Steven Avery

Nope .. you are wrong. The Decapolis is on the Kinneret. Two of the ten.
Both Hippos and Gadera had borders (coasts) there.
http://www.atlastours.net/jordan/decapolis.html

Anyway you are doing a good job of showing how hard folks have strained to accuse Mark. When I first came on this forum, it was the big item. And it was generally based on the same types of misunderstandings as in the last couple of posts.

Ok, to be fair, I can see how you can make this error. I even have a Zondervan KJV Study Bible that makes the same error in their map. They even blunder, taking Hippos out of the Decapolis in their map about Mark 7:31, yet have a good map in the back (Map #9) that shows the borders of the Decapolis properly. And even John Gill makes an error in having the destination as Tiberias.

I often discuss this abuse of lectio difficlior. This is a primary tool for taking errors that are simply in a few corrupt manuscripts and force them into the modern version text.

First, to have a good case, you would have to show that anybody really understood and discussed and were concerned with the distinction. And concerned so much that they would tamper with the text. Was this geography a big issue at the Council of Nicea or the Council of Carthage ?

(Maurice Robinson points out how the maintenance of "spoken by Jeremy" is a good indication that the Byzantine scribes were not into this type of smoothing. Similar to what we know of the Masoretic Text as well. Leave the text alone).

Worse to the 'smoothing' theory often the manuscript evidences are like 98% to 2% without other support (eg. ECW) for the 2%. A late scribal Byzantine smoothing should create a very mixed text. We see a few corrupt alexandrian manuscripts have the error, and it did not percolate to the textline (John Gill discusses this btw). So the historic church had the true reading in 100's of (extant) manuscripts and the error mostly dropped from the scene by the self-correcting mechanism of the churches.

Where the evidence is more like 50-50 (eg. Mark 1:2) the question has a bit more legitimacy. Here I would not even consider it worthy of discussion unless the "to" manuscripts were substantial in the Byzantine line (Gill says no, other than that I have not checked). The Aramaic Peshitta also agrees with the historic Byzantine text and the KJB as is often the case against an alexandrian corruption. (That I checked).

The copyists of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus made many hundreds of blunders. This was one of them. They were sloppy. Not real complicated.

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

Jack the Bodiless

praxeus: your link does not appear to support your position. According to the map, the "coasts of Decapolis" are the southeastern shores of Galilee: and Tyre and Sidon lie to the northwest. A traveller wouldn't pass "through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis" to get to Galilee. Unless you're trying to argue that this should be read as "unto the sea of Galilee [and then onward] through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis"?

Does the text support this interpretation? As far as I can see, it would at least be compatible with the subsequent criss-crossing of Galilee. Strange, however, that Jesus isn't described as crossing Galilee first to get there.
Well, at least you seem to admit another error: which makes your faith in the text even more curious. But this particular error could have been smoothed before the Byzantine scribes got to work, of course.
That is not an explanation. How could this specific blunder have been made? What is the linguistic ambiguity or whatever that would account for it?
And yet, as previously noted, all Bibles contain many OTHER errors (including those that unaccountably impressed you with their "perservation, purity and perfection").

BTW, a quick check reveals that the NKJV still has "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, "grief" in Isaiah 53:3-4 and 53:10, and "pierced" in Psalms 22:16: variations from the Masoretic Text (and for Psalms 22:16, it admits this in a footnote: it's using the Septuagint, Syriac and Vulgate, and the MT reads "like a lion").

Iasion

Greetings,

Praxeus -
I did NOT claim that.

I did NOT say "the Comma was put in the Bible way after the 4th century"

Sadly, your ability to read and comprehend is woeful.


Cyprian does NOT cite the Comma. You actually seem unable to recognise the plain facts. It appears that you think mention of the phrase "these three are one" is proof of the Comma - when this phrase is NOT part of the Comma, and is found in all MSS.


Priscillian is agreed by all scholars as the FIRST cite of the Comma.

