Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible

  • Thread starter Codebreaker@bigsecret.com
  • Start date
> Jews did think that Mary was a real person and not fictional...
> Jews did think that Jesus was historical.
> That is the bottom line

So .. just because they thought it (or at least addressed the accepted
existence of Jesus at that time), hundreds of years later, that doesn't mean
it was based on the real existence of an historical Jesus.
 
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:53ub5oF1ui3bmU2@mid.individual.net...
> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 11:53
> am codebreaker@bigsecret.com perhaps from Codebreaker@bigsecret.com
> wrote:
>
>> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
>> and the Apostles are wrong.
>> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
>> and Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Stephen, the Qur'an are all wrong.
>> I have been trying to be nice to you by ignoring your posts,
>> ignore mine If you don't want to read the books of the New Testament
>> because I have nothing intellectually meaningfull to discuss with
>> someone
>> who partially read the Bible.
>> This is my last warning to you, and I hope this is your last reply.
>>
>
> I would be happy to take up your challenge if Zev isn't. But first
> please answer a few questions so we might determine your competency.
> So far you have avoided them. I suspect it is because you are not up to
> the task and really have no idea what the bible says. You have only
> memorized a few pet phrases from a poorly translated version of the
> bible. Anyway here are the questions:
>
> How does one determine which might deceive the reader:
>
> vayosef af-adonai lakharot beyisrael vayaset et-david bahem
> lemor lekh mene et-yisrael veet-yehuda
2 Samuel 24:1
>
>
> OR THIS
>
> vayaamod satan al-yisrael vayaset et-david limnot et-yisrael
1 Chronicles 21:1

Obviously 1 Chronicles 21:1 has deceived more Christians, but that is
because of poor translations. It only says that an adversary stood up
against Israel. It does not give the name of that adversary.

I will leave the rest for those much wiser than me to answer.

--Wax

>
>
> Can you explain what we should do:
>
> lo-taasu avel bamishpat lo-tisa fenei-dal velo tehdarpenei gadol
> betsedek tishpot amitekha
>
> OR THIS
>
> me krinete ina me krithete
>
>
> Which of these is the basis of Christian belief and which do you
> believe:
>
> hos de an blasphemese eis to pneuma to hagion ouk echei aphesin eis ton
> aiona all enochos estin aioniou kriseos
>
> OR THIS
>
> in hoc omnis qui credit iustificatur
>
> OR THIS
>
> horate toinun oti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon
>
> OR THIS
>
> te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia tes pisteos kai touto ouk ex humon
> theou to doron ouk ex ergon hina me tis kauchesetai
>
>
> --
> Later,
> Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com
>
> Webpage Sorcery
> http://webpagesorcery.com
> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
> I am saying that the idea that Christianity borrowed
> from pagan myths, has the time line backward.
> You assume that pagan beliefs did not reshape
> themselves over time and that what it was at first,
> is what it always was.

Of course they did .. everything does ... and that was WAY before Jesus's
time.

Are you saying that we magically changed the information we have from the
time of these stories to be something different. The beliefs and stories
from before Jesus were what they were .. and that is what I'm referring to.
Not to some subsequent interpretation.

> Honesty and integrity does not
> involve making claims and then claiming that
> the other guy must always be the one providing
> proof. :)

But that is what you're doing.

> I am talking about
> claims that you made, that you are responsible
> for proving.

I'm lost .. what is it you want me to prove? How can I prove a lack of
evidence .. other than pointing at the space where it should be and saying
its not there?

And why is it right for me to be expected to prove claims and not you?
 
> Ever wonder while none of the nonsense about virgin birth,
> Joseph as Jesus father, or the resurrection was mentioned by Mark?

Beacuse it was not an actual event. I've already said that I do not claim
all the mystical events aournd jesus birth were real. . i'm just saying that
the existence of a person called Jesus who had some sort of smal lfollowing
around that time could have been a basis around whic h to frame the Gospel
stories which, as you point out, combine ideas etc from other old-testament
stories (like the flight to egypt etc).

> Without mistakes there would be no point/counterpoint. Besides you have
> given no examples of what you mean by mistakes.

