Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:36 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
16,155 posts, read 12,800,052 times
Reputation: 2879

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Saying so does not prove so.
I hope you'll apply that to yourself too?

Quote:
John died around 100 A.D. so He could not possibly have written his account in 110ce as you suppose.
I said between 90 - 110....as indicated by the majority of modern scholarship. These dates are 'approximate'.


Quote:
"For much of this late dating there is little real evidence. This point was made by C. H. Dodd, arguably the greatest English-speaking biblical scholar of the century. ............
Good grief man! Charlie Dodd died over 30 years ago. Try to keep up with modern thinking will ya!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Let's think about this: You go to atheist sites to find supposed contradictions in the bible but they aren't biased but if I go to christian web sites which prove the atheist's so-called contradictions to be incorrect then they are biased. What planet are you from?
They came from www.religioustolerance.org which isn't an 'atheist' site but never mind.

Quote:
Oh I get it, you can use the fallacy of appealing to authority or the fallacy of majority to prove your point even though it proves nothing. But if I go to a christian web site which actually proves early dating of the Bible then those type of sites are biased? Oh dear!
If you are going to Bible apologist sites then yes, of course it is biased. That is their business - to prove the Bible correct. If I point out that modern Bible scholarship says something different to those apologist sites it is not an appeal to authority. If I said that atheists say that your dates are wrong...you might have a point.

Quote:
They were eye-witnesses to what happened.
No you are wrong Eusebius.

Matthew makes no claim and no indication to have met your Jesus and heavily plagiarises 'Mark' which an eye-witness would not need to do. Nor do I accept your claim that 'they spoke in the third person in those days' and it's clear that the author of Matthew is not talking about himself when he says....

"As Jesus was walking along, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at his tax collector's booth. "Follow me and be my disciple," Jesus said to him. So Matthew got up and followed him."

Why did he not say...

'As Jesus was walking along, he saw me sat at my tax collector's booth. "Follow me and be my disciple," Jesus said to me. So I got up and followed him.'

Fair enough! Look at your own web-site....your own link. It says.....

Mark
Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life.
He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name.

Luke
Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life.
When were the gospels written and by whom?|What are the dates and authors of the gospels? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

So we see that even your own link confirms that at least two, Mark and Luke, never met your Jesus, were not there, didn't see a thing. Your claim that the Gospel authors were eye-witnesses is dismissed.

John
We will have to agree to differ on this one.


You might consider:
Udo Schnelle’s The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Schelle. He's a conservative Christian btw.

Bart Ehrman (another Bible scholar) sums up the situation in The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings: "…They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns."

As for dating, this is an excellent resource (and not an atheist site either ).
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

Last edited by Rafius; 03-06-2012 at 10:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:53 PM
 
Location: under a rock
1,487 posts, read 1,700,804 times
Reputation: 1032
I always had a problem with that "In the beginning" stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
70 posts, read 209,856 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Gen 2:22 And Yahweh Elohim is building the angular organ, which He takes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
from the human, into a woman, and bringing her is He to the human.

That angular organ is the same sex angular organ present in women today.

Do you not know that there are cases of people being born hermaphrodite? I personally know of a man born that way. He married my friend's daughter and they just had a baby. He has both male and female genitalia.
ALTER2EGO -to- EUSEBIUS:

Which Bible version are you quoting that from? I need to know. That's the most outrageous and sacrilegious quotation I've heard in a long time.

Let me tell you this: Nowhere in the Bible does it say God built Eve from "an angular organ." The Bible specifically says God took one of Adam's RIBS and created Eve from that.

My advice to you is, be weary of the Bible Translation you're using. Bible translators have been known to promote all sorts of religious falsehoods by deliberately putting words in their translation that do not appear in original writings of the Old Testament (the Hebrew scriptures) and the New Testament (the Greek scriptures). These are known as translation blunders. Many times, these types of translations are done to promote the translators' own ideas. The King James Version is one such example.

Another word of advise: Whenever you see a Bible translation inserting outrageous words that no other Bible translation has, that's a red flag that something's wrong with the translation. Below is Genesis 2:22 from several Bible translations. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print.


VARIOUS TRANSLATIONS OF GENESIS 2:22

Darby Bible Translation
"And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that he had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man."

New World Translation
"And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man."

New International Version
"Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

GOD'S WORD Translation
"Then the LORD God formed a woman from the rib that he had taken from the man. He brought her to the man."

English Revised Version
"and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

Webster's Bible Translation
"And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, he made woman, and brought her to the man."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-06-2012, 10:34 PM
 
Location: Arizona
28,956 posts, read 16,192,722 times
Reputation: 2295
"With the covering of man, he fashioned the woman."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2012, 05:06 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,887,131 times
Reputation: 1009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alter2Ego View Post
ALTER2EGO -to- EUSEBIUS:

Which Bible version are you quoting that from? I need to know. That's the most outrageous and sacrilegious quotation I've heard in a long time.

Let me tell you this: Nowhere in the Bible does it say God built Eve from "an angular organ." The Bible specifically says God took one of Adam's RIBS and created Eve from that.

My advice to you is, be weary of the Bible Translation you're using. Bible translators have been known to promote all sorts of religious falsehoods by deliberately putting words in their translation that do not appear in original writings of the Old Testament (the Hebrew scriptures) and the New Testament (the Greek scriptures). These are known as translation blunders. Many times, these types of translations are done to promote the translators' own ideas. The King James Version is one such example.

Another word of advise: Whenever you see a Bible translation inserting outrageous words that no other Bible translation has, that's a red flag that something's wrong with the translation. Below is Genesis 2:22 from several Bible translations. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print.


VARIOUS TRANSLATIONS OF GENESIS 2:22

Darby Bible Translation
"And Jehovah Elohim built the rib that he had taken from Man into a woman; and brought her to Man."

New World Translation
"And Jehovah God proceeded to build the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman and to bring her to the man."

New International Version
"Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man."

GOD'S WORD Translation
"Then the LORD God formed a woman from the rib that he had taken from the man. He brought her to the man."

English Revised Version
"and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

Webster's Bible Translation
"And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, he made woman, and brought her to the man."
Man does not have one less rib than a woman.

A rib was not taken from the man but the angular organ.

It is not sacriligious for a proper translation to have "angular organ" than a "rib."

The woman was taken out of the man.

Look up the Hebrew word used for "rib." it is the same word used for the hollow angular parts of Solomon's temple.

Go here: The Making of Woman, by Jeff Priddy (http://www.gtft.org/Library/condon/TheMakingOfWomanPriddy.htm - broken link) to read about it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2012, 06:50 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,507,234 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Man does not have one less rib than a woman.

A rib was not taken from the man but the angular organ.

It is not sacriligious for a proper translation to have "angular organ" than a "rib."

The woman was taken out of the man.

Look up the Hebrew word used for "rib." it is the same word used for the hollow angular parts of Solomon's temple.

Go here: The Making of Woman, by Jeff Priddy (http://www.gtft.org/Library/condon/TheMakingOfWomanPriddy.htm - broken link) to read about it.
Priddy's article is a useful read but is a bit selective. Strong's concordances (Blue letter Bible) gives a rather wider explanation

Tsela

1) side, rib, beam
a) rib (of man)
b) rib (of hill, ridge, etc)
c) side-chambers or cells (of temple structure)
d) rib, plank, board (of cedar or fir)
e) leaves (of door)
f) side (of ark)


When related to taking bits from Adam, side planking fits the Rib rather better than some 'angular organ' whatever that is intended to signify.


Either way, the story seems be arrant nonsense. And what has that to do with bible discrepancies or contradictions? Stay on topic, chaps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2012, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 1,237,338 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
God put Adam to sleep, took out the angular organ from between his legs and built Eve around it.

That does not turn Adam into a woman. It makes a woman out of the angular organ that came from Adam while Adam is the man side. God created the human male and female.

Eve did not come from a rib.
I don't know where you're getting "angular organ," but צלע means "rib," and the text says אחת מצלעתיו, "one of his ribs." The word fundamentally refers to the sides of objects, like mountains, buildings, or people. It is also used to represent support beams and the beams of a ship because of their similarity to a person's ribs. "Angular organ," is a silly misrepresentation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-10-2012, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 1,237,338 times
Reputation: 117
I looked at that Jeff Priddy article, and it's just utter nonsense. Observe:

Quote:
If God had taken a rib from Adam, then in Genesis 2:21-22 (where the event is described), we would see the Hebrew equivalent of the Chaldee "ala," used in Daniel 7:5 to describe a proper, anatomical rib. But that word is not here. Instead, we see the Hebrew word "tsela," which means "a hollow, angular vault."
First, צלע is the Hebrew equivalent of the Aramaic עלע (never, ever, ever use the term "Chaldee" unless you want everyone to know you have no clue what you're talking about). There are a number of letters that were conflated in Proto-Semitic and come out in different ways in the various subsequent languages. You see interchange in Hebrew and Aramaic between daleth and zayin, shin and tav, and tsadi and tet, qof, and ayin. A more common example would be Aramaic יתב, which is identical to Hebrew ישב. This is something of which any first year Aramaic student would be well aware. Priddy obviously doesn't know Hebrew or Aramaic.

Next, the Hebrew word does not mean "a hollow, angular vault." That's just nonsense. He's taking a semantically extended use of the root and insisting unrelated features associated with that usage lie at the lexical foundation of the word, but the use of the word to refer elsewhere to the striated sides of mountains, and to the beams of a ship show the word has nothing to do with anything hollow, but with rib-like structures that lie at the sides of an object. The word means "rib." It's as simple as that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 07:22 AM
 
17,966 posts, read 15,887,131 times
Reputation: 1009
If you look at the Concordant Literal Old Testament the word "rib" is always light face because "rib" is not used.

For instance, Here is one usage:

2Sa 2:23 And he refuses to turn aside, and Abner smites him with the hinder part of the spear unto the fifth rib, and the spear comes out from behind him, and he falls there, and dies under it; and it comes to pass, every one who has come unto the place where Asahel has fallen and dies--they stand still."