You were UNABLE to provide any earlier citations.

You were wrong about Cyprian citing the Comma.
You were wrong about Tertullian citing the Comma.
You were wrong to claim a "wealth of references" from 200-550.

YOU claimed references from 200CE on. The FACTS show the first reference is Priscillian mid 4th C. You were wrong.


I never said they arose "out of nowhere" (what on earth does that even mean? Do you even know how MSS get changed, praxeus? Because this comment suggest you know nothing about MSS transmission.)

My argument was consistent all along - the Comma is a late addition - something that all scholars and most modern Bibles agree on.


There are NO greek MSS with the Comma until the time of Erasmus - this is a known fact.

If you DISAGREE then YOU produce a Greek MSS with the Comma from before the time of Erasmus.

You will not, because there is none. Of course, you will never admit that, just preach more nonsense.


Anyway,
at this point I have had enough of your nonsense praxeus - I showed you were wrong on numerous points, including known facts.

I can see why you get so little respect here - you are wrong on almost everything, but don't even see to realise it, let alone admit your (many) errors.


Iasion

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Mark 7:31 (KJB)
And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon,
he came unto the sea of Galilee,
through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis.

Jack, I really do not understand your concern. You are trying so hard to come up with something. I hope you do understand that the destination is not 'Galilee', it is the shore of the 'sea of Galilee' (or Kinneret). The eastern side was not considered the Galilee region, look at the map, and afaik is not today. As the destination was to somewhere around the Hippo to Gadara area you get there by the borders of Decapolis. Whether the route is on the coast or more inland (closer to Damascus).

I don't see what you are trying to connect. The route was direct.

As I mention above, the route likely does not even touch or cross the Galilee region.
It looks like an east of the Jordan route, going through Philoteria.
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/decapolis_cities.html

You are doubly confused. There was no first error to admit and even you acknowledged that the Tyre/Sidon problem was in the modern versions. Borderline doozy-palooza.

All I shared was that if the concept of 'smoothing' was really applicable, it would have been applied to Jeremy. In fact when such stuff is done (such as Greek OT smoothing to match the NT) .. it is usually simply because the scribes are in a bad way .. and don't have wisdom about the word of God.

(snip stuff that is a afield and not real interesting ... you must be kidding about the blunders... do you have any idea about the condition of Sinaiticus? read Dean John Burgon.. they made just about every blunder in the book, and then some more.)

Good. Maybe you should read the Daniel Gruber booklet on Isaiah 7 and almah and the rabbinical understandings.

I'm a bit more familiar with the issues on verse 8 and 9 however I have seen no problem with any part of the KJB translation of Isaiah 53.

You are not aware that this is a minority reading in the Masoretic Text ?
Even Emanuel Tov has supported the verb reading over the dubious 'like a lion' attempt/emendation.

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

Apikorus

Exactly where has Emanuel Tov done this?

From a Google search I found the following, which is allegedly an email from Professor Tov:

dear sir i am not a rabbi and the fact that i did something for the book does not mean i agree with their views. as for the reading, this is very complex. the most important is probably the fact that the septuagint (lxx) has the verbal form, probably ka'aru, and this translation is jewish and not touched by christians. aquila (akilas) the most jewish of the translators has also a verbal form, they bound. the same reading is found in the psalms scroll from nachal hever (not qumran) which is one of the most jewish scrolls so to speak almost identical to the text of the middle ages (masoretic text). i think that the masoretic interpretation with the etnachta under hikifuni also may favor a verbal form there. therefore the whole distinction between a jewish and christian interpretation is artificial. but it remains a difficulty.
chag sameach / e.t.

Nowhere does Tov recommend a reading of "pierced". Rather, he states that some verbal form was present in a pre-Christian textual variant.

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Lets stick with the integrity issue first.

Uh, Iasion. Please.
First you put your foot in your mouth as follows.

