Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 37 of 37
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    rstrats.. along the lines you are arguing. The objection of "hey they said day and night, but there was no night, therefore...."

    Quote Originally Posted by RSTRATS
    I'm afraid I don't understand what you're asking.
    I'm asking 2 things.
    1) Is this a relatively new objection. In that, for 2000+ years people have read what your talking about, and did not see a problem.
    2) It is only one the language itself is thoroughly forgotten that people who never spoke the language now suppose there is a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by RSTRATS
    I have to say that I haven't.
    Right, so a fun fact then.
    When the king James Bible was first translated/compiled etc. There were thousands of Greek words in the bible, that occurred no where else in greek manuscripts not the bible.
    For years, it was a source of issues in translation because there was nothing to compare it too. Some floated the idea of "Holy Ghost greek" which is the idea, that if God wants to convey an idea, He is very much free to just invent greek words in order to convey it. This was not highly accepted, however it highlights an issue with our understanding of the language.
    Now a lot of time has passed and we have a lot more manuscripts, but there remains hundreds of greek words found only in biblical manuscripts.

    Honestly, I was surprised by the existence and significance of such a scholarly gap, but I find it very relevant to the question you are asking.
    apparently, you could make the same demand in regards to several hundred greek words and their use in the bible, and you would be faced with no other instances anywhere.

    That is why I ask if it has ever been seen as an issue before. Because if we walk around all day saying "I'm going to shove this or that down your throat", and 2 thousand years later people suddenly start to say "Is there any instance where someone actually shoved a bible down a persons throat?" because the language is completely foreign. It just seems to be more of a language barrier issue than an actual issue of truth.


    link referencing the phenomena of holy ghost greek. ... just so you know I'm not making it up
    https://garycottrell.wordpress.com/2...y-ghost-greek/
    To serve man.

  2. #22
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    It isn't literal, or I don't know anyone christian that holds it as a literal thing that the high priest Melchizedek literally had no father or mother.
    Actually you know at least one person that believes it is literally true, Squatch. Unfortunately, he is going to be mostly unavailable for a week or two so will be unable to respond till then.

    However, by what criteria can we discern what is literal and what is not in the Bible?

    ---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    1) Is this a relatively new objection. In that, for 2000+ years people have read what your talking about, and did not see a problem.
    You seem to be saying the original text of the Bible was "God breathed" but the later translations are not?

    ---------- Post added at 06:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    link referencing the phenomena of holy ghost greek. ... just so you know I'm not making it up
    https://garycottrell.wordpress.com/2...y-ghost-greek/
    This is quite interesting!
    I have never heard of this before. I appreciate you noting it.

  3. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  4. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    However, by what criteria can we discern what is literal and what is not in the Bible?
    One would be in how it was considered by the audience at the time.
    I think though that a scholar89 in translating would be better served to explain that.

    I would say this.
    When we read the Bible you have to have 3 challenges to understanding it properly in mind.
    1) It wasn't written in English. - This means that there are inherent translation challenges.
    2) It didn't happen in our culture - So things like the woman who lost a coin may come across as losing some money. Another thing I point too is our understanding of kings and slaves.
    3) It didn't happen your backyard - It takes place in a different country with actual geological nuances. For example, When Jesus was praying in the Garden before he was captured, he had to walk across a usually dry river bed. But because they were sacrificing animals in the temple, the river bed was actually flowing with blood of the lambs. A very significant symbolism in relation to what he was about to go through.
    (Hope I remembered that correctly, John Mc Arther preached on it years ago).

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor
    You seem to be saying the original text of the Bible was "God breathed" but the later translations are not?
    No, my question was in regard to the critics.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    This is quite interesting! I have never heard of this before. I appreciate you noting it.
    Yea I thought it was very interesting. I hadn't realized the full historical significance of the Bible.
    To serve man.

