Berachiah Ben Yisrael
Active Member
:biglaugh: Welcome to the religious forums. :biglaugh:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
11 errors by Jesus and friends.
- Thread starter Poisonshady313
- Start date
:biglaugh: Welcome to the religious forums. :biglaugh:
The refusal to engage in willful gullibility is not disrespect.
Blind acceptance of your articles of faith has nothing in common with an "honest acceptance of reality" and to equate differences with your religious lore as "slurs" is egocentric nonsense.
Nor would they have likely suffered an endless series of humiliation, pogrom, and genocide. Yours impresses me is a rather selective and self-serving humility ...
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Well now... after seeing what you like to say... let's look at what is actually said:
When Terah had lived 70 years, he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
Notice the word "had". By the time he had gotten this far, this is what he accomplished... he had begotten three sons.
In other words, he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran by the time he lived 70 years.
I'm happy you were impressed.
As for me... I saw him simply making stuff up, hoping beyond hope that something completely unfounded MIGHT be true. I'm the opposite of impressed by this. I find this rather foolish.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
I bet the existence of non-Christians is disappointing to you.
Berachiah Ben Yisrael
Active Member
No, "had" is that he "had" already lived 70 years before he "had" started fathering sons.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
First, I'm going to say I'm going to cease defending the writings of Rav Sha'ul/"St. Paul", because, to be perfectly honest, I don't see him as inerrant whatsoever, and I frequently ignore his rulings; in many cases, I'm actually more likely to follow rulings from the Rambam than from Rav Sha'ul on the same subject. Of course, I still think Rav Sha'ul is someone to be studied, and who is clearly important (as his rulings on Torah and Jewish thought, however flawed they may be, make for the tenants of Christianity), however he is not the greatest. He is important, he said many great things, and he made mistakes. This, I will not deny.
Actually, this entire thread is meaningless, to me, as I do not believe generally that the Messianic Writings to be divinely inspired as Christians do, and, thus, do not believe them inerrant (argument can be made over the Revelation, but as it is a book of prophecy, it cannot be directly disproven or proven).
What I believe, as a Messianic Jew (though I cannot pretend to speak for all Messianic Jews), is that Yeshua was the Messiah, and all his teachings were correct. However, the records of his teachings, as passed down in the traditions from Mattityahu, Markos, Lukah and Yochanan, are not perfect nor divinely inspired.
The point is, I'm not going to defend Paul anymore.
Scribal error, yes. But probably not by a Jew, but a Christian, probably after the original Hebrew text of Mattityahu was destroyed (well, some copies remained extant to the Crusades in the Holy Land, and were destroyed for preservation of the "True Faith"'s decree that the original text was the Greek) and they were continuing the tradition in Greek. This person was probably dedicated to studying the accounts of Messiah, something early Christian students were wont to do, and ignore the Tanakh. Thus, he made the error. Then, a few centuries later, his text was the one found and was copied down, and his error became permanently a part of the "divinely inspired" account of Mattityahu, at which point the error could not be corrected for the same reason that they burned the Hebrew original texts of the account - to preserve the doctrines which said that their Bible was inerrant.
Probably, yes, it is an error. Not made by Yeshua, but probably by a scribe, probably in the same way as I described above.
It was not irrelevant, in Lukah, a historian's, eyes. Lukah has been shown to be accurate in almost all historical details, even when many historians have contradicted for centuries, then archeological evidence shows Lukah's writings to be accurate, and other historians inaccurate. He, apparently, for his account, went to all sources he found to be reliable and accurate, primarily, the preexistent writings of Markos in Aramaic, and gathered it together. Lukah, also, was trying to establish a specific date to draw for Yeshua's birth, since, of course, Jews didn't celebrate birthdays nor keep especial track of what day people were born. To tie it to the census is a way to relatively date the birth of Yeshua, by identifying the Roman governor, the Emperor, etc. In other words, an approximation of the birthdate for gentiles rather than Jews.
Of course, you are also falling into a slight fallacy - you are comparing the gentile Christians of the early centuries to the modern Christians of today, or even the Christians of a millennium ago. Christians at the time Lukah was writing did not follow the Tanakh blindly as modern Christians tend to.
It would seem so, yes.
You mean Orthodox children are taught that Avraham left his father's house. The average American Jew is Conservative or Reform. For many Jews, the Bar or Bat Mitzvah is the last time they read from the Torah or even read, much less study, the Tanakh or Talmud. I have heard one Conservative cousin describe his Bar Mitzvah as "Freedom from Hebrew School". Many, if not most, don't learn, or don't care to learn, scripture at all.
