Steven Avery

Wait a sec. Even the skeptics acknowledged that the travel route makes sense.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/printthread.php?t=80093
Do we have to reinvent the wheel ?

Mark 10:46
And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.

Mark 11:1 - And when they came nigh to Jerusalem, unto Bethphage and Bethany, at the mount of Olives, he sendeth forth two of his disciples,

Now, if that was the actual route of the Roman road, and if there things to do and people to see and places to go in Bethany, then where is the kvetch? Unless you really want to plan around with the order of Bethany and Bethphage, which I really doubt :-) Else it just shows the opposite of what you claimed, that Mark does in fact give accurate geography.

Interestingly, as far as I can tell, the only real attempt to find a geographical problem in Mark is the Gerasa issue, which is only a corrupt alexandrian text. The Textus Receptus / King James Bible works fine on that :-)

This is often the case of course, and then folks like Error-Laden Joe W will whine that the alexandrian one or two manuscripts must be the "true" text, simply because they have the errors :-)

Caveat emptor.

Shalom,
Praxeus
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Diogenes the Cynic

There are far more glaring geographical errors in Mark than that one. How far from the Sea of Galilee is Gerasa?

Diogenes the Cynic

Praxeus.

I made a list of geographical and other factual errors in the Gospels in this thread. Enjoy.

Incidentally, you're aren't seriously trying to make a case that the TR should be preferred to the Alexandrian texts are you? Do you have any education in thismatter at all? You do realize the KJV is a crap translation, do you not?

Steven Avery

Now, now. That one is not glaring at all. It is simply not an error. From all research, it is accurate 1st century road geography.

Even I have traveled from Jerusalem to Jericho right over the Mount of Olives, which would be about a kilometer, maybe two, less straight than the Bethany route... In those days I don't think they had as many alternate roads, and a main road went right through Bethany.

If an "error" has the smell of being fabricated, like that one, you should be a mentsch and not try to resuscitate it without some real evidence.

30 miles

Gerasa (Jerash) is deep into what is now present day Jordan http://www.bibleplaces.com/gerasa.htm

http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/gadara.htm
Gerasa was a city of the Decapolis (modern Jerash in Transjordan) located more than thirty miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee

You would have a good case for an error, and you are welcome to play this against the textcrits like Holding, and make them squirm because their Bible does have geographic error, but there simply is no such city as Gerasa in the historic New Testament, the Textus Receptus, the King James Bible (or Geneva or Tyndale or any English Bible from the historic text).

Mark 5:1 (KJB)
"And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes."

Mark 5:13
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.

Luke 8:26
And they arrived at the country of the Gadarenes, which is over against Galilee.

Matthew 8:28
And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

The alexandrian (NU) reading, where the swine are in Gerash running to the sea, is a horrid blunder.. none of the synoptics works right with the false reading, but Mark becomes the swine marathon run :-)

Those alexandrian, Egyptian scribes were incompetent, and messed up some manuscripts real bad. That is why the skeptics pretend that the W-H or Nestle-Aland text is the real text, because finding errors of all different types is quite easy.

If you need any help with the true geography, give a holla, the historic Bible works fine. And can you see why the errantists like JoeW are constantly insisting that we should be using the corrupt text :-)

Tis a real joke, once you understand the game.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Diogenes the Cynic

Gadara was still six miles from the shore. Mark and Luke both say Gerasa, Matthew says Gadara. None of them work.

The Alexandrian texts are older and more reliable than the TR which is not only corrupted but contains back translations from the Vulgate rather than original Greek text. If you want to debate the TR vs. the Alexandrian texts in a new thread, we can do that. I promise you, you'll find the sledding rather tough.

What did you think about all the other errors in my linked post?

DramaQ

:rolling: I need to go reset my irony meter. You criticize Joe W for using one version of the bible because it supports his position, and at the same time happily stay loyal to the version that works best for YOUR position.

Yes yes… yours is “true� and his is not. Therefore you are right and he is wrong.

And it makes perfect sense to you that errors were somehow ADDED to the “perfect� TR text rather than that the later text cleaned up the earlier mistakes. Yikes.

I missed the part in that thread where it was concluded “the travel route makes sense�.

