Steven Avery

Holding is saying the "country of the Gadarenes" is the Decapolis. And the "country of Gerasa" is the Decapolis. Yet Decapolis is not even called a country/region/chora in the NT.

Illogical, and inventing a new usage for the geography of the region.
And it craftily begs the essential question --

- How could "country of the Geresenes" be outside
both the city and region of Gerash ??

Holding is trying to jump over a whole region, and make pigs fly. To do this he has to change the meaning of the words. He would allow the "county of Philadelphia" (Amman, Jordan) or the "country of Damascus" to also be on the shores of Kinneret !

Holding is really a "Chicago inerrantist". What is inerrant is only a non-existent text, some unknown, ethereal "original autographs" not anything tangible, not anything you can hold in your hand.

Holding is forced into that position by his embrace of corrupt texts, texts "reconstructed" by paradigms that must put error in the text. Therefore Holding will only defend that which does not exist.

That is not true inerrancy.

Steven Avery

No, what I said was "dwelled in tombs, no home". I did not say there were no tombs. If you would like me to add a section (next time I do the chart) of what the three stories have in common, I would definitely put in tombs as the location of the event. I also have about four items to add to the differences.
Not sure about dwelling there, but your point is reasonable. Due to the ambiguity or implication, I will likely remove it from the updated chart.
I was actually quite surprised to the degree that Mark and Luke agree, without Mark, even beyond the obvious two major issues, geography and number. So I decided to run down verse by verse. Your later challenge has given me addtional add-ons to the chart that are very significant as well.
In Mark/Luke the man speaks first, and he addresses Jesus, in fact with reverence. (Then the discussion switches to Jesus dealing with the demons). In Matthew the men never speak, only the demons address Jesus. Doctrinally, the question of the man's desire to be freed comes up frequently in posession/deliverance issues.
It would be an awkward exegesis. I have run into a super-literal-inerrantist who takes the view that any divergence in words should mean a repetition of events, at least in certain circumstances.

It occurred "when they went forth to land". It does mean disembarked, to land, and then the events occur. I was (best of remembrance) viewing it as a noun, not a verb, when I made the distinction, and it remains valid.

Luke as well, as he is chronological, uses "other side" in initiating the action.

You are now looking at words, not meaning. Luke and Mark both happenned chick/chuck .. with Matthew we dunno.

I disagree with you 100% on this English understanding of the usage of "when", which is frequently NOT a "chronological marker word". In fact, it often has a deliberate time vagueness, making the event itself the marker.
"when" is not "then" !!

And my view is confirmed here by the absence of any reference to the apostles and disciples when the boat lands, which was given in Mark and Luke, as they were on the boat when the storm stilled.

Yep.. "at the time" ... "when .. the following happened"
Matthew writes clearly and accurately, and he even confirms it with

"And when he was come to the other side...." - Matthew
NOT "they came over" - Mark
"they arrived" - Luke

Yummy, the distinction is clear, and doublefold
Luke and Mark use chronological language.
Luke and Mark support the chronology by referencing the disciples
who had just seen the storm stilled.

I realize that this essentially deep-sixes your argument for two storms stilled, so it is a little hard to accept.

Understood, but not facing the issue. Luke has no question at all. Mark is the proper contextual translation, if Mark 1 were singular the pronoun would be expected to be specified. The disciples are there in the boat in Mark and Luke, after the chronological storm account, and there is no indication of them in the boat in Matthew, in fact, it may have been a singular trip by Jesus. My sense is that it was, especially noting that "he entered into a ship" in Matthew 9:1, no definite article, no ship with disciples, while in Mark 5:18 "he was come into the ship", the ship of the disciples. Another important distinction.

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

yummyfur

I'm confused, I thought you said the Textus Receptus was inerrant? But it is also a "reconstructed" text, that was put together in an attempt to get at original autographs, by using various manuscripts, these manuscripts even varied depending on what edition of the Textus Receptus your talking about. How is this not the same paradigm of any reconstructed text? What makes Textus Receptus different?, and which tangible edition of the Textus Receptus is inerrant?

Lugubert

I've enjoyed the derailments from my OP to NT origins to migrating swine and Palestinian geography. But having delivered what was due for semester finals, I now had time to look back to see if there were any answers to my questions.
Thanks, Peter. I enjoyed that reference.

But why not take it to the extreme? If the intelligentia was out to trap Jesus, wouldn't it (supposing, of course, that all of it really happened) be possible that the girl was no adultress but just used for the occasion, and perfectly innocent from all points of view? That would also explain why the bystanders, informed of the plot, refused to cast stones.

yummyfur

please qoute the full verse where the unpossesed man speaks to Jesus in both Mark and Luke.

Failure to give the qoute of the full verse from both Gospels, will constitute breaking this discussion, as there is no need to waste everyones time.

The demons are reverent in all three stories, they even call Jesus, "Son of God" in all three. They are begging him in all three storys, much like a cowering servant.

Where did I say when=then, "When" marks synchronous(mutiple events that happen at the same time) events. You are right the event after the word "when" is the time for all the synchronous events that follow in the sentence this first event, but "when" marks it as such. Whithout "When" we wouldn't know the events were synchronous, so it is marking chronolgy. So:

"When I got to the other side of the street, I met a schizoid man"

clear synchronicity

"I got to the other side of the street, I met a schizoid man"

not clear synchronicty

Are you saying Jesus was really by himself in Matthew? how did Mathew get this story then? If you say Jesus repeated the story to his Apostles later, why bother, they had already witnessed, by your supposition, an almost identical event themselves?


You have ignored basic construction of an English sentence. The above words are almost completely meaningless, there are no arguments made at all, just assertions. I'm sure you know I'm not actually argueing for two storms stilled.

Please answer me this, and failure to answer will constitute ending this discussion.

Does the sentence below show synchronous events?

"When he got to the other side of Lake Michigan, into the area of Benton Harbor, he met a schizoid man"

That point was not an argument, thus the "by the way", as additional information on the language of the text. In all three storys only Jesus is explicitly shown to disembark.
So you are saying that when Matthew say "When he came to the other side" he is actually talking about a different trip across the sea, than the one he just finished? Then I would have to say Matthew is insane, why even put that phrase in, as it would obviously confuse everyone, since he just finished a story about a sea crossing. I'm not sure how the ravings of a mad man, who can't construct a coherent sentence, are inerrant?

Please explain how in
"he entered into a ship"
"he was come into the ship"
one shows that there are Apostles on board and the other does not? The verb and definite article are the same in the Greek, in both sentences in the TR, So the KJV is a poorly done translation.

It would be better to have
"he entered into the ship"
"he had entered into the ship"
not that there, was any real difference to begin with.

Since you claim that Matthew has no chronology, we don't even know if the ship Jesus enterd into at 9:1 is right after the demonics story, or before, or some time long after. In fact, using the arguments you have made here, I could probably claim all these events could have happened after Jesus rose from the dead, but before his assumption into heaven.

Steven Avery

Actually my view is that the King James Bible is inerrant and infallible, inspired and preserved Scripture, with authority, and the Textus Receptus is the historic base for the King James Bible NT, while the Heberw-Aramaic Masoretic Ben Hayim text is the historic base for the King James Bible Tanach.

There are differences in various editions of the TR, albeit very, very minor compared to the difference between any TR's and the alexandrian text. The only question is whether to think of the magnitude of the differences in the thousands, millions, or goguls.

The TR was "reconstructed" in a process of textual analysis that simply used the historic Byzantine Text as the base, and then used sensible and logical ideas for comparison, consideration and for any changes to the historic majority text. And these textual ideas were compatible with the view of inspiration and preservation of the Word of God.

The alex text was reconstructed using two oddball, widely and wildly diffeing and clearly scribally corrupt manuscripts as the textual proof-text base, against all the historic evidence .. justifying this thru some of the most meshugana concepts of textual criticism, concepts that must, by their very application, fabricate an errant text.

That is why the proponents of this methodology, even when supposedly Christian apologeticists and/or inerrantists, be it James White or James Patrick Holding or Daniel Wallace or Matt Slick, will never defend any tangible, extant Bible, in any language, as the inerrant Word of God. Never.

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

Steven Avery

You simply don't really have the "gist" of the issue, although I appreciate one aspect of correction. The demons are not reverent, they are nervous nellies, who recognize that they have met their match, and more, Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God,

The two men in Matthew are not related as speaking to Jesus themselves at all (only the demons speak through him).

Yet the one man alone (Mark, Luke) is reverent -- BEFORE the demons speak
Mark "he ran and worshipped him"
Luke "he fell down before him"
---- while Matthew simply accounts Jesus speaking to the demons.

You are right on one aspect of correction, fine tuning.
I said...
"first Jesus addressed by the man"
"first Jesus worshipped/prostrated by the man" is accurate.

You are confusing specificity with synchronity.

I am saying first that there is NO indication of a ship with disciples, and Matthew actually gives us TWO other clear indications of this, in addition to his general non-chronological procedure and the specific non-chronological language just discussed.
Now you are conjecturing and presupposing instead of allowing me to consider and answer :-) First, your reasoning "why bother" simply is not the attitude of believers. We consider EVERY Word of God important, and don't dictate to Jesus what he would or could or should say.

And very possibly the bulk of the story was given by one of the healed men, or those close to them. The exact transmission mechanism is a minor concern, (or no concern) interesting more for specultative value than any real issue doctrine or errancy about the two events.

You have been apparently asserting that two events - Gergesenes and Gadarenes - would require two storms stilled. If you have dropped that ... fine..

Now, my point stands, the following English constructions ARE different --
..........."And when he was come to the other side...." - Matthew
NOT..... "they came over" - Mark
NOT ....."they arrived" - Luke

They is so intuitively obvious that I don't want to belabor the point more, maybe we have an English expert who can take it over in fancy language, to make you appreciate it more.

And the emphasis on "when.. was come" is confirmed by at least THREE additional aspects.

1. Mark is not chronological, nor does he claim to be -- yet Luke does
2. "he was come" -- not they, as in the storm-boat folks in
Luke and Mark
3. "he entered into a ship"

If it were chronological 2. and 3. would be very strange.. what happened to the disciples and the ship they were in ? Luke and Mark handled them perfectly, landing them in the country of the Gadarenes.

Real situation.. This event occurred without having anything to do chronologically with the disciples ship and the stilling of water.

And all of this is on top of the basics..
Matthew simply says it is a different location. Gergesenes, not Gadarenes.
There are two demoniacs, not one.
The various smaller differences.

No problem here with your threats to "end the discusion", I have gone out of my way to address every point, and my points have been well demonstrated. And I am now working them into other venues, it is a fascinating and fundamental issue.

This is not only perhaps the single clearest blunder in the alex text, (partnering with 7:31), easier to see because it is geographical, not doctrinal or grammatical or historical

-- false ideas about Gadarenes/Gergesenes have been part and parcel of the underlying base of much of the skeptic mythology about the NT text (Mark does not know geography..ergo the book was written much later.. etc)

--and also much of the similar scholarly synoptic confusion is based on not properly reading and understanding the Matthew/Mark/Luke text, or using the corrupt alex text as a base.

The good part.. by challenging the inerrancy ideas on the text, you have helped clarify many issues, to allow for a fully cohesive and clear exposition. I am enjoying sharing these ideas with other true inerrantists.

Sure, "when" is used here in a chronological (not synchronous) sense. The chronological-ness is between getting to the other side, and meeting the man, It is NOT with "getting to the other side", and what occurred before! In fact, in that way your example is quite similar to Matthew's usage.

Sure, but in Mark and Luke he is disembarking from the ship of the disciples who had just experienced the stilling of the storm. In contrast, Matthew uniquely states "he was come" to Gergenesnes, which is extremely awkward if
"they arrived" there, as Luke says or
"they came over" as Mark says.
'La raison pour le difference' is that Luke and Mark are continuing from the very journey when the waters were stilled, Matthew is not.
Very good :-)
And I will simply say that you are a false accuser of the Word of God.

"the ship", definite article, the particular ship that landed, in which the waters were stilled.

Ahhh.. first the King James Bible is the Word of God, and it is the Word I use, and the Bible I defend. There are cases where the Byzantine and Textus Receptus sources have minor variants, there are cases where the King James Bible translation has vital information that is not available in the Greek grammatical construction, and there are probably a few cases where the KJB varies from the Textus Receptus.

In all such cases, small and limited as they are, the King James Bible is the Scripture :-) We may have one of those cases here (notice that other texts like the Vulgate and the modern versions do not have the definite article). The King James Bible gives us the Scripture, whatever nuances we find in the underlying Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek or Latin manuscripts.

Now, while I have my team of researchers delving deeply into the textual background :-) suffice to say ... the King James Bible is the inerrant Word of God that I defend.


However, there is a real difference, and it fits perfectly with the difference in 8:28 "And when he was come to the other side..."

It would take a little study, but it appears you can tell many cases where Matthew is using non-chronological language..
8:1 -When he was come down from the mountain..
8:5 -And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum
8:14 -And when Jesus was come into Peter's house
8:18 -Now when Jesus saw great multitudes
8:23 -And when he was entered into a ship..."
8:28 -And when he was cometo the other side into the country of the Gergesens..

However,
9:1 - And he entered a a ship..
Does not have that construction, and it is a natural consequence of
"besought him that he would depart out of their coasts"

Ergo, must assuredly that verse is chronological.

Keep in mind that Luke is chronological..

Luke 1:1-4
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.

So if you make that claim, I can say, most assuredly, that you are wrong :-)

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