Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[daqq]

There it is right there Lon.

For if you look in Zec 9:9 the first donkey is male, (chamor), but that is not how Matthew reads. Matthew has the feminine gender autes. So the female donkey is tied, and the colt is with her, and he says to bring [it] the colt to him. Thus by comparing the passages we can see what is going on. Luke uses the exact same form of luo, (lusantes), but with auton (masculine).

Luke 19:30 W/H
30 λεγων υπαγετε εις την κατεναντι κωμην εν η εισπορευομενοι ευρησετε πωλον δεδεμενον εφ ον ουδεις πωποτε ανθρωπων εκαθισεν και λυσαντες αυτον αγαγετε

Matthew 21:2 W/H
2 λεγων αυτοις πορευεσθε εις την κωμην την κατεναντι υμων και ευθεως ευρησετε ονον δεδεμενην και πωλον μετ αυτης - λυσαντες αγαγετε μοι

This is why most honest translations will have them in italics ("bring them to me"), if that word is used at all, because it can be understood either way depending on how the reader decides to "hear" the text, (the context thus defines how it should be read). But in this case the context is not explicit enough so one must go back to the quote from where it speaks. Since the quote speaks of a male donkey the Matthew statement cannot mean bring them both because the donkey in the Matthew statement is female, (autes - αυτης).

Matthew 21:2 YLT
2 saying to them, 'Go on to the village over-against you, and immediately ye shall find an *** bound, and a colt with her--having loosed, bring ye to me;

In the Young's Literal Bible above it is more clear and fairly easy to be seen that he speaks of merely bringing the colt which was with the female donkey. In the Zechariah passage both a male and female donkey are mentioned. The first is a he-donkey, (chamor), while the colt is the son or foal of a she-donkey. It is therefore just as Matthew records it:

Zechariah 9:9
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon a he-donkey, [H2543 chamowr] even upon a colt, the foal of a she-donkey [H860 'athown].

The he-donkey is the colt, the son of a she-donkey, and was with its mother just as Matthew records, and the Master did not tell the disciples to bring both of them but rather to bring the colt. Once again, as even you have said a while back, Cobra is beffuddled over a mere translational issue and crying foul about something he does not understand because he did not dig deep enough before making his accusation against the scripture.

I should have quoted the Textus Receptus, (since that is what the YLT reads from), but the results are the same in the portions concerned.

 

[2003cobra]

I know. That is why I posted it. lain:


Ah. So when the first track didn't work, we abandon that and desperately try for something else :think:

Gotcha. AT THE VERY LEAST, you know yourself, how woefully lacking your own education is as you grasp at straws. Good on you for that.

I've been VERY clear. This discussion is WELL ABOVE your paygrade. Next?

How silly. The error is still there. Jesus told them they would find one animal and told them bring, or He told them they would find 2 animals and bring.

All through this thread you have grabbed the first thing you thought might resolve the answer and ran with it before thinking. You just did it again.

 

[2003cobra]

I know. That is why I posted it. lain:


Ah. So when the first track didn't work, we abandon that and desperately try for something else :think:

Gotcha. AT THE VERY LEAST, you know yourself, how woefully lacking your own education is as you grasp at straws. Good on you for that.

I've been VERY clear. This discussion is WELL ABOVE your paygrade. Next?

Of course you latched on my typo to claim victory.

Quite shallow and desperate.

 

[2003cobra]

I should have quoted the Textus Receptus, (since that is what the YLT reads from), but the results are the same in the portions concerned.

So, daqq, did Jesus tell the disciples

“Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Unite and bring to me”

Or

“Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie and bring to me”

Are you ever going to answer?

And are you ever going to answer whether the centurion came to Jesus and spoke to Jesus or not?