The AV also light-faces "rib" because "rib" is not really in the Hebrew.

Here are every verses where "rib" is used in the AV. Notice only "fifth" is used in the other verses as it is in the CLOT:

(Gen 2:22) And the rib [H6763] which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

(2Sa 2:23) Howbeit he refused to turn aside: wherefore Abner with the hinder end of the spear smote him under the fifth rib [H2570], that the spear came out behind him; and he fell down there, and died in the same place: and it came to pass, that as many as came to the place where Asahel fell down and died stood still.

(2Sa 3:27) And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother.

(2Sa 4:6) And they came thither into the midst of the house, as though they would have fetched wheat; and they smote him under the fifth rib: and Rechab and Baanah his brother escaped.

(2Sa 20:10) But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab's hand: so he smote him therewith in the fifth rib, and shed out his bowels to the ground, and struck him not again; and he died. So Joab and Abishai his brother pursued after Sheba the son of Bichri.


Here is one verse the AV translated H6763 as "chambers":

1Ki_6:5 And againstH5921 the wallH7023 of the houseH1004 he builtH1129 chambersH3326 round about,H5439 against(H853) the wallsH7023 of the houseH1004 round about,H5439 both of the templeH1964 and of the oracle:H1687 and he madeH6213 chambersH6763 round about:H5439

Eze_41:5 After he measuredH4058 the wallH7023 of the house,H1004 sixH8337 cubits;H520 and the breadthH7341 of every side chamber,H6763 fourH702 cubits,H520 round aboutH5439 H5439 the houseH1004 on every side.H5439

Eze_41:6 And the side chambersH6763 were three,H7969 oneH6763 overH413 another,H6763 and thirtyH7970 in order;H6471 and they enteredH935 into the wallH7023 whichH834 was of the houseH1004 for the side chambersH6763 round about,H5439 H5439 that they might haveH1961 hold,H270 but they hadH1961 notH3808 holdH270 in the wallH7023 of the house.H1004

Eze_41:7 And there was an enlarging,H7337 and a winding aboutH5437 still upwardH4605 H4605 to the side chambers:H6763 forH3588 the winding aboutH4141 of the houseH1004 went still upwardH4605 H4605 round aboutH5439 H5439 the house:H1004 thereforeH5921 H3651 the breadthH7341 of the houseH1004 was still upward,H4605 and soH3651 increasedH5927 from the lowestH8481 chamber toH5921 the highestH5945 by the midst.H8484

Eze_41:8 I sawH7200 also the heightH1363 of the houseH1004 round about:H5439 H5439 the foundationsH4328 of the side chambersH6763 were a fullH4393 reedH7070 of sixH8337 greatH679 cubits.H520

Eze_41:9 The thicknessH7341 of the wall,H7023 whichH834 was for the side chamberH6763 without,H2351 was fiveH2568 cubits:H520 and that whichH834 was leftH5117 was the placeH1004 of the side chambersH6763 thatH834 were within.H1004

Eze_41:11 And the doorsH6607 of the side chambersH6763 were toward the place that was left,H5117 oneH259 doorH6607 towardH1870 the north,H6828 and anotherH259 doorH6607 toward the south:H1864 and the breadthH7341 of the placeH4725 that was leftH5117 was fiveH2568 cubitsH520 round about.H5439 H5439

Eze_41:26 And there were narrowH331 windowsH2474 and palm treesH8561 on the one sideH4480 H6311 and on the other side,H4480 H6311 onH413 the sidesH3802 of the porch,H197 and upon the side chambersH6763 of the house,H1004 and thick planks.H5646

God took the female chamber out of Adam between his legs and formed woman around it.

This talk about Adam and Eve and the angular organ God took out of Him to build woman is pertinent to "*Supposed* contradiction in the Bible" since someone brought up a supposed contradiction that Adam and Eve were created after the animals in one passage and after in another passage. But there is no contradiction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-11-2012, 09:45 AM
 
Location: Oxford, England
1,266 posts, read 1,237,338 times
Reputation: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
If you look at the Concordant Literal Old Testament the word "rib" is always light face because "rib" is not used.
It's not "always" elided, but the fact that it is in a few places could not be more irrelevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Here is one verse the AV translated H6763 as "chambers":
It only means "chambers" in reference to architecture, and this is a semantic extension from the fundamental reference to the sides of an object. This simply has no bearing on what the word means in reference to the human body.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
God took the female chamber out of Adam between his legs and formed woman around it.
This is ludicrous. Not only are you abandoning the fundamental semantic sense of the sides of an object (which holds even in the architectural usage of the word), but you're completely ignoring the fact that the text refers to one of a group. This is completely uninformed and illegitimate pseudo-scholarship.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
This talk about Adam and Eve and the angular organ God took out of Him to build woman is pertinent to "*Supposed* contradiction in the Bible" since someone brought up a supposed contradiction that Adam and Eve were created after the animals in one passage and after in another passage. But there is no contradiction.
The creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 are absolutely contradictory, and this little bit of nonsense about "chambers" has nothing whatsoever to do with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top