Do you believe that all scripture really "God breathed&

[polonius]

2 Timothy 3:16-17New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

16 All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.

If scripture is indeed authored by God, does God make occasional errors?

A Biblical fundamentalist will frequently try to prove what they want someone to believe by quoting (at least their interpretation) of a scripture passage, and hence not consider the fact that that scripture itself may be in error.

But don't scriptural contradictions prove that not all scripture is divinely inspired (or God-breathed)?:?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 14 by JehovahsWitness]

Luke traced the line through Davids son Nathan and evidently follows the ancestry of Mary*

This is simply not true...

Luke 3:23 Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi...

"Joseph, the son of Heli"... not "Mary, the daughter of Heli". This is not Mary's genealogy.

In constructing their genealogical tables, it is well known that the Jews reckoned wholly by males, rejecting, where the blood of the grandfather passed to the grandson through a daughter, the name of the daughter herself, and counting that daughters husband for the son of the maternal grandfather (Numb. xxvi, 33; xxvii, 4-7). - MClintock and Strongs Cyclopdia (1881, Vol. III, p. 774)





*Amplified Bible has " the son of Joseph, the son [by marriage] of Eli [Heli] "


Further Reading: Insight on the Scriptures Vol I p. 916
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001647


Why are there apparent discrepencies in the geneology of Jesus?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 76#p832376

How did Matthew count his geneological listings?
viewtopic.php?p=870155#p870155


How many generations? 41 or 42? (scroll down a little)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 29#p808429

Did Luke actually write the words Joseph "son of" Heli?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 38#p808438

[polonius]

JehovahsWitness wrote:

Luke traced the line through Davids son Nathan and evidently follows the ancestry of Mary*

Let's summarize this, and if JW has difficulty, we can review the scripture line by line.

1. Jesus is supposed to be the biological son of both David and Solomon who were kings of Israel and Jesus would thus continue the hereditary Israeli kingship line. But, if Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, this didnt happen.

2. And tribal affiliation never came from the mother.

3. It is claimed that Mary was also Davidic and thus Jesus was Davidic through her father Nathan. But Nathan was not a son of Solomon and hence not is the kingship line.

4. Moreover, Luke reports that Mary was a blood relative of Elizabeth who was a daughter of Arron, (see Luke 1) not David. Hence Mary was also a descendent of Aaron, not David.

[bluethread]

JehovahsWitness wrote:

Luke traced the line through Davids son Nathan and evidently follows the ancestry of Mary*

Let's summarize this, and if JW has difficulty, we can review the scripture line by line.

1. Jesus is supposed to be the biological son of both David and Solomon who were kings of Israel and Jesus would thus continue the hereditary Israeli kingship line. But, if Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, this didnt happen.

If JW will permit, adopted children are equal to natural born children.

2. And tribal affiliation never came from the mother.

Yoseph was of the line of David.

3. It is claimed that Mary was also Davidic and thus Jesus was Davidic through her father Nathan. But Nathan was not a son of Solomon and hence not is the kingship line.

Both lines share Zerubbabel, both were of Shlomo. Which line followed after Zerubbabel? The is debatable, but not relevant.

4. Moreover, Luke reports that Mary was a blood relative of Elizabeth who was a daughter of Arron, (see Luke 1) not David. Hence Mary was also a descendent of Aaron, not David.

Elizabeth's mother was married to a Cohen, Elizabeth's aunt, not necessarily. A Cohen must marry the daughter of a Levite(Elizabeth's mother). However, the daughter of a Levite (Elizabeth's aunt and mother of Myriam) can marry anyone from any tribe.

[Justin108]

QUESTION: What does the expression "face-to-face" mean in scripture?

The expression "face to face" ( ( " lit. "faces to faces,") is an idiomatic expression that refers to intimate two way conversation and does not necessarily mean the parties literally saw each other's faces.

Face, both in English and in Hebrew is an extremely versatile word which, while it of course can refer to the front of someone's head is very often used idiomatically for example "face of the earth", "to fall on your face", "to face an issue", "a bare faced lie"... etc). The Hebrew word for "face" (paniym) conveys the idea of being "in the presence of" and it finds itself translated in a variety of English expressions such as ...

- presence, person
- before and behind, toward, in front of,
- forward, formerly, from beforetime, before

Granted while it does not necessarily mean seeing each other's face, I have never heard this term be used to refer to indirect contact such as through a representative (or in this case, an angel). Can you give me an example (other than the Bible) where one would use the term "face to face" while referring to indirect contact with someone?