  5. #24
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I would say this.
    When we read the Bible you have to have 3 challenges to understanding it properly in mind.
    1) It wasn't written in English. - This means that there are inherent translation challenges.
    2) It didn't happen in our culture - So things like the woman who lost a coin may come across as losing some money. Another thing I point too is our understanding of kings and slaves.
    3) It didn't happen your backyard - It takes place in a different country with actual geological nuances. For example, When Jesus was praying in the Garden before he was captured, he had to walk across a usually dry river bed. But because they were sacrificing animals in the temple, the river bed was actually flowing with blood of the lambs. A very significant symbolism in relation to what he was about to go through.
    (Hope I remembered that correctly, John Mc Arther preached on it years ago).
    I agree. Given that, it seems an incredibly odd way for God's near only written communication with man. It ends up quite subjective that being the case, does it not?

    ---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    No, my question was in regard to the critics.
    I understand it was not your point. It just seems to fallow that if there are translation issues, then the translations were not "God breathed".

    ---------- Post added at 08:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Yea I thought it was very interesting. I hadn't realized the full historical significance of the Bible.
    I haven't had time to look into this yet, but find it very interesting for a couple reasons. To start, I would think defining these words could quite a task. I am also interested in the particular context these new words are used. Is there a pattern to these new words or are they relating to actions or nouns or a mixture of things?

  6. #25
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I agree. Given that, it seems an incredibly odd way for God's near only written communication with man. It ends up quite subjective that being the case, does it not?
    I don't think so. Seems pretty strait forward to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I understand it was not your point. It just seems to fallow that if there are translation issues, then the translations were not "God breathed".
    Well, I don't really agree with that. I think people expect something out of language that simply isn't there. I think language is inherently relationship based.
    Your wife can tell you she is "fine" and you will know what she means. A stranger could do the same thing, and you would have no clue.
    I don't think it is ultimately dis-similar between God and us with the Bible.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I haven't had time to look into this yet, but find it very interesting for a couple reasons. To start, I would think defining these words could quite a task. I am also interested in the particular context these new words are used. Is there a pattern to these new words or are they relating to actions or nouns or a mixture of things?
    That is a question that is beyond me.
    As I understand it they used the context when there were lots of words, and now there are less and I don't think particularly anything has changed.
    So I'm not even sure how significant it is.
    It doesn't mean that we don't have a clue as to what the meanings are, it just makes the kind of criticism the OP is trying to make less forceful. Because it is asking for alternative examples, when there isn't a totally complete set to pull from. no doubt we have more information about the bible than any other historical work, but it isn't as complete of a knowledge as say our access to Facebook in determine the common use or even minor used phrases. It seems that is a kind of assumption of the OP, as though we have some complete set so that if we don't find a given example, then we should conclude that it was never used in such and such sense. Which may ultimately be true.. but I'm not sure how certain we can be of such a conclusion, and would differ to how those in the culture took it at the time.
    If they didn't have a problem with it, I don't really see why we should.
    To serve man.

  7. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think so. Seems pretty strait forward to me.
    That I get, however, I think the many denominations of Christians would number significantly less if it were so ("straight forward" to everyone).
    IOW, people would generally believe similarly. One need only talk to a Catholic and Protestant (or pick your particular faith) to see this isn't so?

    ---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I don't really agree with that. I think people expect something out of language that simply isn't there. I think language is inherently relationship based.
    Your wife can tell you she is "fine" and you will know what she means. A stranger could do the same thing, and you would have no clue.
    I don't think it is ultimately dis-similar between God and us with the Bible.
    Agreed

    Why would god chose such a method to communicate something so important?

    ---------- Post added at 10:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That is a question that is beyond me.
    I appreciate your honesty.
    It seems to me a topic worthy of a thread of it's own. I find it curiously interesting...

    ---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If they didn't have a problem with it, I don't really see why we should.
    Well of course the faithful have no issue with any of it. Those of us that haven't made up our minds yet may find it interesting to explore...

  8. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  9. #27
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I understand it was not your point. It just seems to fallow that if there are translation issues, then the translations were not "God breathed".[COLOR="Silver"]
    I formally retract this statement.

  10. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
    Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  11. #28
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Belthazor, I should have said as strait forward as is possible. The denominations are ultimately the result of placing emphasis on one scripture or set over another. With some out right false teachings sprinkled in. It is not because the word can't be understood or some inherent problem with the kind of communication. It is more a man made error. Hearing what one wants, or being decieved by teachers in authority.

