Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2018 4:42 AM
250 online now:
frako, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 246 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,369 Year: 5,192/29,783 Month: 1,124/1,467 Week: 10/311 Day: 10/51 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   Did the sky really go dark as biblical inerrantists insist?
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 507 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 91 of 113 (387204)
02-27-2007 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Coragyps
02-16-2007 10:11 AM


Re: Land or World?
LinearAq writes:

What translation of the Bible are you using?

Coragyps writes:

Far more to the point, what does it say in the earliest Greek that we have? And is that even directly comparable to the Hebrew that's in the OT?

In a nutshell sir:

The Greek (ghee) is used pretty much the same as the Hebrew (erets); and neither was traditionally employed in what we imagine to be a 'global' sense. The Septuagint, (Greek language Bible) was produced by devout Jews not long after the heathen Greeks had proposed their godless theory regarding the spherical shape of things under heaven. Nowhere in the Hebrew text is there revealed a concept such as this: that land and sea are part and parcel of a greater whole called "Earth."

Genesis is very clear regarding the definition of "Earth," and Seas are not included.

(The opinion of Aristotle notwithstanding)

Some Background:

But the opinions of Aristotle were mighty important to the Church of Rome. Thus, when the Greek text was brought into Latin, an Aristotelian imagination colored the interpretation of it.

A much worse situation arose when the scripture was brought into English. Now, a single word of the original language, designed to depict the original theory, becomes several words in the target language. Where the translator didn't mind revealing the original scope, he could say "land." And where the scope was somewhat larger he could say "earth," and in so doing, call to mind the Aristotelian model of the universe. Even so, the full extent of earth's parameters remained a mystery; such that Columus discovered a "New World" where he expected to encounter India.

But even as the hugeness of the earth/sea/ball began to be appreciated, no one yet imagined that the ball might be rotating, much less orbiting the sun. (No one but the Muslim scholars who preserved volumes from the library at Alexandria).

At any rate: No Old Testament author espoused the notion of an Aristotelian 'earth' and it seems highly unlikely that Jesus' and his disciples would be promoting that hellenistic heresy.

Summary:

There is no reason to assume that the biblical word "earth" means planet earth. It is, in fact, for the most part, a simple reference to real estate: a piece of dry land. (Gen 1:10) The extent of that land must be determined from the context.

Edited by doctrbill, : To Tweak the Summary


Theology is the science of Dominion.
- - - My God is your god's Boss - - -
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Coragyps, posted 02-16-2007 10:11 AM Coragyps has not yet responded

  
ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 3980 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 92 of 113 (387344)
02-28-2007 6:28 AM


Note 108 of netbible's rendering of Luke 23 is informative.
  
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 93 of 113 (395268)
04-15-2007 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by nator
08-11-2006 7:03 AM


isolated event
i believe that this was an isolated event that it only occured in the area Chrsit was crucified.

when they also say that an earthquake happened does that mean the entire earth shook? no, just that place.

the sun was darkened yeah, when clouds come over the sun it gets dark then too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nator, posted 08-11-2006 7:03 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 04-15-2007 10:25 PM Juraikken has responded

    
nator
Member
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 94 of 113 (395290)
04-15-2007 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Juraikken
04-15-2007 9:04 PM


Re: isolated event
quote:
when they also say that an earthquake happened does that mean the entire earth shook? no, just that place.

The thing is, earthquakes are quite isolated events, but the darkening of the sun would be noticeable by entire continents. And this particular one happened in the populated middle of the Roman Empire. There's no record of that eathquake, even though the Romans were meticulous record-keepers.

quote:
the sun was darkened yeah, when clouds come over the sun it gets dark then too.

It doesn't get dark when clouds come over the sun.

It gets overcast.

I mean, Christ had just died. There were earthquakes! The temple curtain ripped! And then...it became cloudy...