Even in English the we use the term "face-to-face" can mean in the presence or in contact with someone and one does not necessarily need to be seen or literally see the person for this.

Exactly. In contact with someone, not merely with their representative.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 24 by Justin108]

Why would you ask for examples other than the bible? Are we not seeking to understand how the author writing many thousands of years ago in Hebrew, used the word? If you want to understand how millenials use the word when texting I suggest you look to how 21st century teens use an expression, if you are looking to how a bible writer used the word I would suggest doing exactly what I have done and look to the context of its use at the time.

While as I have done, there are times when certain words retain a meaning or nuance, it would be a mistake to systematically seek an absolute parallel since sometimes the equivalent word has changed its meaning, doessn't exist and/or is used in the bible in a unique way. In this case we are speaking of interaction between an invisible God and humans so one would reasonably not expect that to translated to other common situations.

In short, while as I have tried to do, using other sources are useful, how the writer used the same or similar words in context is the mainstay of understanding bible language.


JW

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 24 by Justin108]

Why would you ask for examples other than the bible?

If you insist on using another example from the Bible then go ahead. All I want is an instance of "face to face" in which "face to face" means anything other than direct contact with rather than indirect contact with through some sort of representative. I have never heard the term "face to face" to be used to refer to indirect contact with.

While as I have done, there are times when certain words retain a meaning or nuance, it would be a mistake to systematically seek an absolute parallel since sometimes the equivalent word has changed its meaning, doessn't exist and/or is used in the bible in a unique way.

If a word was used in the Bible in a unique way, how would you know what the correct understanding of the word is?

The term "face to face" is always used to refer to direct contact. If you are suggesting that Genesis 32:30 uses it in a completely unique way, then you are appealing to special pleading.

In this case we are speaking of interaction between an invisible God and humans so one would reasonably not expect that to translated to other common situations.

You are presupposing that God is and always has been invisible. Reading Genesis without any presuppositions, it certainly suggests that God was not invisible in that instance as he wrestled with Jacob.

In short, while as I have tried to do, using other sources are useful, how the writer used the same or similar words in context is the mainstay of understanding bible language.

In the context of Genesis, without the intention of mending the contradiction it creates with John, a literal face-to-face fits. Reading Genesis and only Genesis, it is a perfectly valid interpretation that Jacob literally saw God face-to-face.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 26 by Justin108]

Well fair enough, that's your interpretation, I have presented mine with references. It's fine to agree to disagree in my opinion, it happens often in TD&D.

Have a most excellent day,

JW

[polonius]

Luke 1 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

"5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah*. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord. 7 But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years.

Note: ( Abijah - descendant of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, a chief of one of the twenty-four orders into which the priesthood was divided by David (1 Chr. 24:10). )
His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Hence not a descendent of David and Solomon.

And now, your relative 4773 [e] syngenis4773 [e] syngenis Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren.

Strong's: 4773 - a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman

Summary: Zechariah and Elizabeth (mother and father of John the Baptist) were descendants of Aaron, not David. Hence Jesus was NOT Davidic in descent.

[bluethread]

Luke 1 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

"5 In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah*. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord. 7 But they had no children, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were getting on in years.

Note: ( Abijah - descendant of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, a chief of one of the twenty-four orders into which the priesthood was divided by David (1 Chr. 24:10). )
His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Hence not a descendent of David and Solomon.

And now, your relative 4773 [e] syngenis4773 [e] syngenis Elizabeth in her old age has also conceived a son; and this is the sixth month for her who was said to be barren.

Strong's: 4773 - a relative (by blood); by extension, a fellow countryman

Summary: Zechariah and Elizabeth (mother and father of John the Baptist) were descendants of Aaron, not David. Hence Jesus was NOT Davidic in descent.

Elizabeth's aunt(Myriam's mother) was the daughter of a Cohen. Though the son of a Cohen must marry a Levite, the daughter of a Cohen may marry someone from any tribe. Myriam's mother, though the daughter of a Cohen, married a man from the tribe of Yehudah.

Summary Zechariah and Elizabeth were Yeshua's second cousins. They were not His ancestors.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 28 by polonius.advice]

Even if Elizabeth were a levite, why would that prove Jesus (Mary/Joseph) where not descendants of David?

What am I missing?

JW