Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DoubtingDave · 04-21-2012, 03:23 PM

http://www.debate.org/debates/Biblical-Errancy/1/

I'm typing up my rebuttals now. Feel free to step in and give suggestions.

sotto voce · 04-21-2012, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShockOfAtheism

http://www.debate.org/debates/Biblical-Errancy/1/

I'm typing up my rebuttals now. Feel free to step in and give suggestions.

There are no biblical errors whatever.

hjalti · 04-21-2012, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary. This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

This is just utter nonsense. That person probably mostly reads the works of inerrantists and those people certainly tend to favor that explanation.

The idea that Luke is giving the genealogy of Mary is from the 15th century and is just refuted by the text itself, and Luke earlier (don't have the verse in front of me) stresses the Davidic descent of Joseph, so he clearly had Joseph in mind (after all his name is in the genealogy!).

Quote:

Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

Sure

Quote:

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

I would love to read some arguments to support this!

Quote:

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4). (Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)

Hadn't heard that one before, and not surprisingly it's not true (even a christian apologist can see that!).

You seem to have responed to some other talmudic passage that your opponent wasn't refering to.

DoubtingDave · 04-21-2012, 06:50 PM

Thanks for your critique. I already pointed out the talmudic error by showing what the Talmud ACTUALLY says.

hjalti · 04-21-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShockOfAtheism

Thanks for your critique. I already pointed out the talmudic error by showing what the Talmud ACTUALLY says.

Are you sure you are using the same Talmud as him? He's quoting from a mistranslation of Hagigah 2:4 in the Jerusalem talmud.

PhilosopherJay · 04-21-2012, 08:20 PM

Hi ShockofAtheism,

This debate is not interesting. Rather, a debate that would be interesting would be a debate over the "Absolute Errancy" of the Bible. The pro side would take the position that there is not one single provable sentence in the entire Bible. The con side would try to find a sentence and prove it true. This would be a debate worth participating in.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShockOfAtheism

http://www.debate.org/debates/Biblical-Errancy/1/

I'm typing up my rebuttals now. Feel free to step in and give suggestions.

Invisible 1 · 04-22-2012, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Sotto Voce:
There are no biblical errors whatever.

You forgot your comma right after errors.

Quote:

There are no biblical errors, whatever.

There now it's right and you can hear the sarcasm better.

sotto voce · 04-22-2012, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Invisible 1

Quote:

Sotto Voce:
There are no biblical errors whatever.

You forgot your comma right after errors.

Quote:

There are no biblical errors, whatever.

There now it's right and you can hear the sarcasm better.

reduction. Here we see how biblical errors occur. Invisible (e)mending, one might say.

04-21-2012, 03:23 PM	#1
DoubtingDave Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Conowingo, Maryland Posts: 577	Biblical Errancy Debate http://www.debate.org/debates/Biblical-Errancy/1/ I'm typing up my rebuttals now. Feel free to step in and give suggestions.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-21-2012, 06:50 PM	#4
DoubtingDave Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Conowingo, Maryland Posts: 577	Thanks for your critique. I already pointed out the talmudic error by showing what the Talmud ACTUALLY says.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.