    -- why would God choose that method...
    Well if it is a method based on relationship, I would say because he wants relationship. Even that relationship is itself necessary no matter the medium of communication in relation to the truths that are to be conveyed.

    --topic worthy of discussion--
    I agree. My minor dabbling in the topic has left my head spinning, so it will take one with more time and intellect than me to sort it out I think. I doubt I have done any Justice to the topic as it is. Thanks for the kind response..

    -- over course the faithful--
    Well I wasn't really referring to the faith full only. You could include the critics.
    The approach I am referring to is kinda like what one would respond to those who say Jesus never existed. Even his opponents at the time didn't have a problem with the assertion that he lived, so why should we?
    Certainly we may find it interesting, but as far as justification for such an objection it is certainly undercut.
    To serve man.

  12. Thanks Squatch347 thanked for this post
  13. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    -- why would God choose that method...
    Well if it is a method based on relationship, I would say because he wants relationship. Even that relationship is itself necessary no matter the medium of communication in relation to the truths that are to be conveyed.
    How is communicating by ancient text written in another language convey a desire for a relationship? I get your comparison talking with your wife vs a stranger and the relationship makes understanding easier.
    You agree there will be translation problems as well other issues trying to get people of today to understand how things were in the distant past.
    Perhaps I don't fully understand your point?

    ---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well I wasn't really referring to the faith full only. You could include the critics.
    Well, I would include Muslims and Judaism as critics.

    ---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:41 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The approach I am referring to is kinda like what one would respond to those who say Jesus never existed. Even his opponents at the time didn't have a problem with the assertion that he lived, so why should we?
    True, Jesus does seem to have actually existed, evidenced by unrelated accounts of adherents as well as critics. However, the corroboration shows a man preaching only.
    That he was God and born of virgin birth are still hotly disputed.....
    No super natural claims are corroborated by other than the Faithfull that I am aware of?
    I would love to explore any that that you are aware of

  14. #30
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    How is communicating by ancient text written in another language convey a desire for a relationship? I get your comparison talking with your wife vs a stranger and the relationship makes understanding easier.
    You agree there will be translation problems as well other issues trying to get people of today to understand how things were in the distant past.
    Perhaps I don't fully understand your point?
    The point is that the translation is not not so bad as to block understanding.
    The problem isn't the language, the problem is the relationship.

    Also, I would object that it has been communicated by ancient texts only. As it is a relationship, there are other factors at work.
    Like the living witness of what God is currently doing in his followers lives.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Well, I would include Muslims and Judaism as critics.
    Fine, and when did they lodge the complaint? (assuming of course that they have)
    Anything close to contemporanious?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    True, Jesus does seem to have actually existed, evidenced by unrelated accounts of adherents as well as critics. However, the corroboration shows a man preaching only.
    That wasn't the point. The point was confined to the current objection by some that Jesus never existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    That he was God and born of virgin birth are still hotly disputed.....
    No super natural claims are corroborated by other than the Faithfull that I am aware of?
    I would love to explore any that that you are aware of
    A worthy topic, but a red-herring for this thread.

    I was a hunter as a young man, so it is easy for me to chase rabbits.. so i try to kill them before they get running as much as possible.
    To serve man.

  15. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Also, I would object that it has been communicated by ancient texts only. As it is a relationship, there are other factors at work.
    Like the living witness of what God is currently doing in his followers lives.
    Well, I did say " God's near only written communication with man", I said nothing like "the only communication with man".

    That being said, would you expand on this point.

    What is ?:
    "the living witness of what God is currently doing in his followers lives."

    ---------- Post added at 07:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:55 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That wasn't the point. The point was confined to the current objection by some that Jesus never existed.
    As near as I can discern a man named Jesus, that was God, born of a virgin, performed miracles, and is the only path to redemption, is only supported by the Faithfull, not by any critic (ie Jews, Muslims, etc.) in any fashion at all ever.

