JoeWallack

JW:
Here's another example:

http://biblos.com/matthew/1-22.htm

Greek	Transliteration	Strong's	Morphology	English
τοῦτο	touto	5124	D-NSN	this
δὲ	de	1161	CONJ	now
ὅλον	olon	3650	A-NSN	all
γέγονεν	gegonen	1096	V-2RAI-3S	has come to pass
ἵνα	ina	2443	CONJ	so that
πληρωθῇ	plērōthē	4137	V-APS-3S	might be fulfilled
τὸ	to	3588	T-NSN	that
ῥηθὲν	rēthen	4483	V-APP-NSN	which was spoken
ὑπὸ	upo	5259	PREP	of
κυρίου	kuriou	2962	N-GSM	Lord
διὰ	dia	1223	PREP	through
τοῦ	tou	3588	T-GSM	what
προφήτου	prophētou	4396	N-GSM	the prophet
λέγοντος	legontos	3004	V-PAP-GSN	said

JW:
Here the meaning is that the prophecy came from the Lord and went through the Prophet. "Through" is attached to the prophecy and creates a relationship between where it came from (Lord) and where it went (prophet).

Give us an example RH of the use of διὰ where there is no relationship between the before and after. You want to understand Sidon as not creating any relationship between Tyre and the Sea of Galilee. Give us an example. I've already explained that France/Brown et, al, are apparently not aware of any such usage. That's why you can't find one.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

show_no_mercy

Υou think that "dia" means "destination". As though a highway is a destination. No one stops in a highway; we use it as a means of travel. This is what the concept of dia means.

Point us to a Greek dictionary that has "dia" mean "destination".

rhutchin

No, I think that διά means "through," in the sense of going in one side and out the opposite side of as one might go through a tunnel. Thus, when Mark says that Jesus came διά Sidon, he is telling the reader that Jesus started at one side of Sidon and exited the other side of Sidon thus going through the city. In the same way, one might drive through Virginia on his way from Maryland to North Carolina. In this verse, of course, it is like Jesus going through Seattle on His trip that began in San Francisco and ended in St. Louis. A bit out of the way, but if that is what He did, then He did it.

Where did you get the idea that I took διά to mean destination?

rhutchin

In your example above, the prophet is the physical vehicle for the transmission of the prophecy. In the same way, Mark 7:31 says that Jesus physically traveled through the city of Sidon on His trip that began in the region of Tyre and ended in the region of the Decapolis.

Your claim is that Jesus did not actually travel to Sidon and that Mark mistakenly thought that Sidon was between Tyre and Decapolis so Mark assumed that Jesus actually traveled through Sidon when He would not have done so.

In every case where διά is used in the NT (in the sense of "through"), there is no mistake on the part of the writer, as you claim here, so that whatever is described actually happened as the writer explains. This is entirely consistent with what we read in Mark 7:31.

When Mark says that Jesus went διά the cornfields, he means that Jesus actually walked into one side of the cornfield and out another side. When Mark says that a prophecy was given διά the prophet, Daniel, he means that we can go read the Book of Daniel and find the prophecy. When Mark records Jesus using the example of a camel going διά the eye of the needle, we are to think of a camel entering one side of the needle and exiting the other. When Mark writes that Jesus came διά Sidon, we understand that Jesus actually entered one side of Sidon and exited another side.

In Mark 7, we read that of route that Jesus took in traveling from the region of Tyre to the region of the Decapolis. Jesus went διά Sidon. Sure, it is out of the way, but if that is what Jesus actually did, then we accept it even if we are not told why He did it?

rhutchin

The intention here is merely to explain what Mark has written in Mark 7:31. Do you understand what Joe Wallack is claiming here?

Johnny Skeptic

It doesn't matter since there are many other examples that reasonably prove that the Bible contains errors. Sooner or later you will leave this thread, and you will have many other Scriptures to defend. I am not interested in this thread, but I am interested in your claim that the Bible is inerrant. Thus, I propose that when you are finished with this thread that you discuss some issues of my choice that relate to inerrancy. I also propose that you discuss some other issues of my choice, such as Calvinism and James chapter 2. Regarding Calvinism and James chapter 2, I propose that we discuss those issues at the Abrahamic Religions forum.

