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.
Yes, because I told you. You may not accept that it is wrong, but if it is, we know why.
Quote:
I go by the most ancient uncial manuscripts i.e. Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Sinaticus. If they don't include reference to Isaiah 53:12 in Mark's account then it more than likely was not in the original text.
Quite so. I'd say (arriving at the same conclusion by a different route) if the passage isn't in the other synoptics, then someone added it. Mark, frankly doesn't seem the type. Matthew is and if he doesn't have it I can't explain why he and Luke omitted it.
Quote:
Getting back to the donkey and colt: Let's say I went to town and met John and Susanne and had lunch with them. A couple days later I see one of John's friends and tell him I had lunch with John the other day at noon. Then later I see one of Susanne's friends and tell her I had lunch with Susanne the other day at such and such a restaurant at noon. Then suppose John's friend and Susanne's friend get together and they find out that I actually had lunch with both John and Susanne. Is there a contradiction here? Was I lying? No and no.
You are using the 'witnesses don't always agree' argument. I disagree on two counts:
1) because this is not one of those casual events much less related by someone else who might have left out some detail. This is a prophetic fulfillment and the detail of the two or one animal is not as easily dismissed as whether I bothered to tell one of Susanne's friends that John was there when I had lunch with Susanne. According to matthew, not only does Jesus know that there is an ass tied up (which anyone might guess) but there is a colt with it and he tells them to bring both because that's what the prophecy says. So Matthew thinks. Now if the disciples had just brought the one because Jesus had just told them to do that, I could not make too much of it, but the second animal is important. It is part of the procession - according to Matthew. That's why I cannot buy your attempt to pass it off as a mere detail which doesn't matter.
If it didn't matter, why would Jesus specifically tell them to bring both animals. He could only sit on one unless he's got legs like John Cleese. It was to fulfill (as Matthew suppsed) the details of the prophecy.
2) second, there is strong internal evidence that the synoptics worked from a common text. The fiddle it pretty gruesomely but the original outline of the common text is there. Thus, they ALL had the one animal. Even Matthew. He changed it, but not because he was eyewitness or someone had told him an interesting detail about that procession to the temple, but because he looked up the scripture and felt that it didn't quite fit so he changed it so that it did.
That's not a very good analogy. Let's try something a bit more analogous to the original. Let's say you were at that lunch with John and Susanne. While the three of you were eating, a parade celebrating a special event happened to pass outside the cafe. The three of you went outside to watch. Later, each of you were tasked with writing down a description of the event....
John wrote that the person of honor in the parade rode in a convertible Mustang. Susanne wrote that the person was in a convertible Camaro. Then you wrote that it wasnt a Mustang or Camaro, rather it was both. It would seem the most likely explanation for the discrepancy is an error on your part. Both John and Susanne could agree it was a convertible car. However, you list two different kinds of cars. One would have to question whether, or not, you were actually there because it would appear that you had no knowledge to choose a specific convertible car. It would look more likely that you have plagarized John and/or Susanne. Either way, you account would be erroneous. You may manage to get the "convertible car" element to the story correct. However, by implying that the person rode in two separate cars at the same time during a singular special event, you would force anyone reading your account to call your direct experience of the parade into question.
The same seems true here; a donkey or a colt. Both are four legged, hairy animals that could be ridden, and easily be interchanged in a fuzzy memory. However, riding both during a single 'special event'? How would you reconcile this issue?
That's a very good response using the original analogy. Eusebius' argument is reminiscent of a discussion I had with Martin Cole was it? On the calling of the disciples. Here, Luke's version was so different (not to mention John who had Jesus 'calling' them down in Perea before the arrest of the baptist) that the accounts look very questionable and Luke's clearly could not be true. The chap tried to water down this pretty glaring discrepancy by using the analogy of whether someone thought someone was a Brazilian or not.
That's what I mean by 'watering down' an account. It is the common ploy of finding ways of explaining away real problems by diluting them. Using pretty remote analogies and expecting us to buy that one works as well as the other is pretty standard stuff - won't say more than that - in Christian apologetics.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-05-2010 at 09:33 AM..
Reason: not quite good - very good
But if they were inspired by God then the person of honor rode in a convertible Mustang and then a convertible Camaro and so all three would be correct.
But if they were inspired by God then the person of honor rode in a convertible Mustang and then a convertible Camaro and so all three would be correct.
So then your argument is Jesus stopped in the middle of the "Grand Entrance" to switch animals?!?!? What is that? Did he have some sort of ancient AAA roadside service policy??? Did one catch a "flat hoof" so he switched out???
Come on, call it what it is... a revision with very specific intent. No amount of "Intellectual Jiu-Jitsu" is gonna change that.
Yes, because I told you. You may not accept that it is wrong, but if it is, we know why.
Quite so. I'd say (arriving at the same conclusion by a different route) if the passage isn't in the other synoptics, then someone added it. Mark, frankly doesn't seem the type. Matthew is and if he doesn't have it I can't explain why he and Luke omitted it.