 

[2003cobra]

Quote Originally Posted by daqq

My position was made clear enough: what do you want me to do?
You chose not to investigate or believe what I said:

Also there was a certain nobleman, (βασιλικος), whose son was sick at a Village of Comfort, (Kapher-Nahum). This one, having heard that Ι̅H was come out of Yhudah into the Galilah, came to him, and besought him that he would come down and heal his son: for he was about to die off. Ι̅H therefore said to him, If you do not see signs and omens you will not be convinced? The nobleman said to him, Adoni, please come down before my servant-child dies. Ι̅H said to him, Go your way, your son lives! And the certain one believed the Word which Ι̅H had spoken to him, and he went his way. And as he was presently going down his servants met him and told him, saying, Your child lives! He then inquired of them the hour when he began to amend: they said thus to him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.

Every talmid has a "nobleman", and-or a "centurion of great faith", and all the remnant too: some for the good, (right hand side), and some for the evil, (left hand side), but in the end it all works toward the good for those who love Elohim.

I am willing to look at this, daqq, and reconsider my comment.

First, are you quoting something? If so, what?

If you ask me to believe what appears to be a quote with no source identified, then we must discuss further first.

It appears you are saying that this is just a story like many others. That is one reason I asked you if you viewed the centurion story as history or not.

I would appreciate your clear answers.

I am still waiting on your response to this, daqq.

 

[2003cobra]

Lon, the more I think about it, the more embarrassed I am for you. Even with your claim to seminary training, you pretend the there is an understood “it” after “bring” following a statement that they would find two animals.

That is really a sad commentary.

You should meditate on that level of desperation and rejection of the meaning of scripture.

 

[daqq]

So, Daqq, now that you have chosen to reject all the English translations in search of a way to ignore the error, you are still stuck with Matthew saying Jesus told them that they would find two animals, while Mark and Luke say one.

So, daqq, did Jesus tell the disciples

“Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Unite and bring to me”

Or

“Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie and bring to me”

One is a misquote of Jesus. One is an error.

You want my own reading?

Matthew 21:2 W/H
2 λεγων αυτοις πορευεσθε εις την κωμην την κατεναντι υμων και ευθεως ευρησετε ονον δεδεμενην και πωλον μετ αυτης λυσαντες αγαγετε μοι
2 saying to them, Go into the hamlet that is over-against you, and immediately [or possibly "by and by"] you shall find a donkey [elipsis →] tied, and a colt tied [← elipsis] with her: divorce it-them [loose it from its mother] and bring it unto me.

 

[2003cobra]

You want my own reading?

Matthew 21:2 W/H
2 λεγων αυτοις πορευεσθε εις την κωμην την κατεναντι υμων και ευθεως ευρησετε ονον δεδεμενην και πωλον μετ αυτης λυσαντες αγαγετε μοι
2 saying to them, Go into the hamlet that is over-against you, and immediately [or possibly "by and by"] you shall find a donkey [elipsis →] tied, and a colt tied [← elipsis] with her: divorce it-them [loose it from its mother] and bring it unto me.

Thank you.

I do note that none of the many translations I quoted earlier inserted the “it” as you did.

Of course, your translations is different from Mark’s quoting of Jesus. So there is an error. Jesus is misquoted.


Did you also notice that the disciples brought both animals in Matthew?

Look at verse 6:

The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.

Do you have a different translation of that verse? It says they brought the donkey and the colt.

 

[Lon]

Lon, the more I think about it, the more embarrassed I am for you. Even with your claim to seminary training, you pretend the there is an understood “it” after “bring” following a statement that they would find two animals.

That is really a sad commentary.

You should meditate on that level of desperation and rejection of the meaning of scripture.

It really is sad for you. You have NO grasp of Greek. None. Nadda. "Bring to me" That's it, Cobra. That is the whole of the translation.

:baby:

Of course you latched on my typo to claim victory.

No, that is down the line, just an indication of pay-grades.

Quite shallow and desperate.

Er, 'pay-grades.' Don't be quick and hasty with me, as you are with scripture (or vise versa) :think:

How silly. The error is still there. Jesus told them they would find one animal and told them bring, or He told them they would find 2 animals and bring.