JoeWallack

JW:
"His trip that began in the region of Tyre and ended in the region of the Decapolis"

Oh, but "Mark" says more than that. He says that Sidon was the route (διὰ) Jesus took to get from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Jesus departed (ἐξελθὼν) from Tyre and went through (διὰ) Sidon coming to (εἰς) the Sea of Galilee. The context and structure is clearly directional. It tells how Jesus got from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. If "Mark" intended to communicate what I just said he would have written it like I said. If he intended what you said he would have said it differently. You keep ignoring/denying this point. Now that you understand it if you continue to deny it it will just hurt your credibility regarding other arguments. Unless you want to confess to us that "Mark" could have used better words to communicate what you think he meant here you have no reason to avoid the error other than wanting to avoid the error.

JW:
That has never been my claimed error. It is your strawman creation. Continue it and you will have something worse than a credibility problem.

JW:
No one is arguing against this R Quixquote. You're fighting longwindedmills.

JW:
Again, it doesn't say that Jesus traveled from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Stop trying to change what "Mark" said. I've given you painful detail of the Greek so you have no excuse. Jesus departed from Tyre and went through Sidon to get to the Sea of Galilee. That's what you need to deal with.

Your task is simple. Out of the 520 biblical uses of διὰ find one in the context of it being used in the middle of a departure and arrival where the meaning does not mean the middle part was in between.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

rhutchin

Well, now I am confused. You are agreeing that Jesus traveled from the region of Tyre north to Sidon and then east and south to the region of the Decapolis. OK, the text is directional. First, north to Sidon and then east and south to the region of Decapolis.

We both seem to understand Mark the same way.

It doesn't?? You agree that Jesus started from the region of Tyre and then traveled north to Sidon before then heading for the region of Decapolis. So, What does the text say? How about rewriting the text in your own words as you understand it. In addition, how about writing it in Greek as you think it would have to be for my position to be correct.

That is not an issue. We both agree that Jesus went from Tyre to Sidon and then to Decapolis. Mark says that Jesus came διὰ Sidon. As διὰ can be used in the spatial sense (Jesus walked διὰ the cornfields) then we can understand that Mark says that Jesus went through Sidon. διὰ can also mean by way of, and in this sense, Mark tells us that Jesus went by way of Sidon to get to Decapolis.

διὰ can mean many things based on context. Here we both understand the context to be that Jesus traveled from Tyre through Sidon to Decapolis. Nothing in the context suggests that this was the most direct route that could be taken. The context only says that this was the route that was taken. You are trying to create a problem by limiting the sense of διὰ to that one sense which you think creates a problem. It doesn't even do this. Mark is not saying that a person must go (or that Jesus had to go) through Sidon to get from Tyre to Decapolis. Mark is merely telling us that Jesus came through Sidon on His way from Tyre to Decapolis. You are going to great lengths to create a problem where one does not exist.

rhutchin

You are wise to concede the point.

Johnny Skeptic

I was referring to the fact that even if Mark 7:31 is not an example of a Bible error, there are many reasonably provable errors to choose from, including some that you will probably refuse to discuss because you know that you will be at a disadvantage. You will typically not accomplish anything in this thread except to convince yourself that you are right.

Inerracy is merely an appeal to the emotional needs of inerrantists. You have never provided any good reasons why anyone should be an inerrantist. It would be nice if you would start a new thread on inerrancy at the Abrahamic Religions forum, but you probably will not do that since you lost some past debates on inerrancy at that forum.

Christians have had numerous differences for thousands of years. There are not any good reasons for anyone to believe that God has appointed you as one of his chief interpreters of the Bible. If you had been born hundreds of years ago, it is reasonably possible if not probable that you would have endorsed colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women even those you reject those things now.