Scripture. What is considered Scripture?

[Lon]

For posterity of the thread, this Cobra guy cannot read for comprehension

For posterity of the thread, this Cobra guy cannot read for comprehension

See that little open quote before Wallace’s own words “Grammatical solecisms in Revelation abound!“
?

:doh: You are inept. This ALL was quote and address concerning "Guthrie's" poor stance on Revelation which Wallace disagrees with! The whole article is ABOUT this disagreement! :noway:


What does Cobra do? He misreads and attributes all (QUOTES INCLUDED :doh: ) to Wallace, the very man against Guthrie's poor commentary (and Cobra, who largely agrees with Guthrie!) What does Cobra do? Cites an article AGAINST his own position, thinking it is Dr. Daniel Wallace COMPLETELY MISSING that it is Guthrie 1) he agrees with and 2) that the article is actually against, both Cobra and Guthrie. :doh: You can't make this stuff up, folks. lain:

Revelation is very poor Greek. Wallace says so himself.

ANYONE can see you doubled-down on ignorance and error! No wonder you think error is everywhere! You are FULL of it!

I suppose they did not mention that in your seminary training, attempting to maintain the delusion that God chose the words.

Er, a 'wrong assessment' as quick and dirty as you've been with Wallace and the scriptures themselves throughout this entire thread. I'm convinced, as will ANYONE (even one who agrees theologically with you like Watchman) who reads the article (linked several times). It is a done deal. Demonstrably, you CANNOT read for comprehension. You are inept and a simpleton for doubling-down on your compounded errors. You've lost, Cobra. Its all over, Take it away brother John:

Correct, Lonster, as this "thread"(loosely employed here)is now...

delete

 

[daqq]

I do appreciate your sharing that there are many things on which none of the translators agree with you.

I don’t know the other cases, but I do understand that being told to go find two things, followed by the command bring, should either be left “bring to me” or “bring them to me.” And that is the correct approach that the other translators took.

Lon’s implication that context doesn’t matter in translation is something that is difficult to believe came out of a post by a person who attended seminary.

Inserting “it” is a transparent and failed attempt to reconcile the error.

......."πορευεσθε εις την κωμην την κατεναντι υμων και ευθεως ευρησετε ονον δεδεμενην και πωλον μετ αυτης λυσαντες αγαγετε μοι"

......."Go into the hamlet that is over-against you, and by and by you shall find a donkey [elipsis →] tied, and a colt tied [← elipsis] with her: divorce them, [loose it from its mother] and bring it unto me."

Without inserts:

"Go into the hamlet that is over-against you, and by and by you shall find a donkey tied, and a colt tied with her: divorce them, and bring it unto me."

Revelation 1:5 KJV (T/R)
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed [λουσαντι] us from our sins in his own blood,

Revelation 1:5 ASV (W/H)
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed [λυσαντι] us from our sins by his blood;

"And from Meshiah Yeshua, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth: he who loved us, and divorced us from our sins by his own blood"

You see two, I see one: you see black, I see white: you see error, I have made peace.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

......."πορευεσθε εις την κωμην την κατεναντι υμων και ευθεως ευρησετε ονον δεδεμενην και πωλον μετ αυτης λυσαντες αγαγετε μοι"

......."Go into the hamlet that is over-against you, and by and by you shall find a donkey [elipsis →] tied, and a colt tied [← elipsis] with her: divorce them, [loose it from its mother] and bring it unto me."

Without inserts:

"Go into the hamlet that is over-against you, and by and by you shall find a donkey tied, and a colt tied with her: divorce them, and bring it unto me."

Revelation 1:5 KJV (T/R)
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed [λουσαντι] us from our sins in his own blood,

Revelation 1:5 ASV (W/H)
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed [λυσαντι] us from our sins by his blood;

"And from Meshiah Yeshua, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth: he who loved us, and divorced us from our sins by his own blood"

You see two, I see one: you see black, I see white: you see error, I have made peace.

I might be wrong but I thought cobra was holding to one and watchman was going with two?

 

[daqq]

I might be wrong but I thought cobra was holding to one and watchman was going with two?

I believe Cobra sees one in the Hebrew, (Zec 9:9, (which if he does I would agree with)), but sees two in Matthew, (which I do not agree with), and therefore he claims that Matthew "misquotes Jesus". As for the Watcher, he just got through prophesying again in another thread that the great tribulation begins in 2022 and Jesus returns in 2029, and thus, since the first time I saw him do that, I have not actually paid much attention to which way he happens to be drifting whenever he passes by screaming cultist, antichrist, and the rest of his favorite verbal whatnots.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I believe Cobra sees one in the Hebrew, (Zec 9:9, (which if he does I would agree with)), but sees two in Matthew, (which I do not agree with), and therefore he claims that Matthew "misquotes Jesus".

I gotcha.

As for the Watcher, he just got through prophesying again in another thread that the great tribulation begins in 2022 and Jesus returns in 2029, and thus, since the first time I saw him do that, I have not actually paid much attention to which way he happens to be drifting whenever he passes by screaming cultist, antichrist, and the rest of his favorite verbal whatnots.

I hear yuh.

I'm purdy shore that ole tribulation is gonna happen in 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 too. lain:

 

[daqq]

I gotcha.


I hear yuh.

I'm purdy shore that ole tribulation is gonna happen in 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 too. lain:

Lol, seems like lately the end of the world is about once a year, if not twice: I already forgot when the last eclipse was, or when the next doomsday black orb eye-in-the-sky sun is supposed to darken all of humanity and kill a third of mankind, but I sure am glad we have all made it through those four typically copper-colored moons: all those doctored online bloody images of the "blood moons" were so atrocious that after a while some of them began to make me wonder if my own eyes were bleeding.

Yeah, Cobra posted this:

Watchman, I will add that the Oxford Annotated NRSV note for Zech 9:9 say:
Doneky, colt, in the style of Hebrew parallelism, a single animal (as in Gen 49.21; Jon 12.14-15) is meant here. In the New Testament, Mt 21.5-7 misunderstands and assumes two animals are meant...

And this just above herein:

It looks like that to people accustomed to English and not trained in Hebrew.

I don’t have much time now, but perhaps this might help:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/files/zechariah_9.pdf

I think the definitive version of Zech 9.9 is in the Old Testament.

If I was an odds maker like the Watcher, I would lay odds that the Watcher himself really is not even sure what Cobra is actually saying: and that Cobra, if asked, might not even be able to tell you why the author of that PDF finds it appropriate to omit the waw-vav in a most critical place, (for this discussion), in his translation, (and rightly so, but I included it because Matthew does, and it actually shows that much of what that author has said also applies to the Hebrew mindset of the author of Matthew, which is now in Greek, but originally was not).

Moreover that is why I said this to Cobra:

You are apparently so arrogant that you are willing to tell yourself that you understand the Zechariah statement while the author of Matthew did not.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

If I was an odds maker like the Watcher, I would lay odds that the Watcher himself really is not even sure what Cobra is actually saying: and that Cobra, if asked, might not even be able to tell you why the author of that PDF finds it appropriate to omit the waw-vav in a most critical place, (for this discussion), in his translation, (and rightly so, but I included it because Matthew does, and it actually shows that much of what that author has said also applies to the Hebrew mindset of the author of Matthew, which is now in Greek, but originally was not).

Moreover that is why I said this to Cobra:

You be talkin' bove my pay grade here, bro.

But I do see cobra caused you to go back and reaffirm what you already knew.

All in all not a bad thing if yuh ask me.

I'm purdy lazy, so I'm not gonna hunt down yer former posts on the waw-vav. (right now anyhow)

But y'all keep talkin' and I'll eventually absorb the necessaries.

 

[daqq]

You be talkin' bove my pay grade here, bro.

But I do see cobra caused you to go back and reaffirm what you already knew.

All in all not a bad thing if yuh ask me.

I'm purdy lazy, so I'm not gonna hunt down yer former posts on the waw-vav. (right now anyhow)

But y'all keep talkin' and I'll eventually absorb the necessaries.

Amen, and as for him causing me to reaffirm, I did indeed thank him for that.

 

[2003cobra]

:chuckle: "Not to bright" hit him hard in the gut, so of course it was 'worse.' Another? Child of Satan but no, 'my' post hit him where it counts lain:

Nothing you wrote hit me hard.

You give yourself far too much credit in so many areas.

 

[2003cobra]

:doh: You are inept. This ALL was quote and address concerning "Guthrie's" poor stance on Revelation which Wallace disagrees with! The whole article is ABOUT this disagreement! :noway:


What does Cobra do? He misreads and attributes all (QUOTES INCLUDED :doh: ) to Wallace, the very man against Guthrie's poor commentary (and Cobra, who largely agrees with Guthrie!) What does Cobra do? Cites an article AGAINST his own position, thinking it is Dr. Daniel Wallace COMPLETELY MISSING that it is Guthrie 1) he agrees with and 2) that the article is actually against, both Cobra and Guthrie. :doh: You can't make this stuff up, folks. lain:


ANYONE can see you doubled-down on ignorance and error! No wonder you think error is everywhere! You are FULL of it!



Er, a 'wrong assessment' as quick and dirty as you've been with Wallace and the scriptures themselves throughout this entire thread. I'm convinced, as will ANYONE (even one who agrees theologically with you like Watchman) who reads the article (linked several times). It is a done deal. Demonstrably, you CANNOT read for comprehension. You are inept and a simpleton for doubling-down on your compounded errors. You've lost, Cobra. Its all over, Take it away brother John:

You do prefer to attack rather than dealing with facts and scripture.

Are you still maintaining that God chose the words in scripture?

 

[2003cobra]

......."πορευεσθε εις την κωμην την κατεναντι υμων και ευθεως ευρησετε ονον δεδεμενην και πωλον μετ αυτης λυσαντες αγαγετε μοι"

......."Go into the hamlet that is over-against you, and by and by you shall find a donkey [elipsis →] tied, and a colt tied [← elipsis] with her: divorce them, [loose it from its mother] and bring it unto me."

Without inserts:

"Go into the hamlet that is over-against you, and by and by you shall find a donkey tied, and a colt tied with her: divorce them, and bring it unto me."

Revelation 1:5 KJV (T/R)
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed [λουσαντι] us from our sins in his own blood,

Revelation 1:5 ASV (W/H)
5 and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed [λυσαντι] us from our sins by his blood;

"And from Meshiah Yeshua, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead and the ruler of the kings of the earth: he who loved us, and divorced us from our sins by his own blood"

You see two, I see one: you see black, I see white: you see error, I have made peace.

Lon implied Zech 9.9 refers to one animal, but he seems reluctant to admit that clearly because it further demonstrates the error in Matthew.

You seem to avoid Matthew 21:6-7
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.

Your translation has the disciples disobeying Jesus and bringing two animals.

Have you noticed your translation of 21:2 is contradicted by verses 6 and 7?

It is easy to make peace with error if you stop looking.

 

[2003cobra]

I gotcha.





I hear yuh.

I'm purdy shore that ole tribulation is gonna happen in 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 too. lain:

I think anyone who tries to predict the tribulation will be wrong about other things too, but trying to insinuate an error in all things based on a error in one thing is inappropriate.

I have provided relevant information on Zech 9.9, including
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/files/zechariah_9.pdf
which has a very nice explanation of the various terms, in part:
Zion’s future king will come mounted on an ‘***’ (ֲחמוֹר ). The term
refers to a wild or domesticated ***, male in gender. More precisely, he sits on a ‘donkey’ (ַעִיר), or domesticated ***, male in gender. Expressed
otherwise, the mountee is ‘a foal of she-*****’ (ֶבּן־ ֲא ֹתנוֹת ). The last
expression describes the male animal as the offspring of generations of she- *****. The air of domesticity the expression carries with it transfers to the larger construction. It might be argued that ַע ִיר , ֲחמוֹר , and ֶבּן־ ֲא ֹתנוֹת are
gender-neutral rather than gender-specific designations. But that is not a straightforward way of construing the text. The poet would have used the corresponding feminine terms if that were his meaning.


As well as the notes from the Oxford Annotated NRSV:
Donkey, colt, in the style of Hebrew parallelism, a single animal (as in Gen 49.21; Jon 12.14-15) is meant here. In the New Testament, Mt 21.5-7 misunderstands and assumes two animals are meant...

