Another Bible Error: The Disciples' Journey

by JosephAlward 45 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephAlward

  Bang stated,

  I'd be proud to be a muslim, as I would a christian, but if I required literary proof before doing so, I wouldn't feel I was either.

  All right, Bang. You seem to be saying the Muslims are just as justified in holding to their faith that the true god is Allah as you are in believing that the true god is Yahweh (or YHWH, or Jehovah, or LORD, whatever you call it). If this accurately characterizes your belief, then you evidently believe that your bible is no more inerrant than is the bible of the muslims, and that if Muslims were to closely inspect the Koran, they would find errors and contradictions in it, just as is the case with Christians and their bible.

  You're essentially telling the forum that you have CHOSEN to believe that the Christian's Bible is without error, and that you've arrived at this choice not by reason, but by faith alone. If that's true, then you probably should not try to defend your belief in inerrancy by a linguistic or literary analysis of the Bible; you should just tell people that you believe that the Bible is the word of God, and even if their appears to be errors or contradictions in it, you feel that all of them will be explained away when you get to heaven.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  >>Luke didn't offer the slightest hint or faint suggestion that Jesus had a second walking staff in mind<<

  Maybe in English, but the Greek supports the plural as two translations have accurately portrayed:

  Luke 9:3
  3 And He said to them, "Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs
  NKJV

  The above is plural/more than one.

  Luke 9:3
  3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves,
  KJV

  The above is also plural/more than one.

  The Greek does support plural. Take nothing EXTRA.
• 

  Moxy

  even given that the number of the noun is not specified, wouldnt one normally think that 'take no staves' means 'take zero staves' rather than 'take not more than one staff?' can you give an example of a greek sentence constructed like this that means 'no more than one' rather than 'zero?'

  mox
• 

  JosephAlward

  Good question, Mox.

  Even if Pom could find such an example--and that seems extremely unlikely, it wouldn't matter, since Pom's god inspired the writing of the Bible, he thinks. Pom would have to explain why an all-knowing, all-powerful god would let Luke write "Take nothing, no staves..." when he wanted his readers to know that Jesus wanted his disciples to take only one staff. This god would surely have known that readers would take Luke's words at face value, so the god would have had Luke write, "Take only one staff," if that's what the god wanted us to know.

  What we have here is a desperate attempt by a misguided believer to salvage what he thinks is an inerrant Bible. Sensible Christians know that the different Bible writers had different views of Jesus, and therefore wrote different, and sometimes conflicting stories about him.

  Finally, Pom will be unable to explain why Jesus would even care whether the disciples took two staffs. Perhaps he will say that the second staff would just slow them down a bit, but that explanation is pitiful compared to the alternative view I presented in my post to Bang: Luke wanted his readers to compare Jesus' disciples to the fearless traveler in Psalm 23 who put his life in the hands of the Lord; he didn't need a staff because the Lord was his "rod and staff." How could any clear-thinking Christian overlook the OBVIOUS parable about faith that Luke was presenting his readers in favor of the preposterous, how-it-could-have-been scenario that Pom provides?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Bang

  Joseph,
  I don't go in for that God's true name stuff - Allah or Yahweh (especially not Jehovah) - it make no difference to me what people call Him, but how and why they call Him that. I do believe that the scriptures contain the inspired word of God - I'm not as ofay with the Koran, so I don't know whether it is straightforward teaching of divine wisdom or a wonderous inspired writing. From what I understand it is for goodness, but people also use it in a fundy way for darkening the mind. I imagine the same type of reasons apply for requiring proof of authenticity.

  Back to the debate:

  It seems quite acceptable to me that Mark wrote of a different type of staff - particularly if you consider that He was sending them out with His power and authority. As I have stated, there are similar examples of 'contradiction'. In Christ's own words, "and if you are willing to accept it, he is Eli'jah who is to come."

  You ask,
  

  Can you explain to the forum why we should not take Luke's words at face value?

  Well, we should be careful about joining up with the fundy's, and seeking for signs before making deals about lifestyles.

  Bang
• 

  JosephAlward

  Bang,

  Your remarks about the staff are largely unintelligible. If that's all you have to say in support of your argument, I prefer to just let your comments go unanswered. Perhaps Pom will try to respond to Moxy's and my arguments.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  Luke 9:3
  3 He told them: "Take nothing for the journey-no staffs, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.

  Let's analyze it kids. "Take NOTHING for the journey."

  Is this first NOTHING an all encompassing NOTHING? Meaning that they were to go around even bare ass? Obviously not. The clothing and sandals that they were wearing were obviously NOT apart of the NOTHING. So, even this first NEGATIVE is in a fact not an all encompassing NOTHING.

  More proof is in the phrase "extra tunic." So we know they had one tunic, which again means the NOTHING in the beginning of the phrase is a limited nothing RIGHT FROM THE START, and not a blanket nothing.

