glorydaz
Well-known member
Amen, but there are some pretty stupid people on this thread. :chuckle:
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Amen, but there are some pretty stupid people on this thread. :chuckle:
Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
I believe that both Luke and Matthew were accurate in their accounts.
If we can't believe them, why believe any of it?
Matthew says that Jacob was the father of Joseph.
Luke says Heli was the father of Joseph.
The two genealogies differ in every generation.
And you believe that Matthew and Luke were that stupid.
I don't. I choose to believe them and reconcile the accounts in the only way I see possible.
It makes sense to me and I'll go with it.
You have the liberty to choose your course.
I've chosen mine and for nearly 40 years believing Scripture.
You'll have to plant doubt in someone else's head. You won't succeed here.
Lon
Well-known member
▲see▲ how one without scruples could lambast you wrongly? With exact quotes?
Clipping quotes to suit one's fancy is a dishonest work. "If" I were unscrupulous, I wouldn't care and would post this for the world to see if my agenda wasn't truth, but to harm another and or his reputation *(used here just for example, you 'said' this but I don't believe clipping from the fuller context is how it is done and it is often damaging and I think irresponsible - for thread again, The clipped quote here doesn't express what I believe was your intention and I will not use your words against you to prop up something I'm sure you don't believe -again, just used for example and empathy).
(you seem to have left off that clipping-quote tack, for now, but simply to reinforce it, this example shows the problem of 'using exact words' vs using all of one's words and what they believe).
Lon
Well-known member
Zenn or Zen leave that impression anyway. Sometimes we choose our own problems by the monikers we use. The 'icon' doesn't help either (looks a little Eastern as well). I'd think it probably doesn't bother you that much because I cannot think you'd pick those and not anticipate the end result of such. It is 'bound' to cause the problem, I'd think (I chose "Lonster" when I first came here, people always said "Lone-Star." Changing it to just "Lon" seemed the thing to do to fix that. "Lawn" might have been next :noway
.
It's so-called 'scholars' opinion as opposed to other so-called 'scholars' opinion.
Take your pick.
They do not all agree.
I didn't erase anything from the text nor did I add anything to the text.
I merely voiced my opinion of what the text implies.
As to the text, you're correct, 'father in law' is not there, but neither is father, and 'son of' is only used in relation to Joseph. The rest of the 'son of's' which are seen in most translations are not there in the Grk text. They were added by the translators.
All the references to the use of 'father in law' in other places in scripture are irrelevant to the question.
What we have is:
Luk 3:23 And Jesus Himself was beginning to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) son of Joseph, of Heli,
Luk 3:24 of Matthat, of Levi, of Melchi, of Janna, of Joseph,
,etc,.
Why Luke left out 'Mary' I don't know but I'm convinced Heli is the father of Mary and Jacob is the father of Joseph according to Matthew.
It won't satisfy everyone, that's certain, but it's satisfactory for me.
Why do you identify yourself as a serpent?
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Ahh... British. Find a seminarian who is switching careers and buy his copy cheap.
At this point I will defer to the Liddell Scott Lexicon. I use this to provide links when making a point. Click the link, bookmark it and then learn to type in Latin letters for the Greek ones, and you'll get to the Lexicon entry. It's not always perfect, and actually this is a good example where modern scholarship can shine light on 200 year old thinking.
LINK to G4624
In essence, what one tries to do in translation is give as accurate a rendition as possible for what the ~2000 year old reader would understand the text to mean. I just happen to think 'scandal' (as listed in entry A) is a better representation for the meaning here than 'offended'. But I'm not a 400 year old Anglican (meaning member of the church of England of course) so maybe to such a person the word 'offended' would make more sense.
Words are only important in that they convey one's intended meaning. The meaning itself is more important in situ.
Zenn
PS: Background on Liddell Scott
"Learn to type in Latin" - that's where I came unstuck. I couldn't figure out what to type into that box. Not very user friendly.
The Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible uses scandalised as shown on trusty Bible hub and which I find very easy to use:
THESE things have I spoken to you, that you may not be scandalized.
And it has it in Bible hub's Strongs concordance:
http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/4624.htm
http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/4624.htm
I'll probably stick to the easy to use Bible hub for now but thanks for sharing.
