupt the word of God" is changed to "hawking the Word of God" which is less accurate to the word it signifies and misses the point which is that people are corrupting the word of God
-In Acts 2:47, 1 Corinthians 1:18 and Luke 13:23, the words "are saved" are replaced by the less accurate translation "are being saved," inaccurately implying a continous process.
Some word choices that I noticed in the LITV or KJ3 are unusual. For instance, the word for "captain" is replaced with the word "chiliarch" in most places (i.e. Mark 6:21, Acts 21:32), except in Revelation 19:18 where the LITV says "strong ones" instead, though it is the same underlying word. And in Hebrews 2:10, where it says "Author" instead. The KJV just says "captain" in all these places.
Sounds to me like an improvement of sorts if it translates a given term differently according to context instead of using a single blanket term every single instance. That's definitely a more literal rendering.
That last example gives you an idea of the kind of changes that are in it. Also, pointing out whether there is a blanket term or not isn't normally relevant, but in this case it is because if they want to translate the word as the highly specific term "chiliarch," why not do it everywhere?
Concerning the "being saved", that's the more literal rendering, because that part is referring to "those being saved every day to the Assembly". It's a present continuous, not because the salvation process is an ongoing one, but because the process of saving people and thereby adding people to the assembly is (as it keeps occuring every day). It's important because it's a more precise rendering that could change the way you view the verse and it's not "blasphemous" in any way (as someone like Steven Anderson would claim). You shouldn't adhere to what others think the translation mean, and try to be more honest about why changes have been made. Just a tip.
Why use the continuous present passive participle in English, instead of simply the present participle, for a Greek verb that is itself in the passive present participle?
The only reason you would specifically modify the wording in English to make it be a continuous present passive would be to signify the imperfect (or progressive) participle.
But many verbs do not have such a sense. For instance, the verb "stored" does not have this. The statement, “The books are stored in the box” is equivalent to the statement, “The books are being stored in the box.” There is no reason to add the extra word "being stored" here. But if your verb did indeed have an imperfect/progressive sense, then you WOULD use "being" to distinguish this.
So for instance, the verb "transported" has both senses. i.e. “The books are transported” is not the same meaning as “The books are being transported.” You see the difference? By adding the extra word to signify the CONTINUOUS present passive participle, the translators are implying that the verb is an incomplete or ongoing action. In sophisticated terms, the lexical aspect of this verb is atelic, and not telic. But the use of the continuous present passive over the present passive would imply it is telic even when it is not.
Also, just as importantly your interpretation about the meaning being that people were continuously being saved has no application to 1 Corinthians 1:18, despite it also being frequently changed in this way.
"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."
- 1 Corinthians 1:18 KJV
Side note:
Why are some translations inconsistent in how they translate this verb (σῳζομένοις)? Many times they might translate Acts 2:47 one way, but other passages with this same word will go another way.
The KJV always translated it the same: as "are saved," and never as, "are being saved."
To give a few examples, the NKJV changes the tense to “are being saved” in 1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, and Acts 2:47, but does not do so in Luke 13:23, 1 Cor. 15:2, or Revelation 21:24.
Meanwhile, the WEB only changes Acts 2:47 and leaves all the others alone (still says "are saved").
The MEV, however, changes the tense in 1 Cor. 1:18, Acts 2:47, and Luke 13:23, but they decided not to do so in 1 Cor. 15:2, or 2 Cor. 2:15. Why the inconsistency? Is it just because they are inserting their own ideas rather than translating consistently?
I'm not KJV only. I've quoted other versions and have no problem with checking other versions (even some which are heavily criticized) to see why discrepancies happen in the first place. The perfect translation is the one which uses the manuscripts you consider the most trustworthy.
In fact, the ERV features 2 Sa 8:4 as:
>David took 1000 chariots, 7000 horse soldiers, and 20,000 foot soldiers from Hadadezer. He crippled all but 100 of the chariot horses.
The first footnote says:
>This is found in the ancient Greek version and a Hebrew scroll from Qumran. The standard Hebrew text has “1700 horse soldiers.”
The NLT agrees:
>David captured 1,000 chariots, 7,000 charioteers, and 20,000 foot soldiers. He crippled all the chariot horses except enough for 100 chariots.
With the footnote reading:
>As in Dead Sea Scrolls and Greek version (see also 1 Chr 18:4); Masoretic Text reads captured 1,700 charioteers.
It's a matter of trusting the DSS and the LXX over the MT or vice versa.
atheist pig
did penguins get on the arc
Just wanted to pop in and say thanks for a quality thread, Oyish. Nothing makes me laugh like a bunch of delusional fricks furiously typing walls of text full of cope.
What's with these threads always have a KJV-only moron around?
Because KJV is the coolest and sounds the best. The only translations that might compete are ones that leave some of the cool sounding Hebrew and Greek words in.
Uppity ignorant idiots
The One where God is Lucifer the Devil
and Satan the Creator and He smote
Everybody, so cool. Goddess Mary
the two Genesis stories. In the first animals are created before humans, in the other Adam is created, then animals, then Eve.
Just because Genesis 1 describes the order of creation doesn't mean that no biblical passage can ever talk about it again. Or give things in the order relevant to what it's describing, which in the case of chapter 2 of Genesis is the creation of man.
Two different creation events
can't get a straight answer on eating pork
Yep, the Bible actually explains all of this.
Romans 14:2-3
"For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs.
3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him."
See also: Colossians 2:16.
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
See also Hebrews 9:
"8 The Holy Ghost this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing:
9 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience;
10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us."
There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a human being. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!
Joshua 10:14