'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible

Yes, thanks. What justifies you in saying that 27 and 28 are talking about a different events, widely separated in time?If I say "I'm going on a beer run, give me money and I will get you some," and you give me your money; and then I say "I will be back from the store in less than half an hour," and I get back in twenty minutes, and I don't have any beer or your money, all I have is my favorite ice cream; and when you go to do me, I say "Oh no, the beer run is a separate trip, which won't be taking place for hundreds of years yet," and to that I add "If you had only studied the Bible better, you would understand what just happened to you" !!!I'm pretty sure the beatdown for this is going to be worse than the one for just picking your pocket would be, because at least that's honest work ...

Yeah? And when Chuck Norris cries, I'm the one who wipes his tears. (And I'm not doing it to be nice, no sir, not at all.)So what? This sort of dick-fighting isn't going to convince anyone but the choir. Justify your distinction between "kingdom" and "glory" in such a way as to prove that it was obvious to the hearers, and that the confusion we have about this passage is all our own mistake.Do the work, or sit down next to whatshisname who travels from thesis to conclusion without passing through the vacuum in between.

Prove it. Prove it. Prove it. Show that the kingdom and the glory have been clearly distinguished by previous teachers, so that there is no justification for the audience thinking they are one thing. Prove it. Show that it isn't a literary illusion derived from an account of a man riding along quietly on a stolen donkey during the feast of tabernacles, while people were singing hymns and working with palm fronds. Prove it. Show other uses where it refers to something like heirs, people who aren't actually in charge of anything yet, kings with no "actual kingdom". Prove it.

No problem. Keep in mind that you had your chance, though.The Greek word basileia or "kingdom" is derived from an archaic form of quasi-res or "thing by definition". In the first century AD it indicates an area marked out on the map which is ruled by a single individual using his own wealth and his own arms, not effectively contested by anyone inside the marked area, and not subject to the imperium but often allied to it. Herod the Great was a king, and under his rule Judaea was a kingdom; under Pilate it was not.You may be thinking of prior uses of the word in history, as perhaps in Mycenean times when it (a cognate) appears to have referred to the lesser authority of a chieftain, or that in Classical times in the democracies, where it referred to the office of the priesthood and primarily consisted of giving one's wife to Dionysus.But all these alternative uses came to an end with the advent of Alexander the Great, who took the word and made it his own, with his own wealth and by the force of his own hands. This, as you know, was well before the alleged translation of the legendary Septuagint. The texts pseudoepigraphically attributed to Archytas advance this de facto definition into the doctrine that the king rules by his own self-derived authority, with or without the will of the people, as a sort of "living law". His kingdom is the territory where he makes the laws, enforces them, and serves as final court of appeal; this is the usage which prevails universally until the 4th century AD.In the Old Testament we find this usage fully supported, Abraham has much authority, and many followers, and a sackful of promises, but he is not a king because he has no kingdom. Melchizedek, on the other hand, is, though all the territory he holds is a small part of Old Jerusalem. He holds it, on his own authority, with his own thumbless hands. Likewise David has followers and promises and derived authority of many kinds through most of Samuel; but he doesn't have a kingdom until he carves himself one on the map.So, think anyone still believes your degrees are worth a crap?Edited by Iblis, : have you worn the Pallid Mask?

And the ones that I have (3 Erasmus. 3 Stephanus, 8 Beza, 2 Elzever, 26 Nestle-Aland, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) all have basileia. But I don't care, you can change your claims from post to post and skip about however you like, you are staying on this hook. Here is the same discussion I just gave, only associated with the word basileus instead, from the viewpoint of the king holding the territory rather than the territory held by the king.Basileus - WikipediaThe interpretation that you are perverting appears first in the 4th century AD, in Byzantium, after the Empire had been Christianized by Constantine and one could point at territory on the map that was theoretically held by the alleged king. Interestingly, it appears in a particularly significant form, on coins for example, as "King of Glory".The particular perversion of the title that you are advocating doesn't appear until the 19th century under the Wesleys, as an outgrowth of the Arminian heresy, a semantic quibble with Calvinism. And it's plainly false, as there is in fact a Greek word for kingship or royal power, as distinguished from who holds which territory, which is hegemoneia or "reign"; as for example in Most occurrences of the word "reign" in the New Testament, however, are actually forms of basileou, and refer undeniably to holding territory by force; as for example

Think that convinces anyone? I covered the "longer history" already, it doesn't apply to the period between Alexander and Constantine. If it did, I would be busy proving Jesus never sentenced anyone to death, fought at Troy, or married off his wife to the God of Wine.You can't cherry-pick whatever you want out of 35 centuries of history and claim Jesus's audience understood it that way. You have to take the world as it comes. Judaea was a kingdom under Herod, under Pilate it wasn't.

Which leaves the fundamentalist / literalist with little choice except to falsify the meaning of words, or else allow, as Larni did, that no one has proved all those people in the audience then are dead yet.This is the approach taken by Boiardo, who populates the earthly paradise visited by the character Astolpho (Adolf) with an Apostle, a Patriarch, and a Prophet, miraculously kept alive to keep everything true by fiat. This approach isn't very biblical though, is it?John the elder deals with this whole issue by insisting that the other evangelists have left out a question mark But I suppose that must have been some different near-identical misunderstanding of some other barely-distinguishable statement. *yawns*Since it is the Matthew version we are spanking ourselves about, I'm going to go with "irony". If you want to be hyper-literal, you can say that the basileia or marked area means a palace. In which case, he was taken into the palace, and received his crown and glory, and was recognized by the authorities as King of the Jews just a short time later, yes.Edited by Iblis, : a purple robe

This process of assuming the conclusion and then working backwards to organize the data is known as apologetics. It is remarkably effective.Example: "Invisible pink unicorns saved my ass."The unbeliever will tell you that this is obviously false. A unicorn cannot be both invisible and also pink. But do not be deceived.Once you accept the truth of the invisible pink unicorns, the answer becomes obvious. Pink, as we know, is actually a pale shade of red. Now, there is a kind of red which is not visible at all, every scientist knows about it, though they are in denial as to its significance. It is called infra-red.This is a very pale shade of red, indeed. Embrace the unicorns! Edited by Iblis, : Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? -- Job 39:9