Forum for ex-members of Revival Churches
Revival_Centres_Discussion_Forums > Reviving from Revival > The Ex-Christian Chatroom Go to subcategory:
Author Content
ColinXY
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:760
  • Posts:29
  • From:New_zealand
  • Register:12/04/2015 3:59 AM

Date Posted:14/04/2015 11:03 PMCopy HTML

Matthew 2:13

[Jesus' birth et al]
Joseph hears voices in his head and is told to flee and stay in Egypt until Herod the Great is dead (or Herod will kill Jesus.)

...

2:19 onwards
Joseph hears voices in his head while in Egypt that Herod has died and that he can return home.

However when the god-party heard that Archelaus reigned in Judea/Judah, they were afraid and went to Nazareth in Galilee instead.

Over in Luke

Luke 2:41,42

"Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the passover.

And when he was twelve years old they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast."

How do apologists explain the discrepancy? My guess is in the subject line: Jerusalem moves around by God magic. When they were in Egypt, Jerusalem moved there. When they were in Galilee Jerusalem moved there; all so Jesus didn't have to tempt fate when he was growing up.
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:The moving city of Jerusalem

Date Posted:15/04/2015 1:01 AMCopy HTML

Whew! your just as ignorant on Bible matters as I am with so called 'Atheism.'

I thought by now a much more learned fellow would be responding to your 'ramblings' on here. Maybe they can see that seeds won't grow on barren ground.

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
ColinXY Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #2
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:760
  • Posts:29
  • From:New_zealand
  • Register:12/04/2015 3:59 AM

Re:The moving city of Jerusalem

Date Posted:15/04/2015 1:23 AMCopy HTML

Okay, explain it then rather than just using ad hominem. Explain how Jesus' parents went to Jerusalem every year without going into Judea.


Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #3
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:The moving city of Jerusalem

Date Posted:15/04/2015 6:36 AMCopy HTML

Oh! I didn't see that you were referring to what appears to be a trivial contradiction of texts in the different writings of the Gospels. 

Look, I'm not the one able to write pages and pages to try to explain such, but suffice to say that where there is the 'Human' element translating languages into English , you can be sure to find errors. 

One can find numerous contradictions throughout any writings to English and you have to understand that the early writings were written by different people in different times, in different places, but it still doesn't take away the message contained there in.

You previously boasted that you studied in the 'Koine Greek'; if that be the case, what you need to do is focus on the message that the "original" scripture presents, not such trivial things that may be of no consequence just to gain 'brownie points.' 

Fww, In my case I have several different versions of the bible, and I cross reference each and discover the rationality that I need.

To mention, Jesus was about 18mnths old when Herod made that decree to kill all babies, not as supposed a new born in Bethlehem. 


I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
ColinXY Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #4
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:760
  • Posts:29
  • From:New_zealand
  • Register:12/04/2015 3:59 AM

Re:The moving city of Jerusalem

Date Posted:15/04/2015 7:48 AMCopy HTML

If you don't believe the bible is the inerrant word of god, such things aren't important. If you do believe the bible is the inerrant word of god then you need to account for the problem.

Yes, I once could read the New Testament in its original language, but I'm out of practice. It is quite fascinating to read it and see how far Christian translators go to twist it so it falls in line with Christian doctrine.

I remember a lecturer, a Christian priest, describing the importance of doing an exegesis; which he explained meant he was doing a literal translation of the bible. I laughed when he complained about my translations being too literal. He couldn't fault them though, he just complained about them.
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #5
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:The moving city of Jerusalem

Date Posted:15/04/2015 10:52 AMCopy HTML

If you don't believe the bible is the inerrant word of god, such things aren't important. If you do believe the bible is the inerrant word of god then you need to account for the problem.  I think that should read the other way about really.

Yes, I once could read the New Testament in its original language, but I'm out of practice. It is quite fascinating to read it and see how far Christian translators go to twist it so it falls in line with Christian doctrine. How much I desire to be able to read in the original language and to see for myself to what extent is any different in the meaning and message what it is today.  So many years wasted in Revival and now too old to learn.

Can you give an example what has been "twisted to fall in line with Christian doctrine"?

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
ColinXY Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #6
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:760
  • Posts:29
  • From:New_zealand
  • Register:12/04/2015 3:59 AM

Re:The moving city of Jerusalem

Date Posted:15/04/2015 8:56 PMCopy HTML

I'm pretty sure I got the logic right. If you believe the bible is without error then you need to give an account of why there are contradictions. If you believe the bible is fine with its errors then the contradictions don't matter.

Are you sure you want to know? It appears you're still in the Jesus-party.