You said the Johannine Comma was
".. was ADDED to the Bible much later"

I asked you twice, post #38 and #51
"...much later than what ?"

Iasion
"Much later than the early MSS. No early Greek MSS has this passage."

So Iasion, when do you think the "early MSS" of 1 John are ?
Straight answer please.

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

Steven Avery

Did anybody say he did ?
Please reread above.

Emanuel Tov:
i think that the masoretic interpretation with the etnachta under hikifuni also may favor a verbal form there.

Is that a discussion of a "pre-Christian textual variant" ?
Api, you have an unusual comprehension filter.

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

Apikorus

The MT of Ps 22:17c says K)RY -- "like a lion". It is very likely corrupt. The pre-Christian variant of course would be the exemplar for the LXX of Psalms.

Heidi Guedel

Oh, gosh.... lol... thank you for posting that link, Toto. Your statement in parentheses provided my belly-laugh for the evening: "It is now felt that his calculations were in error". I'm guessing that you utilized understatement as a form of humor. I can't stop chuckling. That, combined with the seemingly endless circular debate going on here about the content, contradictions, and supposed inerrancy of scripture creates an atmosphere of absurdity suitable for a Marx Brothers movie. Instead of "A Night at the Opera", it's "A Millinium With the New Testiment".

Let's see now... we have this guy who was supposedly conceived through miraculous means (no sperm need apply). At least Mary's previously widowed husband Joseph swallowed that story (he r-e-a-l-l-y must've been in love with that 14-year-old girl).

Next, Jesus' childhood and adolescence are almost completely unaccounted for. Our story picks up in young adulthood, told by 4 guys who really weren't there. We have the Gospel of Mark, which is actually an anonymous writ attributed to someone named 'Mark', who supposedly wrote down what he'd heard from Jesus' Apostle, Peter, second-hand. Many scholars believe that the other 3 gospels were actually predicated on the gospel of 'Mark' (who may be Mark, but then again, maybe not), and refer to them as "Markian". The gospels themselves differ in certain ways (all of which have been pointed out ad infinitum). Anyway... scholars disagree about that, too.

As for Jesus' birthday... it is generally recognized NOT to have been December 25th... that was just done for the sake of convenience in order to preserve a correlation with a pagan winter holiday involving an elf who delivers gifts. We really don't know when Jesus was born... so Dennis the Short's calculations are based upon what, exactly? Anyway, they are considered to be in error. (giggle)

So people continue to argue endlessly about these scriptures and what they supposedly mean...

It would be nothing more than a colossal waste of time if it were not so damned funny. People who must cling to these silly beliefs resist logical arguments the way Scotch Guard resists stains.

You've seen the TV comedy, Malcolm in the Middle? How about a new Biblical comedy - Jesus in the Middle - about this little illegitimate kid whose mother convinced his step-father that he was miraculously conceived by "god". He has an older step-sister named Miriam, and a half-brother named James. Miriam and James are informed that their "brother" Jesus is really the love-child of "god". But the neighbors don't really believe this story the way Joseph does... now do they? They probably don't buy Mary's "I was visited by an Angel" story, either. So we have plenty of fodder for the comedy/drama about this young boy who believes that he's the son of god, while the other kids in the neighborhood just think he's a little B@stard. The first episode could be called, "Is God a Deadbeat Dad???", and it could deal with the intangible nature of the divine version of child support... was there any?

But wait... Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are all supposed to be One, so Jesus must've screwed his own mother and begotten Himself when he was still only the Holy Spirit and God (a duality... not yet a trinity). Wow. Even Sybil couldn't top this! Sybil had 16 personalities... but she didn't create herselves before she/they was/were born.

I think Through the Looking Glass is really the word of God. It makes more sense. We know who the author really is, too.

Iasion

Greetings,

Yes, ADDED much later.
Much later than the early exemplars,
as I explicitly explained.

I did NOT say "much later than the 4th century".

<request for moderation removed from thread>


Iasion