-
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!
Bible Discrepancies
- Thread starter Mister Emu
- Start date
true blood
Active Member
Look for Vespae 686
Michelle
We are all related
<UL>Acharnians (425 B.C.)true blood said:
Knights (424 B.C.)
Clouds (423 B.C.)
Wasps (422 B.C.)
Peace (421 B.C.)
Birds (414 B.C.)
Lysistrata (411 B.C.)
Women at the Thesmophoria (411 B.C.)
Frogs (405 B.C.)
Assembly Women (c. 392 B.C.)
<LI>Plutus (388 B.C.)
This is a list of his surviving works. Which one is 686? Have you seen the text? I have found several other forums that have had this debate but, so far, no one has posted any examples of apanchomai being used by Aristophanes.
http://www.poetry-archive.com/a/aristophanes.html
http://www.poetry-archive.com/a/aristophanes_bibliography.html
true blood
Active Member
I think any good writer could use the word apanchomai in a figurative way, I fail to see why you need proof.
Doc,
Yes the apostles choose another after Judas' suicide, replaced by Matthias which name means Justice as recorded in Acts.
Doc,
Yes the apostles choose another after Judas' suicide, replaced by Matthias which name means Justice as recorded in Acts.
Michelle
We are all related
Because the verse uses the word in a way that implied he literally hung himself, you are saying that the author meant it figuratively . This is your quote "The word translated "hanged himself" in the KJV is apanchomai from the Greek word apancho. Only used once in the New Testament. In classical literature it means "to strangle" or "to choke" and is used figuratively to mean to choke with anger or grief. If Aristophanes used the word in a way that looked literal but was intended as figuratively then we have a good debate.
Let us all hang together or surely we will all hang separately. - Attributed to Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Let us all hang together or surely we will all hang separately. - Attributed to Benjamin Franklin at the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
linwood
Well-Known Member
Figuratively indeed.
I`m going to agree with you Trueblood.
Any word "could" be used figuratively in just about any language.
I`ll still check my library this Wednesday for its use by Aristophanes merely because now I`m curious but you are correct it is now beside the point.
In any language it is the context that determines how a word used used (literally or figuratively) and this can create grey areas when one wants to intentionally create them.
In this case I don`t see any evidence within the story itself to support it`s figurative use.
The only support it has for a figurative use is the fact that it is contradicted in its literal sense elsewhere.
However this isn`t support unless you are going to be guilty of what you`ve accused me and others of doing.
Starting with a conclusion and designing a path to that conclusion no matter how it gets there.
The fact that the only content that could give a figurative translation footing is in an entirely different book by a different author isn`t impressive.
I choose to use the local content to determine intent.
It is also beside the point because in order for your apologetics to mean anything then they have to agree there are errors in the Bible.
The point of critiquing Biblical contradiction is to show that the book is not inerrant in the first place.
To claim it is not innerrant in one part by showing it is errant as a whole really doesn`t help the inerrancy position.
I understand you don`t personally hold a position of inerrancy for the Bible but it proves the original point none the less.
linwood
Well-Known Member
I know I haven`t posted to this in awhile but I just wanted to say that I did look for Aristophanes "Wasps" at the library and while they have a pretty cohesive collection of his works and they had two copies of this particular book in their database they were both listed as "Missing".
I go every Wednesday with my kids so I`ll keep checking to see if they are ever "found".
In the meantime, I have a new contradiction.
I go every Wednesday with my kids so I`ll keep checking to see if they are ever "found".
In the meantime, I have a new contradiction.
linwood
Well-Known Member
A quote from Jesus on the cross.
"Those aren`t the words of a man who is voluntarily dying for our sins; those are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be."
"There can be no doubt that these words emanate from a man who does not have the situation under control"
for·sake (fôr-s
k
, f
r-)
In fact it would seem he felt God abandoned him.
Which brings up yet another problem.
If Jesus and God are one how could he abandon himself?