I personally see tranlation as you do; "what one tries to do in translation is give as accurate a rendition as possible for what the ~2000 year old reader would understand the text to mean."
Bible hub is just another thesaurus to the original words, but very easy to use and comprehensive imo.
Re John 16:1 I like apostasy personally but can see why this is not so an accessible word to others:
4624. skandalizó
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
to cause to stumble
From skandalon; to entrap, i.e. Trip up (figuratively, stumble (transitively) or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure) -- (make to) offend.
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Yep the Greek interlinear is 'on' Google too but tbh I have not heard of conceptual fusion (as I couldn't find it on Google).
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
I think you and me are going to have to wait till Jesus comes back before we can agree about this.
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Shalom
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Like this:
http://biblehub.com/psalms/12-6.htm
http://biblehub.com/interlinear/psalms/12-6.htm
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/565.htm
God's Word's will last forever but His Word's in a book are like the grass that burns up or the flower that fades.
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Rubbish! The offending word is still there: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?127447-Scripture-What-is-considered-Scripture&p=5160158&viewfull=1#post5160158 if you really were concerned about a child seeing it you would have asked me to remove it, which you did't. So really you don't care about any child seeing it. I might call you a you sycophantic amoral weasel but it might make me look as low as you and because I still believe you are saved and my brother/sister in Christ.
Last edited:
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Touche
but ironically this is one of the disputed parts scripture as well!The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53 - 8:11
And it was hardly going to last long in the dust. Jesus knew this!
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
So not only do we see four generations in Adam until the "new man" Enosh, as shown here:
Originally Posted by daqq
The following four generations concern four stages of a man in his first (mortal) age:
Proverbs 30:11-14 KJV
11 There is a generation [1] that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
12 There is a generation [2] that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
13 There is a generation, [3] O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
14 There is a generation, [4] whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, [Dan 7:7 - the fourth-generation "beast" - "great teeth of iron"] to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.
Moreover the Master confirms this understanding in multiple places:
Matthew 12:39-45 KJV
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation [1]seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
40 For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, [2] and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
42 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, [3]and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.
43 When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none.
44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.
45 Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last state of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation [4].
This speaks from the beginning: Qain and his line, just as it was laid out for you in one of the posts requoted above herein, (titled "The Book of the Dead"). Qain is the prototype for the goat to-for Azazel with all the sins upon his mortally wounded head, sent forth into the dry-arid places of the desert-wilderness, that is, "the land of Nod" or wandering. But Moses warns, "be sure your sin will find you out", (Num 32:23, and that is why the goat sent away is not destroyed in the text, even though it did become a tradition to send it over a rocky-jagged precipice). So Qain comes back to his "house", (YOU, and there are no exceptions to the rule given by the Master), and he finds the house empty, swept, and garnished, (with new idols), and he goes and gets seven other spirits more wicked than himself, (the line of Qain as shown above herein). And the seventh, Tobal-Qain, brings forth Qain with pomp and fanfare: thus Qain is the eighth and of the seven, for he was the first which was sent away into the desert to begin with.
With this supernal understanding held first and foremost it is not difficult to see that there was plenty of time for many other people to have been born of the physical seed line of Adam whether or not "Adam" is intended as a single man or a federal head representing all of humanity.
Four Generations:
1) Adam
2) Qain
3) Abel
4) Seth
New Man ~ Enosh-Man
And Enosh is he that began to herald-preach-call out in the name of Yah the Elohim, (Gen 4:26). Thus, with the above supernal truths being held first and foremost, there is plenty of time in the first four generations for many other people to have been born of the physical seed line, but the point not to be missed should be this: the holy seed line of Adam to Noah, (and all the way through the entire record of the scripture), is not physical, but SPIRIT, because it is by faith and the hearing of the preaching of the truth beginning with Enosh. For the same reason Peter calls Noah "the eighth Preacher of Righteousness", (2Pet 2:5), for Noah is the eighth from Enosh, the first Preacher of Righteousness according to the scripture, (Gen 4:26).
