By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - A Muslim writes about Jesus - Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?

ultima on 29 July 2013
happydolphin said:
ultima said:
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

Holy hell. No such distinction is present in any of the versions I've seen. How do you explain that then, if your point is so clear that it's frustrating you? Did every single translator overlook this? Seems unlikely. Improbable. Dare I say, impossible?

Let's get this straight. The versions you read omitted Mary, am I right? They don't mention Mary?

Yes. I stated that a couple of times. No mention of Mary anywhere in that chapter, in fact.

Good, because that's also what I understood you to say. I then went on to say that the text (of Mary's lineage) makes use of the greek article Tou, which is used for all males but joseph. I never said the passage stated mary, but that by omitting the article Tou for Joseph, it made it clear that they were refering to Joseph as the Son in Law.

Get it now? *sobs*

No, I don't get it. And you don't get what I'm saying. If it's made clear that they are referring to Joseph as the son in law, why isn't this reflected in the translations? Why is this so hard to comprehend? Here, I'll give you an exerpt from the King James version, that actually clearly states the opposite of your claim:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, ...



           

Around the Network
happydolphin on 29 July 2013
ultima said:

No, I don't get it. And you don't get what I'm saying. If it's made clear that they are referring to Joseph as the son in law, why isn't this reflected in the translations? Why is this so hard to comprehend? Here, I'll give you an exerpt from the King James version, that actually clearly states the opposite of your claim:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, ...

It doesn't state the opposite of what I claimed. "(As was supposed)" means exactly that he's the in-law. For all other case the "(As was supposed)" is not there.

Again, read:

"Renowned Greek scholar A.T. Robertson points out that Luke employs the definite article toubefore each name, except Joseph’s.2 This seems to indicate that a better translation would be “Jesus being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli” with the understanding that Jesus was the grandson of Heli through Mary."



Osc89 on 29 July 2013
happydolphin said:
Osc89 said:

What? Theology is not the same as creationism or having a religious approach. Theology would objectively study these passages and compare theories on whether they are including Mary, if there is a dispute over the lineage or if there was a translation error (and many other theories I imagine). It is a science, and is neutral in approach.

However you are denying and ignoring anything that would suggest the Bible is wrong. You said very early on in this thread how you believe the Bible does not contradict itself, which is something a theologian would not. They would acknowledge and study the reasons for the contradictions. You deny them.

Oh my god. I would never deny that there are things that appear as contradictory. But so far, in every case, I have found a sound explanation to them, making them no longer True contradictions.

@Theology. Then we agree, and your original post was just trolling.


My original post refers to the bold. While it is possible the only contradictions you have been exposed to have obvious rational explanations, I very much doubt it. The vast majority will be the subject of debate, and the fact you no longer consider them contradictions means you are essentially picking a side. Science however would at most determine one side to be more likely. That is the difference between theology and taking a religious approach.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89

happydolphin on 29 July 2013
Osc89 said:

My original post refers to the bold. While it is possible the only contradictions you have been exposed to have obvious rational explanations, I very much doubt it. The vast majority will be the subject of debate, and the fact you no longer consider them contradictions means you are essentially picking a side. Science however would at most determine one side to be more likely. That is the difference between theology and taking a religious approach.

Really? Evolution true or false? Go.



ultima on 29 July 2013
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

No, I don't get it. And you don't get what I'm saying. If it's made clear that they are referring to Joseph as the son in law, why isn't this reflected in the translations? Why is this so hard to comprehend? Here, I'll give you an exerpt from the King James version, that actually clearly states the opposite of your claim:

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, ...

It doesn't state the opposite of what I claimed. "(As was supposed" means exactly that he's the in-law. For all other case the "(As was supposed)" is not there.

Again, read:

"Renowned Greek scholar A.T. Robertson points out that Luke employs the definite article toubefore each name, except Joseph’s.2 This seems to indicate that a better translation would be “Jesus being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Heli” with the understanding that Jesus was the grandson of Heli through Mary."

No, (as was supposed) means that Jesus wasn't actually the son of Joseph, but accepted as one. Read the King James passage I posted. It's clear, and it's in direct contradiction with your explanation. The quote "... Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, ..." clearly shows that Joseph was the son of Heli.



