rhutchin

Yep. Contrary to what you claimed earlier, I have not had to completely redefine the word διά (through) in Mark 7:31. Also, you have now seen διά being used the way I want it to be used in Mark 7:31 which is consistent with its use in the other verses. So, how do you conclude that this is a pretty blatant example of redefining reality to fit preconceived biases as nothing has been redefined and preconceived biases are nonexistent or otherwise irrelevant.

avi

And I have explained, at least twice previously, that the issue here, at least in my opinion, is not whether or not Jesus (real or fictional) traveled into, through, or via Sidon on his way to Lake Galilee, but rather, that the writing of Mark suggests to someone unfamiliar with the intimate geographic details of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Palestine, that Sidon is an intermediate stop en route from Tyre to Lake Galilee. That is the first issue, not, as you keep insisting, whether or not Jesus traveled to Sidon. Did Jesus travel to Sidon? Maybe he did, maybe not. We don't know, but that issue is irrelevant to the argument at hand. What we do know, is that Sidon is not en route to Lake Galilee.

Point number two, maybe more of a Greek translation issue, and here, as one whose inabilities in Greek are legendary, I am hesitant to proclaim an absolute truth: I assert that my English translation above is correct, and you, rhutchin, or anyone else proficient in Greek, or even an amateur, maybe even as grossly inept as I am, is welcome to challenge that translation:

No, rhutchin, Sidon is not against the Lake of Galilee.

Point number 3: (again see disclaimer above regarding my ineptitude concerning all matters of Greek language)

Here's what I am looking at:

The Greek text says nothing about the borders, or "midst" meaning boundary?, NO. The text states, assertively, that:
1. Intending to ascend a mountain adjacent to Lake Galilee, Jesus departed from Tyre;
2. Jesus then traveled through Sidon, implying that this route was necessary to reach lake Galilee;
3. Mark clarifies for anyone confused, that Sidon is adjacent to Lake Galilee--he uses the word "against";
4. Since some folks may not know the geography well, Mark further explains that Lake Galilee is situated in the middle of Decapolis, when in fact, it lies northwest of Decapolis, with only the extreme southeastern border of the Lake lying within the region called Decapolis.

I therefore claim three errors in Mark:
1. Mark's implication that Sidon lies on the route to Lake Galilee, on a voyage originating from Tyre. Since various Christian authorities had observed that problem as well, they changed the text in the Byzantine edition. Papyrus P45, and Papyrus W, both early documents, agree with the Byzantine tradition, so there may well have been editions of the Gospel of Mark, even in the third century, if the dating of P45 can be believed (I doubt it), which correct this "error", found in the "original" version of Mark, if that is what Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus represent, i.e. this implication from Hort & Westfall, that Sidon lies on the road from Tyre to Lake Galilee.
2. Sidon, contrary to what Mark has written, is not against Lake Galilee. It is not proximate to this large body of fresh water.
3. Lake Galilee, contrary to what Mark has written, is not in the middle of Decapolis.

avi

spin

You are simply mistaken. rhutchin. This is not a matter of opinion, though you have admitted here that you are working with pure opinion.

I pointed you to linguistic evidence and you chose to ignore it. Here I tried to make it clear to you some of the problem:
You ignored this, then later gave your own list of examples that illustrate δια, saying with audacity:

I can understand how a person who is largely ignorant of the Bible would not have heard of dia being used the way I use it. However, just because you do not know what the Bible says does not mean that I am redefining reality to fit preconceived biases. Based on the above verses, I am being consistent in my use of the term.

You don't understand the Greek, show no understanding of the verses you cite and yet in hypocrisy you say "I can understand how a person who is largely ignorant of the Bible would not have heard of dia being used the way I use it." In loving irony, you have demonstrated your own knowledge of the bible. The way you interpret δια doesn't reflect the Greek.

I tried to make clear the distinction between trajectory (→•→) and destination (→•), but it didn't sink in. The location isn't the aim: it's merely the passage through it, like the passage through the straight gate or through the eye of the needle or through the crowd. The passage through Sidon is given as the means to get to Galilee. Geographically that's absurd. You know that, so you are now deliberately looking to obfuscate the issue. This seems to be an effort on your part to find a way to deal with the problem for your own benefit.