I wasn’t asking for a reinvented wheel, just a more comfortable ride. Don’t tread on me.

That is just what I pointed out before. As long as one retains the “right� to wave a magic wand and recite the incantation “Goddit�, all discussion is moot. No physical evidence can overcome an argument from magic.

Funny, that was exactly the advice I took when I began to question my religion teachers.

Cheers,
dq

Steven Avery

Thanks, I see a good map or two. The most critical claims are on vis a vis Gerasenes (Gerash), Gardarenes, Gergesenes. Maybe I could look at one or two claims after that, but from what I have seen so far they look pretty vapor-ware-ish.
1000% Yes. I used the NIV for many, many years before I realized that it was based on junque manuscripts. A real peace and blessing as I moved over to the true Bible text.
Yep Nope.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Steven Avery

Nope, not in the map that you just supplied.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php...1&postcount=68
Gadara is the region going right to the southern shore of Galilee, as well as the city. And this is confirmed by Josephus and archaelogy as well.

http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/gadara.htm
Josephus (Life, ix, 42) refers to Gadara as possessing territory "which lay on the frontiers of Tiberias" (= the Sea of Galilee). That this territory reached to the Sea may be inferred from the fact that ancient coins bearing the name Gadara often portray a ship.

Nope. In the real Bible, Mark and Luke say Gadarenes, which works fine, as I just showed you. Matthew, with the two men posessed, takes place in Gergesenes (or Gergesa/Khersa), across from Tiberias, a different countryside, up the east side of Kinneret, and also works fine.

The Bible says "the other side" from Capernaum/Tiberias area.
Map.
http://www.bible-history.com/geograp...l/gergesa.html

Origen gets this stuff partly mixed up, remember he is in Egypt, where the corrupt alexandrian text was created.

Clearer information about Gergesa is in this article, although they don't accept the true text.
http://articles.jerusalemperspective...ArticleID=1674

:-) .. you must be joking. A couple of oddball, wildly differing, scribally corrupt and textually corrupt, geographically gnostic, manuscripts are "reliable" ? -- Maybe to a skeptic and an infidel ! :-)

What is this "original Greek text ?" Do you have one ?? Or is it your "reliable" Aleph and B :-) lol. As for back translations from the Vulgate, if you want to have a big discussion about the six verses in Revelation we could do that, but you might be surprised at the result :-)

:-).. the alexandrian manuscripts are wonderful for those who believe in a corrupt, errant, confusing, unworking Bible version. They simply have nothing to do with the true Bible, at all. I don't think I will start a thread on it right now, unless it really relates to paradigmic issues, like how skeptics and errantists prefer the alexandrian manuscripts BECAUSE they have errors galore and don't "work" at all, they are sludge and junque. Since errantists similarly consider the NT as sludge and junque (tampered, fabricated, fraudulent, false claims, false authors, no inspiration or preservation, a hodge-podge of truth and lies etc.) they naturally gravitate to a textual theory that supports their paradigms of error. Until they want some truf in the Word of God, they will be very happy defending a junk text. And to top off the circularity, the paradigms that are used to strain and cajole some sort of defense of these few junque manuscripts were themselves largely manufactured, or at least given prominence, precisely for the purpose of fighting the historic Bible from an unbelieving, humanistic conception. These are paradigms of error, imperfection, and confusion, so of course they lead to an errant result, like the modern "Version of the Month Club" error-laden versions.

I usually do things one or two at a time, to see if there is any communication, and also it is seems pretty clear that Gerash is the only really solidly claimed error from the previous thread. However, I hope you see that Gerash fails miserably as an error against the historic NT text, and then maybe we can try another, although I need to get to work :-)

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/

Diogenes the Cynic

Gadara was a town, not a "region." That's just a fake construct contrived by apologists to to try to cheat their way out of the error.

I look forward to educating you about the TR at some future date. maybe after you get done explaining why the earth is 6000 years old.

Diogenes the Cynic

THE Greek text. ANY Greek text. That's the point. Erasmus didn't have a complete Greek text and whatever he lacked, he filled in by translating back from the Vulgate.
Any time any place. I don't expecct to be surprised.