spin

Making as much sense as usual: none.

I know you know all about blunders, having made so many here. And we've seen you project so often when you talk about theatrics and disinformation, you won't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Once you admit to textual corruption in your tradition, then you have to become arbitrary to say yours isn't corrupted.

That will be difficult for you to deny, as you've already accepted the shorter version of Gen 11:12 as correct, yet Luke disagrees with you. You can't have it both ways. Either the LXX tradition is wrong at Gen 11:12, as is Luke regarding Kainan, or the MT is wrong along with every other text which agrees with it. Take your pick. Inbuilt corruption.

You're welcome to your uninformed opinion.

On what grounds exactly? And which certain texts? And why not the others?

What makes you think that the Byzantine texts are any less tampered with??

You need to answer this:
And what do you mean exactly by the Textus Receptus, the text that Erasmus first prepared? the one he fixed the first time or the second time? The one that Stephanus later fixed up? Which one of these man-made efforts do you label Textus Receptus? Or was it that edition which eventually received the name "Textus Receptus" 30 years after the KJV was translated?

Once you establish which text you mean by Textus Receptus, we can then decide how corrupt it really is.


spin

Chris Weimer

spin - I doubt praxeus had changed his position recently, but by "textus receptus" it's actually the KJV. You see, prax believes that the KJV is perfect. Never mind the fact that it was never monolithic, with each printing containing it's own errors, nor the fact that the KJV which prax reads is actually the 19th century Authorized Version, nor the fact that much of it wasn't even based on the Greek, it's still perfect in prax's eyes because that's what he believes. Funny how a man could worship such a book written by men and then claim to not be idolatrous.

Jack the Bodiless

praxeus:
Vaticanus "was mentioned" (first, on this thread) by YOU, praxeus. It is obvious that you were entirely unaware that the relevant section of the original text has been lost. This is what you'd call a "blunder" if anyone else came up with it. So, will you admit that you goofed?
What Joe presented was speculation, and labeled as such. It wasn't presented as the "right" answer, nor was my own speculation the "wrong" answer.

I think it's entirely reasonable to speculate that the Genesis 11:12 "Cainan" was originally present in the Greek OT (where else would Luke have gotten the name from?), but probably not in the original Hebrew (which would explain why it's not in the MT). It seems likely that this discrepancy was subsequently noticed and that Cainan was excised from the LXX, but Luke the "excellent historian" had access to an older text that still contained it, and decided to re-insert the name into his genealogy. It also seems likely that after Luke's endorsement, later Christians decided to reinstate Cainan in the Greek OT.

It is also entirely reasonable to speculate that Luke goofed (copying the earlier Cainan, the great-grandson of Adam, into the wrong place) or the text was corrupted by early Christians.
I note that you don't provide any examples of "begats that are more than one generation down". MY understanding is that this sort of thing only crops up in phrases such as "Jesus son of David son of Abraham" (where YLD isn't being used anyhow), or where the founder of a tribe "begets" the tribe, rather than in detailed genealogies. But, in the context of the genealogies, you'd have to twist YLD into "become the ancestor of" or some equivalent abomination (or admit to a Biblical error of omission) - and it still wouldn't help you if you did!
There you go again, accusing me of "error" when you have failed to establish that I have erred here.

The Tanach is, however, in error (for several reasons, all provided in post #96).
So far, it appears that only the skeptics want to address it!

Doug Shaver

Lemme see if I'm understanding his logic correctly.

Let K(E) = The King James Version contains at least one error.
Let P(E) = Praxeus believes at least one error.

Then
K(E) => P(E)
~P(E)
Therefore, ~K(E).

Ya think I've got it right?

Steven Avery

Hi Jack,

A busy morning.
Quick responses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless It seems likely that this discrepancy was subsequently noticed and that Cainan was excised from the LXX,

This makes no sense. By this time the provenance of copying the Greek OT
was switching to Christian. There would be no motivation to excise the
Cainan references since Luke 3:36 shows us that aspect of the genealogy.