There are lots of examples of mistakes in the Bible .. do we need to prove
them to each other (or do you think the Gospel stories are inerrant) .. if
not, lets just accept that we both believe there are many misatkes and
contradictions and move

>> So is saying no such person exists. We have no conclusive proof
>> either way .. but there is non-conclusive 'evidence' (in the bible and
>> elsewhere).
> The bible is not evidence

That what I've been saying .. and why I put 'evidence' in quotes like that

> But the story as a whole is unbelievable.

Yes .. I didn't say it was.

> EVERY story most especially the most important ones could not
> have happened.

Yes.

That doesn't mean there was not (or could not have been) a man called Jesus
with a small following whom he taught. If that is somethng that was known
(but not important enough to have been written about), then taking that
factual basis and embellishing it would make the story seem more real. Its
a lot easier to get a story or rumour accepted and spread when based on a
real person than an imaginary one.

>> And none to assume he didn't. It works both ways.

Yes it does. I have never claimed to have proof Jesus existed .. I'm been
claiming the opposite. That does not mean that is is impossible that he
did.

> Is it reasonable to assume Sauron of The Lord of the Rings is still with
> us?

No .. that story was never meant to be believed as true. The stories in the
bible were meant to be believed as true. So basing them around an actual
person would be sensible. Especially doing so after he was dead, so those
reading could not verify things for themselves.
 
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>> But they are not the same.
>
> I didn't say they were .. the claim was there was no reference
> to the words Messiah or Christ in the Quram. Fairly implicitly
> that would imply loing at the English translations to compare
> (see the calim is about english words, not arabic) .. and those
> words appear (one or the other at the same place) in the all the English
> translations of the Quram (even ones
> that are authorsied and on islamic web sites) I could find. Surely they
> would not be authorised translations if they had the wrong translation for
> whataver Arabic word is in the
> original text?

Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a Christian word and
refers to the literal Son of God. Anybody with a knowledge of Christianity
knows that, yet the idea is incompatible with both Judaism and Islam.

In Judaism, there has been many messiahs: i.e. anointed kings and priests.
Some Jews say that there is a potential messiah in every generation, and
that many more will appear. In other schools of Judaism he is the
anticipated savior of the Jews, who will bring peace on earth.

Obviously the Quran was not referring to either Christ, or to a messiah.

--Wax
 
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:16:25 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <53u0o9F1u1312U2@mid.individual.net>
>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 12:23
>am Bible Believer perhaps from noway@nowhere.com wrote:
>
>>>Show us the writings of this Jesus.
>>
>> It seems that this is a common questions amongst the
>> atheists, who aren't too bright to begin with.
 
> Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a Christian word
> and refers to the literal Son of God.

No. . it comes from the greek 'khristos' and means 'anointed one' or 'chosen
one', and is equivalent to the Hebrew 'messiah' .. it does not mean 'Son of
God'. Anyone with christian knowledge would know that.

> Obviously the Quran was not referring to either Christ, or to a messiah.

It was referring to Jesus and used the term which (translated to English is)
'Christ' or 'Messiah'.

Obviously the original quram wouldn't have in it the exact English word
'christ' (it didn't even evist then) .. for that matter the old testament
and gospels don't have it either .. because they weren't written in English.
All we can go on to compare is to look at translation inot a single language
(in this case English0 and compare that. And Quram uses 'Christ' or
'Messiah' (depending on the translation) to describe Jesus.

There's really nothing there to argue further about.
 
"Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>> Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a
>> Christian word and refers to the literal Son of God.
>
> No. . it comes from the greek 'khristos' and means 'anointed
> one' or 'chosen one', and is equivalent to the Hebrew
> 'messiah' .. it does not mean 'Son of God'. Anyone with
> christian knowledge would know that.

You referred to Arabic-English translations. Not Arabic-Greek. I did not
say "Christ" meant "Son of God", I said that it "refers to the literal Son
of God." It is too bad that you don't seem to know that.

>> Obviously the Quran was not referring to either Christ, or to
>> a messiah.
>
> It was referring to Jesus and used the term which (translated to English
> is) 'Christ' or 'Messiah'.

Not any Jesus known to Christianity. I agree that it is trying to make that
identification, but it can only do that by transforming him into a prophet
rather than the Son of God.

