Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Bible lied? | Matt 13:55 | Emmaus | 80077 | ||
""Brethren of the Lord" Part III Fundamentalist Arguments Fundamentalists insist that "brethren of the Lord" must be interpreted in the strict sense. They most commonly make two arguments based on Matthew 1:25: "[A]nd he did not know her until (Greek: heos, also translated into English as "till") she brought forth her firstborn son." They first argue that the natural inference from "till" is that Joseph and Mary afterward lived together as husband and wife, in the usual sense, and had several children. Otherwise, why would Jesus be called "first-born"? Doesn’t that mean there must have been at least a "second-born," perhaps a "third-born," and so on? But they are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written. In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result. Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children till the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death? There is also the burial of Moses. The book of Deuteronomy says that no one knew the location of his grave "until this present day" (Deut. 34:6, Knox). But we know that no one has known since that day either. The examples could be multiplied, but you get the idea—nothing can be proved from the use of the word "till" in Matthew 1:25. Recent translations give a better sense of the verse: "He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son" (New American Bible); "He had not known her when she bore a son" (Knox). Fundamentalists claim Jesus could not be Mary’s "first-born" unless there were other children that followed him. But this shows ignorance of the way the ancient Jews used the term. For them it meant the child that opened the womb (Ex. 13:2; Num. 3:12). Under the Mosaic Law, it was the "first-born" son that was to be sanctified (Ex. 34:20). Did this mean the parents had to wait until a second son was born before they could call their first the "first-born"? Hardly. The first male child of a marriage was termed the "first-born" even if he turned out to be the only child of the marriage." www.cathloic.com |
||||||
2 | Bible lied? | Matt 13:55 | jlpangilinan | 80083 | ||
Emmaus, Why the Bible said that "And knew her" in Mt 1:25 "Knew" Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman Ginosko (Ghin-oce'-ko) Knew -- The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon 1. to learn to know, come to know, get a knowledge of perceive, feel to become known 2. to know, understand, perceive, have knowledge of to understand to know 3. Jewish idiom for sexual intercourse between a man and a woman 4. to become acquainted with, to know It is very precise with the word "knew" in Gen 4:1 Ge 4:1 ¶ And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. When adam "knew" eve she concieve and bare cain. The explaination that you quoted about "brother and sisters" that according to you means "cousins" why still have word mentions cousins in the Bible it must be all brothers and sisters. Lu 1:36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. Lu 1:58 And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lord had shewed great mercy upon her; and they rejoiced with her. The sisters mentioned in Mr 6:3 means a full own sister. The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon (adelphe) original word "ajdelfhv" phonic spelling "ad-el-fay'" 1. a full, own sister 2. one connected by the tie of the Christian religion God bless, |
||||||