Posts by pomegranate

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah

They're not missing, they just aren't recorded in Matthew. For good reason.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

Do you know how to read with comprehension?

>>The Matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above<<

>>I didn't wish to make the argument in my initial post any longer than it needed to be in order to challenge the apologist to explain away the apparent error, so I just left the Uzziah-Azariah identity for the apologist to discover.<<

He admitted he did it ON PURPOSE. If one knows the truth and puposely conceals it with false words, that is a lie.

Even Satan knows that. So, you must be a faux Satan eh?

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

Joe's initial claim:

>>The Matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts Uzziah, who he says is Jehoram’s son. (Matthew 1:8-10 NIV)<<

You are a bald faced liar. You say above (italics) Matthew left out FOUR descendents which you include Azariah as a missing descendent. In fact, Azariah IS NOT missing in Matthew, but is in fact Uzziah. So you are lying and being deceptive here to prove your false premise. Also proven by this "cover my ass" statement:

>>so I just left the Uzziah-Azariah identity for the apologist to discover.<<

Yeah right. That's called covering over the truth. Satan does the same thing as you. But then again, what should I expect from an offspring of a viper?

Go find the reason the others were omitted. It's a fact as simple as the king with two names and the Joe Alward with two faces.

When Joe's caught in a lie, pom's gonna fly, cause there ain't no use dealing with a liar.

109

Matthew Makes Another Error

by JosephAlward in

the 1 chronicles author lists the descendents of david; some of these, in order, are jehoshaphat, jehoram, ahaziah, joash, amaziah, azariah, jotham, ahaz, hezekiah, manasseh (1 chronicles 3:10-13 niv).

the matthew author contradicts this genealogy; he leaves out the four consecutive descendents underlined above, and in their place puts uzziah, who he says is jehorams son.

(matthew 1:8-10 niv).

pomegranate

>>The 1 Chronicles author lists the descendants of David; some of these, in order, are Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, Manasseh (1 Chronicles 3:10-13 NIV)<<

Isn't it amazing how Mr. Joe doesn't know that "Azariah" is the same individual as "Uzziah?" Someone as well versed in the Bible as he boastfully gloats would surely know such an easily aquired fact such as that, no? The king with two names.

2 Kings 15:1-4
15:1 In the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Azariah son of Amaziah king of Judah began to reign. 2 He was sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-two years. His mother's name was Jecoliah; she was from Jerusalem. 3 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Amaziah had done.

2 Chron 26:3-5
3 Uzziah was sixteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem fifty-two years. His mother's name was Jecoliah; she was from Jerusalem. 4 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father Amaziah had done.

Uzziah = Amaziah, same guy.

Same Mother (Jecoliah) who was from the same city Jerusalem
Same Father who was King Amaziah
Same age when began ruling (16)
Same time ruling (52 years)

Also, died of the same God given affliction and had the same son, Jotham:

2 Kings 15:5
5 The LORD afflicted the king (Azariah) with leprosy until the day he died, and he lived in a separate house. Jotham the king's son had charge of the palace and governed the people of the land.

2 Chron 26:21
21 King Uzziah had leprosy until the day he died. He lived in a separate house - leprous, and excluded from the temple of the LORD. Jotham his son had charge of the palace and governed the people of the land.

So Mr. Joe, there's one smacked off your list of mystery names. The Azariah in 1 Chronicles and the Uzziah in Matthew ARE THE SAME GUY.

The rest of your "mystery names" Mr. Joe are as easily defended as the "king with two names" IF you read your Bible. Joe obviously hasn't. Proof in this thread of the Mr. Joe sham is OBVIOUS with the easily obtained FACT of Azariah/Uzziah being the same person and him not knowing it AND him not knowing the Bible shed light on the FACT that shepherds carried two staffs, though he venomously denied that FACT till it was plopped in his face.

Let's see if Joe can find the passages in the Bible that explain quite clearly (as clearly as the king with two names) WHY Matthew's account seems to "step" around some names. Seemingly three but actually four to be exact. There is a ruling name missing in BOTH Chronicles AND Matthew.

If Mr. Joe truly looks, he will find the answer is as simple and plain as the one above regarding the king with two names...

45

Another Bible Error: The Disciples' Journey

by JosephAlward in

the story about the instructions jesus allegedly gave to his disciples before they were to set out on their evangelizing journey illustrates the type of contradictions which are found in the gospel stories.

in their two accounts of this event, the authors of mark and matthew disagree about whether jesus wanted the disciples to carry a staff with them.

mark tells us jesus told the disciples to go forth with a staff:.

pomegranate

>>ok, im done with this thread pom. you dont seem to understand the definitions of words as simple as 'no', 'not', 'neither', or 'either.<<

No - is absolute denial "ou"
Not - is a negative needing weight/qualifying. "me"
Neither - is not one or the other "ou"
Not either - is the same as the above "ou"

Pretty simple stuff and I fully understand the words.

