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.
According to the Jews, Deuteronomy 6:1 proves monotheism.
According to some Jews, and usually the more conservative ones. That's a dogmatic position, though, not one based only on sober and informed exegesis. Also, it's Deut 6:4.
Funny, then, that Deut 32:8-9 insists that Elyon set up his offspring as the gods over the nations. Funny, then, that Deut 32:43 calls upon those gods to bow down before Yhwh. Funny, then, that Deut 32:21 also calls Assyria non-existent in the exact same manner it appears to call the gods non-existent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
According to Song of Solomon 6:9 the loved one is the only one. There were no others for the other lover in that scroll of S of S.
No others for the lover, not no others in all of existence. It's an affirmation of a unique relationship, not a unique existence. This is what Deuteronomy is saying. Yhwh is the only god you need to worry about. That does not mean the others do not exist. The text repeatedly affirms that they exist. Yhwh is the only one that matters, though (read this book). That's what the rhetoric means, and it is found all over the ancient Near East. If you would take the time to learn, you'd see the Bible frequently appeals to literary themes and motifs that are common to every other culture from the time period. You think they're special, though, because you refuse to educate yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
They are synonymous.
They are, but neither have anything to do with a unique existence.
Hewey states on the web site against the CLNT of Matthew 1:25 "omits "her firstborn"(note: contradicts Luke 2:7)"
My reply:
Many bibles also do not have "her firstborn in Matthew 1:25 so Hewey is just picking on the CLNT primarily due to the fact that he is an eternal tormentist believer and didn't like me showing him he is wrong on that. Does not having "her firstborn" in Matthew 1:25 contradict Luke 2:7 as Hewey states? No.
The CLNT has it thus:
Luk 2:7 And she brought forth her Son, the firstborn, and swaddles Him, and cradles Him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the caravansary."
Mat 1:25 and he knew her not till she brought forth a Son, and he calls His name Jesus.
Neither of the three most ancient uncial Greek manuscripts have "her firstborn" in Matthew 1:25. So it was not put in the translation. It does not *contradict* Luke 2:7 any more than does the fact that one gospel leaves out certain things while another gospel brings out certain things about Jesus.
RESPONSE:
>>Neither of the three most ancient uncial Greek manuscripts have "her firstborn" in Matthew 1:25.<<
Interesting assertion. Can you name (identify) the unical Greek manuscripts which you refrrring to, or did you simply read this claim somewhere?
The "bible" may be inerrant, but the question is "is your translation inerrant" is it not?
KJV contains 52 occurrences of the word hell" while the KJVR contains only 32 occurrences of the work "hell"
Which one is wrong?
BTW two different Jewish scholarly groups translate the OT with NO instances of the word "hell". Which leads one to consider that ANY version of the OT that contains the word "hell" is wrong.
Therefore your English translation of the OT, anyway, may well be in error.
Nobody's Bible translation is "inerrant." Mormons use the King James Version of the Bible. We believe it is God's word. We recognize, though, that having been transcribed and translated more times than we know, it is not the "inerrant" document that it was when first recorded by the prophets and apostles of old.
My Bible translation is for all intensive purporses ... for those who believe in an Almighty God believes the promise that he has the power to keep it that way.
People have always claimed that the Bible wasn't accurate. Prior to the Dead Sea Scrolls, all we had as far as earliest transcripts was the Septuagint. But when the DSS were discovered, examined, then compared to the KJV 1611.. it was discovered that there were nearly no appreciable difference to warrant any inerrancy accusations as to doctrinal postions from the DSS and the 1611 KJV.
Personally IMO, people who find fault today with the Bible would have found fault with whatever translation they'd be reading from whatever time in history .... even if they were reading the "original" that Moses wrote.
My Bible translation is for all intensive purporses ... for those who believe in an Almighty God believes the promise that he has the power to keep it that way.
People have always claimed that the Bible wasn't accurate. Prior to the Dead Sea Scrolls, all we had as far as earliest transcripts was the Septuagint. But when the DSS were discovered, examined, then compared to the KJV 1611.. it was discovered that there were nearly no appreciable difference to warrant any inerrancy accusations as to doctrinal postions from the DSS and the 1611 KJV.
Uh, this is just horrifically false. The Dead Sea Scrolls show numerous, numerous differences from the Masoretic text that completely and absolutely undermine the very notion of inerrancy, whether related to a translation or to the manuscripts. Anyone who tells you otherwise simply knows nothing whatsoever about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Uh, this is just horrifically false. The Dead Sea Scrolls show numerous, numerous differences from the Masoretic text that completely and absolutely undermine the very notion of inerrancy, whether related to a translation or to the manuscripts. Anyone who tells you otherwise simply knows nothing whatsoever about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Well sir..... if we are going to base things on whom has more creditability, then you're going to have to establish that you know more.
Like I said, it wouldn't matter when in history you've lived, you'd find something.
The three uncial mss. are Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus.
I have a.Concordant Greek Text which compiles the three into one mss.
RESPONSE:
Aren't these fourth and fifth century manuscripts. Are you saying that there are no earlier extant copies of Matthew's gospel?
>>As to truth, the Bible is inerrant.<<
How does your Concordant Greek Text resolve these contradictions?
Exodus 9:6 "And on the next day the Lord did so; all the livestock of the Egyptians died, but of the livestock of the Israelites not one died." (NRSV)
Exodus 9:10 "So they took soot from the kiln, and stood before Pharaoh, and Moses threw it in the air, and it caused festering boils on humans and animals. "(NRSV)
Exodus 9:23-26 "Then Moses stretched out his staff towards heaven, and the Lord sent thunder and hail, and fire came down on the earth. And the Lord rained hail on the land of Egypt; 24there was hail with fire flashing continually in the midst of it, such heavy hail as had never fallen in all the land of Egypt since it became a nation. 25The hail struck down everything that was in the open field throughout all the land of Egypt, both human and animal; the hail also struck down all the plants of the field, and shattered every tree in the field. 26Only in the land of Goshen, where the Israelites were, there was no hail. "
(So first God killed all the livestock of the Egyptians. Then God must have resurrected them so he could give them boils. Finally, God killed them again with hail).
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.