However the tampering and poor alexandrian scribes (like whoever first put
Romans in Psalms who lost dozens of NT verses and phrases) adding it in,
that is easy to see.

As pointed out, this is confirmed by multiple evidences in the 1st
through 4th century.

JW#2 did more than "speculate", which you repeat umpteen times.
JW#2 spoke simply and accurately.

"it's likely that "Cainan" was added to Greek translations because it was in "Luke".

JW#1 didn't mention this, leading to your being fooled.

Your new theory is so strange - the Greek OT had Cainan, then it lost it by
who knows why, then it was added in the opposite direction. That is wild
speculation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless I note that you don't provide any examples of "begats that are more than one generation down".

And I specifically said we could go into it more.
Here are two simple examples in Genesis, one we discussed recently.

Genesis 10:15-18
And Canaan begat Sidon his firstborn, and Heth,
And the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite,
And the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite,
And the Arvadite, and the Zemarite, and the Hamathite:
and afterward were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad.

Genesis 46:16-18
And the sons of Gad; Ziphion, and Haggi,
Shuni, and Ezbon, Eri, and Arodi, and Areli.
And the sons of Asher; Jimnah, and Ishuah,
and Isui, and Beriah, and Serah their sister:
and the sons of Beriah; Heber, and Malchiel.
These are the sons of Zilpah,
whom Laban gave to Leah his daughter,
and these she bare unto Jacob, even sixteen souls.

There are some other possible examples but these prove the point
that yalad does not define as necesarily father-child, as in the
mistranslations

One important point is that begat is being used specifically as an
alternative construction to specifying 'children'.

Genesis 10:23
And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash.

This distinction is generally understood in both the King James Bible
and the Jewish versions (also the literal versions) yet is frequently
lost in the mistranslations of 'Christian modern versions'. Those modern
version (NIV, HCSB, ESV and many more) mistranslations do in fact
create a contradiction between Genesis and Luke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless MY understanding is that this sort of thing only crops up in phrases such as "Jesus son of David son of Abraham" (where YLD isn't being used anyhow), or where the founder of a tribe "begets" the tribe, rather than in detailed genealogies. But, in the context of the genealogies, you'd have to twist YLD into "become the ancestor of" or some equivalent abomination (or admit to a Biblical error of omission) - and it still wouldn't help you if you did!

Why are you repeating the same nonsensical reverse tense argument ?
Thus we have a double strawman.

As for your ongoing concern about Vaticanus, there is no 4th-century manuscript evidence for Cainan, despite spin's claims. (Notice how he never could say 'I was in error to say that was Sinaiticus'.. very telling.) Did I learn more about the actual manuscript and extrabiblical evidence .. surely .. and I am still learning. And the research has led to a change of emphasis which you can label any way you want however I was very careful not to make any unsubstantiated claims about manuscripts. spin did, in a blaze of disinformation. spin however was right about one thing .. it is difficult to gather Greek OT evidence. Even Rahlf's and Swete can disagree and the issue of correctors and later additions can be poorly documented. Overall I had little idea of the specifics of the early church and Josephus references that argue against Canain in the Greek OT text until researching for this thread. The early church writers were often improperly enamored of the Greek OT making them that much stronger evidence. (Jerome was a key corrective to this error of Greek OT appeal.) Add to this the wide swath of other language manuscripts. Also the known tendency for corruption towards the NT in the Greek OT .. a major point that is often ignored. Any 'scribes' who can change a whole Psalm section to match Romans would easily 'smooth' passages to he NT. Totally improper, which is one reason why the Greek OT should not be used for manuscript or exegetical purposes. A vocabulary aid and historical oddity,little more.

And as for your interest as to Luke's inclusion of Cainan .. wow that is a fascinating topic. There are a number of points and theories (and extrabiblical references) .. I found the view of an Aussie writer among the best and it might be a good topic. Will Kinney may have a good discussion on the net and I have some posts on forums.

However, as I indicated, it really is more of believer's exegetical interest, there is little involved in the skeptic battleground.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Doug, I can hold and share lots of error and the King James Bible
be the inspired and preserved perfect word of God.
The plumbline, the final authority, is God's word.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

The same false position stated over an over only becomes more false.

To accept that God has preserved His word in a tangible form, as His love and communication to us, in fulfillment of His promises, makes the book itself the excellent vehicle of God's communication.

Even when I deal with folks who I strongly believe have the wrong book (such as the Peshitta primacists) I would never accuse them of worshipping the book itself. Such would be a false accusation that would put me in very difficult place before God and the Holy Spirit totally checks me from any such accusation. In fact I honor and appreciate that these folks often do in fact accept that God is consistent and true to His promises, and believe His word is pure, even while being mistaken as to the identity of the scriptures.

Shalom,
Steven

Jack the Bodiless

praxeus:
..."By this time"? I didn't specify a time. But in this hypothesis, the excision was complete when Luke wrote: I'm referring to a pre-Christian excision.
"It's likely" = speculation.
And yet you seem to have no difficulty imagining a somewhat similar scenario for the Pericope Adulterae.
I have already addressed the "begetting" of tribes: "father of the nation" stuff. This doesn't support your need to have YLD refer to skipping specific generations: indeed, the English word "begat" would still fit here.
Still not what you need, as this refers to the multi-generational "clan" that accompanied Jacob into Egypt, and it's the mother who "bares" (YLD) her own actual kids: no skipped generation here, even though Jacob isn't their father (i.e. they "belong" to Jacob, but Jacob isn't directly described as "begetting" them).

...BTW, what "mistranslations"?
Yes, and I've already pointed out that "yalad" shares the same Hebrew root as the word for child (valad/yeled).
Your ongoing inability to address the usage of YLD in the genealogies is noted.

"And Arpachshad lived five and thirty years, and (....) Shelah.

and Arpachshad lived after he (....) Shelah four hundred and three years, and (....) [other] sons and daughters".

Please fill in the (....) with an appropriate word or phrase that makes sense.

Also, please explain why your suggested word or phrase does not still allow us to add up the ages of those who did whatever-they-did (e.g. Arpachshad apparently "did it" at 35) to reach an impossibly late date for the Flood.
It is a commonly-cited Biblical contradiction. One you have still not addressed.

Steven Avery

An original that vanished. No evidence of this original. Yet the excision was missed by Luke. And then the original was reformed. Sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless .And yet you seem to have no difficulty imagining a somewhat similar scenario for the Pericope Adulterae..

We do have early evidence of the Pericope. That is lacking in your scenario. The omitting is partial. It is also documented. The Pericope shows itself strongly throughout the centuries of the commentators, filling in any gap in the 4th century manuscript. As does its existence in manuscripts from the ancient Old Latin line.

(Hmmm.. did Nazaroo go into the Veronensis situation .. I think that may have more evidence pizazz for tampering that the papyri or alexandrian manuscripts.)

The "somewhat similar" scenarios are radically different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless ...BTW, what "mistranslations"?

Sample, one of many.

NIV
Arphaxad was the father of Shelah, and Shelah the father of Eber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless I've already pointed out that "yalad" shares the same Hebrew root as the word for child (valad/yeled).

My sample verse with children was Genesis 10:23.
Where is yalad there ?

How many other words "shares the root" and what are all their meanings ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless Your ongoing inability to address the usage of YLD in the genealogies is noted.

Your tendency to hand-wave examples you do not like is noted.

Another section for consideration is Ruth 4.
Naomi is said to 'yalad' Obed.

Ruth 4:16-17
And Naomi took the child,
and laid it in her bosom,
and became nurse unto it.
There is a son born to Naomi;
and they called his name Obed:
he is the father of Jesse,
the father of David.

Yet Naomi was the grandmother.
Hmmm.

So you will have to come up with yet another "exception clause"
in your attempt to straightjacket yalad.

Then a good case can be made that the later begats
in that chapter are highlights, due to the number of years
and names, approximately 460 years for ...

Ruth 4:21-22
And Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed,
And Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.

Clearly the case for the latter is strengthened by the
flexibility in usage in the former example a few verses away.

A similar case has been made for Ezra, although with less
pizazz than Ruth. Less years, and lacking the nearby Naomi
complementary usage.

http://bibletruthalive.org/printthread.php?tid=2229
How the Human Race Began - Alan Hayward
In quoting his own genealogy, Ezra lists sixteen generations between himself and Aaron. This covers a period of about a thousand years. Obviously Ezra, too, is concerned only with the "officially reckonable" names.

The Ruth and Ezra examples complement each other,
Ruth strengthening the case in Ezra.

Jack .. you raise side issues that would go into long tangents such as the flood chronology. And your tendency towards strawman argumentation (such as the reverse tenses) and hand-waving puts them on a low burner. Oh and stuff like insisting that likely==speculation rather than its meaning as probable.

However when something looks substantive and interesting, I will try to have a go, time permitting . This begat question I do find quite interesting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless It is a commonly-cited Biblical contradiction. One you have still not addressed.

I've addressed the textual aspect fully. The interpretative aspect is secondary vis a vis the claim of "contradiction".

Here is the Aussie link I mentioned, by Colin Heath.

http://www.bibleinsight.com/crn1xs.html
Salah (Shelah) - His Father? Arphaxad or Cainan or Canaan

A good exegetical starting point. I had some correspondence
with Colin Heath on this and have compared it with some other
views.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Jack the Bodiless

praxeus:
As you're quite aware of the fact that we don't have any copy of the Greek OT written before the 4th century AD, why are you expressing surprise that there's "no evidence of this original"? And I didn't suggest that the excision was missed by Luke: only that he might have known that Cainan had been excised, and disagreed with this.
No great difference that I can see: at least, no demonstrable difference. Maybe Luke had good evidence for "Cainan" in his own time (from copies we no longer have), which could be why he restored it.

This is only one of three possible scenarios I have presented you with (the others being a Lukan goof involving the earlier Cainan, and early Christian corruption of Luke). Whereas you have presented... not a lot.
Hmm, I forgot to actually check a concordance for that verse. Apparently, no. The word used here, "ben" is a different word meaning "son, grandson, child, children, member of a group" - so, not a relevant example.

Here's valad (child, offspring) and here's yeled (child, son, boy, offspring, youth). Even though "descendants" is listed as a possible meaning of "yeled", it's apparently never used thus in the Bible:
- So, overwhelmingly "yeled" means "child", and "valad" never means anything else.
Better, yes, but "ben" also means grandson anyhow (as we've just seen). The context makes it clear, and it's apparently a quote of a figure-of-speech used by the other women (why does your quote not mention those? "And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a [grand]son born to Naomi..."). The word order is also different, as in the genealogies, YLD precedes the child's name: whereas what's going on here is rather similar to the Jacob example previously (the grandson "belongs" to Naomi). It doesn't actually say "Naomi YLD Obed".
Those "460 years" aren't in Ruth. I presume you're getting them from a genealogy elsewhere: but I don't attach a great deal of credibility to genealogies involving lifespans of centuries anyhow. Not my problem!

As for your Hayward link: it doesn't really add anything to the discussion. It arbitrarily rules out the possibility that Adam was just a myth: "that way lies disaster". It then goes on to address genealogies by assuming that generations must have been deliberately skipped because the alternative is an errant Bible: and rounds up with a gross misrepresentation of the evidence for hominind evolution.

And as for the other link (Colin Heath) - creative, but farfetched. I note that, even if true, it would explain "Cainan" in a manner that actually doesn't require YLD to skip a generation (because it still requires Luke's Arphaxad to be the "father" of Shelah, even if not the biological father). It would be absurd to imagine that this sort of thing happened so often that it allows arbitrary extension of the timeframe.
You mean you can't think of anything that will fit in those blanks?

Neither can I (except "begat" or something similar): and therein lies your problem.
Uh, "Flood chronology" is pretty much what this thread was supposed to be about.