In the end by your own admission all you are is a person purveying other people's opinions because you are incapable of doing the analysis yourself. If you want to do any better you have two options: learn about the Greek or invite your more knowledgeable sources to make their case here.


spin

rhutchin

Unless you now claim to be a Greek scholar and well versed in the Greek language of the first century, it is not possible for you to voice other than an opinion regarding the text (and even if you were such a scholar, it would still be your opinion). Presumably, you have consulted with others who have some knowledge of the Biblical Greek language and have some basis for your opinion. Whether you are able to admit it, you are voicing an opinion on the meaning of the text. So, we both voice opinions on this text. Big deal.

Your conclusion that the text refers to a "trajectory" is confused, at best, but if you can cite a Greek resource and what it says (like a lexicon) to explain what you mean, I can look it up to confirm. The term, δια, can mean different things depending on context. When the text says that the man was let "through" the tiles, it means that he was physically let down between the tiles in the roof. When Jesus refers to a camel going through the eye of a needle, He means physically passing through that part of the needle. Similarly, when Mark says that Jesus went through Sidon, he means that Jesus physically passed through Sidon.

Show-no-mercy said, "I've never heard of dia being used the way you want it to be used." I pointed out several verses where it is used the way I claim it to be used in Mark 7:31. These verses are within contexts that any person who has a rudimentary knowledge of the Bible would have known. Show-no-mercy seems largely ignorant of the Bible based on the comment he made.

This is flat out wrong. You can consult any Greek lexicon and it will explain to you the spatial sense in which δια can be, and is, used. Mark 7:31 uses it in this sense and clearly reflects the Greek term and the context in which it is used.

Your opinion is that "The passage through Sidon is given as the means to get to Galilee." There is nothing in the Greek text that tells us to draw this conclusion. As passage through the straight gate paints the picture of one physically going through the gate, so passage through Sidon pictures Jesus physically passing through Sidon. We find δια being used in a spatial sense in each case.

Well said of yourself.

rhutchin

The issue then is your premise that "the writing of Mark suggests to someone unfamiliar with the intimate geographic details of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Palestine, that Sidon is an intermediate stop en route from Tyre to Lake Galilee." I claim that your premise is false (or, at least, that there is nothing in the text that requires this understanding). Your argument cannot be other than, "let's assume that the writing of Mark suggests to someone unfamiliar with the intimate geographic details of Lebanon, Jordan, Syria and Palestine, that Sidon is an intermediate stop en route from Tyre to Lake Galilee." It is only by making this assumption that you are then able to generate an error that would not exist otherwise.

Based on the text, we know that (1) Jesus traveled to Sidon and (2) from maps of the area, we know that Sidon is not in a direct path taken to Lake Galilee. The only argument arises from the premise you want people to accept.

I have no problems with your translation. I have a problem with your understanding of the phrase, "he came through Sidon." I say it means that Jesus physically came through Sidon. You want it to mean something like, "he would have come through Sidon." The Greek text seems very clear to me. Jesus came (walked, traveled) through Sidon.

Then you need to find another English word that more accurately translates the Greek text as even you seem to find your translation confusing.

You should state the above as;
1. Let's assume that, intending to ascend a mountain adjacent to Lake Galilee, Jesus departed from Tyre;
2. Jesus then traveled through Sidon, and let's assume that this is implying that this route was necessary to reach lake Galilee;
3. Mark clarifies for anyone confused, and let's assume that Mark means that Sidon is adjacent to Lake Galilee--and thus he uses the word "against";
4. Since some folks may not know the geography well, let's assume that Mark further means to explain that Lake Galilee is situated in the middle of Decapolis, when in fact, it lies northwest of Decapolis, with only the extreme southeastern border of the Lake lying within the region called Decapolis.

Subject to the truth of your assumptions, you can say the "text states, assertively, that."

spin

I'm sorry, you can't hope to argue by declaring your ignorance.

I work the biblical Greek. Please don't project your own inadequacies onto others.

For "confused" read: rhutchin doesn't understand philology.

By your own admission you wouldn't know what's best.

I work with the text and examples from it. If you cannot deal with it, then you have nothing useful to say.

And the context is (a verb of) motion, as dealt with in the first section of the Liddell and Scott entry for δια, the italicized words being "right through". Please consult Liddell and Scott to provide a more relevant section of the entry for δια that relates to our text.

