11 errors by Jesus and friends.

[Kathryn]

Nope, this is called a LOGICAL ARGUMENT. The name Zechariah was very common in that era - sort of iike the name John now (and then too, come to think of it). If someone said, "a guy named John was murdered a thousand years ago," and someone else said, "THAT'S NOT TRUE - JOHN HIGGINBOTHAM WASN'T MURDERED, HE DIED OF THE PLAGUE!" your response to that person might be, "Who's talking about John Higginbotham? I was talking about a different John - the one who WAS murdered, you doofus."

 

[starlite]

Apparently - like close to 75% of the paragraph.

On what grounds do you pedantically elevate later renditions to the status of truth while rejecting earlier ones?

guess it kinda depends on who's arm is being used :yes:
Some general facts about Cubits: Cubit means elbow or forearm. A cubit is an ancient unit of measure used throughout the Old Testament. The Cubit originates as early as 3000 BC (about 5000 years ago), and is the distance from the elbow to the end of the middle finger, approx. 17"-22", or 45.4 - 55.5cm. Because everyone's cubit is different, a leader or foreman would have all of the workers use his standardized cubit rod (measuring reed) at construction sites. Cubit, KYOO biht, is a measure of length used by several early civilizations. While no one knows exactly when this measure was established. The cubit was commonly used by many early people including: the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and the Israelites. The royal cubit of the ancient Egyptians was about 20-3/5 inches (53.3 centimeters) long. That of the ancient Romans was 17-1/2 inches (44.5 cent.). The Israelite's cubit at the time of Solomon was 25-1/5 inches (64 cent.). The "span" (zeret) was the distance between the tip of the little finger and the tip of the thumb with the fingers straddled. The measurement of the handbreadth was the width of the four fingers, and the fingerbreadth was measured according to the width of the finger. God told Noah to build the ark in Gen. 6:15, "And this is the way you are to make it: the length of the ark shall be 300 cubits, it's breadth 50 cubits and it's height 30 cubits". If you use Solomon's Cubit, the ark was about 630 ft. long x 105 ft. wide x 63 ft. high.


An additional source states: [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]A linear measure roughly corresponding to the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. (De 3:11) There are indications that the Israelites commonly used a cubit of about 44.5 cm (17.5 in.), and calculations in this publication are figured accordingly. The Siloam Inscription, for instance, gives 1,200 cubits as the length of the water tunnel built by King Hezekiah. According to modern measurements, this tunnel is 533 m (1,749 ft) long. Thus, when taken at face value, these figures yield a cubit of 44.4 cm (17.49 in.). Also, numerous buildings and enclosures excavated in Palestine can be measured in whole numbers of this unit, giving further basis for reckoning the cubit at about 44.5 cm (17.5 in.).[/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Evidently the Israelites also used a larger cubit that was one handbreadth (7.4 cm; 2.9 in.) longer than the “common” cubit. This larger cubit of about 51.8 cm (20.4 in.) figured in the measurements of Ezekiel’s visionary temple. (Eze 40:5) There may also have been a short cubit of about 38 cm (15 in.), measured from the elbow to the knuckles of the clenched hand.—Jg 3:16, ftn.[/FONT]​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Nope, this is called a LOGICAL ARGUMENT.

Rubbish.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Goliath's height

There are significant differences between the Masoretic (Hebrew), Septuagint (Greek), and Dead Sea Scrolls versions of 1 Samuel 17.[3] One of the most interesting of these relates to Goliath's height: 4QSam(a), the Dead Sea Scrolls text of Samuel, gives the height of Goliath as "four cubits and a span," (approximately 200 cm or about six feet seven inches), and this is what the 4th century AD Septuagint manuscripts and the 1st century AD historian Josephus also record. Later Septuagint manuscripts and the oldest Masoretic texts (Aleppo Codex, 10th century AD) read "six cubits and a span," which would make him about 290 cm or nine feet six inches tall.[4]

This is from your source....seems pretty close to what I said or am I missing something?

Apparently - like close to 75% of the paragraph.

On what grounds do you pedantically elevate later renditions to the status of truth while rejecting earlier ones?

guess it kinda depends on who's arm is being used ...

Let's try this again: on what grounds do you pedantically elevate later renditions of Samuel to the status of truth while rejecting earlier ones?

 

[Free4all]

I'll try a few....

4.
Genesis 11:26
When Terah had lived seventy years he became the father of Abram....

Genesis 12:4
...Abram was seventy--five years old when he departed from Haran.

Genesis 11:32
The days of Terah were 205 years and Terah died in Haran.

Acts 7:4
Then he [Abraham] departed from the land of the Chaldeans, and lived in Haran. And after his father died, G-d removed him from there into the land [in which] you are now living.

Abraham left Haran when Terah was 145 (70+75), which was sixty years before Terah died (205 - 145). Were the Apostles familiar with math?