           

Around the Network
ultima on 29 July 2013
happydolphin said:
Osc89 said:

What? Theology is not the same as creationism or having a religious approach. Theology would objectively study these passages and compare theories on whether they are including Mary, if there is a dispute over the lineage or if there was a translation error (and many other theories I imagine). It is a science, and is neutral in approach.

However you are denying and ignoring anything that would suggest the Bible is wrong. You said very early on in this thread how you believe the Bible does not contradict itself, which is something a theologian would not. They would acknowledge and study the reasons for the contradictions. You deny them.

Oh my god. I would never deny that there are things that appear as contradictory. But so far, in every case, I have found a sound explanation to them, making them no longer True contradictions.

@Theology. Then we agree, and your original post was just trolling.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5551747

Care to explain these contradictions then?



           

happydolphin on 30 July 2013
ultima said:

No, (as was supposed) means that Jesus wasn't actually the son of Joseph, but accepted as one. Read the King James passage I posted. It's clear, and it's in direct contradiction with your explanation. The quote "... Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, ..." clearly shows that Joseph was the son of Heli.

So you're telling me that they are giving the genealogy of Jesus using a tree that is not his own, and you prefer that interpretation to the blatantly obvious, which is that Joseph is no the son of Heli, but rather his in-law?

Makes no sense. I'm warning you, the bible is full of things like this where you need to use your COMMON SENSE. If you don't, you will miss everything.

Some people say God is not trolling you. But mark my words, God is trolling you like there is no tomorrow if you think that you are smarter than him and there to find all kinds of inconsistencies that aren't actually valid. And we will keep running into these trainwrecks of an argument until someone snaps out of a serious lack of sense when it comes to reading the bible.

Interpret this passage as being a genealogy of someone by mentioning a father who is not his own, the genealogy of the father being listed, rather than considering the blatantly obvious, that Joseph is an in-law.



happydolphin on 30 July 2013
ultima said:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=5551747

Care to explain these contradictions then?

I know that there is an explanation to the first one, I don't have it off hand. The herod one, I believe there were two Herods (per history).

The second one we just went over, I'm not doing that again any time soon.

The third one is answered here -> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110801093718AAf9J0R



ultima on 30 July 2013
happydolphin said:
ultima said:

No, (as was supposed) means that Jesus wasn't actually the son of Joseph, but accepted as one. Read the King James passage I posted. It's clear, and it's in direct contradiction with your explanation. The quote "... Joseph, which was the son of Heli, which was the son of Matthat, ..." clearly shows that Joseph was the son of Heli.

So you're telling me that they are giving the genealogy of Jesus using a tree that is not his own, and you prefer that interpretation to the blatantly obvious, which is that Joseph is no the son of Heli, but rather his in-law?

Makes no sense. I'm warning you, the bible is full of things like this where you need to use your COMMON SENSE. If you don't, you will miss everything.

Some people say God is not trolling you. But mark my words, God is trolling you like there is no tomorrow if you think that you are smarter than him and there to find all kinds of inconsistencies that aren't actually valid. And we will keep running into these trainwrecks of an argument until someone snaps out of a serious lack of sense when it comes to reading the bible.

Interpret this passage as being a genealogy of someone by mentioning a father who is not his own, the genealogy of the father being listed, rather than considering the blatantly obvious, that Joseph is an in-law.

So your argument is: "JUST LOOK! IT'S OBVIOUS!" when the words on the page clearly say the opposite. You do know that in Jewish tradition an adoptee is considered a full family member, and would be included in the family tree, right?



           

Osc89 on 30 July 2013
happydolphin said:
Osc89 said:

My original post refers to the bold. While it is possible the only contradictions you have been exposed to have obvious rational explanations, I very much doubt it. The vast majority will be the subject of debate, and the fact you no longer consider them contradictions means you are essentially picking a side. Science however would at most determine one side to be more likely. That is the difference between theology and taking a religious approach.

Really? Evolution true or false? Go.


There is a reason why it is refered to as a theory. There is overwhelming evidence in support of it, but science adapts to new evidence. Religion does not.



PSN: Osc89

NNID: Oscar89