Just doesn't sound like it fits, does it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Juraikken, posted 04-15-2007 9:04 PM Juraikken has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Juraikken, posted 04-15-2007 10:42 PM nator has responded

    
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 95 of 113 (395297)
04-15-2007 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by nator
04-15-2007 10:25 PM


Re: isolated event
i know that the romans were good record-keepers, but think about it, why was evidence for Jesus so scarce? do you think they were ashamed of the whole act that they limited the information? i see corruption ALL across the globe today, you believe it not then too?

getting DARK and an OVERCAST could mean the same thing, it also depends on the writers education on writing, or even the language it was written in. who are you getting these verses from? one of the gospels right? well, who were the gospels? some great educator from a great school? no regular ppl maybe some who werent even educated. ME who goes to college didnt even know to use overcasted as the sun went dark lol


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by nator, posted 04-15-2007 10:25 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by nator, posted 04-16-2007 7:55 AM Juraikken has responded

    
nator
Member
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 96 of 113 (395380)
04-16-2007 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Juraikken
04-15-2007 10:42 PM


Re: isolated event
quote:
i know that the romans were good record-keepers, but think about it, why was evidence for Jesus so scarce? do you think they were ashamed of the whole act that they limited the information?

No, not at all. They crucified people every day.

quote:
getting DARK and an OVERCAST could mean the same thing,

Yes, they could. But again, does "getting overcast" fit in with the other events of an earthquake and the temple curtain getting torn? Are they of the same scale and magnitude?

Remember, there there were also supposed to be a bunch of people rising from the dead and walking around and talking to people.

I think, when one looks at the other fantastic events that were supposed to have happened, the writers meant something more remarkable that "it became overcast".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Juraikken, posted 04-15-2007 10:42 PM Juraikken has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 12:58 PM nator has responded

    
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 97 of 113 (395417)
04-16-2007 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by nator
04-16-2007 7:55 AM


Re: isolated event
nator writes:

No, not at all. They crucified people every day.

yes but thats when they found cause in the people, they didnt find cause in Jesus, maybe they were ashamed of that

nator writes:

Yes, they could. But again, does "getting overcast" fit in with the other events of an earthquake and the temple curtain getting torn? Are they of the same scale and magnitude?

you cant rephrase an earthquake.....the ground was shaking? that still means an earthquake happened. and the curtain getting torn you cant rephrase that either! it got torn.

nator writes:

I think, when one looks at the other fantastic events that were supposed to have happened, the writers meant something more remarkable that "it became overcast".

and you are also not putting into consideration that maybe just maybe those other writers were different than that one? that they write differently but means the same thing?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by nator, posted 04-16-2007 7:55 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by nator, posted 04-16-2007 6:23 PM Juraikken has responded

    
nator
Member
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 98 of 113 (395479)
04-16-2007 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Juraikken
04-16-2007 12:58 PM


Re: isolated event
Look, you can massage your interpretation all you want.

If you want to interpret "darkness over all the land" as "a low pressure front moved in", be my guest. If you want to imagine that the Romans felt shame for crucifying Jesus, even though there's no indication in the bible that they did (or independent sources that Jesus even existed) then go for it.

But then you have no basis for saying the Bible is an accurate account of anything that happened. We can add imagined motives or discount certain events all we want throughout the entire text; if we can do that here, why not everywhere else?

I'd love to hear your explanation of why all the resurrected dead people roaming the streets were not remarked upon by the Romans, though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 12:58 PM Juraikken has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 7:00 PM nator has responded

    
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 99 of 113 (395487)
04-16-2007 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by nator
04-16-2007 6:23 PM


Re: isolated event
nator writes:

Look, you can massage your interpretation all you want.

thats an overstatement

nator writes:

If you want to interpret "darkness over all the land" as "a low pressure front moved in", be my guest.

you assume that writers back then could understand that? putting into consideration the education of that writer passes right over you?

nator writes:

If you want to imagine that the Romans felt shame for crucifying Jesus, even though there's no indication in the bible that they did (or independent sources that Jesus even existed) then go for it.

i admit there was no proof of that, at least to MY knowledge i havent LOOKED for the answers. but i DO admit that there is no proof of that, that is the reason why i said "maybe". but then again a lot of the miracles Jesus did wasnt in Rome, it was out of Rome, so what are the romans to document? and when the pharisees went over to Rome to whine about Jesus they didnt tell them hes bringing peopel alive!!! all they said was "this man is accusing our belief saying he is the messiah" etc.

even the pharisees wish to ignore what miracles Jesus did! you think if they ignored it it would reach Rome's ears happily? no, even when Jesus wasnt even close to Rome when he did miracles.

nator writes:

I'd love to hear your explanation of why all the resurrected dead people roaming the streets were not remarked upon by the Romans, though.

ah well you cant because i dont know much about that, may you please be kind to point out the verse where it says such things? (minus the sarcasm)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by nator, posted 04-16-2007 6:23 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 04-16-2007 7:16 PM Juraikken has responded

    
nator
Member
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 100 of 113 (395488)
04-16-2007 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Juraikken
04-16-2007 7:00 PM


Re: isolated event
Look, you can massage your interpretation all you want.

quote:
thats an overstatement

No, it really isn't. All you've provided is apologetics.