> Obviously the original quram wouldn't have in it the exact English word
> 'christ' (it didn't even evist then) .. for that
> matter the old testament and gospels don't have it either ..
> because they weren't written in English. All we can go on
> to compare is to look at translation inot a single language (in this case
> English0 and compare that. And Quram uses
> 'Christ' or 'Messiah' (depending on the translation) to
> describe Jesus.

The Arabic term corresponds with neither the Jewish concept of the messiah,
or the Christian concept of Christ. Perhaps that is why it is said that the
Koran cannot be translated.

> There's really nothing there to argue further about.

There is always more to argue about.

--Wax
 
> You referred to Arabic-English translations. Not Arabic-Greek. I did not
> say "Christ" meant "Son of God", I said that it "refers to the literal Son
> of God." It is too bad that you don't seem to know that.

Its a shame you didn't say that more clearly.

So you are saying when the (tranlsated) quram refers to Jesus as Christ,
that its not the same as whne the bible refers to Jesus as the Christ ?

>> It was referring to Jesus and used the term which (translated to English
>> is) 'Christ' or 'Messiah'.

>> There's really nothing there to argue further about.
> There is always more to argue about.

No there's not :):):)
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 7:18 pm
Jeckyl perhaps from noone@nowhere.com wrote:

>> Ever wonder while none of the nonsense about virgin birth,
>> Joseph as Jesus father, or the resurrection was mentioned by Mark?
>
> Beacuse it was not an actual event. I've already said that I do not
> claim all the mystical events aournd jesus birth were real. . i'm just
> saying that the existence of a person called Jesus who had some sort
> of smal lfollowing around that time could have been a basis around
> whic h to frame the Gospel stories which, as you point out, combine
> ideas etc from other old-testament stories (like the flight to egypt
> etc).
>
>> Without mistakes there would be no point/counterpoint. Besides you
>> have given no examples of what you mean by mistakes.
>
> There are lots of examples of mistakes in the Bible .. do we need to
> prove them to each other (or do you think the Gospel stories are
> inerrant) .. if not, lets just accept that we both believe there are
> many misatkes and contradictions and move
>
>>> So is saying no such person exists. We have no conclusive proof
>>> either way .. but there is non-conclusive 'evidence' (in the bible
>>> and elsewhere).
>> The bible is not evidence
>
> That what I've been saying .. and why I put 'evidence' in quotes like
> that
>
>> But the story as a whole is unbelievable.
>
> Yes .. I didn't say it was.
>
>> EVERY story most especially the most important ones could not
>> have happened.
>
> Yes.
>
> That doesn't mean there was not (or could not have been) a man called
> Jesus
> with a small following whom he taught. If that is somethng that was
> known (but not important enough to have been written about), then
> taking that
> factual basis and embellishing it would make the story seem more real.
> Its a lot easier to get a story or rumour accepted and spread when
> based on a real person than an imaginary one.
>

He was small asnd inconsequential, yet people started writing about him
only a hundred or more years later? How did they hear about him?
After a hundred years even important people are forgotten.

>>> And none to assume he didn't. It works both ways.
>
> Yes it does. I have never claimed to have proof Jesus existed .. I'm
> been
> claiming the opposite. That does not mean that is is impossible that
> he did.
>
>> Is it reasonable to assume Sauron of The Lord of the Rings is still
>> with us?
>
> No .. that story was never meant to be believed as true. The stories
> in the
> bible were meant to be believed as true. So basing them around an
> actual
> person would be sensible. Especially doing so after he was dead, so
> those reading could not verify things for themselves.

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 9:16 pm
Michael Gray perhaps from mikegray@newsguy.com wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:16:25 -0500, Darrell Stec
> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
> - Refer: <53u0o9F1u1312U2@mid.individual.net>
>>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 12:23
>>am Bible Believer perhaps from noway@nowhere.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Show us the writings of this Jesus.
>>>
>>> It seems that this is a common questions amongst the
>>> atheists, who aren't too bright to begin with.
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 4:14 pm
Zev perhaps from zev_horn@yahoo.com wrote:

> On Feb 19, 9:14 pm, Darrell Stec <darrell_s...@webpagesorcery.com>
> wrote:
>> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007
>> 11:53 am codebrea...@bigsecret.com perhaps from
>> Codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>> > I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
>> > and the Apostles are wrong.
>> > I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
>> > and Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Stephen, the Qur'an are all wrong.
>> > I have been trying to be nice to you by ignoring your posts,
>> > ignore mine If you don't want to read the books of the New
>> > Testament because I have nothing intellectually meaningfull to
>> > discuss with someone
>> > who partially read the Bible.
>> > This is my last warning to you, and I hope this is your last reply.
>>
>> I would be happy to take up your challenge if Zev isn't. But first
>
> I came into this thread recently, only to discuss Deuteronomy 18.
> By chance I also commented about a remark about a euphemism.
> The reply I got referred only to this side remark,
> and not at all to Deuteronomy 18.
> It seems that 'copy' and 'codi' get confused
> working with more than one idea in a single post.
> But what was the challenge?
> I didn't notice any.
>

I took the above as a challenge. That is part of the way codi issues
they by calling anyone who disagrees with him intellectually
challenged.

> Does your first question refer to the God - Satan contradiction?
> I've never seen this as a problem,
> but your question is not addressed to me,
> I'll let 'codi' work on it, if he can.
>

If there were a contradiction it must be a problem. This is not the
book of Job where El and Satan have a bet. And although Satan can be
called god because he is one of El's sons and Yahweh's brother in the
contradiction you mentioned the only and specific god mentioned was
Adonai which usually refers to Yahweh. It is as bad as the
contradiction about whether Goliath or Goliath's brother was killed.
Both contradictions stem from two different traditions.

>> please answer a few questions so we might determine your competency.
>> So far you have avoided them. I suspect it is because you are not up
>> to
>> the task and really have no idea what the bible says. You have only
>> memorized a few pet phrases from a poorly translated version of the
>> bible. Anyway here are the questions:
>>
>> How does one determine which might deceive the reader:
>>
>> vayosef af-adonai lakharot beyisrael vayaset et-david bahem lemor
>> lekh mene et-yisrael veet-yehuda
>>
>> OR THIS
>>
>> vayaamod satan al-yisrael vayaset et-david limnot et-yisrael
>>
>>
>> Can you explain what we should do:
>>
>> lo-taasu avel bamishpat lo-tisa fenei-dal velo tehdarpenei gadol
>> betsedek tishpot amitekha
>>
>> OR THIS
>>
>> me krinete ina me krithete
>>
>>
>> Which of these is the basis of Christian belief and which do you
>> believe:
>>
>> hos de an blasphemese eis to pneuma to hagion ouk echei aphesin eis
>> ton aiona all enochos estin aioniou kriseos
>>
>> OR THIS
>>
>> in hoc omnis qui credit iustificatur
>>
>> OR THIS
>>
>> horate toinun oti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos
>> monon
>>
>> OR THIS
>>
>> te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia tes pisteos kai touto ouk ex humon
>> theou to doron ouk ex ergon hina me tis kauchesetai
>>
>>
>> --
>> Later,
>> Darrell Stec dars...@neo.rr.com
>>
>> Webpage Sorceryhttp://webpagesorcery.com
>> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:

> On Feb 19, 2:48 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
> wrote:
>
>>codebrea...@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 18, 7:09 pm, Libertarius <Libertar...@nothingbutthe.truth>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Christopher A.Lee wrote:
>>
>>>>>Never Knew.
>>
>>>>===>The Jews have known THOUSANDS of "Yeshuas".
>>>>But nobody knew the IESOUS of Gospel fiction,
>>>>since he never existed. -- L.
>>
>>> For your knowledge, the Jews knew the Jesus of the Gospel
>>> This is the only Jesus born of Mary who was accused
>>> by the same Jews of having an affair with a Roman
>>> soldier named Pantera. This does not look like
>>> a fictional character.
>>
>>===>You obviously have no sense of humor.
>>"Panthera" is just a comical take-off on "Parthenos",
>>a Greek word for "virgin". -- L.- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> You see how you twist every single thing to make
> your twisted point.
> Even If it was Smith and Smith means somebody
> who do a certain job, this would not be taken to mean
> that the accusation is not genuine.
> Now you must prove that the one who reported
> the accusation and the name was thinking the same thing
> than you. Prove that it was just trying to be comical..
>
> YOU ARE A DEMON, YOUR TACTICS SHOW IT

===>You're an IDIOT, your comments prove it. -- L.
 
> He was small asnd inconsequential, yet people started writing about him
> only a hundred or more years later? How did they hear about him?
> After a hundred years even important people are forgotten.