And, of course, as I said, he is on trial. He is speaking, trying to defend his beliefs, while trying to convince others of the truth thereof, while he is facing death. You try to speak without error when you're facing an angry crowd holding large stones.
See my last paragraph. Of course, this could also be a scribal error, like the one I described above. 70 and 75 are much more similar in Greek than they are in Aramaic or Hebrew, and since the Acts was originally written in Greek... Either way, yes, it is an error.
Actually, this entire thread is meaningless, to me, as I do not believe generally that the Messianic Writings to be divinely inspired as Christians do, and, thus, do not believe them inerrant (argument can be made over the Revelation, but as it is a book of prophecy, it cannot be directly disproven or proven).
What I believe, as a Messianic Jew (though I cannot pretend to speak for all Messianic Jews), is that Yeshua was the Messiah, and all his teachings were correct. However, the records of his teachings, as passed down in the traditions from Mattityahu, Markos, Lukah and Yochanan, are not perfect nor divinely inspired.
The point is, I'm not going to defend Paul anymore.
Scribal error, yes. But probably not by a Jew, but a Christian, probably after the original Hebrew text of Mattityahu was destroyed (well, some copies remained extant to the Crusades in the Holy Land, and were destroyed for preservation of the "True Faith"'s decree that the original text was the Greek) and they were continuing the tradition in Greek. This person was probably dedicated to studying the accounts of Messiah, something early Christian students were wont to do, and ignore the Tanakh. Thus, he made the error. Then, a few centuries later, his text was the one found and was copied down, and his error became permanently a part of the "divinely inspired" account of Mattityahu, at which point the error could not be corrected for the same reason that they burned the Hebrew original texts of the account - to preserve the doctrines which said that their Bible was inerrant.
Probably, yes, it is an error. Not made by Yeshua, but probably by a scribe, probably in the same way as I described above.
It was not irrelevant, in Lukah, a historian's, eyes. Lukah has been shown to be accurate in almost all historical details, even when many historians have contradicted for centuries, then archeological evidence shows Lukah's writings to be accurate, and other historians inaccurate. He, apparently, for his account, went to all sources he found to be reliable and accurate, primarily, the preexistent writings of Markos in Aramaic, and gathered it together. Lukah, also, was trying to establish a specific date to draw for Yeshua's birth, since, of course, Jews didn't celebrate birthdays nor keep especial track of what day people were born. To tie it to the census is a way to relatively date the birth of Yeshua, by identifying the Roman governor, the Emperor, etc. In other words, an approximation of the birthdate for gentiles rather than Jews.
Of course, you are also falling into a slight fallacy - you are comparing the gentile Christians of the early centuries to the modern Christians of today, or even the Christians of a millennium ago. Christians at the time Lukah was writing did not follow the Tanakh blindly as modern Christians tend to.
It would seem so, yes.
You mean Orthodox children are taught that Avraham left his father's house. The average American Jew is Conservative or Reform. For many Jews, the Bar or Bat Mitzvah is the last time they read from the Torah or even read, much less study, the Tanakh or Talmud. I have heard one Conservative cousin describe his Bar Mitzvah as "Freedom from Hebrew School". Many, if not most, don't learn, or don't care to learn, scripture at all.
And, of course, as I said, he is on trial. He is speaking, trying to defend his beliefs, while trying to convince others of the truth thereof, while he is facing death. You try to speak without error when you're facing an angry crowd holding large stones.
See my last paragraph. Of course, this could also be a scribal error, like the one I described above. 70 and 75 are much more similar in Greek than they are in Aramaic or Hebrew, and since the Acts was originally written in Greek... Either way, yes, it is an error.
Elessar
Well-Known Member
The author is a historian, trying to keep an accurate account of what occurred, and not offering commentary on what happened. Lukah, himself, was not a witness to the event, I don't think, only that he was writing down what he had deduced occurred from a variety of different accounts. His preservation of Stephen's factual errors actually increases his validity as a historian - after all, if he had changed them to reflect the Tanakh accurately, he would be lying about what Stephen said, modifying what had really happened to strengthen his point.
My intention is to provide a reason for a discrepency. Of course, since evidence shows that Messianic Jews/"Hebrews" was originally written in Aramaic, and the only remaining extant texts are in Greek, it could be a translation error.
You are correct. It is probably, considering this is, as I said before, an Aramaic text which we only have Greek translations of, a translation error.
Well, you have proven, at least in my mind, that the Messianic Writings are not inerrant. Which, of course, means nothing to me, since I never believed the Messianic Writings to be inerrant.