Preachers of Righteousness:
1) Enosh - Gen 4:26
2) Qainan
3) Mahalaleel
4) Yared
5) Enoch the Prophet
6) Methuselah
7) Lamech
8) Noah - 2 Pet 2:5
But one may also see the four generations running through the entire, (Gen 5), Book of Life:
1) Adam
2) Qain
3) Abel
4) Seth
5) Enosh - the "new man", (Gen 5:6)
1) Enosh
2) Qainan
3) Mahalaleel
4) Yared - Enoch 1 - unregenerated, (Book of the Dead - Gen 4:17)
5) Enoch 2 - the "new man", (Book of Life - Gen 5:19-24)
1) Enoch 2
2) Methuselah
3) Lamech 1 - unregenerated, (Book of the Dead - Gen 4:18-24)
4) Lamech 2 - regenerated, (Book of Life - Gen 5:25-31)
5) Noah - the "new man", (Book of Life - Gen 5:28-32)
Moreover the same thing happens in the genealogy of king David as it is written that his first child by Bath-Sheba, ("daughter of seven", like the seven daughters of Yithro Raguel, "His Excellence Raguel", which moreover is also supernal and of a prophetic nature: for Moses married into that Elohim-priesthood by way of one of seven little birdies, lol, Tzipporah, Exo 2:16-21). However the child of David by Bathsheba died, even in the seventh day, that is to be noted, before the eighth day, because of the evil which David had done, (2Sam 1:25). Yet we read in that passage that another son was given, and that given is "natan", and is called Yedidiah, ("Beloved of Yah"), and is Solomon. Solomon is written therein because he is the "new man", (the next in line for genealogical reckoning). When one begins to dig deeper into the meanings of the names it becomes very clear that this entire record has heavy spiritual and supernal undertones:
2 Samuel 5:14
14 And these be the names of those that were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shammua, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon:
1 Chronicles 3:5
5 And these were born unto him in Jerusalem; Shimea, and Shobab, and Nathan, and Solomon, four, of Bathshua the daughter of Ammiel:
1 Chronicles 14:4
4 Now these are the names of his children which he had in Jerusalem; Shammua, and Shobab, Nathan and Solomon:
1) David
2) Shimea - "hear the report", (2Sam 12:1-7)
3) Shobab - "rebellion", (2Sam 12:7-14)
4) Shammua - "renowned-devastation", (the child that died, 2Sam 12:14-19)
5) Nathan, even Solomon - the "new man", (also Yedidiah, "Beloved of Yah", 2Sam 12:24-25)
The son which had died in the seventh day is still counted in the four generations of the first age of the man. Nathan, ("given"), is therefore Solomon, just as it is written in Luke 3:31, and that is why the Luke genealogy includes "Nathan" instead of Solomon and yet still passes through Zerubbabel and Salathiel, (Shealtiel).
Not sure about what daqq is stating here but Chuck Missler teaches something along these lines:
Hebrew English
Adam Man
Seth Appointed
Enosh Mortal
Kenan Sorrow;
Mahalalel The Blessed God
Jared Shall come down
Enoch Teaching
Methuselah His death shall bring
Lamech The Despairing
Noah Rest, or comfort.
'Man is appointed to die and suffer sorrows before the blessed one of God shall come down and teach us that His death shall bring to the despairing rest and comfort.'
http://www.khouse.org/articles/1996/44/
Last edited:
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
Well said, although the Bible is not even a creation by God but by man. Man's attempt of capturing God's Words. Like trying to capture the wind and put it on paper.
WatchmanOnTheWall
Well-known member
"Not sure about what daqq is stating here"...
Go back and look at what I said about Isaiah 1:1 and perhaps one day you will understand the earthquake in the days of Uzziah, Golgotha, and the whole nine yards: or, maybe not, lol.
Oh well, have a nice life . . .
Still not sure? Can you say it in a sentence what you mean?
On what basis would you think the text implies that this is Mary’s lineage?
I don’t identify myself as a serpent. I like fast cars. I have a supercharged 2003 Mustang Cobra Convertible. I have a Dodge Charger R/T also.
If there was not a difference between Luke and Matthew’s genealogies, would you still say the text implies something other than what it literally says?
Autocorrect is quick on the draw and bad at aiming.
Yes, you denied what the text actually says to support your man-made tradition.
I listened, and encouraged you to not to devalue the text in that way.