Broken bones of god

[sin_is_fun]

One of the claims of Bible is that the bones of jesus werent broken.But nails were passed through his feet and wrists(or palm).

Scientifically it is impossible to drive a nail in somebodys feet and make it to come to the other side without the nail passing through the bone.When it is done so, it is impossible not to have atleast a hairline fracture.In fact a nail piercing one side of the feet bone and coming on the otherside itself is fracture.

when nail passes through bone, the bone cracks.It doesnt make an exact hole and passes through the other side.And the nail used on jesus must have been a big one, so the bigger the nail the higher the probablity of fracture.

so how was this prophecy fulfilled?

[sin_is_fun]

Sir, reread my post. Why did I post a definition of broken? Was it not to to prove that 'hairline fracture' did not satisfy all conditions of broken. Therefore I posted the first three definitions of 'broken' which by no means are satisfied by the definition of 'hairline fracture'. It was only convenient that I needn't go further than the first three definitions as the first three prove you to be wrong.

From your post itself :

Hairline Fracture: A fracture in which the fragments do not separate because the line of BREAK is so fine

This alone is sufficient. It says line of BREAK. Break means broken.It says fragments are not sepertaed but we are not concerned about seperation. we are concerned about broken. The definition of hairline fracture itself says it is broken but it is a fine break. But still a break is a break.

I was attempting to prove you wrong that one needn't satisfy all the requirements for a definition to be considered that word. Hairline fracture does not satisfy all the definitions. If we were to go off of the assumption that something needed to fulfill all the definitions then your hairline fracture would not satisfy this, therefore not being fit to be called broken.

My case is not gone, just reiterated by your misunderstanding.

To deviate from normality satisfying one deviation is enough.Again i did not say "something should satisfy all definitions" To be normal one thing has to satisfy all definitions.But to be abnormal one violation of normality is enough.Just a small crack in bones is a violation of normality.

Anyway the definition of hairline fracture itself says it is a "fine break". what is there to argue further?A fine break is also a break.

Let me ask some questions, if they be too difficult refrain from responding and go about your way.

1. Does the Scripture prophecy that no bones of Jesus will be broken?

John 19:33-36 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs...For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. Bones not broken

Psalm 34:20 He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken. Bones not broken

2. Is the definition of broken strictly limited to number five (To crack without separating into pieces)?

It includes number 5 also.Satisfying of any condition in that definition amounts to broken.

3. Can one speak of a breaking or of a broken object using definition number one (To cause to separate into pieces suddenly or violently; smash)?

Not by just definition 1 alone.Any of those definitions will do.

4. Is something considered broken if it is separated into two pieces?

Scriptures dont say "broken into two". They just say "broken".Dont change the scriptures to your convenience.

5. Is something considered broken if it is fractured?

your definition of hairline fracture itself says so. "line of break"

6. Is it scientifically proven that when a nail is entered into a foot a breaking will occur causing the bone to be split into two?

It wont be broken into two,although it is a possibility.But breaking into two is a remote possibility.we can confidentally say bones will not be broken into two.

7. Is it scientifically proven that when a nail is entered into a foot a breaking will occur causing at least a fracture?

see the bones of the feet in the following website.romans used 3/8 inch wide nails and 5 inch long nails.See whether 3/8 inch wide gap exists between leg bones.


Unless you invoke miracle or a different anatomy of leg bones nailing without hairline fracture isnt possible

http://www.archaeology.co.uk/ca/timelin ... tsaxon.htm

Further no scientific experiment on nailing the bones has been conducted for obvious reasons.Nobody will volunteer to nail their legs and hands.But unless it is proved that when legs and wrists are nailed hairline fracture doesnt occur there is a doubt on the claim that Jesus bones werent broken and thus one of the prophecies wasnt fulfilled.

[sofyst]

I am such a fool, I do not know why I did not see this earlier. Here we are debating over the definition of 'broke' within our English language, when the object of our debate was not written in English. The Psalm was in Hebrew and the passage in John was in Greek. Therefore let us consult these languages rather than spend our time bickering over how we, as English speakers use this word.

The Psalmist made a prophecy concerning the Messiah. He prophecied that no bone within His body will be broken; Psa 34:20 'He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken.' Therefore, if we are to understand what the prophecy entails, and debate therein, we must first understand what exactly the prophecy was. Including the words used. The Hebrew word used in this Psalm is שׁבר, shabar. The definition is given as:

A primitive root; to burst (literally or figuratively): - break (down, off, in pieces, up), broken ([-hearted]), bring to the birth, crush, destroy, hurt, quench, X quite, tear, view [by mistake for H7663].

Therefore given David's choice of the word here, it is obvious that he chose this because of its meaning.

Let us then look at the passage within John to see if the Greek writer thought the same of this word.

Joh 19:36 ' For these things happened so that the Scripture would be fulfilled: Not one of His bones will be broken.' The greek word used here for broken is συντρίβω, suntribo. The definition is given as:

From G4862 and the base of G5147; to crush completely, that is, to shatter (literally or figuratively): - break (in pieces), broken to shivers (+ -hearted), bruise.

We see that the choice of the Greek word to replace the Hebrew word also gives the idea that the thing is crushed completely, shattered, broken in two.

Therefore, while it is completely useless to argue about the definition of broken within our English language, as we see it is used so many different ways; It is quite beneficial to consult the language in which the text was written. And doing so testifies that David when prophesying, and John when recounting the prophecy both had the idea of his bones not being broken in the sense of not being shattered or crushed into pieces.

[sin_is_fun]

The Psalmist made a prophecy concerning the Messiah. He prophecied that no bone within His body will be broken; Psa 34:20 'He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken.' Therefore, if we are to understand what the prophecy entails, and debate therein, we must first understand what exactly the prophecy was. Including the words used. The Hebrew word used in this Psalm is שׁבר, shabar. The definition is given as:

A primitive root; to burst (literally or figuratively): - break (down, off, in pieces, up), broken ([-hearted]), bring to the birth, crush, destroy, hurt, quench, X quite, tear, view [by mistake for H7663].

Now that you have got into hebrew and greek which i dont know i stop here.But even the hebrew definition you gave here says "Hurt" and "tear" as broken.Fine, as long as bible scholars sort this out, there will be a doubt on the word "broken"

[sofyst]

Even 'tear' can be debateable. You can either 'tear' a piece of paper slightly, or you can 'tear' it into two pieces...which is being thought of here? I would opt the later, you would choose the first.

I am no avid Hebraic linguist, nor Greek. Although much better in Greek than in Hebrew. Yet if you choose to so end our discussion, sobeit.

Good discussing with you. I can tell that we can have much much more to debate on later on, given our opposing views. Until then new friend.

[sin_is_fun]

Even 'tear' can be debateable. You can either 'tear' a piece of paper slightly, or you can 'tear' it into two pieces...which is being thought of here? I would opt the later, you would choose the first.

I am no avid Hebraic linguist, nor Greek. Although much better in Greek than in Hebrew. Yet if you choose to so end our discussion, sobeit.

Good discussing with you. I can tell that we can have much much more to debate on later on, given our opposing views. Until then new friend.

I enjoyed the debate with you.See you in some other thread.Best of luck.