You are using the 'witnesses don't always agree' argument. I disagree on two counts:
1) because this is not one of those casual events much less related by someone else who might have left out some detail. This is a prophetic fulfillment and the detail of the two or one animal is not as easily dismissed as whether I bothered to tell one of Susanne's friends that John was there when I had lunch with Susanne. According to matthew, not only does Jesus know that there is an ass tied up (which anyone might guess) but there is a colt with it and he tells them to bring both because that's what the prophecy says. So Matthew thinks. Now if the disciples had just brought the one because Jesus had just told them to do that, I could not make too much of it, but the second animal is important. It is part of the procession - according to Matthew. That's why I cannot buy your attempt to pass it off as a mere detail which doesn't matter.
If it didn't matter, why would Jesus specifically tell them to bring both animals. He could only sit on one unless he's got legs like John Cleese. It was to fulfill (as Matthew suppsed) the details of the prophecy.
2) second, there is strong internal evidence that the synoptics worked from a common text. The fiddle it pretty gruesomely but the original outline of the common text is there. Thus, they ALL had the one animal. Even Matthew. He changed it, but not because he was eyewitness or someone had told him an interesting detail about that procession to the temple, but because he looked up the scripture and felt that it didn't quite fit so he changed it so that it did.
I never said nor insinuated that a detail didn't matter. I never tried to pass anything off. Why could Jesus not ride both animals? Just because you say He didn't does not prove anything. He could have ridden sideways on the donkey and placed his legs over the small colt.
The four writers bring out something different for a good reason for their specific audience. Just the very fact that they bring out different things proves there was no collusion to deceive.
Also concerning the Mustang or Camaro or both, it could depend upon your viewing spot. If one was on one side of the street and the Mustang was on the left side (both cars moving side-by-side) that person's perspective would be that they saw Jesus riding in the Mustang. The person on the other side of the street would see Jesus riding in the Camaro. The person seeing him coming head on would see him sitting on the passenger door of the Mustang with his foot on the passenger seet and his right leg in the driver's side of the Camaro. So it just depends upon your perspective.
Also concerning the Mustang or Camaro or both, it could depend upon your viewing spot. If one was on one side of the street and the Mustang was on the left side (both cars moving side-by-side) that person's perspective would be that they saw Jesus riding in the Mustang. The person on the other side of the street would see Jesus riding in the Camaro. The person seeing him coming head on would see him sitting on the passenger door of the Mustang with his foot on the passenger seet and his right leg in the driver's side of the Camaro. So it just depends upon your perspective.
You're "pulling my leg" right? Are you honestly attempting to pass that off as a reasonable explanation?
You know, you should ask yourself... If there were two animals, why would he attempt to ride them in any manner than what is, or was, typical; astride? Was Jesus an equestrian? Was Jesus a stuntman? Was he typical of the kind of extravagant person who would require more than one animal?
Not even a remotely convincing alternative explanation for the obvious. "Maybe Matthew just made a mistake"? It's ok, let it go. Take a deep breath and admit the obvious... it's ok.
You're "pulling my leg" right? Are you honestly attempting to pass that off as a reasonable explanation?
You know, you should ask yourself... If there were two animals, why would he attempt to ride them in any manner than what is, or was, typical; astride? Was Jesus an equestrian? Was Jesus a stuntman? Was he typical of the kind of extravagant person who would require more than one animal?
Not even a remotely convincing alternative explanation for the obvious. "Maybe Matthew just made a mistake"? It's ok, let it go. Take a deep breath and admit the obvious... it's ok.
Of course Matthew didn't make a mistake.
The problem could also lie in the translation. But even if this problem were solved you would still not believe.
I'm curious what other supposed contradiction you think resides in Matthew's account.
On what did Jesus ride into Jerusalem? On a donkey and a colt (Matthew 21:5-7), on a colt (Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35), or on a young donkey (John 12:14)? Is there a contradiction?
RESPONSE:
There are five different Greek words used to identify the creature upon which Jesus rode. Three of the five words specifically identify the beast as a donkey:
– onos – which specifically means a donkey;
– onarion – which refers to a young donkey; and,
– hupozugion – which refers to a beast of burden, most commonly, a donkey.
The other two words do not speak of the type of animal, but of the age of the animal.
– polos – a young creature, a colt; and,
– huios – a son, an offspring.
All five words can and do describe one creature, not two. Let us focus on Matthew 21:5-7, which uses four of the five words:
"Tell the daughter of Zion, ‘Behold, your King is coming to you, lowly, and sitting on a donkey (onos), a colt (polos), the foal (huios) of a donkey (hupozugion).' So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. They brought the donkey (onos) and the colt (polos), laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them."
The beast is a donkey (onos), which is a beast of burden (hupozugion). However, this particular donkey, since it was a colt (polos) or a foal (huios), had not yet carried a burden (Mark 11:2).
A couple of translating errors account for some confusion. In the phrase "...the donkey and the colt..." (v 7), the Greek kai need not be translated "and", but could be rendered "even". Also in verse 7, the word "them" (Gr. autos) need not be plural. It can be, and is most commonly translated "him". The assumption that more than one beast was brought comes from the addition of the word "them" by the translators in verse 2, but no support can be found for this in the Greek. Jesus simply said "...loose, and bring unto me." (cf. Mark 11:2; Luke 19:30).
The notion that men have changed it, has been disproven by the discovery of ancient texts --- and makes no sense anyway, since they would have to overcome God's inspiration to change His Word.
For having "studied" for 30 years, you don't know much about it.
Allow me to debunk your nonsense. People can and do "overcome god's inspiration and change his word."
If we look at the Kinky Jimi Vision, specifically Psalm 137:5 we find the following verbatim:
If I forget thee O Jerusalem let my right hand forget her cunning.
The phrase “her cunning” is in italics in the King James Hallucination because the phrase DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY KNOWN TEXT.
The morons who you claim were inspired by god saw the Hebrew text as reading like this:
If I forget thee O Jerusalem let my right hand forget.
That doesn’t make any sense and that’s why the translators of the King James Hallucination made up text to go with it, because they’re idiots and the were not inspired by god.
The solution to this requires an understanding that Hebrew was neither the first language nor the first of many languages. It was a late comer.
9000-7000 BCE Sumerian
3500 BCE Akkadian (Semitic) splits off from Sumerian
3200-2500 BCE Eblaite exists as a short-lived bridge between East/West Semitic
2800 BCE Amorite (West Semitic) splits off from Akkadian (now East Semitic)
2000 BCE Amorite splits into South Semitic (Arabic and Ethiopian) and Northwest Semitic (Aramaic)
1800 BCE Canaanite language diverges from Aramaic
1500 BCE Ugaritic, Phoenician and Punic emerge as dialects of Canaanite
1200 BCE Proto-Hebrew emerges from Ugaritic as a dialect
950 BCE Hebrew emerges as a language in its own right. It is differentiated by the loss of case endings used in Aramaic languages (ie Vocative, Locative, Dative, Genitive, Accusative, Nominative etc and please don’t tell me I have to give a 9th grade grammar lesson on cases).
Aramaic is a consonantal language based on a three-letter root. Aramaic along with Canaanite and its dialects, Ugaritic, Phoenican and Punic thus used three-letter roots. When Hebrew emerges, it too uses a three-letter root, since it is based entirely on the Aramaic family.
Anyone who understands linguistics knows the third part of Grimm’s Law is that Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirate stops, bh, dh, gh, and ghw, became simple voiced stops, b, d, g, and gw or w.
For example, “brother” is bhrata in Sanskrit, in Greek, phrater, and Latin, frater, which corresponds to Gothic bropthar and English brother.
Ahmuricans make fun of the way Canadians say “about.” When a Canadian pronounces the word, it sounds like “a boat.” Well, guess what, that is the original pronunciation. Over time in American English there was a vocalic glide shift.
Those are examples of how pronunciation shifts over time.
In the Aramaic languages, there are two three-letter roots which mean “shrivel”
st-k-h and st-k-ch.
Although both roots mean “shrivel” each connotes something different (because Aramaic languages are connotative, that is each word has its own connotation and that is why you cannot use the verbs for murder and kill interchangeably since they connote vastly different ideas). We also have a three-letter root that means “forget”
sh-k-h
By about 1000 BCE the way the Hebrews pronounced “st” had shifted to “sh” so we have two three-letter roots “sh-k-h” with two different meanings. The original meaning of “shrivel” was lost over time for many different reasons, none of which are important here. The solution is simply to look at Canaanite and its dialects which are older than the Hebrew language to find the correct root.
That makes the translation:
If I forget thee O Jerusalem let my right hand shrivel.
However, Semitic languages (like Aramaic) are connotative. It cannot be stressed enough that unlike the English language, words have connotations. Again, murder and kill cannot be used interchangeably. To murder always means (connotes) to take a life with malice aforethought for profit, gain or benefit. To kill always means (connotes) to take a life through accident or neglect. Because Hebrews spoke the Ugaritic dialect of Canaanite before Hebrew evolved into a sub-dialect then a language, we need to look at the Ugaritic words. When something shrivels, it can “dry up” or it can “wither,” Since the connotation of shrivel (st-k-h not st-k-ch) is “wither” the CORRECT translation is:
If I forget thee O Jerusalem let my right hand wither.
So, the idiots who wrote the King Joke Vision weren’t all that intelligent or learned, and they most certainly were not divinely guided, filled with the “spirit of the lord” or inspired by some “god” thing otherwise, they would have been able to correctly translate the text, right?
Oh, yes, that is absolutely right. Of course, you can always adopt the position that they were divinely inspired and did not err, rather it is god who is the idiot.
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.
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.