I.e. a hole was made by removing tiles and he was let down through the tiles into the room. This is as I said.

The destination was not the eye, but the passage to the other side through the eye. This is as I said.

You still don't understand what has been said to you. And I have no doubt that's what the text indicates.

And you still haven't processed the issue.

And you would know this because? Oh, that's right, you don't know, on your own admission. I tried to help you a couple of times but you don't read. I even tried to help with a few symbols:

trajectory (→•→) and destination (→•)

The first is usually given by δια and the second by εις/προς. As I've already said:

When Lk 5:19 tells of the man on his pallet being let down through (δια) the tiles into (εις) the midst (of the crowd) before Jesus, the tiles were just the trajectory with the purpose being the arrival in the midst of the crowd before Jesus.

Yes, the tiles are the trajectory. The midst of the crows is the destination.

The aim is to be inside. The means was by passage through the tiles.

It might have been useful to have read carefully what you were trying to argue against. You clearly don't understand. You say here:
And yet you illustrate my point immediately:
Using the term "spatial" is probably confusing you with the issue at hand. In our case it is "motion" that is important, in this case the passage through a location. That's why I talked of trajectory. Imagine the range of trajectory in English: over a house, through a house, past a house, under a house, around a house, etc. The aim is not the house in any of these. It is merely a reference for the motion. In the case of "through the house", there is a time when one is in the house in the transit, but that is not the interest of the discourse. This is what I meant with (→•→) in regard to δια, a location is transited. It is not the aim of the journey, but the means. (I can only say this so many ways and times.)

In examples of motion from point A to point B through point C, you can think of δια as the equivalent of "via".

Here's the verse again:

και παλιν εξελθων των οριων τυρου
and again, having gone out of the territory of Tyre

ηλθεν δια σιδωνος εις την θαλασσαν γαλιλαιας
he came through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee

ανα μεσον των δεκαπολεως
in the midst of the Decapolis

The second line holds the story for us. Omitting δια σιδωνος, you can understand the basic sentence: he came .. to the Sea of Galilee. The text provides a trajectory for the journey, via Sidon. Remember that the εις phrase attaches directly to the verb. Think, how did he come? -- through Sidon. Where did he come? -- to the Sea of Galilee.

And a quick comprehension check: what in the Greek indicates "of" when Jesus left the territory of Tyre?

"Back at you" is an inadequate response to self-incrimination. You of your own admission know nothing about Greek. As you plainly cannot process the information given to you, you are wasting your own time showing your own inadequacies.

If you must respond, please do so with consideration and attempt to understand the linguistic issues.


spin

avi

I wish to discuss two (minor) points, regarding your translation, and I appreciate that the focus of your argument is δια, not these secondary issues.

1. σιδωνος εις την θαλασσαν
which you translate as "Sidon to the Sea..."
but which I believe ought to be translated (revising my previous translation) as "Sidon, all the way to the Lake..."

The word in dispute, here, is εις, which you translate effectively, as "to". I am sure there is nothing wrong with your translation. I argue that "to" insufficiently juxtaposes the distance between Sidon and Lake Galilee. Here, I am relying upon a Greek-French dictionary, to extract further the notion of what this word, εις means in contemporary English.

Here's the dictionary. The French translate this word as "jusqu'a" with the English meaning of: up to, or, all the way to. My argument is that you, spin, have translated εις as if it were pros, as one finds in the Byzantine version of this verse, Mark 7:31. Someone, somewhere, thought it necessary to change εις to pros. Why???? Do you consider the two words interchangeable? Are they mere synonyms? My view is that "Mark" sought to convey the notion, with εις, that there was a relatively great distance between Sidon and Lake Galilee. Do I err on this point?

2. ανα μεσον των δεκαπολεως Here, I completely disagree with your English. Literally:

within middle of the region of Decapolis

"midst" is some kind of archaic notion, perhaps associated with KJV. "Middle" is the correct translation. What is the purpose of writing "midst"? The only purpose is to deflect attention away from the fact that Lake Galilee is not located in the middle of the Decapolis.