We can add imagined motives or discount certain events all we want throughout the entire text of the Bible; if we can do that here, why not everywhere else?

quote:
but then again a lot of the miracles Jesus did wasnt in Rome, it was out of Rome, so what are the romans to document?

Um, Israel was part of the Roman Empire at the time. That's why the Romans were there.

All of Jesus' miracles, if he did them, happened in the Roman Empire, and Romans were in charge of the government.

Pontious Pilate isn't a very Hebrew-sounding name, is it?

quote:
may you please be kind to point out the verse where it says such things?

Matthew 27:52-53

Edited by nator, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 7:00 PM Juraikken has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 8:05 PM nator has responded

    
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 101 of 113 (395510)
04-16-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by nator
04-16-2007 7:16 PM


I see....
nator writes:

No, it really isn't. All you've provided is apologetics.

We can add imagined motives or discount certain events all we want throughout the entire text of the Bible; if we can do that here, why not everywhere else?

we do that, but you have to research those authors too! then we can build an understanding of what REALLY happened

nator writes:

Um, Israel was part of the Roman Empire at the time. That's why the Romans were there.

All of Jesus' miracles, if he did them, happened in the Roman Empire, and Romans were in charge of the government.

Pontious Pilate isn't a very Hebrew-sounding name, is it?

my bad =D

nator writes:

Matthew 27:52-53

appeared unto MANY, meaning not everyone saw them...so tell me, if you see a ghost today or a dead person walking, and you went up to the police to say "i saw my grandpa get out of his grave and walk to me!" you think they are going to believe you?

the romans could have marked this as hysteria people were acting out insanities, and/or were grieving over Jesus' death and saw things due to their depression.....they could say THAT and never even record it, cuz i mean its like recording a bee pollinating a flower LOL its rediculous to record


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by nator, posted 04-16-2007 7:16 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 04-17-2007 8:42 AM Juraikken has not yet responded

    
nator
Member
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 113 (395638)
04-17-2007 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Juraikken
04-16-2007 8:05 PM


Re: I see....
quote:
appeared unto MANY, meaning not everyone saw them...so tell me, if you see a ghost today or a dead person walking, and you went up to the police to say "i saw my grandpa get out of his grave and walk to me!" you think they are going to believe you?

the romans could have marked this as hysteria people were acting out insanities, and/or were grieving over Jesus' death and saw things due to their depression.....they could say THAT and never even record it, cuz i mean its like recording a bee pollinating a flower LOL its rediculous to record


See, this stuff that you wrote above is you massaging the text to mean whatever you need it to mean to counter any argument.

Coulda, mighta...you are rendering the plain text of the Bible as more and more meaningless with your heavy interpretation.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Juraikken, posted 04-16-2007 8:05 PM Juraikken has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by anastasia, posted 04-17-2007 10:08 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 104 by purpledawn, posted 04-17-2007 12:50 PM nator has not yet responded

    
anastasia
Member (Idle past 3695 days)
Posts: 1857
From: Bucks County, PA
Joined: 11-05-2006


Message 103 of 113 (395653)
04-17-2007 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by nator
04-17-2007 8:42 AM


Re: I see....
nator writes:

See, this stuff that you wrote above is you massaging the text to mean whatever you need it to mean to counter any argument.

Coulda, mighta...you are rendering the plain text of the Bible as more and more meaningless with your heavy interpretation.

nator, the plain text does say 'appeared to many'. It does not even in its most plain state say 'dead people were walking around'.

The saints entered the Holy City. What does that mean? How can you read a sentence involving 'saints' in a plain way?

They appeared to many. How can you read something involving apparitions in a plain way?

There are apologetics, and there are 'simply trying to make sense of a text' interpretations.