Berachiah Ben Yisrael
Active Member
And in this I totally agree. :clap
With exception that I believe that Sha'ul wasn't quite as bad as some believe. His writtings are very hard for some as it is written of..........
2Pe 3:15 Regard the patience of our Master as salvation; even as our beloved brother Sha'ul also, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you;
2Pe 3:16 as also in all of his letters, speaking in them of these things. In those, there are some things that are hard understand, which the ignorant and unsettled twist, as they also do to the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware, lest being carried away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness.
2Pe 3:18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Master and Savior Yahshua the Anointed. To him be the glory both now and forever. Amein.
The western train of thought will never be able to fully understand, not only what Sha'ul was trying to get across but, that of the entire scripture until they can some how erase that thought process and obtain a more eastern veiw as it pertains to that culture and time in whence these writings, and epistles, are derived.
starlite
Texasgirl
Terah, through his sons Abraham, Nahor, and Haran, became a forefather of numerous tribes. Terah began having children at 70. While Abraham is listed first, this appears to be because he is the most famous of Terahs sons rather than the firstborn. When Terah died at 205, Abraham was only 75, so Terah must have been 130 when Abraham was born. (Ge 11:26, 32; 12:4) Sarah was Abrahams half sister, likely a daughter of Terah by a different wife. (Ge 20:12) Terahs firstborn was most likely Haran, whose daughter was old enough to marry Terahs other son Nahor.Ge 11:29.
Berachiah Ben Yisrael
Active Member
And after further study I cannot find the word "had" used in the verse either in the JPS,KJV nor the Hebrew.
ויחי־תרח שׁבעים שׁנה ויולד את־אברם את־נחור ואת־הרן׃ Gen 11:26
(KJV) Gen 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
(JPS) Gen 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
The only translation that I was able to find that stated as you said it with the word "had" was the "English Standard Version" which I find kinda funny that you would quote from that.
Out of many comparisons from other sources, and translations, the overwhelming majority side with the wisdom that he was 70 before he started fathering sons.
Him being 70 already works with which is said in Acts 7:4.
How can one say it otherwise? There is no proof whatsoever that he fathered sons prior to him becoming 70. The statement in Acts shows clearly that he was and it works.
From Genesis: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation
When Terah had lived 70 years, he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
From The Stone Edition TanachWhen Terah had lived seventy years, he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
From The Torah: A Modern Commentary by W. Gunther PlautWhen Terah had lived 70 years, he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
From Judaica Press Complete TanachAnd Terah lived seventy years, and he begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
From The Five Books of Moses by Everett FoxWhen Tehah had lived seventy years, he bogot Avram, Nahor, and Haran.
From The Five Books of Moses by Robert AlterAnd Terah lived seventy years and he begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
From Commentary on the Torah by Richard Elliott FriedmanAnd Teran lived seventy years, and he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran.
From The New English Translation of the SeptuagintAnd Thara lived seventy years and became the father of Abram and Nachor and Harran.
The word "had" is also not found in the English translations of the Targum Onkelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.
Berachiah Ben Yisrael
Active Member
Funny how that the ones that have the word "had" are of a more modern translation. In any event I scaresly see where most of any intellect use the word "had" here as meaning he begat the three sons prior to being 70 but rather see it more as he had already lived 70 years before fathering the 3 sons.
Funnyhow yours was not ...
Berachiah Ben Yisrael
Active Member
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
I didn't. I quoted from the Artscroll Stone Edition Tanach.The only translation that I was able to find that stated as you said it with the word "had" was the "English Standard Version" which I find kinda funny that you would quote from that.
Circular logic. Using your conclusion to support your conclusion. You cannot assert that Acts is correct in order to prove that Acts is correct.
Any Jewish source will show that Abraham was born when Terah was 70... and you can't call them biased because they weren't written that way for the sake of disputing this verse in acts.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Sarah was Nahor's daughter. Abraham's niece.
starlite
Texasgirl
It appears, however, that she was a daughter of Terah by a different mother from the mother of Abram. The language of 20:12 would indeed admit of her being Abram's niece, but the fact that there was but 10 years' difference between his age and hers (Genesis 17:17) renders this hypothesis less probable. Marriage with half-sisters seems to have been not uncommon in antiquity (even in the Old Testament compare 2 Samuel 13:13).
Sarah, Sarai - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
starlite
Texasgirl
checking the context and the chronology of the verse does harmonize with "after" he was 70 years of age
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
I'll check with some people who I know both speak Ancient and Modern Hebrew, and who are not religious, to the point where their answer will indeed be unbiased. I'll get back to you with the answer.