It is silly. You said 'or' So go ahead and prove your claim, how many were there? Commit yourself. You've a 50/50 chance of honoring the Lord Jesus Christ. Go for it. According to you, one of them is wrong. Don't be shy, which one? SURELY you must know, since you KNOW one is an error. Tell me plainly. You've made a HUGE stink nobody is speaking plainly. Here's your shot. Which one? Which is wrong? Pick.

All through this thread you have grabbed the first thing you thought might resolve the answer and ran with it before thinking. You just did it again.

Shoddy, in point of fact, I've a list. In point of fact. All possibility and my claim was and is, you can't sink a one of them. Still haven't touched any of them. In point of fact, you can't. Go ahead, "swing away, Merle."

 

[Lon]

Thank you.

I do note that none of the many translations I quoted earlier inserted the “it” as you did.

Of course, your translations is different from Mark’s quoting of Jesus. So there is an error. Jesus is misquoted.


Did you also notice that the disciples brought both animals in Matthew?

Look at verse 6:

The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.

Do you have a different translation of that verse? It says they brought the donkey and the colt.

:doh: direct quote vs. indirect quote. Greek original vs. translations. A 'difference vs. an 'error.'

You hold on to an idea, however untenable, I'll grant you that. Stubborn posturizing, repetitive assertion, and a failure to address anything from one's opponent IS a mark of aptitude. You really should have never become a teacher. Somebody did you a disservice. 1 Timothy 3:6 You were set loose way before you were ready.

 

[2003cobra]

:doh: direct quote vs. indirect quote. Greek original vs. translations. A 'difference vs. an 'error.'

You hold on to an idea, however untenable, I'll grant you that. Stubborn posturizing, repetitive assertion, and a failure to address anything from one's opponent IS a mark of aptitude. You really should have never become a teacher. Somebody did you a disservice. 1 Timothy 3:6 You were set loose way before you were ready.

It is you who is stubbornly pretending that there is no error. Either Jesus is misquoted saying they will find two animals or Jesus is misquoted saying they will find one animal.

I asked you about the poor Greek in Revelation. Are you still researching that?

I have another error to discuss when a little more work is done locking this one down.

As for 1 Timothy 3.6, I find it more applicable to you — for you value your tradition above what the scriptures actually say.

 

[2003cobra]

Lon writes;
You have NO grasp of Greek. None. Nadda. "Bring to me" That's it, Cobra. That is the whole of the translation.

Really?

You are going to pretend the “bring to me” is not translated in light of the words right before it?

That is quite dishonest.

Context is important in a translation.

Claiming that is the whole of the translation when there is information before and after is unworthy of someone who claims to be a teacher.

As for:
how many were there? Commit yourself.

I answered that. Several pages ago. Did you miss it?

I said there was only one animal. Jesus sent them for one animal. Mark, Luke, and three witnesses, are right and Matthew is wrong.

Jesus did not ride two animals.

The writers of Matthew misread the prophecy of Zech, not understanding Hebrew parallelism. They thought there were two animals in the prophecy when there was only one. I provided two sources to support that.

So my opinion is Matthew misquotes Jesus and compounds the error by putting Him on 2 animals.

You wrote:
You've a 50/50 chance of honoring the Lord Jesus Christ.

What makes you think pretending an error does not exist honors the Lord?

It appears you are worshipping the Bible, not God.

 

[2003cobra]

By the way, daqq intentionally rejected the context, both before and after “bring to me,” and translated the passage inconsistently with the context.

That shows he values his tradition more than he values the scripture.

 

[George Affleck]

"τους δε ανδρας τους οντας επι της θυρας του οικου επαταξαν αορασια απο μικρου εως μεγαλου και παρελυθησαν ζητουντες την θυραν" :chuckle:

"And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door."?

What does that have to do with the price of cheese?