Word of mouth (oral tradition and stories etc) would have been very strong.

Also it wasn't a delay of hundreds of years .. it was one tens of years
before Paul started writing his letters. Pretty much a continual stream.

Also consider the theorised 'Q' gospel (the one upon which the synoptics are
believed to be based, but each with its own alterations and 'improvements').
That would have (obviously) predated the Gospels. Not that I'm claiming
that that makes things any more belevable, but just that there it is very
reasonable to assume there was not as long a gap as you claim before the
first stories stared to appear.
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 6:50 pm
weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>
> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
> news:53ub5oF1ui3bmU2@mid.individual.net...
>> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007
>> 11:53 am codebreaker@bigsecret.com perhaps from
>> Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote:
>>
>>> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
>>> and the Apostles are wrong.
>>> I know you are not trying to tell me that you are right
>>> and Jesus, Paul, Peter, Luke, Stephen, the Qur'an are all wrong.
>>> I have been trying to be nice to you by ignoring your posts,
>>> ignore mine If you don't want to read the books of the New Testament
>>> because I have nothing intellectually meaningfull to discuss with
>>> someone
>>> who partially read the Bible.
>>> This is my last warning to you, and I hope this is your last reply.
>>>
>>
>> I would be happy to take up your challenge if Zev isn't. But first
>> please answer a few questions so we might determine your competency.
>> So far you have avoided them. I suspect it is because you are not up
>> to
>> the task and really have no idea what the bible says. You have only
>> memorized a few pet phrases from a poorly translated version of the
>> bible. Anyway here are the questions:
>>
>> How does one determine which might deceive the reader:
>>
>> vayosef af-adonai lakharot beyisrael vayaset et-david bahem
>> lemor lekh mene et-yisrael veet-yehuda
> 2 Samuel 24:1
>>
>>
>> OR THIS
>>
>> vayaamod satan al-yisrael vayaset et-david limnot et-yisrael
> 1 Chronicles 21:1
>
> Obviously 1 Chronicles 21:1 has deceived more Christians, but that is
> because of poor translations. It only says that an adversary stood up
> against Israel. It does not give the name of that adversary.
>
Of course it does. The Hebrew word is both a name and a description
like a majority of the Hebrew names. That adversary was named Satan on
of El's sons and brother to Yahweh. And it is a problem because the
first verse says that Adonai (usually Yahweh) was the one who did the
ordering and nothing about standing up to Israel.

> I will leave the rest for those much wiser than me to answer.
>
> --Wax
>
>>
>>
>> Can you explain what we should do:
>>
>> lo-taasu avel bamishpat lo-tisa fenei-dal velo tehdarpenei gadol
>> betsedek tishpot amitekha
>>
>> OR THIS
>>
>> me krinete ina me krithete
>>
>>
>> Which of these is the basis of Christian belief and which do you
>> believe:
>>
>> hos de an blasphemese eis to pneuma to hagion ouk echei aphesin eis
>> ton aiona all enochos estin aioniou kriseos
>>
>> OR THIS
>>
>> in hoc omnis qui credit iustificatur
>>
>> OR THIS
>>
>> horate toinun oti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos
>> monon
>>
>> OR THIS
>>
>> te gar chariti este sesosmenoi dia tes pisteos kai touto ouk ex humon
>> theou to doron ouk ex ergon hina me tis kauchesetai
>>
>>
>> --
>> Later,
>> Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com
>>
>> Webpage Sorcery
>> http://webpagesorcery.com
>> We Put the Magic in Your Webpages

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 11:17
pm weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:

>
> "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote
>>> Doesn't matter what the translations say. "Christ" is a
>>> Christian word and refers to the literal Son of God.
>>
>> No. . it comes from the greek 'khristos' and means 'anointed
>> one' or 'chosen one', and is equivalent to the Hebrew
>> 'messiah' .. it does not mean 'Son of God'. Anyone with
>> christian knowledge would know that.
>
> You referred to Arabic-English translations. Not Arabic-Greek. I did
> not say "Christ" meant "Son of God", I said that it "refers to the
> literal Son
> of God."