If he truly wants his crucifixion to "pass from him" why doesn`t he just stop it..he`s God after all.
How can Jesus` will be different from Gods will if they are the same being?
If Jesus is God why does he need to draw strength from an angel?
To quote Dennis McKinsey..
"Those aren`t the words of a man who is voluntarily dying for our sins; those are the words of a man who can think of a hundred places he would rather be."
"There can be no doubt that these words emanate from a man who does not have the situation under control"
for·sake (fôr-s
- To give up (something formerly held dear); renounce: forsook liquor.
- To leave altogether; abandon: forsook Hollywood and returned to the legitimate stage.
In fact it would seem he felt God abandoned him.
Which brings up yet another problem.
If Jesus and God are one how could he abandon himself?
If Jesus is God why is he praying to himself?
If he truly wants his crucifixion to "pass from him" why doesn`t he just stop it..he`s God after all.
How can Jesus` will be different from Gods will if they are the same being?
If Jesus is God why does he need to draw strength from an angel?
true blood
Active Member
Matthew 27:46. I agree that something is in error. Notice the scribes have let remained the original hebrew words of Jesus. Why? Probably because they are not positive on the correct translation. I've addressed this issue before in an earlier thread. I believe it should be a cry of triumph. By changing one of the hebrew words from lman to lmna it harmonizes the passage with the rest of the scripture.
Jesus Christ is not God. The other verses you posted provide support for this. Jesus Christ is a human man.
Jesus Christ is not God. The other verses you posted provide support for this. Jesus Christ is a human man.
true blood
Active Member
Found the post.
Matthew 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mark 15:34: And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
These two verses indicate a cry of defeat. I can't see how now Jesus would accuse God of deserting him. This idea contradicts too much scripture in the Bible. Especially considering that in John 16:32 Jesus said, "The Father is with me," Clearly Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 contridicts the rest of God's Word. Look closely at the verses...there are foreign words in the 2 verses that are not Greek words, they are Aramaic. The language spoken by Jesus. They show up in this scripture because the translators were not absolutely certain about their meaning. When the words were translated into Greek, the translators let the Aramaic words remain then added what they thought the Greek translation might be. Matthew 5:22, Mark 5:41, I Corinthians 16:22 are other verses where the translators have allowed the Aramaic words to remain.
Accoring the ALL Aramaic sources the word lama is actually lmna Lmna is used as a declaration of "purpose" or "reason". The root of sabachthani is shbq. Shbq means "to keep" or "to reserve". The word "shbq" is used in other verses like Romans 11:4, I Kings 19:18, II Kings 10:11, Deuteronomy 3:3, Joshua 10:33, all translating "remaining"
Eli, Eli, lmna shbqthni = My God, my God, for this purpose I was reserved.
Prime example how translators have made grave errors. After all this was Jesus Christ entire purpose, the sacrificial lamb of God.
Matthew 27:46: And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
Mark 15:34: And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
These two verses indicate a cry of defeat. I can't see how now Jesus would accuse God of deserting him. This idea contradicts too much scripture in the Bible. Especially considering that in John 16:32 Jesus said, "The Father is with me," Clearly Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 contridicts the rest of God's Word. Look closely at the verses...there are foreign words in the 2 verses that are not Greek words, they are Aramaic. The language spoken by Jesus. They show up in this scripture because the translators were not absolutely certain about their meaning. When the words were translated into Greek, the translators let the Aramaic words remain then added what they thought the Greek translation might be. Matthew 5:22, Mark 5:41, I Corinthians 16:22 are other verses where the translators have allowed the Aramaic words to remain.
Accoring the ALL Aramaic sources the word lama is actually lmna Lmna is used as a declaration of "purpose" or "reason". The root of sabachthani is shbq. Shbq means "to keep" or "to reserve". The word "shbq" is used in other verses like Romans 11:4, I Kings 19:18, II Kings 10:11, Deuteronomy 3:3, Joshua 10:33, all translating "remaining"
Eli, Eli, lmna shbqthni = My God, my God, for this purpose I was reserved.