 

[Lon]

It sounds like you don’t know Koine Greek, Lon.

Irrelevant (1 1/2 years). How kind of you to question it. You read Greek do you? If so, you'd know, beyond doubt, I translated it correctly. I KNOW I did.

:baby:

Did you not learn that in seminary?

:troll:

I refer you to Daniel Wallace’s introduction to Revelation, including:

Why not, as close as you are capable, that much is sure. Why? Because you are questioning "My" translation (yup, all mine, nice try).

First, in assessing the linguistic problem, Guthrie is dealing with Dionysius’ statement that whoever wrote the Apocalypse could not have authored the Gospel, because the Greek of the Apocalypse is so different, indeed, so bad (Dionysius calls it “barbarous”), while the Greek of the Fourth Gospel is relatively good Greek. Guthrie paints a uniform picture of modern opinion which is far from uniform: the Greek of the Fourth Gospel is, according to several scholars, very good Greek with almost no trace of Semitisms,6 and the solecistic Greek of the Apocalypse cannot be reduced, at all times, to intention.7

https://bible.org/seriespage/revelation-introduction-argument-and-outline

:rotfl: (sorry, my wife even, asks me why I chuckle when talking to you, I can't help it, you are so ignorant it either must be fodder for laughter or a sad state of not laughing because your ignorance actually DOES hurt you).

Read the above again. It is a quote OF a quote, OF a quote. It is sad you don't know what that means. Likely, it is not Wallace's own view (it isn't, he says so later :doh: ). He is talking about another's view. Wallace himself, (AND FROM YOUR VERY LINK!!!) Says that John likely adopted the language of the scriptures and thus, it shows in his vocabulary, NOT poor Greek, but an affinity with the scriptures! :doh: PLEASE stop. This kind of shoddy work is only hurting you worse (genuine, not a mean thump). Be a learner. Become a Berean. -Lon

 

[Lon]

"And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door."?

What does that have to do with the price of cheese?

Your Greek vocabulary is better than mine. I'd have had to look up about half of those words.

 

[Lon]

Lon writes;
You have NO grasp of Greek. None. Nadda. "Bring to me" That's it, Cobra. That is the whole of the translation.

Really?

You are going to pretend the “bring to me” is not translated in light of the words right before it?

That is quite dishonest.

Context is important in a translation.

Claiming that is the whole of the translation when there is information before and after is unworthy of someone who claims to be a teacher.

As for:
how many were there? Commit yourself.

I answered that. Several pages ago. Did you miss it?

I said there was only one animal. Jesus sent them for one animal. Mark, Luke, and three witnesses, are right and Matthew is wrong.

:doh: There you go. It is TOO easy: WHAT MAKES YOU THINK MATTHEW was wrong??? Because two others' don't (supposedly) agree with him? :doh:

Jesus did not ride two animals.

:doh: Zechariah 9:9 PLEASE THINK! ...

The writers of Matthew misread the prophecy of Zech, not understanding Hebrew parallelism. They thought there were two animals in the prophecy when there was only one. I provided two sources to support that.

...If it is Matthew, he was there, no? Think more. It ISN'T likely he was misread for this. There surely is a different reason, OR AT LEAST he MUST be given that! You can't 'assume' error. That IS what you are doing. You PROVE it (if not misspoken) in your next sentence:

So my opinion...

There it is. Opinions are nice. Facts they do not make.

is Matthew misquotes Jesus and compounds the error by putting Him on 2 animals.

Compounds? As in covering a lie? :think: What can you possibly mean?

You wrote:
You've a 50/50 chance of honoring the Lord Jesus Christ.

What makes you think pretending an error does not exist honors the Lord?

It appears you are worshipping the Bible, not God.

Ridiculous. Matthew 4:4 You'd have me next loving the Father more than the Son or some such nonsense.