    ---------- Post added at 08:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:59 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    A worthy topic, but a red-herring for this thread.

    I was a hunter as a young man, so it is easy for me to chase rabbits.. so i try to kill them before they get running as much as possible.

    Though I am prone to tangents it was germane to your point that even critics agree Jesus existed. They just do not agree that he existed in the way you are claiming though. All claims are Jesus was just an ordinary man, with Christians being the only exceptions...
    (I could not shoot a rabbit in my yard. I am open to the local ospreys eating them though)

  16. #32
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    First, if you are not asserting that the Bible is the ONLY way I which God communicates, and I retract my assertion. That you did.. sorry my bad, then on what grounds do you object and ask your question of why this way?
    Doesn't such an objection lose any power if it doesn't address all the ways he communicates?

    Living witness. -
    God is actively working in the world around you. Even if God had totally shut you out and given you the silent treatment, he still answers the prayers of someone around you. There are many who would bare witness ti you of his work in their lives. This is the living witness if christ. Sure you may have a hard time finding someone who truly loves good and bears fruit of the spirit, but them that do have undeniably powerful testimony.

    -- on Christ's critics calling him God or virgin born.
    That is quite irrelevant, because that is not the claim being addressed. The claim being addressed has to do with the day and night issue and numbering of.
    Which I have countered is as undercut by the lack of contemporary object, as the claim that Christ never existed. The line you are taking is irrelevant.
    The whole point is that critics will take any opportunity they see as reasonable and many that are in fact unreasonable to deny or object. So the strength of this point is that of those hostile don't make the point, then maybe it isn't a reasonable objection.
    It isn't logically necissary..I know, but it does undercut the power of the objection.
    To serve man.

  17. #33
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    ,,,, then on what grounds do you object and ask your question of why this way?
    Doesn't such an objection lose any power if it doesn't address all the ways he communicates?
    In this particular case I don't know why it would?

    In the case of the Bible it is ancient (by today human standards). People today can't even identify with how life was 100 yrs ago (no electricity in your house, animals for transportation, no internet, no STARBUCK's. People look at the past through current moral glasses.
    So we take a story about life people will find almost necessarily difficult to understand because of, in your words:
    "When we read the Bible you have to have 3 challenges to understanding it properly in mind.
    1) It wasn't written in English. - This means that there are inherent translation challenges.
    2) It didn't happen in our culture - So things like the woman who lost a coin may come across as losing some money. Another thing I point too is our understanding of kings and slaves.
    3) It didn't happen your backyard - It takes place in a different country with actual geological nuances."

    Given all the inherent complications to comprehension, I just have trouble grasping why this would be the nearly only written communication?

    ---------- Post added at 10:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Living witness. -
    God is actively working in the world around you. Even if God had totally shut you out and given you the silent treatment, he still answers the prayers of someone around you. There are many who would bare witness ti you of his work in their lives.
    Now this I find most interesting. However, usually the claims I have heard of this are like:
    "a plane crashes and only a young child survived. God saved that child for a reason!"
    "I prayed to get that job with X and I got the job!"
    "I had a disease and prayed and I was cured (after X amount of time)"
    "I was an alcoholic and could never have quit without God's help"
    "I prayed to God and made a deal. If He would get me out of X situation, that I would do X"
    "I prayed to God to give me a sign, and then I got a phone call out of the blue from X"

    Would you like to offer any examples or do you generally agree with, not necessarily these specific examples, but these types of examples?

    ---------- Post added at 11:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:46 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So the strength of this point is that of those hostile don't make the point, then maybe it isn't a reasonable objection.
    In general, I would say this is pretty right on.

    I read your link:
    link referencing the phenomena of holy ghost greek. ... just so you know I'm not making it up
    https://garycottrell.wordpress.com/2...y-ghost-greek/

    I don't see where it talks about Greek words that only exist in the Bible though?

  18. #34
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Why it is the nearly only written...
    I think your looking at it wrong. The Bible is about what God did then. If you want to know what God is doing now, you will and can look to more current works, though they won't be nearly as well known.
    Frim that it seems only natural that the Bible would be a different culture.
    Another thing is, I would suggest you look to someone currently who is living like the people in the Bible did, namely Totally dependant on God. You are right that our culture is hostile to that, everyone is so rich they don't " need" God.
    Even still. It is there to find.