....................................
The rest of the sentence is: "neither staves [plural], nor scrip [singular], neither bread [singular], neither money [singular]; neither have two coats apiece [plural by "duo."]

That is why the NASB changed the "neither" (meaning not one or the other) of the plural staves, to the singular "nor" for the other singular items.

>>It is tricky when you start to break down words into their root forms. Just because the roots mean one thing when separated does not mean you can force those independent meanings back into the word when they are combined.<<

You are incorrect. That is exactly how anyone understands words. Study the roots. Anyone that says studying word roots gives you the wrong meanings of words, does not know what they are talking about.

ho·mo·sporous - producing one/same (homo) kind of spore (sporous)

GREEK Roots.

pro.phylactic - before (pro) to protect (phulassein)

GREEK Roots.

cosmo.naut - universe (kosmos) sailor (naut)

GREEK Roots.

Our language is built upon the same constuction as the Greek. Studying and analyzing roots of words DOES NOT EVER detract from the understanding of the expanded compound words rather gives deeper and greater understanding of the compound words.

45

Another Bible Error: The Disciples' Journey

by JosephAlward in

the story about the instructions jesus allegedly gave to his disciples before they were to set out on their evangelizing journey illustrates the type of contradictions which are found in the gospel stories.

in their two accounts of this event, the authors of mark and matthew disagree about whether jesus wanted the disciples to carry a staff with them.

mark tells us jesus told the disciples to go forth with a staff:.

pomegranate

>>im not even sure what you're claiming 'not both' means.<<

Put the both renderings in a sentence:

Jesus said to take neither staffs. (Denied BOTH absolutely)
Jesus said to take not both staffs. (Denied only one)

"Neither" staffs = neither/no is the wrong word for "meete." "Neither and no" are English words for ABSOLUTE DENIAL which ONLY the Greek word "ou" conotates. "Ou" is NOT used here. "Meete" DOES NOT conotate absolute denial, it needs direction for closure.

EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTE DENIAL:
Matt 1:25
25 But he had NO (ou) union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

The above is ABSOLUTE NO/ FULL DENIAL using the Greek ABSOLUTE word for denial "ou".

Matt 13:29-30
29 "No (ou), he answered, 'because while you are pulling the weeds, you may root up the wheat with them.

ABSOLUTE NO/NEGATIVE/FULL DENIAL again as there is nothing left for completion. This "no" is FULL DENIAL. The Greek word "ou" is NOT the word used in relation to staffs OR sandals.

Now....

"Not both" staffs = this phrase more accurately portrays the Greek word as NOT needs weight and/or qualification. NOT WHAT? Then "both," which closes the compound word. What happens with the closer rendering is that the phrase NOT BOTH is not absolute and leaves the needed room for one staff being kept and the second (spare) discarded. Also, leaving the pair of sandals on their feet and the spare pair discarded.

Neither staffs. If you know your English EVEN THE WORD "NEITHER" conotates more than one, Websters:

nei·ther:

Not one or the other; not either

Which that word "neither" in itself SAYS THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE STAFF being talked about.

The problem with this word choice is that it is ABSOLUTE DENIAL. That is NOT what the Greek is saying. It is denying ONLY ONE (the extra staff) IF...IF the Greek meant NO STAFFS WHATSOEVER, the phrase would have been this:

"ouk ra'bdon" = NO STAFFS...ABSOLUTELY DENIED. That is NOT what is said in the Greek.

>>your references to bible concordances are impressive<<

They are lexicons/dictionaries, not concordances.

PS. "ou" means ABSOLUTE NO. "Mee" means NOT and needs qualifiying.

45

Another Bible Error: The Disciples' Journey

by JosephAlward in

the story about the instructions jesus allegedly gave to his disciples before they were to set out on their evangelizing journey illustrates the type of contradictions which are found in the gospel stories.

in their two accounts of this event, the authors of mark and matthew disagree about whether jesus wanted the disciples to carry a staff with them.

mark tells us jesus told the disciples to go forth with a staff:.

pomegranate

>>Pom’s ridiculous assertion that the Greek word mete (may’ teh), which appears in Luke 9:3 in the phase mete rhabdos (“no staves”), means “one, but not two” is totally without biblical support.<<

No, Joe, I said the Greek can be rendered "NOT BOTH"

>>In every one of the thirty-six other instances of mete in the New Testament the word is translated as either “neither” or “nor.”<<

Context Joe. Plural Joe. They all have to do with it in the Greek. Sorry you don't like it, but the Greek phrase can be rendered as I have shown. Why don't you study Greek Joe and see. Also, just because the traslators have translated the word consistently with the same rendering, does't mean they are correct in doing so.