Prime example how translators have made grave errors. After all this was Jesus Christ entire purpose, the sacrificial lamb of God.
Unless, of course, they represent a Biblical reference.true blood said:
... none of which are cited.true blood said:
Yes, it is. See Thayer's Lexicon.true blood said:
There is a good deal of scholarship suggesting that this "cry of defeat" was, on the contary, intended as a reference to the (prophetic) 22nd Psalm. Though ignorant of you credentials, it's hard fo me to understand why anyone should adopt your countervailing opinion. Your failure to address the 22nd Psalm certainly suggests a superficial review of the matter. Perhaps it is you who exemplifies "how translators have made grave errors.".
linwood
Well-Known Member
I always thought that was very odd myself.
I could agree with that if I had a source to support it.
That was going to be my next question..where else was this done.
Thanks for the reference .
Can you cite one of these sources?
I cannot find reference to "lama" used as you`ve stated in any dictionary or lexicon.
Both Strongs Dictionary and Thayers Lexicon states its only use as "why".
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1100111147-2168.html
Naves, Torreys, Hitchcocks, & Vines also translate it as "why".
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/l/1100111258-8969.html
It is a direct transliteration from Aramaic to Hebrew used in both languages as a query not a statement.
Thayers and Strongs states the opposite.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1100111878-9553.html
It means to leave, or leave alone
sh baq (Aramaic) {sheb-ak'}
1) to leave, let alone
a) (P'al) to leave, let alone
b) (Ithpael) to be left
No..they don`t.
Romans 11:4
But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.
In Romans 11:4 the original Greek word for "reserved" is kataleipo the root of which is kata.
(There is no concern for any Aramaic word for this as it was never written in Aramaic)
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/2/1100113131-4543.html
The root kata means to Leave Behind...oddly enough.
This root is confusing to me as it seems to have the same meaning as the Aramaic
sh baq which is a very confusing coincidence...maybe.
It would seem he "left behind" or "held back" 7000 men.
Either way however it still means "Left Behind or "forsaken" however it would give some support to your assertion even if you have the wrong word.
I`m going to have to study that one for awhile, any enlightenment you can give me about it would be appreciated.
I`m not going to look up the other verses you`ve quoted just yet because quite honestly I`ve gotten a bit of a confusing headache from studying the Romans one.
I`ll check them out later when I can keep it straight in my head.
However the point of my post was to point out a contradiction or error in the Bible and whether the trasnlation is correct or not it is still and error either way.
Again..I know you don`t advocate Biblical innerrancy Trueblood so it wasn`t directed towards you exactly but I do appreciate your input especially since you`ve led me to a very odd usage of meanings and terms for the words "Reserved" and or "Forsaken" that I will have to figure out.
It`s kind of nice to be be a bit more in agreement than usual isn`t it?
Thanks.
true blood
Active Member
Aye, it is nice to be somewhat in agreement.
As for my source, I gathered the information from The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by Dr. George Lamsa and also in two old Aramaic sources, the Sinaitic Palimpsest, and the Curetonian Syriac in which manuscripts do not include the last part of the verse which says "...that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It just doesn't exist in these older manuscripts. The translators of the Greek texts added this last phrase.
Compare Romans 11:4 with I Kings 19:18. Since Romans is a quote from Kings, the word shaar in the Old Testament text is the Hebrew couterpart of the Aramaic shbq. The word "left" in Kings is the word "reserved" in Romans, where it is taken from the Aramaic word shbq. Shbq is also translated "remaining" in other verses.
II Kings 10:11:"So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolks, and his priests, until he left him none remaining[shbq].
Deuteronomy 3:3:"So the Lord our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining[shbq].
Joshua 10:33: Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish: and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left none remaining[shbq].
Shbq does not mean "to forsake" in Matthew 27:46. It just doesn't make any sense but rather "My God, my God, for this purpose came I into the world, for this purpose was I reserved, for this purpose was I kept, for this purpose was I spared".