The problem here is that Abraham is said to be 75 yrs. old when he leaves Haran (Gen. 12:4) Since Abrahams father Terah lived to be 205 yrs. old, Abraham would have had to be born when Terah was 130 in order to leave "when his father was dead" (Acts 7:4)

Gen 11:26 You weren't told that Abram was born when he was 70 - You were told that Terah lived seventy years and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Took it for granted they were in chronological order eh? Just 3 chapters before talking about Shem, Ham, and Japheth are not given in order of birth though they are listed in that order (6:10, 10:1, 5:32) everytime they are listed together. Shem is not the elder, Japheth is (Gen. 5:32) Ham is not the middle son Shem is (Gen. 6:10).

Abraham is not the eldest son, Nahor is, Abram is not the middle son, Haran is. Abraham was born when Terah is 130 yrs. old.

 

[Free4all]

5.
Genesis 46:27
And the sons of Joseph, who were born to him in Egypt, were two souls; all the souls of the house of Jacob that came into Egypt were seventy.


Acts 7:14
And Joseph sent and called to him Jacob his father and his kindred; seventy--five souls.

The number 33 is given in Gen. 46:15, 66 is given in 46:26, 70 is given in 46:27, and 75 is given in Acts 7:14.

33 can be arrived at by counting all the sons and daughters Jacob had before he met Esau, though only Dinah is given by name, grandchildren are also included.
66 can be arrived at by taking the whole crew later, minus the 4 wives. 70 is given by adding Joseph and 3 wives (Rachel isn't included here because she died giving birth to Benjamin) 75 is offered as "all his kindred"

 

[Free4all]

8.
Numbers 25:9
And those that died by the plague were 24,000.

Paul (a man who claimed to be a Pharisee) wrote -

I Corinthians 10:8
We must not indulge in fornication as some of them did, and 23,000 fell in a single day.

Easy - 23,000 fell "in one day" (1Cor. 10) and 24,000 died before the whole mess was over. (Num. 25)

 

[starlite]

Let's try this again: on what grounds do you pedantically elevate later renditions of Samuel to the status of truth while rejecting earlier ones?

I suggest you research a little further.....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I suggest you research a little further.....

And I suggest you stop evading the question. It's both obvious and distasteful.

Now, for a third time: on what grounds do you elevate later renditions of Samuel to the status of truth while rejecting earlier ones?

 

[TheAceOfKnaves]

Uhh... most of those mistakes were not Jesus's, but Luke's and Paul's.

Not to mention the Hebrew Bible wasn't fully canonized yet, and there were likely various versions of the same book flowing around, and Jesus etc. were quoting scripture that didn't make it into the current canon. Though, the mistakes on the Torah are different, and anyone who claims to be an expert on it and misquotes it... inexcusable. THAT was canonized by that time.

Besides, does it matter?

And also, though this won't cover some of them, no translation is going to be 100% accurate when it deviates from the original language.

 

[starlite]

And I suggest you stop evading the question. It's both obvious and distasteful.

Now, for a third time: on what grounds do you elevate later renditions of Samuel to the status of truth while rejecting earlier ones?

If you would be so kind as to read post 162 with an open mind, you will see that I have answered your question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If you would be so kind as to read post 162 with an open mind, ...

If you would be so kind as to please read post 159 with a functioning one ...

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

By the way ...

1&2 Samuel

For the past two centuries textual critics have recognized that the Masoretic Text (MT) of 1&2 Samuel has much textual corruption. The Samuel MT is shorter than the LXX and 4QSama. The Samuel MT has improper word division, metathesis, and other orthographic problems. Certain phrases and clauses go against the Hebrew grammar rules. Parallel passages vary from each other (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.227-8).

In 1952 Roland De Vaux and Lankester Harding found manuscripts of Samuel under three feet of debris in Qumran Cave 4. 4QSama shows that the Old Greek Bible (LXX) was based on a Vorlage similar to 4QSama. Josephus agrees with 4QSama in 6 places against the MT and LXX. Josephus, 4QSama, and LXX share about three dozen readings against the MT (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.229).

Where the book of Chronicles parallels 1 Samuel, the readings of Chronicles follow 4QSama rather than the MT 42 times. Only one time does Chronicles agree with the MT. Over 100 times 4QSama does not agree with any ancient reading (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.230-31).

The Book of Samuel varies widely and frequently from the Masoretic Text. 4QSama preserves a number of superior readings that help correct errors in the Masoretic Text (DSS Bible, 213).

- Bible and Science

Further ...

1 Samuel 17

17:1 The Philistines gathered their troops2 for battle. They assembled at Socoh in Judah. They camped in Ephes Dammim, between Socoh and Azekah.

17:2 Saul and the Israelite army assembled and camped in the valley of Elah, where they arranged their battle lines to fight against [4] the Philistines.

17:3 The Philistines were standing on one hill, and the Israelites on another hill, with the valley between them.

17:4 Then a champion6 came out from the camp of the Philistines. His name was Goliath; he was from Gath. He was close to seven feet tall.

[notes]

7tc Heb “his height was six cubits and a span” (cf. KJV, NASB, NRSV). A cubit was approximately eighteen inches, a span nine inches. So, according to the Hebrew tradition, Goliath was about nine feet, nine inches tall (cf. NIV, CEV, NLT “over nine feet”; NCV “nine feet, four inches”; TEV “nearly 3 metres”). However, some Greek witnesses, Josephus, and a manuscript of 1 Samuel from Qumran read “four cubits and a span” here, that is, about six feet, nine inches (cf. NAB “six and a half feet”). This seems more reasonable; it is likely that Goliath’s height was exaggerated as the story was retold. See P. K. McCarter, I Samuel (AB), 286, 291.​

- bible.org

So, starlite, the question (which you seem to but dimly comprehend) remains: on what grounds do you elevate later renditions of Samuel to the status of truth while rejecting earlier ones?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't believe I was asking you.

:biglaugh:

 

[Arthemesia]

:biglaugh:

Ho well!

 

[davis.esquire]

Poison,
I went through the bother of answerin each of your mistakes, beginning with number one where I thought you just misunderstood which Zechariah Jesus was referring to in Matthew 23:35.

By the time I got down to number eleven it became obvious that, even giving you credit for ignorant guesses, many of your slight-of-hand attacks are so obvious that you have to know you are full of it.

So, to take the advantage with hopes that someone may learn, in spite of your efforts to confuse things, I'll only address one of your charades at a time. Starting with the easiest.

Number (11) Genisis 47:31 refers to Jacob securing a promise from Joseph that Jacob would not be left in Egypt after his death. Joseph's sons were not there, even though you fraudulently said they were.

What Paul was referring to in Hebrews 11:21 was Jacob leaning upon his authority, his staff, while blessing Joseph and Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, in Genesis 48:15-20.

Now, you have made it clear that you will baffle those who pay attention to your B.S. by saying that Jacob still had his head laying on upon the head of his bed all the way from Genesis 47:31 until he finally gathered his feet up into the bed in Genesis 49:33 and gave up the ghost. But I'm counting on some of those listening to your nonsense to get ready for a good laugh at your chicannery as we, one by one, one day at a time, anal-ize you Bible expert-ice.

 

[Kathryn]

Davis, I too went through each one and gave a very comprehensive and detailed answer to nearly all (heck, it was so long ago maybe I did answer all of them - can't remember) of his "points." Those answers - and the very valid points I made in each one of them - were ignored.

It's obvious to me that common sense and actual research carry very little weight around here when it comes to the validity of scripture and Christianity.

 

[davis.esquire]

Kathryn,
I'm relatively new to this web-site, but have already come to recognize your observation that "..actual research carry very little weight around here...."

Unfortunately, I've noticed that on any web-site I've found so far there are cyber-people with cyber-courage who find pleasure in distracting sincere communications with opinions on matters they have no intelligence to offer.

I had not read the 18-pages of responses to this blog before responding to whatshisface myself, nor intend to offend anyone who has made sincere responces to a very insincere attack.

I'm probably just passing through this web-site as I have others, but I feel I must first attempt to use the leaches in ways that force communications anyway (2Tim 3:16-17; 4:1-3,4).

Thank you for both your efforts and advice.

 

[Kathryn]

You're very welcome. This forum can be extremely frustrating because the minute a valid point is made, communication seems to either come to a complete stop, or someone runs off on another rabbit trail and totally ignores the evidence of truth.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Poison,
I went through the bother of answerin each of your mistakes, beginning with number one where I thought you just misunderstood which Zechariah Jesus was referring to in Matthew 23:35.

By the time I got down to number eleven it became obvious that, even giving you credit for ignorant guesses, many of your slight-of-hand attacks are so obvious that you have to know you are full of it.

So, to take the advantage with hopes that someone may learn, in spite of your efforts to confuse things, I'll only address one of your charades at a time. Starting with the easiest.

Number (11) Genisis 47:31 refers to Jacob securing a promise from Joseph that Jacob would not be left in Egypt after his death. Joseph's sons were not there, even though you fraudulently said they were.

What Paul was referring to in Hebrews 11:21 was Jacob leaning upon his authority, his staff, while blessing Joseph and Joseph's two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, in Genesis 48:15-20.

Now, you have made it clear that you will baffle those who pay attention to your B.S. by saying that Jacob still had his head laying on upon the head of his bed all the way from Genesis 47:31 until he finally gathered his feet up into the bed in Genesis 49:33 and gave up the ghost. But I'm counting on some of those listening to your nonsense to get ready for a good laugh at your chicannery as we, one by one, one day at a time, anal-ize you Bible expert-ice.

Apparently, you haven't been paying close enough attention. In post 155, I admitted that this item should not be on the list.

But go ahead... mock me some more. I'm sure it makes you a better person.