    --examples--
    So those are not bad or wrong, but those are sort of one off kinda things. I am referring to something a little different. Starting in the most immediate family.. my wife has a reputation of her prayers being answered, and indeed that is what I have witnessed. From job opportunities coming from nowhere (as she prays for them) .. to little things. Like she prayed for towels, and on the next job we received more towels than our family of 7 could use. (From cleaning repo houses) it was a very uncommon thing. I remember there was a wasp nest outside the window and she was concerned for the kids so she prayed that God would send a bird to eat the wasps. Then.. love and behold before her own eyes a bird came and ate the wasps. I had never heard of such a thing and with so many wasps around here every year, I certainly never saw such a thing. .. the point is that there are some with living relationships with God.
    - another is we have friends who are missionaries. They were missionaries in Russia and we're oersicutes and jailed for their faith and had to escape like convicts. If you want to hear stories of answered prayers that are not mundain.. find someone like them. From God speaking to then and revealing government operatives that would jail then to have serious needs miraculously met. Those that litteraly live by faith, are full of accounts of God Workin in their lives.
    God is working currently and the world is not interested.
    To serve man.

  19. #35
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well I wasn't really referring to the faith full only. You could include the critics.
    The approach I am referring to is kinda like what one would respond to those who say Jesus never existed. Even his opponents at the time didn't have a problem with the assertion that he lived, so why should we?
    The analogy still fails as Jesus' opponents did have a problem with the claim Jesus was God. A preacher named Jesus is really nothing for a critic to discuss, whether or not he was God is. And no critics believe God lived 2000 yrs ago as a man named Jesus.

    Same with some of the "language" in the Bible. There have always been critics back then as now. I'm not sure where you are going with this line...

    ---------- Post added at 12:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Why it is the nearly only written...
    I think your looking at it wrong. The Bible is about what God did then.
    Now this makes sense to me, but is not the average position of Christians that have spoken with me about it.

    ---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    If you want to know what God is doing now, you will and can look to more current works, though they won't be nearly as well known.
    This is too vague to respond to...

    ---------- Post added at 12:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Another thing is, I would suggest you look to someone currently who is living like the people in the Bible did, namely Totally dependant on God. You are right that our culture is hostile to that, everyone is so rich they don't " need" God.
    1. Who (beside Adam & Eve) lives/lived totally dependent on God?
    2. While most people in the US enjoy a "rich" life, IOW comfortable, are you saying people only think they need God when they are not rich/well off/comfortable?

    ---------- Post added at 01:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So those are not bad or wrong, but those are sort of one off kinda things.
    Since you basically agree with my suggestion (w/caveat of course, but close enough for this discussion) I will stick with them. I do not want you to see my attacks on the premise as personal to you or your family in any way.

    So:
    "a plane crashes and only a young child survived. God saved that child for a reason!".
    This kinda means God wants every other person dead. God could have let the plane land safely if He was going to intervene at all. Surely the child was traveling with family members who would now still be alive as well.
    What would be the motivator to not save everyone, if you were to save anyone? People that god doesn't have a special "reason" for seem kinda doomed in this scenario. Also, I have been told everyone has a purpose from god...

    "I prayed to get that job with X and I got the job!"
    What of the other applicants? What of their prayers? Are "you" sure "you" were the most qualified, best overall fit for the company, or did God just do you a favor and "give" "you" the job because "you" prayed for it?
    What of the free will of the owner or hiring mgr. If they hire "you" because they thought "you" were the best applicant, then God didn't answer your prayer or do anything.
    If God influenced them so they hire "you", when there were better choice/s than "you", free will just died for the owner/hiring mgr. Also, if you weren't the best choice for the job, the company, the owner, customers, and other employees (and stock holders if public) all suffer from the difference between your performance and the better suited applicant.
    Now, what if "you" were the best candidate and the owner/hiring mgr were not going to hire you and God influenced them so "you" get the job and the company and everyone is now better off? This still kills free will for the owner/hiring mgr...