  Now, let's look at "no staffs"...

  If you really want the truth you HAVE to examine the Hebrew and the Greek kids, there's no way around it. But truth seekers will dig deep.

  The Greek phrase for the above "no staffs" is "meete' ra'bdon"

  You examine HOW and WHY this word will communicate EXACTLY what I am saying, when the Greek is examined:

  The word to examine is "meete" which in English is rendered as "no or neither" Here is the Greek definition:

  NT:3383
  meete (may'-teh); from NT:3361 and NT:5037; not too, i.e. (in continued negation) neither or nor; also, not even:

  The above is a compound word, made from #3361 and #5037 that means NOT TOO or NOT ALSO. Now, let's look at each of the seperate word blocks that make up the compound word:

  NT:3361
  mee (may); a primary particle of qualified negation (whereas NT:3756 expresses an absolute denial); (adverbially) NOT, (conjunctionally) lest; also (as an interrogative implying a negative answer [whereas NT:3756 expects an affirmative one]) whether:

  Please note that the prefix part (mee) of the compound word (meete) is a primary particle of qualified negation, which means it is NOT an absolute NO, it needs qualification or WEIGHT. A counterpart word block, word #3756 ("ou") is the absolute denial (which is NOT used here), where "me" only interrogatively (meaning with question) IMPLIES a NO. There is a question left in the first word block and it NEEDS WEIGHT/QUALIFICATION.

  So, to review, the first part of the compond word "meete," which is the first word block "mee" leaves a question of negative weight that needs positive resolve by the second part of the word which is "te"

  Joe, here is your proof whether you like it or not.

  NT:5037
  te (teh); a primary particle (enclitic) of connection or addition; BOTH or also (properly, as correlation of NT:2532):

  "Te" is a primary particle enclitic (that means a word block that is attached to the end of a word, like a suffix in English) that means BOTH or also. Since we know the prefix word block (mee) is looking for QUALIFICATION or weight, we know which one out of the two possibles in the second word block "BOTH and also" is the correct understanding. That would be BOTH as the weight qualifier.

  So that Greek word "meete" to the discerning Bible student, would mean LITERALLY, NOT BOTH

  NOT (mee) = the corresponding English primary particle of negation that needs weight or qualification.

  BOTH (te) = the corresponding English primary particle replacement.

  So, in fact, we need TWO words to correctly understand ONE word in Greek.

  Also, this rings true with the proof text I showed Joe in Zech. of a shepherd carrying two staffs. Which is not unlike a modern soldier carrying two guns, rifle and pistol. One breaks, ya use the other.

  PS. If any of you are into Greek, if you see the description of word #5037 above, the word ALSO has an interesting designation when it is used PROPERLY, then it gives the word desription for that with word #2532:

  NT:2532
  kai (kahee); apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:

  So, even if we were to use "ALSO" the also means copulative or cumulative force. TWO STAVES WOULD COUPLE AND OR CUMULATE.

  NOT COUPLE, or NOT COMBINED.

  Take ONE not EXTRA.

  Oh yes, by NOT taking extra, they rely fully on God.
• 

  Bang

  Joseph, in a certain style, you write:
  

  Your remarks about the staff are largely unintelligible.

  But your fanatical emphasis on correct grammar should lead you to write:
  Your remarks about the staff are largely unintelligible 'to me', or perhaps 'to some of us' if you actually know that to be the case. How else are the readers to automatically know that it is only your opinion, if you leave something out ?

  I suppose though that sometimes you just know things, or if you look into it you can find out, you know.

  Bang
• 

  JosephAlward

  Pom’s ridiculous assertion that the Greek word mete (may’ teh), which appears in Luke 9:3 in the phase mete rhabdos (“no staves”), means “one, but not two” is totally without biblical support.

  In every one of the thirty-six other instances of mete in the New Testament the word is translated as either “neither” or “nor.” Furthermore, not one of the eleven different versions of the Bible available at Bible Gateway support Pom’s interpretation. Nine of the versions translate the word in Luke 9:3 as “no,” or “neither.” The remaining two versions are even more explicit:

  “Don't even take along a walking stick," (NLT)

  “Do not take a walking stick.” (YLT)

  Does Pom think he is so skilled in Greek that he knows something that was not known by any of the experts who translated the eleven different versions of the Bible from Greek to English? How likely is it that Pom is right, and all of them were wrong? How likely is it that mete means “one, but not two” at Luke 9:3, but doesn’t mean anything similar to this in the thirty-six other cases of this word’s use in the New Testament?

  Where did Pom get his advanced degree in Greek, and what articles has he published which establish credentials so powerful that his opinion should be preferred over that of the translators of the eleven different different versions of the Bible?