>>Furthermore, not one of the eleven different versions of the Bible available at Bible Gateway support Pom’s interpretation. Nine of the versions translate the word in Luke 9:3 as “no,” or “neither.” The remaining two versions are even more explicit:<<

I don't care what they say Joe. If I cared what they said then I would be just like them. I have examined this matter and found out why the Greek CAN BE legitimately rendered as I have shown. Go get yourself some Greek language/grammar books Joe and see for yourself.

>>Does Pom think he is so skilled in Greek that he knows something that was not known by any of the experts who translated the eleven different versions of the Bible from Greek to English?<<

Joe, when it comes to the Bible, it is usually the phd's that are off the mark and for biased reasons. As far as my Greek goes, I'm obviously far ahead of you in the language because you have NO rebuttal refuting the Greek whatsoever, just your arrogant stubborn dumb ass position. At least you are consistent.

>>How likely is it that Pom is right, and all of them were wrong? How likely is it that mete means “one, but not two” at Luke 9:3, but doesn’t mean anything similar to this in the thirty-six other cases of this word’s use in the New Testament?<<

Likely has nothing to do with anything Joe. It's facts. If one studies the Greek, one will know that the rendering I have presented is perfectly legitimate. But Joe CAN'T refute that because HE DOESN'T KNOW. It amazes me to see people debate with NO KNOWLEDGE.

>>Where did Pom get his advanced degree in Greek, and what articles has he published which establish credentials so powerful that his opinion should be preferred over that of the translators of the eleven different different versions of the Bible?<<

What credentials did any man of God have before the wise men of this world Joe? Since when does a man need credentials just to be able to understand simple language? If one goes through step by step the logical presentation of the Greek compound word of which I have done, one can see by FACT that the rendering is legite. There is NO TWISTING here, as Joe often does. There is no mystery to studying any language, they all go by laws and rules that are very basic. BUT IT DOES TAKE TIME.

>>Pom is wasting the forum’s time with his silly objections, far-fetched scenarios, and amateur linguistic analyses.<<

You are one arrogant SOB. You really did have a tough life Joe to be so bitter and condescending. Why not tell the forum the real truth about your background Joe, you know, the one your ashamed of Joe? Go ahead, we're listening.

>>It’s evident that Pom will endure any indignity, suffer any embarrassment, in order to preserve his illusion that the Bible is without error.<<

Embarassment? Seems you have NO REBUTTAL whatsoever regarding the Greek Joe and yet your trying to salvage YOU. This rebuttal of yours is nothing but personal belittling directed toward me. You're just spilling your venomous anger and hate as usual. Go ahead Joe, confide in the forum about your nasty past.

>>We’ve indulged him long enough in this particular matter, I believe.
I’m confident that no one who’s been paying attention to this thread believes that Pom has successfully defended the Bible against the claim of error in the matter of the staves, not even Bang, so I believe this argument should be closed. Our time will be better spent elsewhere, in my opinion.<<

Oh, and like you have? If you're so CONFIDENT, rebutt the Greek Joe, or is it that you don't know how? Since it is the latest fact proof I have presented to you, you can't even get into the Greek because of your ignorance of it. Ones will note Joe has no rebuttal for the Greek rendering, just a personal smearing. That is what always happens when one loses the debate, he leaves the facts and goes to the personal smears. Typical tactics for someone like you.

Ignorance really is bliss huh Joe?

I'll come back to you when you've spent some time with the Greek Joe. Until then, you're too ignorant for me to have an intelligent discussion on the Greek.

Fix your ignorance, if not, you ARE stupid.

<washes hands and leaves Joe to wallow in the mire of his ignorance>

45

Another Bible Error: The Disciples' Journey

by JosephAlward in

the story about the instructions jesus allegedly gave to his disciples before they were to set out on their evangelizing journey illustrates the type of contradictions which are found in the gospel stories.

in their two accounts of this event, the authors of mark and matthew disagree about whether jesus wanted the disciples to carry a staff with them.

mark tells us jesus told the disciples to go forth with a staff:.

pomegranate

Luke 9:3
3 He told them: "Take nothing for the journey-no staffs, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.

Let's analyze it kids. "Take NOTHING for the journey."

Is this first NOTHING an all encompassing NOTHING? Meaning that they were to go around even bare ass? Obviously not. The clothing and sandals that they were wearing were obviously NOT apart of the NOTHING. So, even this first NEGATIVE is in a fact not an all encompassing NOTHING.

More proof is in the phrase "extra tunic." So we know they had one tunic, which again means the NOTHING in the beginning of the phrase is a limited nothing RIGHT FROM THE START, and not a blanket nothing.

Now, let's look at "no staffs"...

If you really want the truth you HAVE to examine the Hebrew and the Greek kids, there's no way around it. But truth seekers will dig deep.