If one keeps reading the verses, they will find out that this cry caused as much confusion to the listeners there at the cross as it has to readers since then.
Matthew 27:47: Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said This man calleth for Elias. Mark 15:35: ...same thing...
These verses show how doctrinally corrupt Judaism had become during the four hundred years or so from the Prophet Malachi to Jesus Christ. Many Pagan beliefs influenced Judaism. One was reincarnation. Looking at Matthew 27:46, 47, when Jesus said "Eli", the onlookers thought he said the Aramaic word for Elijah. Because of their corrupt religion, they misunderstood his words and missed out on probably the greatest of all cries of all time.
Btw, what is this blueletterbible org that many are linking to as a source?
As for my source, I gathered the information from The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts by Dr. George Lamsa and also in two old Aramaic sources, the Sinaitic Palimpsest, and the Curetonian Syriac in which manuscripts do not include the last part of the verse which says "...that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" It just doesn't exist in these older manuscripts. The translators of the Greek texts added this last phrase.
Compare Romans 11:4 with I Kings 19:18. Since Romans is a quote from Kings, the word shaar in the Old Testament text is the Hebrew couterpart of the Aramaic shbq. The word "left" in Kings is the word "reserved" in Romans, where it is taken from the Aramaic word shbq. Shbq is also translated "remaining" in other verses.
II Kings 10:11:"So Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great men, and his kinsfolks, and his priests, until he left him none remaining[shbq].
Deuteronomy 3:3:"So the Lord our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining[shbq].
Joshua 10:33: Then Horam king of Gezer came up to help Lachish: and Joshua smote him and his people, until he had left none remaining[shbq].
Shbq does not mean "to forsake" in Matthew 27:46. It just doesn't make any sense but rather "My God, my God, for this purpose came I into the world, for this purpose was I reserved, for this purpose was I kept, for this purpose was I spared".
If one keeps reading the verses, they will find out that this cry caused as much confusion to the listeners there at the cross as it has to readers since then.
Matthew 27:47: Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said This man calleth for Elias. Mark 15:35: ...same thing...
These verses show how doctrinally corrupt Judaism had become during the four hundred years or so from the Prophet Malachi to Jesus Christ. Many Pagan beliefs influenced Judaism. One was reincarnation. Looking at Matthew 27:46, 47, when Jesus said "Eli", the onlookers thought he said the Aramaic word for Elijah. Because of their corrupt religion, they misunderstood his words and missed out on probably the greatest of all cries of all time.
Btw, what is this blueletterbible org that many are linking to as a source?
true blood said:
Hardly "ALL [sic] Aramaic sources" :biglaugh:true blood said:
Your good friend Dr. Lamsa, discussed effusively in this Biography, represents a fringe position to which you have every right to pander. But to pass him off as representative of current scholarship is simply laughable.
true blood
Active Member
I have something here you can pander Deut.
So much for "ALL Aramaic sources" ...true blood said:
linwood
Well-Known Member
It is an online searchable King James Bible that has auto reference to different concordance and scholarly commentary as well as original Hebrew Greek and Aramaic text and definition of that text.true blood said:
It`s an excellent research aid for the Bible.
I do understand the trouble many have with the King James Bible but it isn`t often a probelm comparing with different versions.
You ought to spend some time there playing with all the reference aids trueblood it`s a very unique tool for anyone interested in the Bible.
I have also recently found another that is pretty good .
http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjvstrongs/index.htm
While not as intense as blueletter it is more straightforward and a bit easier to use for a newbie.
I`m not saying you are a newbie it`s just that Blueletter takes a little playing with to understand all it can do.
linwood
Well-Known Member
The Contradiction of the day.
Exodus 20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
Ezekeil 18:19
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Does God punish the child for the sin of the father or not?
which is it?
Exodus 20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
Ezekeil 18:19
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Does God punish the child for the sin of the father or not?
which is it?