Writing "sea" for a body of fresh water is another indication that your translation conforms to KJV, rather than proper English. Sea is a synonym for Ocean, i.e. salt water, not fresh water. Perhaps you employ the traditional words, "midst", and "sea", because that is the traditional translation, and you wish to focus attention exclusively on δια. Yeah, maybe the English translations of these two words, "middle", and "lake" are banal, boring, and off the track. From my perspective, if one seeks to explain an error, linguistically, then one must attempt to address all of the errors.

I am certain that you were fatigued, when you wrote these two sentences:

No. How did he go(i.e. travel, what route did he take). Where did he go? -- to Lake Galilee.

avi

spin

1. There is no distance requirement for εις.
2. εις and προς have different uses. My understanding of προς is towards/to, εις to/into.
3. ανα μεσον is an idiomatic phrase, see L&S ανα + acc. towards the end.
4. ερχομαι doesn't provide perceived direction, so it can mean "come" or "go". The view is taken of Judea being the center of interest, which supplies direction.

spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Let's just show the table again for the offending verse:

http://biblos.com/mark/7-31.htm

Greek	Transliteration	Strong's	Morphology	English
Καὶ	kai	2532	CONJ	and
πάλιν	palin	3825	ADV	again
ἐξελθὼν	exelthōn	1831	V-2AAP-NSM	having departed
ἐκ	ek	1537	PREP	from
τῶν	tōn	3588	T-GPN	the
ὁρίων	oriōn	3725	N-GPN	region
Τύρου	turou	5184	N-GSF	of tyre
ἦλθεν	ēlthen	2064	V-2AAI-3S	he came
διὰ	dia	1223	PREP	through
Σιδῶνος	sidōnos	4605	N-GSF	Sidon
εἰς	eis	1519	PREP	against
τὴν	tēn	3588	T-ASF	the
θάλασσαν	thalassan	2281	N-ASF	sea
τῆς	tēs	3588	T-GSF	of
Γαλιλαίας	galilaias	1056	N-GSF	Galilee
ἀνὰ	ana	303	PREP	within
μέσον	meson	3319	A-ASN	midst
τῶν	tōn	3588	T-GPN	of the
ὁρίων	oriōn	3725	N-GPN	region
Δεκαπόλεως	dekapoleōs	1179	N-GSF	of decapolis

JW:
The language is clear that Jesus:

1) Departs from Tyre

2) Goes through Sidon

3) Arrives at the Sea of Galilee.

It's all in one related verse so the English equivalent would be:

Jesus departed from Tyre and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee.

The Greek indicates it's one related action. RH wants a meaning of a separation of action between Sidon and the Sea of Galilee:

1) Jesus went through Sidon

2) Jesus than went to the Sea of Galilee.

But the Greek doesn't say that. It's clear that the natural understanding of the verse is that Sidon was a means or a route/path to get from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee. Beyond that I don't even think the meaning RH wants is even possible based on the known uses of the offending word:

"διὰ dia 1223 PREP through"

Strong's gives a definition of:

http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/1223.htm

A common use of διὰ is in the context of a gate, which spin gave. The relationship is between inside and outside and the gate is the means. Strong's gives the most common usage of:

"through".

Strong's gives an expanded definition of:

Note the primary meaning of "cause".

There's no substitute for looking at the meanings of the uses of the word. Here we have them:

http://concordance.biblos.com/dia2.htm

Here's a nice example of the word being used in the context of directions:

There are 520 uses here RH and Jesus really got around. So try to find one use in the context of a departure and arrival that does not mean that whatever διὰ is attached to was the means of getting from departure to arrival. Mazel tov.

We also have several Christians here competent in Greek, Andrew Criddle and Ben Smith. Ask them.




Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Johnny Skeptic

You are an inerrantist. The opinions of experts do not make any difference to inerrantists unless the opinions agree with the Bible, which means that inerrantists merely use experts as a convenience when they believe that it suits their purposes to do so. It is intellectually dishonest to use experts merely as a convenience.

Romans 3:4 says "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." That verse implies that experts are always wrong when they disagree with the Bible, no matter how large a consensus of experts might be, and even if many conservative Christians are part of the consensus. Many conservative Christian experts believe that theistic evolution is true, that the earth is old, and that a global flood did not occur. Those Christians do not have an emotional need to have inerrant texts like you do. If a God exists, he is not obligated to act like you want him to act.

If your intention in this thread is part of a plan to try to reasonably prove that the Bible does not contain any errors, you are wrong.