And you would be wrong. Christos (Christ in English) was applied to
King Darius, King David, a donkey, two pillars, a rock and a loaf of
bread in the Old Testament. And in Acts Christos was applied to two
other individuals other that Joshua. You are now going to suggest a
loaf of bread is a son of god? Or a donkey?

> It is too bad that you don't seem to know that.
>

It's too bad you don't read Greek. Otherwise you would not have made
that statement.

>>> Obviously the Quran was not referring to either Christ, or to
>>> a messiah.
>>
>> It was referring to Jesus and used the term which (translated to
>> English is) 'Christ' or 'Messiah'.
>
> Not any Jesus known to Christianity. I agree that it is trying to
> make that identification, but it can only do that by transforming him
> into a prophet rather than the Son of God.
>
>> Obviously the original quram wouldn't have in it the exact English
>> word 'christ' (it didn't even evist then) .. for that
>> matter the old testament and gospels don't have it either ..
>> because they weren't written in English. All we can go on
>> to compare is to look at translation inot a single language (in this
>> case
>> English0 and compare that. And Quram uses
>> 'Christ' or 'Messiah' (depending on the translation) to
>> describe Jesus.
>
> The Arabic term corresponds with neither the Jewish concept of the
> messiah,
> or the Christian concept of Christ. Perhaps that is why it is said
> that the Koran cannot be translated.
>
>> There's really nothing there to argue further about.
>
> There is always more to argue about.
>
> --Wax

--
Later,
Darrell Stec darstec@neo.rr.com

Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
 
> Christos (Christ in English) was applied to
> King Darius, King David, a donkey, two pillars, a rock and a loaf of
> bread in the Old Testament.
> And in Acts Christos was applied to two
> other individuals other that Joshua.

Can you please cite the particular verses. I'd be interested to read them,
and see how the word was translated (if only I could read Greek).

Thanks
 
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:23:33 -0500, Darrell Stec
<darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
- Refer: <53ves5F1uak4aU2@mid.individual.net>
>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 9:16 pm
>Michael Gray perhaps from mikegray@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:16:25 -0500, Darrell Stec
>> <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote:
>> - Refer: <53u0o9F1u1312U2@mid.individual.net>
>>>After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 12:23
>>>am Bible Believer perhaps from noway@nowhere.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Show us the writings of this Jesus.
>>>>
>>>> It seems that this is a common questions amongst the
>>>> atheists, who aren't too bright to begin with.
 
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:53vgilF1u11eaU1@mid.individual.net...
> After serious contemplation, on or about Monday 19 February 2007 6:50 pm
> weatherwax perhaps from weatherwax@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> "Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote

>>>
>>> How does one determine which might deceive the reader:
>>>
>>> vayosef af-adonai lakharot beyisrael vayaset et-david bahem
>>> lemor lekh mene et-yisrael veet-yehuda
>> 2 Samuel 24:1
>>>
>>>
>>> OR THIS
>>>
>>> vayaamod satan al-yisrael vayaset et-david limnot et-yisrael
>> 1 Chronicles 21:1
>>
>> Obviously 1 Chronicles 21:1 has deceived more Christians,
>> but that is because of poor translations. It only says that an
>> adversary stood up against Israel. It does not give the name
>> of that adversary.
>>
> Of course it does. The Hebrew word is both a name and a
> description like a majority of the Hebrew names. That
> adversary was named Satan on of El's sons and brother to
> Yahweh. And it is a problem because the first verse says that
> Adonai (usually Yahweh) was the one who did the
> ordering and nothing about standing up to Israel.

In the Book of Job and other places where "satan" is used to designate an
individual it is given as "ha satan", i.e. "the satan" or "the adversary".
In 1 Chronicles 21:1 no article is used, therefore it should be translated
as "an adversary".

In verse 5, Joab reports the numbers in terms of swordsmen, which indicates
that the adversary must have been a military threat.

--Wax
 

Similar threads

DaMan
What I know about the iPad 3
Replies
0
Views
123
DaMan
DaMan
DaMan
A month with the iPhone 4S
Replies
0
Views
126
DaMan
DaMan
timesjoke
Birds of a feather
Replies
0
Views
161
timesjoke
timesjoke
DaMan
Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 review
Replies
0
Views
212
DaMan
DaMan
R
Do Many Jews Believe They Collectively Are The Messiah?
Replies
3
Views
18
Carl
C
Back
Top