Originally posted by NemesioDid you look at the grammar analysis of Saint Matthew's account?
Um. What?
Did you look at the grammar analysis of [b]Saint Matthew's account?
It clearly indicates that the stone was moved after the arrival of the
women. Jesus doesn't even figure into the Synoptic accounts, but
angels.
According to Saints Mark and Luke, the stone was indeed rolled away
before the women arrived. I don't dispute this at all.
Nemesio[/b]
It clearly indicates that the stone was moved after the arrival of the
women.
elthen ... theoresai
came ... to look at
That is, (they) came ... to look at (the grave). (I didn't include the nouns since they aren't relevant). Note the simple past indicating a completed action.
This is followed by idou -- behold or suddenly. Indicating a new action since the other one
was completed.
I went back to two of your previous posts, and took these statements you made concerning Mathew 28:1&2.
Specifically verse 2, the Greek word translated "behold". How can you draw the meaning, "indicating a new action", from this word? Especially when, further along in the verse, it says a great earthquake "had" occurred, indicating a past action.
The Greek word, idou, simply means, "behold." There is nothing in the Greek dictionary to indicate it has any other meaning.
Originally posted by josephwYou focused on 'behold' but ignored the simple past.
Did you look at the grammar analysis of Saint Matthew's account?
It clearly indicates that the stone was moved after the arrival of the
women.
elthen ... theoresai
came ... to look at
That is, (they) came ... to look at (the grave). (I didn't include the nouns since they aren't relevant). Note the simple past indicating a completed action.
...[text shortened]... hold." There is nothing in the Greek dictionary to indicate it has any other meaning.
What do you think 'behold' means combined with simple past?
Consider:
Joe entered to the park. Behold, a bird, that had flown down and had landed on a rock, ate a worm.
The bird said, 'Po-tee-weet.'
Is it reasonable to think that the bird ate the worm before Joe got there?
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesio'Po-tee-weet.
You focused on 'behold' but ignored the simple past.
What do you think 'behold' means combined with simple past?
Consider:
Joe entered to the park. Behold, a bird, that had flown down and had landed on a rock, ate a worm.
The bird said, 'Po-tee-weet.'
Is it reasonable to think that the bird ate the worm before Joe got there?
Nemesio
LOL What's that? I thought it was 'tweet tweet'!
You're losing me. What 'simple past' are you talking about?
"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,(early sunday morning) came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."(they went to the grave)
"And, behold, there was (past tense) a great earthquake: for the angle of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it."
You read this thinking that the two women were witnesses to the event, because of the word "behold". You think that the word "behold" implies something more than what is really being said. It's a stretch to suggest the women saw the stone being rolled away. Especially when that would contradict the other accounts.
We are at an impasse. Neither you nor anyone else will ever convince me that there are any errors or contradictions in my bible. Not with spurious evidence like that anyway.
Originally posted by josephw
You read this thinking that the two women were witnesses to the event, because of the word "behold". You think that the word "behold" implies something more than what is really being said. It's a stretch to suggest the women saw the stone being rolled away. Especially when that would contradict the other accounts.
What does 'behold' mean, then? You didn't answer my question about the sentence I proposed.
Joe entered to the park. Behold, a bird, that had flown down and had landed on a rock, ate a worm.
The bird said, 'Po-tee-weet.'
What do you think happened first. Joe's entering or the eating of the worm?
(By the way, the 'po-tee-weet' is an homage to Kurt Vonnegut. If you didn't get it, you haven't
read the book I'm referring to. No big deal.)
We are at an impasse. Neither you nor anyone else will ever convince me that there are any errors or contradictions in my bible. Not with spurious evidence like that anyway.
You consider grammar to be 'spurious?' I'm quoting the literal Greek! Why do have such an opposition
to a contradiction anyway?
Nemesio
2 edits
Originally posted by josephwNeither you nor anyone else will ever convince me that there are any errors or contradictions in my bible. Not with spurious evidence like that anyway.
'Po-tee-weet.
LOL What's that? I thought it was 'tweet tweet'!
You're losing me. What 'simple past' are you talking about?
"In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week,(early sunday morning) came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre."(they went to the grave)
"And, behold, there was (past tense) rors or contradictions in my bible. Not with spurious evidence like that anyway.
Ok, lets look at this, I realy need to know that you think about it:
In the story of the meeting between Paul and Jesus:
In Acts 9:7 it says:
(king James Version)(Acts)(Acts-9-7)(And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.)
In Acts 22:9 it says:
(king James Version)(Acts)(Acts-44-9)(And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.)
I realy want to know what to think about this.
did they hear the voice or not? (Acts.9.7 yes, Acts.22.9 no)
did they see anything at all? (Acts.9.7 no, Acts.22.9 yes)
Originally posted by NemesioI've got the Greek text sitting here right in front of me.
Originally posted by josephw
[b]You read this thinking that the two women were witnesses to the event, because of the word "behold". You think that the word "behold" implies something more than what is really being said. It's a stretch to suggest the women saw the stone being rolled away. Especially when that would contradict the other accounts. ...[text shortened]... eek! Why do have such an opposition
to a contradiction anyway?
Nemesio[/b]
In order for the meaning that you give it to be true, the sentence would have to read like this: "Joe entered to the park. At that moment, a bird flew down and landed on a rock, within sight of Joe, and ate a worm."
The reason I am opposed to the suggestion that there are contradictions or errors in the bible, is because no one has ever been able to prove to me that there are any.
Now, if you wanted to compare different versions with the King James, I could show you hundreds of errors in the other versions.
This aught to start a firestorm.
Originally posted by josephwJoel 3:17 "So you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who dwell in Zion, my holy mountain. And Jerusalem shall be holy and strangers shall never again pass through it."
I've got the Greek text sitting here right in front of me.
In order for the meaning that you give it to be true, the sentence would have to read like this: "Joe entered to the park. At that moment, a bird flew down and landed on a rock, within sight of Joe, and ate a worm."
The reason I am opposed to the suggestion that there are contradictions or err ...[text shortened]... I could show you hundreds of errors in the other versions.
This aught to start a firestorm.
Originally posted by ahosyneyThis is pretty good ahosyney. But hardly a contradiction. I was stumped there for awhile.
[b]Neither you nor anyone else will ever convince me that there are any errors or contradictions in my bible. Not with spurious evidence like that anyway.
Ok, lets look at this, I realy need to know that you think about it:
In the story of the meeting between Paul and Jesus:
In Acts 9:7 it says:
[i](king James Version)(Acts)(Acts-9-7)(And the ...[text shortened]... or not? (Acts.9.7 yes, Acts.22.9 no)
did they see anything at all? (Acts.9.7 no, Acts.22.9 yes)[/b]
This is two accounts of the same event. In the one, 9:7, the men with Paul heard the sound of a voice, but saw no man. In the other, 22:9, the men with Paul saw the light, but were unable to understand what was being said.
It's really no more complicated than that.
Originally posted by kirksey957Joel 3:14
Joel 3:17 "So you shall know that I am the Lord your God, who dwell in Zion, my holy mountain. And Jerusalem shall be holy and strangers shall never again pass through it."
Multitudes, multitudes in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.
Originally posted by josephwWhat does 'behold' mean in the original sentence? The author put it there for a reason.
"Joe entered to the park. At that moment, a bird flew down and landed on a rock, within sight of Joe, and ate a worm."
Explain it.
Your sentence changed the grammar of the old sentence. 'Having flew down' and 'having landed'
are critical to establish time frame.
My sentence preserves exactly the key words of the sentence; I merely changed the venue and
actors.
Let's look at it again:
Joe entered to the park. Behold, a bird, that had flown down and had landed on a rock, ate a worm.
The bird said, 'Po-tee-weet.'
Question 1: What does 'Behold' mean?
Question 2: Can any reasonable person believe that the worm was eaten before Joe entered the park?
Nemesio
Originally posted by josephwThe key Greek words in Acts 9:7 are:
This is pretty good ahosyney. But hardly a contradiction. I was stumped there for awhile.
This is two accounts of the same event. In the one, 9:7, the men with Paul heard the sound of a voice, but saw no man. In the other, 22:9, the men with Paul saw the light, but were unable to understand what was being said.
It's really no more complicated than that.
...akouontes men tes phones medena de theopountes.
...hearing the voice but no one seeing.
The key Greek words in Acts 22:9 are:
...ten de phonen ouk ekousan tou lalountos moi.
...but the voice they did not hear speaking to me.
The verb in both case is 'to hear' and the noun in both case is 'voice.'
This is a contradiction.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYea I know, but with translations those things happen.
That's right. It could be 'now.' But the verb form isn't 'Now God had formed.' It's 'Now God formed.'
It's simple past. If the author of this particular story was so careless in his grammar, how can you
possibly trust historicity of the content!
Nemesio
So now we what we have.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo when a translation in the original language yields a contradiction, you smooth it out by correcting
Yea I know, but with translations those things happen.
So now we what we have.
Kelly
the grammar so there is no contradiction?
I ask this because what you have is:
'Adam was lonely. So God formed the animals.'
I'll ask again: What does the 'so' mean in this sentence?
Maybe vistesd can provide the Hebrew for us.....
Nemesio