I'll say this again. I know you CANNOT be convinced of it, but it is STILL MY stance and firmly: You CANNOT know if such is an error or not.
"C-A-N-N-O-T" (means there is not enough information for us to know) "KNOW" (empirically, provably, beyond ALL doubt).

That means, we BOTH assume something from our presupposition every time we come to the text. You've already said you 'assume' that men cannot write perfectly without mistake and assume they are always there. I simply 'assume' from intelligent deductive reasoning, that I 'cannot know' for certain what the deal is. OFTEN times I'd not known Hebrew custom when I couldn't figure something out. I didn't know 'how' Jonah could be living and breathing inside a fish for 3 days, etc. etc. FACTS and information allowed me to come to a suitable, educated, latter conclusion.

By the way, daqq intentionally rejected the context, both before and after “bring to me,” and translated the passage inconsistently with the context.

That shows he values his tradition more than he values the scripture.

No he did not. All he said is what I said "Bring it to me" is a completely congruent AND contextually viable translation. ONLY a COMPLETE adherence to suppositional theology would dismiss it.

 

[Zeke]

Genesis 16:11-12, Galatians 4:24-25, so who is riding what into the kingdom where Luke 17:20-21?. allegory becomes secular history a :deadhorse:

 

[2003cobra]

"And they smote the men that were at the door of the house with blindness, both small and great: so that they wearied themselves to find the door."?

What does that have to do with the price of cheese?

Glad you are still here.

 

[daqq]

Thank you.

I do note that none of the many translations I quoted earlier inserted the “it” as you did.

Of course, your translations is different from Mark’s quoting of Jesus. So there is an error. Jesus is misquoted.


Did you also notice that the disciples brought both animals in Matthew?

Look at verse 6:

The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; 7 they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them.

Do you have a different translation of that verse? It says they brought the donkey and the colt.

No, they did not bring two because ονος, (donkey), is used for both male and female depending on the context. There is another word also found in the Septuagint version of Zec 9:9, (υποζυγιον), which is found in Mat 21:5 but it is neuter and simply means "a beast of burden", (of any kind). The following passage from the Septuagint uses ονος for a male donkey, (according to the context), showing that it can be used either way:

Exodus 13:11-13 LXX-Septuagint (Brenton Translation)
11 And it shall come to pass when the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land of the Chananites, as he sware to thy fathers, and shall give it thee,
12 that thou shalt set apart every offspring opening the womb, the males to the Lord, every one that opens the womb out of the herds or among thy cattle, as many as thou shalt have: thou shalt sanctify the males to the Lord.
13 Every offspring opening the womb of the *** [ονου - donkey] thou shalt change for a sheep; and if thou wilt not change it, thou shalt redeem it: every first-born of man of thy sons shalt thou redeem.

By the context one may see that it is fairly clear a male donkey is intended. The Matthew text therefore follows on to read just as it was laid out in the Prophet Zechariah from the passage as previously quoted:

Zechariah 9:9
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon a he-donkey, even upon a colt, the son-foal of a she-donkey.

Matthew 21:7 W/H
7 ηγαγον την ονον και τον πωλον και επεθηκαν επ αυτων τα ιματια και επεκαθισεν επανω αυτων

Matthew 21:6-7
6 And the disciples went, and did even as Yeshua directed them:
7 [they] brought the donkey, even the colt, and put their garments upon them: and he sat thereon.

Or it could be understood this way also:

7 [they] brought the donkey, even the colt, and put their garments thereon: and he sat thereon.

??? I dunno for sure . . . :idunno:

However the donkey and the colt are the same: but "them" and "thereon", (αυτων), highlighted in the above must mean that the donkey and the colt have two different supernal meanings and understandings which fulfill multiple things, (Gen 49:11?), though they are the same. Perhaps it is something like the difference between a scarlet robe, (Mat 27:28), and a purple robe, (Mrk 15:17-20, Jhn 19:2-5)? But are we going to call that difference an error? Maybe you, but not me: it is just something more to search out in the Word as far as I am concerned.