    "I prayed to God and made a deal. If He would get me out of X situation, that I would do X"
    God makes deals based on human requests?
    How many people keep these deals over time (important since God would know when you made the deal whether you would keep your word).
    I haven't heard of one of these situations where God's help isn't pretty obscure


    It just seems to me, that if one goes looking for God, one will find Him. If you go looking for truth, not as much.

    I was sitting on my front porch the other day, as I commonly do. An ant over 1" long walked across the concrete. Lived here for decades, never seen an ant like that! I looked at my girlfriend and said "holy sh!t, that thing is huge! A bird needs to fly over here and eat it before they multiply". My girlfriend looked over the table and before she could speak, a bird flew down and nabbed it, then flew away. Now, had I prayed it would happen, instead of just talking about it, would that make it miraculous?

    Now take away the ant:
    A man drank for 40yrs. Tried to quit a number of times. Finally, somewhere around 70yrs old, he actually did quit and never drank again. Hardest thing he ever did!
    A man drank for 40yrs. Tried to quit a number of times. Prayed to God for help. Finally, somewhere around 70yrs old, he actually did quit and never drank again. Could never have done it without God's help!

  20. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,717
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    The analogy still fails as Jesus' opponents did have a problem with the claim Jesus was God.
    No, the analogy is not about Jesus being God. It is about the claim that Jesus as a man did not exist.
    neither is the question at hand about The bible being the word of God, but that does the language use a certain phrase in a certain way in any other example in history.

    Quote Originally Posted by belthazor
    A preacher named Jesus is really nothing for a critic to discuss, whether or not he was God is. And no critics believe God lived 2000 yrs ago as a man named Jesus.
    Well, that is a truism. If they did believe then they wouldn't be critics. Saul was a critic, then he became not a critic because he believed.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Same with some of the "language" in the Bible. There have always been critics back then as now. I'm not sure where you are going with this line...
    The point was this.
    1) The challenge posed in the OP is about a phrase about day and night being used such that it doesn't address any part of the day or any part of a night in regards to numbering.
    2) My question was, is it a new criticism born of ignorance of the language and culture, or is it an objection raised by contemporaries. (IE The story presented by the Disciples was rejected, because they couldn't even get their number of days right.. or some such).
    3) The power of this response is along the lines of the power of rejecting those who claim Jesus never existed AS A MAN as having any real merrit Because No contemporary critic took that approach so it seems ridiculous to reject now, what was accepted as a given by even the harshest of critics contemporary with the events.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELHAZOR
    Now this makes sense to me, but is not the average position of Christians that have spoken with me about it.


    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    This is too vague to respond to...
    not sure how.. or maybe it doesn't need a response at all. If it is an issue of confusion.. let me know.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    1. Who (beside Adam & Eve) lives/lived totally dependent on God?
    Well, I gave an example of someone I know personally, but I am encouraging you to go find someone near you.
    I'm just pointing in a direction.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    2. While most people in the US enjoy a "rich" life, IOW comfortable, are you saying people only think they need God when they are not rich/well off/comfortable?
    Not as a necessity, but it is a trend that even the bible addresses. (IE, it is the poor who are given to be rich in spirit).
    I think that has to do with the necessity being poor tends to push people to God, or maybe more that those who are poor have a lot of areas in which to trust God with.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Since you basically agree with my suggestion (w/caveat of course, but close enough for this discussion) I will stick with them. I do not want you to see my attacks on the premise as personal to you or your family in any way.
    Well, the point of my response was to highlight the relationship nature you should be focusing on, not the single event.
    It is one thing to have something happen once, it is another to live the lifestyle.

    What I see from your response, is addressing single instances.
    Should I be applying that to say, that someone who has a relationship with God, who has prayers of all sorts answered on a regular basis, that you are chalking that up to the same kind of response as above?

