Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Reformer Joe | 52819 | ||
I am not the Hebrew scholar, so I will leave items 1-3 to someone else more qualified. 4. It is pretty obvious that David was not writing about literal dogs, but that the term is a description for his pursuers. Go tell your friends what a metaphor is. 5. Irrelevant to it being prophetic. Psalms are POETRY, and poetry employs figures of speech, metaphor, and other literary techniques. Saying that "you lay me in the dust of death" does not necessarily mean that he was laid in literal dust. Did your opponents in this debate ever take high-school English. Knowing our educational system as an insider, I am afraid that they just may have... 6. Not necessary for it to be a prophecy. Many prophetic Psalms, including some Messianic ones, describe a current situtaion (in this case, that of David) as well as have a future implication as well. Again, this is a poetic prophecy, not a play-by-play to the last detail of all that is going to happen on the day it predicts. 7. I hope someone else wrote this sentence, because the sentence itself makes no sense. Bitten by metaphors? Okay... 8. Jesus' own people rejected him (John 1:11; John 18:38-40; Acts 2:36) 9. What do they mean that prophecies are "taken out of context"? How is Matthew 22:14-15 a prophecy at all? 10. Jesus was raised from the dead, glorified. Death did not hold Him. Just as Psalm 2 says, God did not let his Holy One see decay. 11. Your pals need to go back and read the Garden of Gethsemane passages more carefully. And they need a lesson in the distinction between persons of the Trinity. Jesus was not talking to Himself there. 12. Yep, they made sure that he fulfilled all those prophecies, in spite of people still living who could easily refute their claims, and they would be imprisoned, endure torture, even die to defend what they knew to be a lie. Makes perfect sense. 13. Tell your friends, "So what?" It makes no difference. If I gave you twenty dollars and my mother 50 dollars, would you be wrong if you wrote, "Joe gave me twenty dollars"? In other words, what they are trying to do is argue from silence. 14. Such as? 15. The Hebrew Masoretic text is actually from the 9th century. While most extant Hebrew texts do have the different wording, it is hard to conclude what was actually there in the autographs. Some Hebrew texts have "pierced" just like our Bible does, and the Septuagint has the hands and feet "pierced" as well. In any case, we cannot be certain that the Masoretic text is the correct rendering in this case. 17. Well, if John puts himself there, then John seems to know, doesn't he? Your fellow debaters are really amateurs who do not know how to read literature very well at all, much less the Bible. If they are looking for reasons to rebel against God, they will always find them, no matter how feeble they may be. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52878 | ||
Part four: She said they said: 14. There is some proof that feet were never nailed, but the legs were tied to a buttress apparatus He said: 14. Such as? She said: According to one of my “pals”, this contraption can be found on the web, a picture of Jesus as he might have been crucified. I haven’t seen it yet. But who knows? There is a common belief that Jesus carried his cross. But a lot of scholars discount that, and say that what was actually carried was the crossbeam. The poles were usually in place, and once the condemned reached the site, the crossbeam was attached. Just the crossbeam was estimated to have weighed about 100 pounds, so that would make sense. But, any proof, for sure? No. Personally I don’t see how anyone could carry a 100 pounds very far, much less the whole enchilada. She said they said: 15. Normally, it took forever to die from crucifixion; Jesus died really fast. He said: 15. The Hebrew Masoretic text is actually from the 9th century. While most extant Hebrew texts do have the different wording, it is hard to conclude what was actually there in the autographs. Some Hebrew texts have "pierced" just like our Bible does, and the Septuagint has the hands and feet "pierced" as well. In any case, we cannot be certain that the Masoretic text is the correct rendering in this case. She said: I guess you’re referring to question 16? The response sure doesn’t seem to correspond to 15. She said they said: 16. If the Hebrew Masoretic translation is accurate, why do other translations deviate? He said: 15. The Hebrew Masoretic text is actually from the 9th century. While most extant Hebrew texts do have the different wording, it is hard to conclude what was actually there in the autographs. Some Hebrew texts have "pierced" just like our Bible does, and the Septuagint has the hands and feet "pierced" as well. In any case, we cannot be certain that the Masoretic text is the correct rendering in this case. She said: This answer is greatly appreciated. It is informative, not argumentative. Great! She said they said: 17. Who was at the cross as witnesses? No one seems to know. Only John puts anyone close to the scene He said: 17. Well, if John puts himself there, then John seems to know, doesn't he? She said: Apparently. But the operative word is “seems”. In his prior writings, before the Book of John, he didn’t seem to know much at all. The closer he was to the lifetime of Jesus, the less he seemed to know. But that’s been covered. Let’s grant that John was at the foot of the cross, along with Mary, the mother of Jesus, so close that he and Jesus conversed. Why is this granted? The answer is because John says so. Instant question would be why on earth didn’t the other writers mention this? Instead they either said all had fled and were in hiding, or some of the women were standing a far distance from the cross. Mary is NOT at the cross, according to Mark, Matthew and Luke. And please don’t engage in the weak argument that just because one writer didn’t mention it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That wears extremely thin in its simplicity. John also puts himself at the tomb. And John also has more words from Jesus, spoken in more form and manner, than any of the writers. Did Jesus say all that John attributed to Him; after 60 years or more? So, how does anyone know that what John says is true? “And we all know that my account of these things is accurate.” We do? Part four |
||||||
3 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Reformer Joe | 52903 | ||
I didn't realize that this was going to be an actual dialogue spanning two forums. The fact that your friend finds the silence deafening does not change the fact that the argument remains one from silence. Each of the four gospels were separate accounts. Some things are not presented in the same chronological order (nor do they claim to be in chronological order in most cases). One writer includes details that others leave out. The story of Lazarus is found only in John. The parable of the Good Samaritan is found only in Luke. Mark and John do not record the birth of Jesus. The fact that the four canonical gospel accounts are not carbon copies of each other does not make them erroneous. There is a reason God inspired four accounts instead of just one. Together they provide the most complete picture of Jesus of Nazareth. I respectfully suggest that your correspondent is basing a lot of assumptions on some very outdated data regarding when the New Testament was actually written. Such discussion is far beyond the scope of this particular forum (feel free to email me), but an excellent place to examine the historical Jesus (not the Jesus Seminar "vote-by-beads" version) would be to look at the work of William Lane Craig at his Web site. If she is truly searching for the truth, then this would be a great place to examine some: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/index.html Hope this helps, and apologize to her for my poor grammar! However, the term "high-school," when used as an adjective, is perfectly acceptable with a hyphen separating the two words. :) --Joe! |
||||||