  Pom is wasting the forum’s time with his silly objections, far-fetched scenarios, and amateur linguistic analyses. It’s evident that Pom will endure any indignity, suffer any embarrassment, in order to preserve his illusion that the Bible is without error. We’ve indulged him long enough in this particular matter, I believe. I’m confident that no one who’s been paying attention to this thread believes that Pom has successfully defended the Bible against the claim of error in the matter of the staves, not even Bang, so I believe this argument should be closed. Our time will be better spent elsewhere, in my opinion.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"

  * http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  >>Pom’s ridiculous assertion that the Greek word mete (may’ teh), which appears in Luke 9:3 in the phase mete rhabdos (“no staves”), means “one, but not two” is totally without biblical support.<<

  No, Joe, I said the Greek can be rendered "NOT BOTH"

  >>In every one of the thirty-six other instances of mete in the New Testament the word is translated as either “neither” or “nor.”<<

  Context Joe. Plural Joe. They all have to do with it in the Greek. Sorry you don't like it, but the Greek phrase can be rendered as I have shown. Why don't you study Greek Joe and see. Also, just because the traslators have translated the word consistently with the same rendering, does't mean they are correct in doing so.

  >>Furthermore, not one of the eleven different versions of the Bible available at Bible Gateway support Pom’s interpretation. Nine of the versions translate the word in Luke 9:3 as “no,” or “neither.” The remaining two versions are even more explicit:<<

  I don't care what they say Joe. If I cared what they said then I would be just like them. I have examined this matter and found out why the Greek CAN BE legitimately rendered as I have shown. Go get yourself some Greek language/grammar books Joe and see for yourself.

  >>Does Pom think he is so skilled in Greek that he knows something that was not known by any of the experts who translated the eleven different versions of the Bible from Greek to English?<<

  Joe, when it comes to the Bible, it is usually the phd's that are off the mark and for biased reasons. As far as my Greek goes, I'm obviously far ahead of you in the language because you have NO rebuttal refuting the Greek whatsoever, just your arrogant stubborn dumb ass position. At least you are consistent.

  >>How likely is it that Pom is right, and all of them were wrong? How likely is it that mete means “one, but not two” at Luke 9:3, but doesn’t mean anything similar to this in the thirty-six other cases of this word’s use in the New Testament?<<

  Likely has nothing to do with anything Joe. It's facts. If one studies the Greek, one will know that the rendering I have presented is perfectly legitimate. But Joe CAN'T refute that because HE DOESN'T KNOW. It amazes me to see people debate with NO KNOWLEDGE.

  >>Where did Pom get his advanced degree in Greek, and what articles has he published which establish credentials so powerful that his opinion should be preferred over that of the translators of the eleven different different versions of the Bible?<<

  What credentials did any man of God have before the wise men of this world Joe? Since when does a man need credentials just to be able to understand simple language? If one goes through step by step the logical presentation of the Greek compound word of which I have done, one can see by FACT that the rendering is legite. There is NO TWISTING here, as Joe often does. There is no mystery to studying any language, they all go by laws and rules that are very basic. BUT IT DOES TAKE TIME.

  >>Pom is wasting the forum’s time with his silly objections, far-fetched scenarios, and amateur linguistic analyses.<<

  You are one arrogant SOB. You really did have a tough life Joe to be so bitter and condescending. Why not tell the forum the real truth about your background Joe, you know, the one your ashamed of Joe? Go ahead, we're listening.

  >>It’s evident that Pom will endure any indignity, suffer any embarrassment, in order to preserve his illusion that the Bible is without error.<<

  Embarassment? Seems you have NO REBUTTAL whatsoever regarding the Greek Joe and yet your trying to salvage YOU. This rebuttal of yours is nothing but personal belittling directed toward me. You're just spilling your venomous anger and hate as usual. Go ahead Joe, confide in the forum about your nasty past.

  >>We’ve indulged him long enough in this particular matter, I believe.
  I’m confident that no one who’s been paying attention to this thread believes that Pom has successfully defended the Bible against the claim of error in the matter of the staves, not even Bang, so I believe this argument should be closed. Our time will be better spent elsewhere, in my opinion.<<

  Oh, and like you have? If you're so CONFIDENT, rebutt the Greek Joe, or is it that you don't know how? Since it is the latest fact proof I have presented to you, you can't even get into the Greek because of your ignorance of it. Ones will note Joe has no rebuttal for the Greek rendering, just a personal smearing. That is what always happens when one loses the debate, he leaves the facts and goes to the personal smears. Typical tactics for someone like you.

  Ignorance really is bliss huh Joe?

  I'll come back to you when you've spent some time with the Greek Joe. Until then, you're too ignorant for me to have an intelligent discussion on the Greek.

  Fix your ignorance, if not, you ARE stupid.

  <washes hands and leaves Joe to wallow in the mire of his ignorance>