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    I was sitting on my front porch the other day, as I commonly do. An ant over 1" long walked across the concrete. Lived here for decades, never seen an ant like that! I looked at my girlfriend and said "holy sh!t, that thing is huge! A bird needs to fly over here and eat it before they multiply". My girlfriend looked over the table and before she could speak, a bird flew down and nabbed it, then flew away. Now, had I prayed it would happen, instead of just talking about it, would that make it miraculous?
    Given the context of your response, I'm not sure if this is a real event .. or if you are making a kind of form argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    It just seems to me, that if one goes looking for God, one will find Him. If you go looking for truth, not as much.
    Rather, if you are looking for purely naturalistic answers.. not so much.
    There is a difference in describing "how" things happen, and understanding "why" things happen.
    I mean, given your approach there is no "miracle" that you would not boil down to natural phenomena.
    Assuming as true the plagues of egypt. Moses was just some lucky ass hole having conveniently timed hallucinations of God.
    While maybe rare but totally natural events occurred around him. Water burst forth from a rock.. man that stuff happens all the time. The context of striking the rock is happenstance.
    Frogs are totally natural creatures.. People die all the time. Whatever.
    I mean at what point, do you connect the dots? I get what your saying.. correlation is not causation.
    That is why I encouraged you to find someone that is LIVING it now. Living a life of faith, of dependence on God. Because at some point the context does imply causation.

    So my question to you is this. Elija is sitting on top of a hill, and a group of soldiers are sent from the king to fetch him. As they approach he stands up and calls, with vocal please to God,fire from the sky that consumes them.
    ... so you watching would respond to that.. Gee that is weird, that meteor just so happen to land conveniently on those soldiers. The king dispatches more men, and the same thing happens again.. and you seeing it say.
    how Odd, it happened again. (repeat)

    Given the form of your argument and reasoning that you have offered here. I don't see how or why you would ever come to the conclusion that there is a connection of the calls of the prophet, and the events occurring. So here I stand, not believing you would be moved in the event of the extremes.. why should I push the common communion with God and his servants?
    You are of course free to believe that, and I am not here trying to move you from it. My point is that the same evidence in kind is available going on currently, as it was then.

    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Quote Originally Posted by BELTHAZOR
    Now take away the ant:
    A man drank for 40yrs. Tried to quit a number of times. Finally, somewhere around 70yrs old, he actually did quit and never drank again. Hardest thing he ever did!
    A man drank for 40yrs. Tried to quit a number of times. Prayed to God for help. Finally, somewhere around 70yrs old, he actually did quit and never drank again. Could never have done it without God's help!
    So this is kinda typical. Basically, a person comes to you with a testimony of what God did in their personal life. A kind of relationship based event for which I know people who have been delivered, and it was a very personal event.
    .. am I to believe you over them as to what their experience was? I mean, I understand and can accept that it may ultimately be unknowable, but you seem to be taking a kind of conformation biased approach and dismissing what the testimony actually is, to project what you think 'really' occurred.. because. well.. it CAN'T be God actually delivered this person, no matter how personal the event was to them.

    I don't think that level of skepticism is valid, or very good for finding "the truth".


    ---
    Bottom line. ..

    What I am telling you to go find, I see in people I know. I am assuming you are in a similar situation, and if you look for such a person you can find them.
    However, if from your starting position, it can't possibly be that the prayer actually brought about the thing it is asking for. Then I guess don't bother. .. I don't think that, such a position is a process of searching for truth though.
    and you are more than free to it.


    You are free to respond, and I will try to answer any direct question, but I don't feel I have any more to add on this point.
    To serve man.

  21. #37
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    651
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Is Matthew 12:40 using common idiomatic language?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, that is a truism. If they did believe then they wouldn't be critics. Saul was a critic, then he became not a critic because he believed.
    The Devil and Devil worshippers believe and I think they would count as critics?

    ---------- Post added at 04:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    The point was this.
    1) The challenge posed in the OP is about a phrase about day and night being used such that it doesn't address any part of the day or any part of a night in regards to numbering.
    That is true about the Op, but I don't agree the particular phrases in question are a big deal, so I really hadn't touched on that point....my bad.

