countjulian

Great job.

Keep up the good work.

unknown4

Hi there. What do you think was meant by the quote that "the entire Roman people" gave him the title? I doubt there was some sort of gathering of "the entire Roman people" just to confer a title on him? I can see why Miller would use this quote, but would he really be suggesting that a census was ordered and "the entire Roman people" decided to also, as an aside, give Augustus a title? As in some sort of voting "Do you wish to give Augustus this title? Mark yes or no".

Steven Avery

Diogenes .. Tis truly amazing to me that you would even now still include this as a Markan "error" when you are well aware that the historic Bibles, the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible, Geneva, Luther etc., and the majority of Greek manuscripts do not at all have Gerasa, the city in Jordan.
You don't even mention the differences between the historic Bibles and the modern versions here.

And we also know that the only folks defending true textual inerrancy are in TR and King James Bible camps, anyway, making the 'oversight' worse.

This is the same type of sleight-of-hand that was done on the errancy wiki with the Matthew 1:7 Asa 'smackdown error'.
http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Matthew_1:7
Although there at least some lip-service was given to the historic TR text, albeit not in a clear way (e.g. no mention of the King James Bible, Geneva, Tyndale, Luther as being the historic TR Bibles)

Integrity first.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

PS.
As I remember these other errors on your post were also discussed in some depth, and the claims of "error" were quite emphatically disputed (befopre I came on the forum with the Gerash information), however I would like to take care of the simplest issue here.

Steven Avery

My apologies. You do obliquely reference that there is a difference, assuming your skeptical textual viewpoint as a given. You do not mention that the historic Bibles, based on the TR, do not fit your 'error'. (Which is a terrrible blunder for the duckshoot text of the modern versions).

No, that conclusion is based entirely on your presup that the corrupt lightly-supported alexandrian text is correct. We go into that in a separate thread.

Actually there are two locations and about a dozen differences between the stories, as you should well know. There is no contradiction because the Matthew account in Gergesenes (across from Tiberias) is simply a different incident, in a different place, with two people unlike the Gadarenes account, than the Luke and Mark account in the region Gadarenes. This is amply supported by a close analysis of the text.

I have some of the background information at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messia...c/message/7254
Date: Tue Jan 27, 2004 10:28 am
Subject: Gerasenes (Jerash) - modern version blunder in Mark 5:1 and Matthew 8:28 (updated)

Perhaps later today I can get the differences between the accounts posted there as well, as well as the related chronology issue.

Considering we discussed this in depth on this forum, I must say this is deliberately deceptive. The city of Gedara is six miles from the lake, but the region of the Gadaranes has strong evidence of including the port on the lake.

And again a very awkward skeptic presup upon presup. Normally the skeptics acknowledge Luke's historic accuracy, but here they have to harumph simply because he agrees with Mark, and the attempt here was to paint Mark as in error. What a web they weave ...

The problem is, both Mark and Luke are perfectly accurate, and easily supportable, in their geographic positioning of the "region of the Gadarenes" account.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic