Intelligitimate

How much did you tithe to Dr. Scott?

WILLOWTREE

Your link doesn't work on my computer.

It must be tabloid content.

Intelligitimate

Oh, try this:

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache...scott%22&hl=en

NOGO

WILLOW knows the mind of God!
Another empty claim.

Amaleq13

It is an abbreviation for "Curriculum Vitae" which is what scholars have instead of a resume.

They bore me with their irrelevance.

I'm much more interested in the evidence and/or reasoning leading to conclusions.

What you've offered with regard to your assertions about the Gospel attributed to Mark have been less than compelling. I hope, for your sake, you have MUCH better stuff for your upcoming debate.

WILLOWTREE

Don't clown me.

"WE" certainly doesn't include me or anyone in my circle.

The problem here is you ASSUME the descrepancy to be Matthew's premeditated mischief.

Could the translators have conflated things ?

But in any case there IS NO problem here. At best we have a small controversy.

How is combining the two events corruption ?

It confirms inter-source consistency. It confirms that both Mark and Matthew were not in conspiracy to have their story "straight". I see just the opposite of what you are implying.

Again, you assume fiction. This is evidence of bias. The only proper position is to assume it true because the writer is given that assumption.

Then you cite the ONLY reason to make this nefarious assumption is because Matthew quotes the O.T. and "explains" it. How does that indicate fraud ?

Are you actually arguing that to cite the OT. is indicative of fraud ? Where did this "objective standard" originate from ? (don't answer - I already know).

How does evidence of using the LXX indicate fraud ? I have argued that the LXX was the "Bible" in the First Century - of course Matthew used the LXX !

Palestine and Jerusalem consisted of Jewry who returned from Babylonian captivity. This exile has them fluent in greek (also aramaic/syriac) and ignorant of hebrew save the scribes. Greek language ruled the world then so the LXX made sense.

Here is the Evangelical position:

Whenever ANY N.T. writer quotes the LXX they are doing so under the inspiration of the Spirit, therefore, however they quote the text is the accurate rendering. The CLAIM of the Canon is that it is God's eternal word - thus when Jesus or Paul or Matthew quote the LXX it is the correct words. Any descrepancies are usually the property of the TRANSLATORS and /or multiple source use within the translation.

Persons who have the Spriit of the Resurrected Christ - however they handle the passage is the Spirit ordained rendering. This means anytime the LXX "differs" or the MT "differs" from what a N.T. writer says then the N.T. writer under the inspiration of God has the correct quote which then forever settles any questions about that particular passage forever.


You are asserting two animals are not meant. You are saying whatever word is in the greek is the same word and that the english translators seeking to maintain proper english grammar interpreted the original word differently so that the same word is not used twice in the same sentence ?

We must establish what the LXX actually says and then establish if the english translators got it right, or as I suspect, changed the same word in the greek into two different words in english for the single purpose of english grammar considerations. Maybe the prophecy does specify two animals - Matthew doesn't claim Jesus rode both at the same time.

Then we must determine if the english translators interpreted Matthew correctly in his quoting of the O.T. and if the same translators translated both Zechariah and Matthew or if two different bodies of translators translated Zechariah and another Matthew.

We should determine all of this THEN make a conclusion.

And it doesn't matter if they "copied" - the claim is that the quoting is somehow fulfilled in a N.T. event. IOW, you are branding accuracy to be indicative of fraud - that makes no sense.

You are really saying consistency is fraud.

Then when inconsistencies "appear" the critics criticize that to be indicative of untrustworthiness. The Bible is damned either way in this rigged litmus test.

Vork - I am in no way through with this post of yours. I will finish my reply tomorrow.

sincerely,

WT

Vorkosigan

I'm not making a clown of you. This is basic scholarship, Willow. Are you familiar with any introductory works in the field? May I recommend An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond Brown? Brown was a Catholic priest and a prolific and respected New Testament scholar who wrote this NT introduction for the layman at the height of his career.

If you want to talk about the New Testament, you need to have some basic grasp of what scholars know.

You will note that I said nothing about (1) premeditated mischief or (2) "corruption." I don't know why Matthew changed the story. That he did so is evidence he didn't consider it "history." There's no need for a negative spin on it; Matthew may have felt that Mark had got it wrong.

You may see the opposite, but modern NT scholarship considers that Matt copied Mark. Something like 90% of Mark is in Matt, some of it word for word. This is not about a conspiracy to have a story straight, but about the evolution of a set of documents.

No, Willow, I don't assume fiction. I discover fiction when I discover that Matthew copies word-for-word, a passage from another text.

This is a double error. "Fraud" is not indicated, copying is. I don't know Matthew's attitude toward his own material.

Careful. There are two things going on. One is that Matthew openly cites the OT. The second is that in another place he copies the Greek LXX word-for-word, without indicating that he is doing so, as if were part of the story rather than something he himself has copied from another text. As I said before, in the various forms of literary criticism, when one text copies another in word or structure, it's a good sign of borrowing.

You can practice discovering this yourself by going home and viewing Donnie Darko, Star Wars, The Truman Show, and Barb Wire. What stories do these movies copy?*

Yes, but he copied it word for word. To scholars that signals borrowing and copying, not real history.

That is not a scholarly position. A scholar finds her position based on accepted methodologies and the data at hand. They do not bring their conclusions to the text. Indeed, one wonders why you bother to even read the Bible....you already know what it says!

The conclusion has been made....scholars have already decided that this passage was invented based on the OT. Matthew has in fact mistaken the Greek.

Vorkosigan

Jack the Bodiless

What is "fraud" is where Matthew claims that a "prophecy has been fulfilled" after quoting an OT text that was either never a prophecy, or has already (supposedly) been fulfilled.

Consider his mangling of Isaiah 7:14, the "Emmanuel prophecy".

This WAS intended to be a prophecy to King Ahaz that "within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people". The prophecy was fulfilled by the birth of the prophesied child, Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, in Isaiah 8:3. Unlike Jesus, this child WAS specifically called the "Immanuel" in Isaiah (this title was never used to describe Jesus, except by Matthew).

It is blatantly fradulent to pretend that Jesus was the child prophesied by Isaiah. How would the birth of a child many centuries later be a sign of the imminent downfall of Ephraim?

Incidentally, the child wasn't due to be "born of a virgin" either: this was another error caused by Matthew's reliance on the septuagint, with its incorrect translation of "almah" (young woman) as "parthenos" (virgin). From the context, the woman may indeed have been a young virgin at the time the prophecy was made, but Isaiah himself later "went in unto" her.

Similar misuse of the OT abounds in Matthew. "Out of Egypt have I called my son": the Hebrew exodus from Egypt, nothing to do with Jesus.

The Herodian child-massacre: it didn't happen (we have histories of Herod, including those from hostile sources who would have mentioned this), and the verses quoted relate to the Babylonian captivity.

And so it goes...

funinspace

Why that is not true. You discover thru divine inspiration, soul searching, or maybe hubris, the inspired/brilliant "teacher", and he/she knows what it says. Then you learn from this person who knows... At least so I hear. And then you know it's true because this person said so.

Ok, I think I'm done with this dog and pony show, I've asked enough for real answers (or as others have said: evidence and/or reasoning, vice just the conclusions/assertions)...

Amaleq13

What followed this was not so much a "position" as a faith-based assumption. You do understand that this is a much different approach from considering the evidence the same way all other ancient texts are understood, right? I would hope you also understand that, absent your faith, that is the only rational approach one can take (ie considering it in the same way as any other ancient text).

This "position" is clearly entirely independent of the evidence and, therefore, not likely to be terribly useful in a rational discussion. You don't appear to hold a similar "position" for all your conclusions, though, since you frequently refer to evidence as being "irrefutably" supportive of a given conclusion.

Perhaps we should stick to discussing your conclusions of that sort?

Otherwise, it is obvious that no evidence or rational argument could possibly dissuade you from your currently held, faith-based conclusions and nothing short of a personal revelation is likely to accomplish the same from "our" side.