One of the things Christianity promotes is unholiness (universal.) The old testament belongs to the holy (separate), i.e. Israel, but in the new testament the unchanging God opened it up for everyone.

BTW the word holy just means separate, so while I'm being a bit facetious the previous paragraph is also factual.

Unfortunately in the many moves I've done I've thrown away most of my course notes and results; thinking I'd never need them again. John 3:16 is probably the Christian world's most popular bible verse. I'm only going to examine part of it, and tear that bit apart. There are other holes in it and I'm ignoring them, but this one should hurt Christian dogma a bit. If you don't want to know, stop reading now.














"For God so loved the world..."

The problem here is the word kosmos (kosmon in the accusative case.) Christian translators usually translate this as world. When they cannot make this definition fit the text, they're forced to use either its actual meaning or try to worm their away around it.

The actual meaning of the word is order. "God loved the order..." Which then begs the question: which order? Of course the lecturer didn't like this translation. He couldn't fault it though. He just said I was being too literal. I remember it quite clearly since this was the first thing he got us to translate (you tend to remember your first.)

One of the things I was going to do was translate the bible de-spiritualised. Take away all the pet words that priests and other backwards collar men love and render them into plain English. I lost motivation, and I doubt I'll go back to it. Admittedly if I meet a bunch of motivated atheists I might re-visit that plan. I'm fairly sure some atheists would like to have a translation of the bible that blows holes in Christianity. It's a lot of work and my Koine Greek understanding is woeful these days.
Biblianut Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #7
  • Rank:Regular Rookier
  • Score:5380
  • Posts:218
  • From:Australia
  • Register:30/11/2010 9:39 PM

Re:The moving city of Jerusalem

Date Posted:16/04/2015 12:58 AMCopy HTML



Are you sure you want to know? It appears you're still in the Jesus-party.
Absolutely want to know and I am still in the "Jesus-party".

Even though I might identify as 'Anglican' (probably for the want of a taste of the 'numinous') I consider myself in the 'Reformed group'. But that doesn't mean I have to go along with everything that is said and done. If one has a certain 'faith' then one must have a valid reason for following that faith, that reason being a sure foundation of what is truth.

One of the things Christianity promotes is unholiness (universal.) The old testament belongs to the holy (separate), i.e. Israel, but in the new testament the unchanging God opened it up for everyone. We are told the old testament (covenant) shows us that sin is death and as a school master which leads us to Christ. God is unchanging whilst that covenant is kept. It is God's sovereign right to make and choose covenants as he wills. Thank him that all now have the opportunity to enter into an 'everlasting' covenant and to life eternal.

BTW the word holy just means separate, so while I'm being a bit facetious the previous paragraph is also factual. I agree

"For God so loved the world..."

The problem here is the word kosmos (kosmon in the accusative case.) Christian translators usually translate this as world. When they cannot make this definition fit the text, they're forced to use either its actual meaning or try to worm their away around it.
That is right, this is one 'translation' I could see clearly very early in my walk in Revivalism, even with the very limited resource that I had and the fact I wasn't supposed to question such things.  

From this time I would start to look into that which was preached from the platform and found much was not what the bible was saying or it's meaning. 

The actual meaning of the word is order. "God loved the order..." Which then begs the question: which order? ..............Right again. The question is does it include 'man'? I guess mankind was originally created in the perfect order of things (made in the image of God) and as the story goes, screwed up and all of creation was put out of 'order'. (Hence: "the whole of creation groans...." Rom 8:22-25)

I believe in Christianity as I believe the sun has risen; not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. C.S.Lewis.
ColinXY Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #8
  • Rank:Not quite new
  • Score:760
  • Posts:29
  • From:New_zealand
  • Register:12/04/2015 3:59 AM

Re:The moving city of Jerusalem

Date Posted:16/04/2015 1:44 AMCopy HTML

Perhaps I've put the horse before the cart in my argument.

The word Gentile is a good word if you're a Latin Scholar; it's the adjective based on the Latin word 'gens.' It's a terrible word for the English reader. Apart from being badly translated into English it gives the sense of individualism that isn't there; it is as singular as the English word people is singular.

Translators are incredibly inconsistent in how they translate the word ethnos as well - the word behind the translation. As you can probably predict it is where we get our word ethnic from. I have never seen in an English bible the phrase Abraham was the father of Gentiles for example. If translators were consistent that phrase or a simile of it would actually appear.

IOW I am saying translators are dishonest in their translation of ethnos. Either drop it and translate as tribe (at a stretch 'nation' though the concept doesn't really relate to the modern definition) or at least translate it consistently.
RCI prophesies
Copyright © 2000-2019 Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.