Members Jon Gnash Posted June 11, 2009 Members Posted June 11, 2009 The Psalms were written by different people- the superscription over different Psalms say this. As in "A Psalm of David" or "A Psalm of Moses."There is only a one word difference between Psalm 14:1-2 and Psalm 53:1-2. It's the same source. Someone made a conscious decision to change it. What was their motive?
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 It is an obscure passage. My interpretation would be that they are trying to give the event a cosmic significance by using clearly apocalyptic imagery and not realistic imagery.Why is it an obscure passage? It
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 YHWH is the 3rd person masculine of the Hebrew verb "to be" and appears all over the OT but was frequently replaced with ElWhat about Psalm 29:1 Acknowledge Yahweh, you sons of El
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 ... was frequently replaced with ElEl was the most high god of the Canaanite pantheon. Why would they replace Yahweh with El?
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 Scripture cannot be taken literally and good folk who ignorantly dismiss Christianity as ridiculous are in many cases doing so because of a literal interpretation. The Bible is written in parables which are fictitious stories with an underlaying metaphorical message.If it can
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 YHWH ... was frequently replaced with El Where? Not in Exodus 3. Show us where YHWH was replaced with El.
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 Why are you discussing this here on a musician's board?Why are you discussing this here on a musician's board?
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 Passages that were parables are clearly identified as such and are obviously metaphorical. The Bible itself tells us that parts are not to be taken literally (i.e. the story of the prodigal son or the parable of the good Samaritan).But what about the zombies in Matthew 27:52-53? Or how about the earthquake? How are these elements any less (or any more) metaphorical than the rest of the crucifixion scene?
Members AL Guitar Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 Matthew seems to have witnessed those things first hand and reports them as historical fact. I'm not sure I understand the question.
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 Jon, you are in the wrong place to be asking these questions, which by the way are quite elementary.In case it isn
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 Matthew seems to have witnessed those things first hand and reports them as historical fact.I agree. Matthew 'seems' to have witnessed the zombies and the earthquake first hand and reports them as historical fact. But be honest; doesn
Members AL Guitar Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 I agree. Matthew seems to have witnessed the zombies and the earthquake first hand and reports them as historical fact. But be honest; doesn
Members rasputin1963 Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 Jesus liked to drink booze, party and dance all night, had the town hooker for a girlfriend, and liked to sleep in the woods with twelve working-class guys, whom he instructed to drink him.
Members pink floyd cramer Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 God wants to know when I'm going to close this thread. I haven't gotten back to Him yet. I don't think God, or god, or (for that matter) GAWD his/her self would care when you close this thread, because none of this BS has any relevance whatsoever. IMO the only issues of any relevance are (as you touched upon) "be excellent to one another" and "what are you doing for those in your immediate life?". The rest IMO is just sad and empty re-hashing of meaningless semantics.
Members AL Guitar Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 It all makes perfect sense if Matthew
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 However, it was clearly written to be an historical document, hence the genealogies and specific figures given throughout. How does the genealogy in Luke 3 support the view that it was written as a historical document?It says Jesus was a descendant of Noah and Adam. But Noah and Adam are fictitious characters from Jewish folklore.
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 If Matthew's audience knew he was writing fiction his writings would most likely have never gained any degree of popularity or traction due to the ease of discrediting them.Why? Your argument is based on the sole premise that Jesus existed. Right? And without that your argument crumbles. Right? Everyone knows that Spiderman is fiction, yet it has enjoyed success. There is nothing about fiction being untrue that inhibits its success. Right?
Members AL Guitar Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 How does the genealogy in Luke 3 support the view that it was written as a historical document? It says Jesus was a descendant of Noah and Adam. But Noah and Adam are fictitious characters from Jewish folklore. Not necessarily. I certainly don't believe anything of the sort. The burden of proof would be on someone attempting to disprove the Biblical account.
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 If Matthew's audience knew he was writing fiction his writings would most likely have never gained any degree of popularity or traction due to the ease of discrediting them.If everyone knew Matthew was writing fiction then what motive would they have to discredit him?
Members AL Guitar Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 Why?Your argument is based on the sole premise that Jesus existed.Right?And without that your argument crumbles.Right?Everyone knows that Spiderman is fiction, yet it has enjoyed success. There is nothing about fiction being untrue that inhibits its success.Right? The Biblical authors certainly don't claim to be writing fiction. They all claim to have witnessed these things. Stan Lee makes no such claims.
Members AL Guitar Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 If everyone knew Matthew was writing fiction then what motive would they have to discredit him? Arguments from silence are hardly ever worth even considering and since I disagree with your premise I'm not about to begin to go down that road.
Members Jon Gnash Posted June 12, 2009 Members Posted June 12, 2009 The burden of proof would be on someone attempting to disprove the Biblical account.Fine. The zombies are unique to Matthew. The zombies are contradicted by the accounts in Mark, Luke, and John.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.