contradictions in the bible???

[Scott1]

First, let's start with your misunderstanding about the word onah.

Wait a tic....

"Weigh well that which is disputed in the tract Schabbath, concerning the uncleanness of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed by the Gemarists concerning the computation of this space of three days. Among other things, these words occur; "R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four Onoth, sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much is the space of an Onah? R. Jochanon saith either a day or a night." And so also the Jerusalem Talmud; "R. Akiba fixed a day for an Onah, and a night for an Onah: but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as a whole." And a little after, R. Ismael computeth a part of the Onah for the whole.- Rabbi Ismael and Rabbi Eliezar ben Azariah (p. 210, vol. 2, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica)

Are the rabbi's wrong as well... or am I just reading this wrong?

 

[Scott1]

If he said one, and he said the other, he could only do one.

I get ya... I guess I don't know what verses you are refering to... but thanks for the help.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I get ya... I guess I don't know what verses you are refering to... but thanks for the help.

Matthew 12
40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.


Matthew 20:
17 Now as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside and said to them, 18"We are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death 19and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!"

 

[Poisonshady313]

Wait a tic....

"Weigh well that which is disputed in the tract Schabbath, concerning the uncleanness of a woman for three days; where many things are discussed by the Gemarists concerning the computation of this space of three days. Among other things, these words occur; "R. Ismael saith, Sometimes it contains four Onoth, sometimes five, sometimes six. But how much is the space of an Onah? R. Jochanon saith either a day or a night." And so also the Jerusalem Talmud; "R. Akiba fixed a day for an Onah, and a night for an Onah: but the tradition is, that R. Eliezar Ben Azariah said, A day and a night make an Onah, and a part of an Onah is as a whole." And a little after, R. Ismael computeth a part of the Onah for the whole.- Rabbi Ismael and Rabbi Eliezar ben Azariah (p. 210, vol. 2, Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica)

Are the rabbi's wrong as well... or am I just reading this wrong?

I'll have to ask someone who I know that knows the Talmud far better than I... and of course someone who understands the laws of Niddah far better than I...

But the fun part of this is this:

Whether you're right or wrong about the onah is irrelevant. This is a strawman argument. The concept of an onah is irrelevant to Jesus. He didn't say he'd be in the heart of the earth for three onahs... he said he'd be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.

 

[Scott1]

Whether you're right or wrong about the onah is irrelevant. This is a strawman argument. The concept of an onah is irrelevant to Jesus. He didn't say he'd be in the heart of the earth for three onahs... he said he'd be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights.

I certainly don't believe it's a strawman... or do you believe Jesus spoke English?

I don't know the Greek or Hebrew word that was translated into "days and nights".... seems fairly relevant to the discussion, wouldn't you agree?

 

[Scuba Pete]

I'll have to ask someone who I know that knows the Talmud far better than I...

You do that. Even using the modern definition of "day", it's not that hard to see three days. This is the strawman: squabbling over the duration of his internment. He either HAS a tomb or he has bolted to heaven. Your understanding of the timeline has absolutely no effect on this reality: it's only trying to muddy the waters.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I certainly don't believe it's a strawman... or do you believe Jesus spoke English?

I don't know the Greek or Hebrew word that was translated into "days and nights".... seems fairly relevant to the discussion, wouldn't you agree?

Easy enough to look up online: Online Greek Interlinear

However, we are currently reading a translation of a translation. Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek. Perhaps the Aramaic word Jesus used could not be translated directly into the Greek and this was the best way to do it? We aren't even certain about how some of this Greek translates either. Not that God needs a perfect translation to do his work, in fact he has gotten us to discuss him right now. He's a slick one, God.

 

[McBell]

I don't know the Greek or Hebrew word that was translated into "days and nights".... seems fairly relevant to the discussion, wouldn't you agree?

Another good point.

Which lead me right back to my original question:

So it matters not how those writing it saw as night and day, right?
​

 

[Scott1]

So it matters not how those writing it saw as night and day, right?

I think so... and if you'll allow me... **Grabs some straw**

This has got to be SOOOOO obvious if it's wrong, I really doubt a boneheaded error like this would have made it past the first copy/translation of the Gospel.... I mean, come on.... even the most honest scribe would look at this and think..."Crap, this resurrection stuff is probably gonna be important...."

Is that too far fetched to think that the nascent Church might not be so stupid to miss this or not alter the text?

OK... I'm gonna take this down and leave:

 

[Poisonshady313]

You do that. Even using the modern definition of "day", it's not that hard to see three days.

I'm not using the modern definition of day. I'm using the biblical definition.

Genesis 1:5
5. And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night, and it was evening and it was morning, one day.

Interesting that someone who doesn't believe in the Talmud would use their own misunderstanding of it to throw it in the face of someone who does.

 

[Poisonshady313]

I think so... and if you'll allow me... **Grabs some straw**

This has got to be SOOOOO obvious if it's wrong, I really doubt a boneheaded error like this would have made it past the first copy/translation of the Gospel.... I mean, come on.... even the most honest scribe would look at this and think..."Crap, this resurrection stuff is probably gonna be important...."

Is that too far fetched to think that the nascent Church might not be so stupid to miss this or not alter the text?

OK... I'm gonna take this down and leave:

I think they expected people not to know any better, and not to ask any questions. If they could convince people to believe in some guy for the sake of eternal life in heaven, they didn't need to worry them with details like textual consistency.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think they expected people not to know any better,

Yowsah... we are being FLOODED by your assumptions here!

 

[Poisonshady313]

Yowsah... we are being FLOODED by your assumptions here!

Hey man... I just point out the errors. When left with the question "why"... it could be anything.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Hey man... I just point out the errors. When left with the question "why"... it could be anything.

Hmnnnn, well you haven't been doing your job lately. All I see are your assumptions about what you THINK it's supposed to mean.

 

[gnostic]

However, we are currently reading a translation of a translation. Jesus spoke Aramaic and not Greek.

Jesus may have spoken in Aramaic, but the majority of the NT texts were originally written in Greek. In Koine Greek to be more precise. I don't think any of it was ever written in Aramaic.

Paul's letters were definitely written mostly in Greek, since most of his letters were addressed to people of Greek cities. I am quite sure that the gospel of Luke and the Acts were also written in Greek. It's the other 3 gospels, I am not sure of, but I think they were also written in Greek.

Also Koine Greek was even more widely spoken in the Roman Empire, even in Babylonian, because it was lingua franca in the eastern Mediterranean. And people were largely bilinguists.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Jesus may have spoken in Aramaic, but the majority of the NT texts were originally written in Greek. In Koine Greek to be more precise. I don't think any of it was ever written in Aramaic.

Is there a point that you are trying to make here? Your dissertation on languages used to write the NT bolsters what I am asserting. The English is a translation of the Greek which is also a translation of the Aramaic. There are only two instances in NT scripture where Jesus' actual words were recorded. This is significant on many levels but sure to be lost on most.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Hmnnnn, well you haven't been doing your job lately. All I see are your assumptions about what you THINK it's supposed to mean.

Assumptions nothing.

I've posted the verses. If you choose to ignore it, that's your problem.

 

[Scott1]

I think they expected people not to know any better, and not to ask any questions.

They expected Jews not to know how to calculate day and night... mmm'kay.

 

[Poisonshady313]

They expected Jews not to know how to calculate day and night... mmm'kay.

I was thinking more along the lines of them not expecting Jews to even read that line.

Of course... who knows how long it was until a Jew had even laid eyes on the text?

For the first 70 years after the death of Jesus, this stuff wasn't written down... so people were just preaching Jesus' death/resurrection.... and any Jews that became early Christians did so long before the text of the gospels were written. As non-Jews became the target for conversion, they would have no need to question it... they legitimately would not have known better...

And so the Christians who started out as Jews had children that they raised to be Christian, and thus belief was never really dependent on actually reading the text. It was just the bullet points that the preacher needed you to hear.


By the time the text could be scrutinized by Jews who weren't already sucked into Christianity, Christianity was pretty well established... so even if there were people back then saying what I'm saying now, it wouldn't have destroyed Christianity... because the snowball that is Christianity had gotten too large by then.

 

[Scott1]

Okey dokey.