Note that none of these translations attempt to eliminate the error by mistranslation with an “it” inserted after “bring”


KJ21 saying unto them, “Go into the village opposite you, and straightway ye shall find an *** tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them unto Me.
ASV saying unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and straightway ye shall find an *** tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
AMP saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and at once you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me.
AMPC Saying to them, Go into the village that is opposite you, and at once you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie [them] and bring [them] to Me.
BRG Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an *** tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
CSB telling them, “Go into the village ahead of you. At once you will find a donkey tied there with her foal. Untie them and bring them to me.
CEB He said to them, “Go into the village over there. As soon as you enter, you will find a donkey tied up and a colt with it. Untie them and bring them to me.
CJB with these instructions: “Go into the village ahead of you, and you will immediately find a donkey tethered there with its colt. Untie them and bring them to me.
CEV He told them, “Go into the next village, where you will at once find a donkey and her colt. Untie the two donkeys and bring them to me.
DARBY saying to them, Go into the village over against you, and immediately ye will find an *** tied, and a colt with it; loose [them] and lead [them] to me.
DLNT saying to them, “Proceed to the village before you, and immediately you will find a donkey having been tied, and a colt with her. Having untied them, bring them to Me.
DRA Saying to them: Go ye into the village that is over against you, and immediately you shall find an *** tied, and a colt with her: loose them and bring them to me.
ERV He said to them, “Go to the town you can see there. When you enter it, you will find a donkey with her colt. Untie them both, and bring them to me.
EHV telling them, “Go to the village ahead of you. Immediately you will find a donkey tied there along with her colt. Untie them and bring them to me.
ESV saying to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me.
ESVUK saying to them, “Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me.
EXB and said to them, “Go to the town ·you can see there [ahead of you; or opposite you]. When you enter it, you will ·quickly [immediately] find a donkey tied there with its colt. Untie them and bring them to me.
GNV Saying to them, Go into the town that is over against you, and anon ye shall find an *** bound, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
GW He said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you. You will find a donkey tied there and a colt with it. Untie them, and bring them to me.
GNT with these instructions: “Go to the village there ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied up with her colt beside her. Untie them and bring them to me.
HCSB telling them, “Go into the village ahead of you. At once you will find a donkey tied there, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to Me.
ICB He said to them, “Go to the town you can see there. When you enter it, you will find a donkey tied there with its colt. Untie them and bring them to me.
ISV told them, “Go into the village ahead of you. At once you will find a donkey tied up and a colt with it. Untie them, and bring them to me.
PHILLIPS As they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage and the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples ahead telling them, “Go into the village in front of you and you will at once find there an *** tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. Should anyone say anything to you, you are to say, ‘The Lord needs them’, and he will send them immediately.”
JUB saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an *** tied and a colt with her; loose them and bring them unto me.
KJV Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an *** tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
AKJV saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an *** tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.
LEB saying to them, “Go into the village before you, and right away you will find a donkey tied and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me.
TLB “Just as you enter,” he said, “you will see a donkey tied there, with its colt beside it. Untie them and bring them here.
MSG When they neared Jerusalem, having arrived at Bethphage on Mount Olives, Jesus sent two disciples with these instructions: “Go over to the village across from you. You’ll find a donkey tethered there, her colt with her. Untie her and bring them to me. If anyone asks what you’re doing, say, ‘The Master needs them!’ He will send them with you.”
MEV saying to them, “Go over into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to Me.
MOUNCE saying to them, “Go into the village · ahead of you, and right away you will find a donkey tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me.
NOG He said to them, “Go into the village ahead of you. You will find a donkey tied there and a colt with it. Untie them, and bring them to me.
NABRE saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an *** tethered, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them here to me.
NASB saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied there and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to Me.
NCV and said to them, “Go to the town you can see there. When you enter it, you will quickly find a donkey tied there with its colt. Untie them and bring them to me.
NET telling them, “Go to the village ahead of you. Right away you will find a donkey tied there, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me.
NIRV He said to them, “Go to the village ahead of you. As soon as you get there, you will find a donkey tied up. Her colt will be with her. Untie them and bring them to me.
NIV saying to them, “Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.
NIVUK saying to them, ‘Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me.
NKJV saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Loose them and bring them to Me.
NLV He said to them, “Go to the town over there. You will find a donkey tied and her young with her. Let them loose and bring them to Me.
NLT “Go into the village over there,” he said. “As soon as you enter it, you will see a donkey tied there, with its colt beside it. Untie them and bring them to me.
NMB saying to them, Go into the town that lies in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and her colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me.
NRSV saying to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me.
NRSVA saying to them, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me.
NRSVACE saying to them, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me.
NRSVCE saying to them, “Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me.
NTE ‘Go into the village over there,’ he said, ‘and at once you’ll find a donkey tied up, and a foal beside it. Untie them and bring them to me.
OJB saying to them, Go into the shtetl ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey having been tied and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me.
TPT “As soon as you enter the village, you will find a donkey tethered along with her young colt. Untie them both and bring them to me.
RSV saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an *** tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me.
RSVCE saying to them, “Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an *** tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me.
TLV saying to them, “Go into the village before you. Right away, you’ll find a donkey tied up and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to Me.
VOICE Jesus: Go to the village over there. There you’ll find a donkey tied to a post and a foal beside it. Untie them and bring them to Me.
WEB saying to them, “Go into the village that is opposite you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them, and bring them to me.
WE He said to them, `Go into the village in front of you. As soon as you go in, you will find a donkey for riding, and her young one. They are tied there. Untie them and bring them to me.
WYC and said to them [saying to them], Go ye into the castle that is against you, and at once [and anon] ye shall find an *** tied, and a colt with her; untie ye, and bring to me.
YLT 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;