There is every reason in the plain text to say that these saints arose bodily. The fact that they only showed themselves (Greek word also means 'appeared' or 'manifested') to MANY does seem to indicate that there was not a whole swarn of zombies walking from the graves. So what ARE the other options? For a person to speculate or try to imagine some possibilities, since Matthew is clearly not elaborating, does not necessarily make them an apologeticist.

Some people study the Bible for meaning, for plausibility, etc. These things begin after the plain text reading leaves off. The problem with some interpretations is that they try too hard, and in turn lose sight of the plain text altogether. No one is recorded as 'seeing grandpa walk out of his grave'. Extremely ad libbed and exaggerated excuses are not IMO the same as apologetics! The more a person has to add to a story to make it believeable, the worse it goes for them.

Now as far as the apparitions of the dead...I can give you many, many such examples of recorded events from history. I doubt that you will find a recorded incident from the 1890's any more convincing than these generalized, related by hear-say versions in Matthew. I can tell you that there was no big stir up of nations over them, that there was no reporting done to any authorities and there was in many cases no great panic in the 'visionary' that persisted long after the event.

I am not saying 'I believe' this or that. Only that in the RCC at least, the apparitions of the dead in Matthew are not an isolated event, and subsequent reported apparitions of the same nature were also relatively unnoticed. The fact of them having been recorded does not make them believable. So, is there anything in the text that clearly shows that Romans woulda or coulda recorded this? Do we actually have anything from this exact period of time that the Romans were recording and failed to mention these things within?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 04-17-2007 8:42 AM nator has not yet responded

    
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1199 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 104 of 113 (395698)
04-17-2007 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by nator
04-17-2007 8:42 AM


Saints Came to Life
The author of Mark didn't include the drama of the earth shaking, darkness or saints.

Mark 15:37-39
And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.
And the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.
When the centurion, who was standing right in front of Him, saw the way He breathed His last, he said, "Truly this man was the Son of God!"

The author of Matthew embellished on Mark. The saints or holy people who had died, didn't come back as zombies or ghosts. They were raised as in brought back to life supposedly. It is the same word used in Mark when Jesus said: "But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee." (14:28)

Satire

Matthew 27:50-54
And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split. The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Now the centurion, and those who were with him keeping guard over Jesus, when they saw the earthquake and the things that were happening, became very frightened and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"

The authors of Matthew and Luke also alluded to the dead being brought back to life even earlier in the book with Jesus saying: ...the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM. (Matthew 11:5 & Luke 7:22)

Investigator

Luke 23:44-47
It was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, because the sun was obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two.

And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, "Father, INTO YOUR HANDS I COMMIT MY SPIRIT." Having said this, He breathed His last.

Now when the centurion saw what had happened, he began praising God, saying, "Certainly this man was innocent."

All three books have the portion where Jesus answers the question of marriage after the resurrection, which deals with the dead beinging brought back to life. (Mark 12:18-27; Matthew 22:23-33; Luke 20:27-38)

The author of Luke, who supposedly investigated what had been said or written, left out the part about the shaking earth and the dead rising. Odds are they didn't happen.

Why the author of Luke decided to add the darkness is hard to say. It may have been a literary device denoting God's displeasure or had become part of the story to show God's displeasure and he couldn't disprove it.

Darkness doesn't have to be pitch black and cloud cover doesn't have to denote a storm front. Big fluffy clouds can obscure the sun.

That's where you're left with the plain text, IMO.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 04-17-2007 8:42 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Juraikken, posted 04-19-2007 6:27 AM purpledawn has responded

  
Juraikken
Member (Idle past 3930 days)
Posts: 82
From: Winnetka, CA
Joined: 11-13-2006


Message 105 of 113 (396208)
04-19-2007 6:27 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by purpledawn
04-17-2007 12:50 PM


Re: Saints Came to Life
ive noticed that both Mark and Luke dont have the earth shaking involved in their text. BUT they both have that centaurion talkin in their texts instead, maybe they didnt write the earth shaking becuase they wished to involve the centaurion in its place?

i also notice that John doesnt mention NEITHER action, nor do ANY of the other books mention the piercing of Jesus' flesh, which proved prophesy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by purpledawn, posted 04-17-2007 12:50 PM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by purpledawn, posted 04-19-2007 7:36 AM Juraikken has not yet responded

    
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018