"Evangelicals Question The Existence Of Adam And Eve"

[Subduction Zone]

Since in was very clearly stated by John Gill using Jewish understanding, I just don't see the above statement as having any weight.

"You are the one that is unwilling to understand the flaws in your beliefs." This statement reinforces the reality that I am right in my understanding.

No, that was merely John Gill's claim. I could say "It is the Jewish understanding . . . " and it would be just as meaningful. John Gill was a Christian, in case you did not know. He is hardly qualified to talk about "Jewish understanding".

 

[Kenny]

No, that was merely John Gill's claim. I could say "It is the Jewish understanding . . . " and it would be just as meaningful. John Gill was a Christian, in case you did not know. He is hardly qualified to talk about "Jewish understanding".

LOL... Like I said, any excuse is a good excuse when you have already decided.

C'est la vie.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL... Like I said, any excuse is a good excuse when you have already decided.

C'est la vie.

No, you are the one looking for excuses. I am looking at the evidence. You failed to support your claims by relying on a source that could not tell you what the "Jewish understanding" is. Real Jews do not seem to have that understanding at all.

 

[Kenny]

No, you are the one looking for excuses. I am looking at the evidence. You failed to support your claims by relying on a source that could not tell you what the "Jewish understanding" is. Real Jews do not seem to have that understanding at all.

So, the Jews who translated the Tannakh into Greek weren't real Jews? Just when I thought I knew everything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, they Jews who translated the Tannakh into Greek weren't real Jews? Just when I thought I knew everything.

Please, they were "real Jews" but translations quite often have errors in them. The error that they made is well known and some modern versions of the Bible have changed their version of Isaiah as a result.

And you need to quit violating the rule of abusing the funny smiley in your judgement of a thread. I would suggest that you remove those.

Controversial Bible Revision: About That ‘Virgin’ Thing… | TIME.com

 

[ecco]

It was a sweet fragrance of prayer.

AKA The Stench of Religion.

 

[Kenny]

Please, they were "real Jews" but translations quite often have errors in them. The error that they made is well known and some modern versions of the Bible have changed their version of Isaiah as a result.

And you need to quit violating the rule of abusing the funny smiley in your judgement of a thread. I would suggest that you remove those.

Controversial Bible Revision: About That ‘Virgin’ Thing… | TIME.com

So I will just go with what the "real Jews" understood. Especially since it done was before Jesus was born and it was only after it was being used by believers that it wasn't accepted as true.

 

[ecco]

Well , be careful here. You can certainly prove the bible wrong if taken literally, that way. If you treat the bible as a literary work, with messages for mankind in it, by means of analogy, metaphor and example, then proving those messages wrong is a less obvious process.

But they were not meant to be treated as a literary work, with messages for mankind in it, by means of analogy, metaphor and example. They were meant to be taken literally.

Today, some take the most nonsensical parts as analogy and metaphor, but still take the rest as literal truth.

Today, some still take it all as literal truth - "The Word of God".

 

[Subduction Zone]

So I will just go with what the "real Jews" understood. Especially since it done was before Jesus was born and it was only after it was being used by believers that it wasn't accepted as true.

You were the one that made the bogus "real Jews" claim. It was simply a mistranslation and the author of Luke jumped on it. It indicates that the author of Luke was a Greek scholar and not a Jew. You have yet to support your claims. As I already pointed out, errors in translations occur quite often. If you read that verse in context it was clear that it was historical and not prophetic anyway. Quote mining the Old Testament is a common sin of Christian apologists.

 

[metis]

The Hebrew word in Isaiah is "alma", which means young maiden, but somewhere along the line it was translated into "parthenos", which means virgin. The connection may be that undoubtedly that the vast majority of young maidens back then were virgins, much like today, right?



IMO, it has more of a likely symbolic aspect that a literal one.

 

[Kenny]

You were the one that made the bogus "real Jews" claim. It was simply a mistranslation and the author of Luke jumped on it. It indicates that the author of Luke was a Greek scholar and not a Jew. You have yet to support your claims. As I already pointed out, errors in translations occur quite often. If you read that verse in context it was clear that it was historical and not prophetic anyway. Quote mining the Old Testament is a common sin of Christian apologists.

LOL... Like I said....

 

[ecco]

Whether she was a young maiden or a virgin is immaterial.

What matters is she was raped, by god.

 

[exchemist]

But they were not meant to be treated as a literary work, with messages for mankind in it, by means of analogy, metaphor and example. They were meant to be taken literally.

Today, some take the most nonsensical parts as analogy and metaphor, but still take the rest as literal truth.

Today, some still take it all as literal truth - "The Word of God".

"Meant" by whom? At what period?

 

[ecco]

But they were not meant to be treated as a literary work, with messages for mankind in it, by means of analogy, metaphor and example. They were meant to be taken literally.

Today, some take the most nonsensical parts as analogy and metaphor, but still take the rest as literal truth.

Today, some still take it all as literal truth - "The Word of God".

"Meant" by whom? At what period?

By the people who first put these stories into writing. By the people who preceded them repeating the stories orally.

 

[exchemist]

By the people who first put these stories into writing. By the people who preceded them repeating the stories orally.

Yes, but these oral traditions may have been like the Iliad or the Odyssey: handed down as stories with truth in them but perhaps becoming legends as one got further from the original, with embellishments added in as they went, that were no doubt contested. The versions we see in the bible today will have been just one variant, I should think. I am fairly sure these ancient people would have been aware that different versions were in circulation. The people of those times were just as intelligent as we are.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL... Like I said....

Yes, you could not support your claim so you just "said". Do you deny the fact that there are modern translations that correct that past error now? I linked you an example.

 

[gnostic]

If you are interested, this will help clarify it for you.

Why are Jesus' genealogies in Matthew and Luke so different?

Sorry, but I have already something like that link before. But those are just apologetic excuses, and these apologies are merely interpretations, but both gospels are quite explicit, that Joseph have 2 different fathers, and 2 different lines to King David’s 2 different sons.

Your interpretations (as well as other Christians’) is to make “Mary daughter of Heli”, when the gospel actually is saying “Joseph son of Heli”.

Yours are only interpretations, but that’s not what the gospel is saying.

Second, the gospels always stated that Jesus is descendants of David, whenever the gospel called Jesus, the “son of David”, BUT, ONLY IN CONNECTION TO “JOSEPH”, not to Mary.

The gospels never explicitly say who are Mary’s ancestors. They have connected her with King David, and they have never connected her with the house of Judah.

But I did make a very valid interpretation that Mary might be a descendant of Aaron, and therefore descendant to Levi son of Jacob, because Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, was explicitly stated being Mary’s relative (Luke 1:36) and that she (again, Elizabeth) was descendant of Aaron (1:5).

Because of the relationship between Mary and Elizabeth, it can be validly implied that Mary too was a descendant of Aaron.

Like I said before, it is Joseph, not Mary, who was of the House of David, as it is found here:

26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a town in Galilee called Nazareth, 27 to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.

Your link never made connections between Elizabeth and Mary, and how Mary might be of house of Aaron, because they were relatives (1:5, 1:36).

And your link have completely ignore that it stated Joseph being of the “house of David” (1:27), but never say anything about Mary being of “House of David”.

 

[ecco]

Yes, but these oral traditions may have been like the Iliad or the Odyssey: handed down as stories with truth in them but perhaps becoming legends as one got further from the original, with embellishments added in as they went, that were no doubt contested. The versions we see in the bible today will have been just one variant, I should think. I am fairly sure these ancient people would have been aware that different versions were in circulation. The people of those times were just as intelligent as we are.

I agree that people of 3000-8000 were as intelligent as we are. TODAY we have intelligent people who take a fundamentalist reading of their holy scripture.

There is no reason to believe that the people passed on oral traditions and later "put them to paper" did not believe them to be absolute truth.

Intelligence has nothing to do with religious belief.

 

[exchemist]

I agree that people of 3000-8000 were as intelligent as we are. TODAY we have intelligent people who take a fundamentalist reading of their holy scripture.

There is no reason to believe that the people passed on oral traditions and later "put them to paper" did not believe them to be absolute truth.

Intelligence has nothing to do with religious belief.

Well I would question that. As I say, I think the role of story, myth and legend in oral traditions is not necessary one that the people involved take to be simple, literal fact.

My suspicion is that a religion was later erected on the scaffold provided by one version of these, after they had been written down. I cannot speak for the Jewish tradition, but it is worth noting that even by the time of Augustine of Hippo and Origen, the bible was not all being taken literally.

 

[ecco]

Well I would question that. As I say, I think the role of story, myth and legend in oral traditions is not necessary one that the people involved take to be simple, literal fact.

My suspicion is that a religion was later erected on the scaffold provided by one version of these, after they had been written down. I cannot speak for the Jewish tradition, but it is worth noting that even by the time of Augustine of Hippo and Origen, the bible was not all being taken literally.

Surely you recognize that the bible (and other religious scripture) is taken literally even today by millions.

If necessary, these people interpret holy writ to suit their needs (a day is not a day - it could be millions of years) but still do take it all literally.