 

[2003cobra]

You be talkin' bove my pay grade here, bro.

But I do see cobra caused you to go back and reaffirm what you already knew.

All in all not a bad thing if yuh ask me.

I'm purdy lazy, so I'm not gonna hunt down yer former posts on the waw-vav. (right now anyhow)

But y'all keep talkin' and I'll eventually absorb the necessaries.

And still daqq inserted “it” between “bring” and “to me” in Matthew, something no other published translation I could find has done.

When the text says go and find two things and bring, inserting “it” is absent from all the other translations. Then Matthew 21:6-7 rebukes his tampering with the text.

And Lon implied that he knows enough about Hebrew to affirm that Zech 9.9 is referring to one animal, but he won’t come out and say that. Why? Because he wants to win a debate and wants to withhold evidence that removes support for his man-made tradition of inerrancy.

I think this withholding, along with his attacking me rather than dealing with the facts and scripture, is an indictment of his position.

 

[2003cobra]

Amen, and as for him causing me to reaffirm, I did indeed thank him for that.

I think what you reaffirmed is that you disagree with every translation available and with the verses just a few sentences down the text.

This is classic witness tampering.

 

[daqq]

Lon implied Zech 9.9 refers to one animal, but he seems reluctant to admit that clearly because it further demonstrates the error in Matthew.

You seem to avoid Matthew 21:6-7
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.

Your translation has the disciples disobeying Jesus and bringing two animals.

Have you noticed your translation of 21:2 is contradicted by verses 6 and 7?

It is easy to make peace with error if you stop looking.

I addressed those things already and the passage actually does not disagree with Prophet Zechariah. Read your own link which you posted: just as I said to you before, you are not following the layout and thinking according to the Prophet, so even though you may understand that the Prophet does indeed speak of a single animal, you still do not understand his thinking, the logos-reasoning behind what he says. You therefore assent to the proper reading of the Zechariah passage but deny the Prophet in that you fail to understand the meaning behind the text. For the same reason you do not understand that Matthew maintains that same logos-reasoning, (though it probably came out better in whatever Matthew was originally written in, (either Hebrew or Hebrew-Aramaic according to Irenaeus, Jerome, and Origen as quoted by Eusebius, and probably a few more)). The very link which you yourself posted to make your point even goes into the fact that Zion and Jerusalem are two different names but the same, (one!), and the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem are two different names but the same, (one!). However the author of your link, like you, also fails to realize that even his own studies reveal how Matthew is doing the exact same thing as the Prophet except that the passage is now written in Greek! He shows himself and what he says about Matthew at the bottom of the page to be incorrect by the very same things he himself laid out in his PDF! And the reason why is because he does the same thing that you do, and that is to imagine himself as being smarter than Matthew, with himself understanding Zechariah while telling himself that Matthew must not have understood or had a different first-century mindset for reading such texts. How can anyone be so blind? How in the world can anyone who claims to have an analytical mind and the capability to understand language think that Matthew believes the Master rode two donkeys at the same time or at the very least entered the city on one, then went back out and entered the city a second time on the other?

"Professing themselves to be wise, they became" . . .

These things are intentional: and they are there to either force you to abandon your walk in the carnal man nature or doom yourself to never understanding.

 

[daqq]

And still daqq inserted “it” between “bring” and “to me” in Matthew, something no other published translation I could find has done.

When the text says go and find two things and bring, inserting “it” is absent from all the other translations. Then Matthew 21:6-7 rebukes his tampering with the text.

And Lon implied that he knows enough about Hebrew to affirm that Zech 9.9 is referring to one animal, but he won’t come out and say that. Why? Because he wants to win a debate and wants to withhold evidence that removes support for his man-made tradition of inerrancy.

I think this withholding, along with his attacking me rather than dealing with the facts and scripture, is an indictment of his position.

Truth be told I can read it either way. Why can you not see that after what I have said?

Genesis 16:12 ASV
12 And he shall be as a wild *** [wild-donkey] among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his brethren.

You know who this speaks of correct? His mother is Hagar, and it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. Moreover the one who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but the one born of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which generates bondage-slavery, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Therefore the gender of the donkeys really doesn't even matter, (as previously suggested), and neither does it matter whether you read it as two in Matthew right from the start all the way through, or the way I had it, (because if you read "divorce" for lusantes that is simply the natural flow, and the two are truly one and the same). And the reason it does not matter is because the passage actually concerns the covenants, which are two, but really the same one covenant except only seen through two different sets of eyes, (as already previously touched upon in another post, with many scripture quotes). The primary or old way of seeing the covenant is the donkey "accustomed to the yoke", (an idiom for bondage, just as the Israelites in Egypt who would have preferred to remain under the bondage of the Egyptians merely so as to have good food for the belly, (like Esau who sold his birthright for a bowl of soup)). The other donkey, or colt, upon which no one had ever sat or ridden, is the new covenant. It was therefore most likely necessary for the Matthew passage to be written the way it is because the supernal-spiritual fulfillment is way more important than satisfying the reading pleasure of the carnal minded man by making sure the flesh minded interpretation makes sense to the carnal minded reader.

Literally speaking it is one donkey. Supernally speaking it is two donkeys because Messiah confirms-strenghtens the "covenant for many", (Dan 9:27, Mat 26:28 ASV, Mrk 14:24 ASV, Luk 22:17 ASV), and yet establishes the new, (Luk 22:20 ASV).

 

[daqq]

Truth be told I can read it either way. Why can you not see that after what I have said?

Genesis 16:12 ASV
12 And he shall be as a wild *** [wild-donkey] among men; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell over against all his brethren.

You know who this speaks of correct? His mother is Hagar, and it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. Moreover the one who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but the one born of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which generates bondage-slavery, which is Hagar. For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Therefore the gender of the donkeys really doesn't even matter, (as previously suggested), and neither does it matter whether you read it as two in Matthew right from the start all the way through, or the way I had it, (because if you read "divorce" for lusantes that is simply the natural flow, and the two are truly one and the same). And the reason it does not matter is because the passage actually concerns the covenants, which are two, but really the same one covenant except only seen through two different sets of eyes, (as already previously touched upon in another post, with many scripture quotes). The primary or old way of seeing the covenant is the donkey "accustomed to the yoke", (an idiom for bondage, just as the Israelites in Egypt who would have preferred to remain under the bondage of the Egyptians merely so as to have good food for the belly, (like Esau who sold his birthright for a bowl of soup)). The other donkey, or colt, upon which no one had ever sat or ridden, is the new covenant. It was therefore most likely necessary for the Matthew passage to be written the way it is because the supernal-spiritual fulfillment is way more important than satisfying the reading pleasure of the carnal minded man by making sure the flesh minded interpretation makes sense to the carnal minded reader.

Literally speaking it is one donkey. Supernally speaking it is two donkeys because Messiah confirms-strenghtens the "covenant for many", (Dan 9:27, Mat 26:28 ASV, Mrk 14:24 ASV, Luk 22:17 ASV), and yet establishes the new, (Luk 22:20 ASV).

After looking a little deeper I will say that it could very well be that the gender of the donkey(s) does not matter at all: for Jerusalem of above is our mother-covenant, (Gal 4:22-27), and has all kinds of symbolic and allegorical significance, (for instance "new Jerusalem" of the Apocalypse would thus be the symbolism of the new covenant and "daughter of Zion-Jerusalem" in the allegory-analogy). Moreover Jerusalem is typed as a wild donkey in Jer 2:23,24 and the daughter of Zion and daughter of Jerusalem has hoofs, (of brass), in Mic 4:13, (again here the scripture speaks of the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem as the same, Mic 4:8, just as in Zec 9:9). The Master already had the new covenant during his ministry according to Yohanan:

John 3:27-31 KJV
27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
30 He must increase, but I must decrease.
31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

The Testimony of the Messiah is the new covenant, and his Testimony he received from the heavens, from above, (from the Father without measure, Jhn 3:34), and he that has the bride is the groom: the bride therefore is the new covenant which descends from the heavens, (as in the Apocalypse, it is deep symbolism). However the new covenant is actually a renewed covenant, and thus the old or primary is the new when it is interpreted through the new revelation of Messiah given to us in his Testimony in the Gospel accounts: in other words they are the same, the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, but understood through the Testimony of Messiah with new "spiritual eyes" given to us through the Testimony of the Messiah. This can be seen in the accounts of the last Seder where there are two of the multiple cups mentioned: Messiah passes not one but two cups around to his disciples, one during the meal and one afterwards, (mentioned in Luke). The first cup is the confirmation of the primary covenant "for many", (Dan 9:27, Mat 26:28 ASV, Mrk 14:24 ASV, Luk 22:17 ASV), while the second cup after the meal is the new covenant, ("shed for you", it is private, personal, and individual, Luk 22:20 ASV). So it may be that the Matthew 21 passage speaks in these terms, that is, Zion-Jerusalem of above, and the daughter of Zion-Jerusalem, (both covenants: one donkey "accustomed to the yoke", and one young-new donkey, regardless of gender because it speaks of heavenly cities, lol).

Galatians 4:22-26
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

These things very well could be . . .
I have much more to study now: thank you Cobra, (sincerely).

For this Hagar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is . . .

And, because the gender does not matter:

This:

Genesis 16:12 (Concerning Ishmael of Hagar)
12 And he shall be a wild donkey [H6501 - the onager] of a man, his hand against all, and the hand of everyone against him: and upon the face of all his brethren he shall dwell [because he represents the flesh-man, Gal 4:23].

Answers to this:

Jeremiah 2:23-24 (Concerning Jerusalem of below)
23 How can you say, "I am not defiled, I have not gone after the Baalim"? See your way in the valley, know what you have done; you are a swift dromedary traversing her ways:
24 A wild donkey [H6501 - the onager] used to the wilderness, that snuffs up the wind in her desire: in her occasion who can turn her away? all those who seek her will not weary themselves, in her month they shall find her.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Wrong-made up, liar. I've consistently, w/o reservation, given my position on this issue on TOL for years.


All scripture is(not "was") given by inspiration.



Where can we get a copy of the scriptures that are "inspired of God?"


Watch the dance, dodge ball.....Watch...


And, chapter, verse, that asserts that a translation cannot be "is given by inspiration" scripture.

Slower:He did not answer my questions, so I gave him chapter, verse, my answer, as the Saviour did, to those who were engaged in sophistry, with trap questions, and deceit.

Start paying attention, you ignorant(a great biblical word)blow hard, who wouldn't know the difference between a gyros, and "Hebrew National," or the book of Joel, and Billy Joel.

Can you dig it? Good.

Good to hear from you, first swearing has no effect on me, you could call me anything all day long but it won't affect my quest for truth in a debate. second I don't necessarily uphold any 'books/scrolls' without some 'discrepancy'. I do believe some are better than others however. I mean John is near the top on my list say, while say the gospels of Hebrews would be way down on the list.

Drawing a line and saying these books are good and the rest are bad is a very poor way of grading the various (thousands of) religious texts. Each one has good and bad information contained within them. They are all good for learning something even if that is to learn that there is nothing worth learning in any given book. Crossing it off the list as it were.

So now where do you stand on this issue? Can you dig?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

but we are to champion God's truth when we know it.

But that is the question; When/how can we know it.

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Correct, Lonster, as this "thread"(loosely employed here)is now...

I reckon it's good for another 70 pages, 80 if we have the strength.