    ---------- Post added at 04:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    not sure how.. or maybe it doesn't need a response at all. If it is an issue of confusion.. let me know.
    You told me to read more contemporary writings from God and I no of none?

    ---------- Post added at 04:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well, I gave an example of someone I know personally, but I am encouraging you to go find someone near you.
    I'm just pointing in a direction.
    Your comment: "I would suggest you look to someone currently who is living like the people in the Bible did, namely Totally dependant on God".
    You said your wife commonly connects common daily events with her prayers. That does not make her "totally dependent" on God, just that she is justified in doing so.

    Maybe I don't understand when you say "totally dependent on God"?

    ---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:18 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    What I see from your response, is addressing single instances.
    Sorry, I guess I could have been more broad, but if God actually did answer your prayer in a way that you knew He was doing it, what is the difference between once or five times or five hundred times? I am unclear on the significance for this conversation.

    ---------- Post added at 04:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Given the context of your response, I'm not sure if this is a real event .. or if you are making a kind of form argument.
    It was real and I gotta say, a really very strange event my girlfriend and I still talk about.

    The point though was, it was just small event that was just one hell of a coincidence. Now if I was looking for God's influence in my life I might connect those, but I see other possibilities as more likely. I think the same can be said for most of these types of "god's interactions". I think most will have other plausible explanations. I do understand what you are saying that if it happens to you all the time, the more likely it would seem true. However, as you say people can look solid practical evidence (truth) and believe it isn't so.
    They can also look and see what isn't there swearing that it is true. That pendulum swings both ways.

    ---------- Post added at 04:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:37 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Rather, if you are looking for purely naturalistic answers.. not so much.
    I am looking for correct answers be it naturalistic, religious (or ?). I don't really see reality as it has to be one or the other and actually wonder if either is correct...

    ---------- Post added at 04:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:40 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Given the form of your argument and reasoning that you have offered here.
    Sorry, I have never debated except on ODN and I know my form of expression is maybe a little different than most of you are used to.

    ---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    So this is kinda typical. Basically, a person comes to you with a testimony of what God did in their personal life. A kind of relationship based event for which I know people who have been delivered, and it was a very personal event.
    .. am I to believe you over them as to what their experience was?
    The problem here is, these events generally have other valid possible explanations other than supernatural.

    ---------- Post added at 04:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I mean, given your approach there is no "miracle" that you would not boil down to natural phenomena.
    Assuming as true the plagues of egypt. Moses was just some lucky ass hole having conveniently timed hallucinations of God.
    My approach is mostly asking questions.

    I wonder about the miracles in the Bible since no other source agrees/supports them and some contradict them to be sure. I also wonder that these types of miraculous events only seem to happen in the Bible, from a long time ago when witches and magic and all sorts of wondrous things were "happening".

    ---------- Post added at 05:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:50 PM ----------

    [QUOTE=MindTrap028;561756
    So here I stand, not believing you would be moved in the event of the extremes.. why should I push the common communion with God and his servants?
    You are of course free to believe that, and I am not here trying to move you from it.
    [/QUOTE]

    You only have ancient "extremes" with no corroboration so far (and since frequency matters to you, most of them happened only once...)
    Don't worry about "moving" me. I'm interested in what you believe and why.
    If it makes sense, I will move myself. I really do appreciate your thoughts and hope you don't feel this has been a waste of your time. I take this very seriously.
    Last edited by Belthazor; October 19th, 2018 at 07:25 PM.

 

 
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Similar Threads

  1. Matthew Vines on Homosexuality and the Bible
    By Manic in forum Formal Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 10th, 2012, 01:20 AM
  2. The Undeniable Contradiction of Matthew 1
    By PerVirtuous in forum Religion
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: August 14th, 2011, 09:42 AM
  3. The Matthew Shepard Story.
    By amymariah in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: July 4th, 2009, 06:00 PM
  4. Matthew 7 and Judging
    By nanderson in forum Religion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: July 28th, 2005, 06:56 AM
  5. Matthew 7:7 - False Prophecy?
    By AntiMaterialist in forum Religion
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: April 22nd, 2004, 02:56 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •