FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-04-2012, 12:44 PM   #21
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: middle east
Posts: 829
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack
The potential error is whether or not "Mark" has presented the Sea of Galilee as a Sea. Per Wikipedia, the Sea of Galilee is actually a lake and not a sea. A number of ancient authors also refer to it as a sea so "Mark's" use of "Sea of Galilee" can be limited to identification of location based on name and not necessarily intended to be a physical description. The issue is whether "Mark's" attached narrative communicates that this is technically a "Sea" as opposed to just a lake. The evidence that "Mark" intended to show a Sea here is:
In English, a "sea" is clearly saline. Is that distinction found in θάλασσαν, as well? In my opinion, this is not a geographic error, unless there is evidence that Mark wrote "Thalassan", thinking, erroneously, that this body of water possessed a high degree of salinity. I believe that "Thalassan" was a synonym, at that time, for "large body of water", without regard to the concentration of sodium chloride.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack
2) Known physical characteristics of the Sea of Galilee:

While there is no shortage of apologist claims of related threatening waves there also appears to be no physical documentation of threatening waves. There are Internet videos of storms on the Sea of Galilee but none that show significant waves.
I disagree with this assessment.

Cyclonic stoms form in the Mediterranean Basin, and move East with predictable turbulence and accompanying devastation of wooden shacks. Boats on Lake Galilee, in such a storm, would certainly be at risk, and could well capsize.

http://www.adv-geosci.net/2/217/2005...2-217-2005.pdf

Lake Erie is even more shallow (19 Meters)than Lake Galilee (26 meters), and nevertheless, demonstrates relentless fury during the summer months, as affirmed by hundreds of ship wrecks at the bottom of the lake.

In my opinion, this is an unconvincing geographic error by Mark.

tanya is offline  
Old 02-04-2012, 03:08 PM   #22
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics.
Posts: 359
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeWallack View Post
CHAPTER LXXVIII -- HE PROVES THAT THIS PROPHECY HARMONIZES WITH CHRIST ALONE, FROM WHAT IS AFTERWARDS WRITTEN.

Quote:
Then he was afraid, and did not put her away; but on the occasion of the first census which was taken in Jud a, under Cyrenius, he went up[1] from Nazareth, where he lived[2], to Bethlehem, to which he belonged, to be enrolled; for his family was of the tribe of Judah, which then inhabited that region. Then along with Mary he is ordered to proceed into Egypt, and remain there with the Child until another revelation warn them to return into Jud a[3].
[1] "he went up" - I think this would normally mean either heading north in Israel or going to the relatively big city. Seems to be an implication of a Nazareth in Judea. Also note that Justin never says Nazareth is in Galilee.
It could also mean Nazareth was in the same area as Bethlehem, but at a lower elevation, i.e., downslope. I've heard somewhere that Bethlehem was situate on a ridgetop.
la70119 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:03 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.