The Greek phrase for the above "no staffs" is "meete' ra'bdon"

You examine HOW and WHY this word will communicate EXACTLY what I am saying, when the Greek is examined:

The word to examine is "meete" which in English is rendered as "no or neither" Here is the Greek definition:

NT:3383
meete (may'-teh); from NT:3361 and NT:5037; not too, i.e. (in continued negation) neither or nor; also, not even:

The above is a compound word, made from #3361 and #5037 that means NOT TOO or NOT ALSO. Now, let's look at each of the seperate word blocks that make up the compound word:

NT:3361
mee (may); a primary particle of qualified negation (whereas NT:3756 expresses an absolute denial); (adverbially) NOT, (conjunctionally) lest; also (as an interrogative implying a negative answer [whereas NT:3756 expects an affirmative one]) whether:

Please note that the prefix part (mee) of the compound word (meete) is a primary particle of qualified negation, which means it is NOT an absolute NO, it needs qualification or WEIGHT. A counterpart word block, word #3756 ("ou") is the absolute denial (which is NOT used here), where "me" only interrogatively (meaning with question) IMPLIES a NO. There is a question left in the first word block and it NEEDS WEIGHT/QUALIFICATION.

So, to review, the first part of the compond word "meete," which is the first word block "mee" leaves a question of negative weight that needs positive resolve by the second part of the word which is "te"

Joe, here is your proof whether you like it or not.

NT:5037
te (teh); a primary particle (enclitic) of connection or addition; BOTH or also (properly, as correlation of NT:2532):

"Te" is a primary particle enclitic (that means a word block that is attached to the end of a word, like a suffix in English) that means BOTH or also. Since we know the prefix word block (mee) is looking for QUALIFICATION or weight, we know which one out of the two possibles in the second word block "BOTH and also" is the correct understanding. That would be BOTH as the weight qualifier.

So that Greek word "meete" to the discerning Bible student, would mean LITERALLY, NOT BOTH

NOT (mee) = the corresponding English primary particle of negation that needs weight or qualification.

BOTH (te) = the corresponding English primary particle replacement.

So, in fact, we need TWO words to correctly understand ONE word in Greek.

Also, this rings true with the proof text I showed Joe in Zech. of a shepherd carrying two staffs. Which is not unlike a modern soldier carrying two guns, rifle and pistol. One breaks, ya use the other.

PS. If any of you are into Greek, if you see the description of word #5037 above, the word ALSO has an interesting designation when it is used PROPERLY, then it gives the word desription for that with word #2532:

NT:2532
kai (kahee); apparently, a primary particle, having a copulative and sometimes also a cumulative force; and, also, even, so then, too, etc.; often used in connection (or composition) with other particles or small words:

So, even if we were to use "ALSO" the also means copulative or cumulative force. TWO STAVES WOULD COUPLE AND OR CUMULATE.

NOT COUPLE, or NOT COMBINED.

Take ONE not EXTRA.

Oh yes, by NOT taking extra, they rely fully on God.

45

Another Bible Error: The Disciples' Journey

by JosephAlward in

the story about the instructions jesus allegedly gave to his disciples before they were to set out on their evangelizing journey illustrates the type of contradictions which are found in the gospel stories.

in their two accounts of this event, the authors of mark and matthew disagree about whether jesus wanted the disciples to carry a staff with them.

mark tells us jesus told the disciples to go forth with a staff:.

pomegranate

>>Luke didn't offer the slightest hint or faint suggestion that Jesus had a second walking staff in mind<<

Maybe in English, but the Greek supports the plural as two translations have accurately portrayed:

Luke 9:3
3 And He said to them, "Take nothing for the journey, neither staffs
NKJV

The above is plural/more than one.

Luke 9:3
3 And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves,
KJV

The above is also plural/more than one.

The Greek does support plural. Take nothing EXTRA.

45

Another Bible Error: The Disciples' Journey

by JosephAlward in

the story about the instructions jesus allegedly gave to his disciples before they were to set out on their evangelizing journey illustrates the type of contradictions which are found in the gospel stories.

in their two accounts of this event, the authors of mark and matthew disagree about whether jesus wanted the disciples to carry a staff with them.

mark tells us jesus told the disciples to go forth with a staff:.

pomegranate

>>Where in the Bible or in any historical record has anyone ever carried two walking sticks?<<

Right here Joe. Missed it eh?

Zech 11:7
7 So I pastured the flock marked for slaughter, particularly the oppressed of the flock. Then I took two staffs and called one Favor and the other Union, and I pastured the flock.

I believe you are wrong Joe. Don't you see you are wrong? Come on Joe. Admit it. If indeed a shepherd carried two staffs, as here in Zechariah, then Christ would have meant no extra staff wouldn't he?

Yes he would.

Good Bye Joe. I believe you're a loser.

PS Joe. The second staff was strapped across the shepherds back. ALWAYS.

Ahhhh bah bye.