Christians: Does this embarrass you?

[Avoice]

Christians: Do you ever feel like you have been left 'holding the bag' having to defend the Christian Testament? Forced to come up with all sorts of torturous explanations to defend the writings of your religion? Respond to the following:
EXAMPLE:

BELOW IS QUOTE FROM GALATIONS AND THE PASSAGE IN GENESIS THAT GALATIANS REFERS TO.

"But the promises were spoken to Abraham and his seed. He does not say, And unto seeds, as of many; but as of one; And thy seed, which is Christ."

"Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father. And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed"

THE CLAIM: Galatians claims that it says seed not seeds. Therefore it means one seed meaning Jesus.
THE PROBLEM: In Hebrew, the word seed is written the same in the singular and the plural: ZERA. The same way the word sheep in English is the same for singular and plural.

THE QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS: How do you defend Galations that claims if it meant more than one seed it would have said it. As if the word ZERA would say ZERAS if it meant plural. NO IT WOULDNT.
How does it feel having to conjuring up some explanation to save the ignorant writer of Galatians who didn't know that the word seed in Hebrew is the same in singular and in the plural

CHRISTIANS: YOU HAVE BEEN DECEIVED. ARE YOU ANGRY WITH ME FOR SHOWING YOU OR ANGRY THAT THE WRITER OF GALATIANS USED DECEPTION TO MAKE YOU BELIEVE?

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #57]

The argument is out of context. Paul is not arguing about the seed of Abraham being singular or plural, but about the seed of Abraham being the only one on earth by which Christ comes. Seeds is used for more than one man, as if Christ could also come by the seed of another man than Abraham.

Paul may be talking about Jesus, but Genesis isn't.

Gal 3 is talking about Christ by naming Him. Genesis 21 doesn't name Christ, but that does not have to mean, that Christ is not being talked about.

We must allow the Author to supplement His own text later, if He wishes. Which He does with Paul in Gal 3. "And to thy seed, which is Christ."

There is no necessary contradiction between Gen 21 and Gal 3, since the Hebrew for seed could be singular or plural, and Gal 3 says it is singular, not plural. Whether anyone agrees with the supplemental clarification has nothing to do with any contradicition.

And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir. And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
(Genesis 15:2-5)

Paul states that the promises were made "to Abraham and his seed (Galatians 3:16) but then claims that Jehovah did not say "seeds" meaning many. In Genesis, however, "seed" obviously refers to many. Abraham is lamenting that he has no biological heir and that his heirs will have to be born to his steward. Jehovah promises him that he will have biological descendents and that they will be innumerable.

The argument is erroneous, because Gal 3 is quoting and talking about Gen 21, not Gen 15. Therefore, the argument about seed vs seeds must be kept between Gal 3 and Gen 21.

There would be a contradiction between Gal 3 and Gen 15, if Gal 3 were trying to quote and talk about Gen 15. The first error would be a misquote, since it is not in Gen 15. The second error would be saying the seed is only one, and not innumerable as in Gen 15.

Gen 15 is only speaking of the biological offspring of Abraham, which would be both Ishmael and Isaac. Gen 21 is only speaking of the one promised seed of Abraham, which would be by his son Isaac, not by his son Ishmael. Gal 3 is not addressing the innumerable biological seed by Ishmael and Isaac, but rather the one promised seed by Isaac, which is Christ Jesus, the Son of God by the Spirit and the son of Abraham after the flesh.

That is what the Genesis passage is saying. It's a promise to Abraham that he will have many descendents and that they will have a land to live in. The passage isn't messianic; that's why it doesn't mention the Messiah.

Only true for Gen 15, not for Gen 21.

It's Paul's argument which is out of context.

No, it's your argument that makes Gal 3 both misquoting and out of context, by misapllying Gal 3 to Gen 15, rather than properly to Gen 21. We know the context of Gal 3 is Gen 21, not Gen 15 for two simple reasons: Gal 3 quotes words from Gen 21, not from Gen 15. And the context of Gal 3 is same as Gen 21, not Gen 15.

The context of Gen 15 is the number of Abraham's biological offspring. The context of Gen 21 and Gal 3 is the contest of inheritance between Abraham's only two sons, Isaac and Ishmael.

Gen 21:10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.

In Gen 15, Abraham is lamenting about not yet having any biological offspring. In Gen 21, Abraham is lamenting about having two sons for heir. The promised blessing in Gen 15 to have biological offspring, becomes an unfortunate battle of having two sons for heir in Gen 21.

Gen 21:9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.

While Ishmael would also be blessed in number as biological offspring of Abraham, only in Isaac is the inheritance of the promised seed. Gal 3 rebukes anyone claiming the promised seed is by both Isaac and Ishmael. The number of offspring is by both, but the promise is only by one, Isaac.

Gal 4:23But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise...Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.


Both Gal 3 and 4 quote from Gen 21 in context, not from Gen 15, which is a different context altogether from both Gen 21 and Gal 3-4.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #58]

Gal 3 isn't addressing Gen 3, but rather Gen 21.

Where is the Jewish Messiah mentioned in Genesis 21?

Where is the Jewish Messiah ever mentioned in the Hebrew Tanakh? For the purpose of refuting any challenge between Genesis and Galatians, it doesn't matter.

The challenge made in this case is between seed and seeds, not whether that seed is Christ. Whether anyone agrees is irrelavant to proving a contradiction.

The accusation itself between seed and seeds is also readily shown false. First, that Gal 3 somehow contradicts Gen 21, by concluding one seed is spoken of in Gen 21, rather than seeds. Since the Hebrew can be both, then it becomes only another matter of interpretation, not of contradiction. Second, that Gal 3 is somehow misquoting and taking Gen 15 out of context, which would only be the case if Gal 3 is referring to Gen 15, which it's not. Gal 3 is only quoting in context from Gen 21.

Since Gal 3 & 4 are only quoting in context from Gen 21, then any argument of contradictory quotes or context must be confined to Gen 21 alone, not from the whole book of Genesis. And, whether Genesis refers to a Messiah at all, or is Jesus Christ, is not about any contradiction, but only about choosing to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[historia]

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with I wrote in post #61, though. In that post I am not "conveniently dismissing any flaws," but rather arguing that we first need to understand the cultural and historical context in which Paul wrote before critiquing his interpretation.

Why bother calling the Bible historical if its history can be interpreted in any way anyone wants?

I don't know what you mean by "calling the Bible historical," or, again, what that has to do with the point I was making.

We're not really having a conversation here so much as you are just hurling arguments my way. What gives?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #71]

Gal 3 is talking about Christ by naming Him. Genesis 21 doesn't name Christ, but that does not have to mean, that Christ is not being talked about.

This is the "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" argument.

We must allow the Author to supplement His own text later, if He wishes. Which He does with Paul in Gal 3. "And to thy seed, which is Christ."

Circular argument.

The argument is erroneous, because Gal 3 is quoting and talking about Gen 21, not Gen 15. Therefore, the argument about seed vs seeds must be kept between Gal 3 and Gen 21.

Genesis 21 tells of the birth of Isaac to Sarah. Galatians 3:16 tells that "the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed". Galatians 3:16 is about the promises, and Gen. 13 & 15----not Gen. 21----are where the promises are made and where Abram's seed is mentioned. Since Gen. 13 & 15 are where Jehovah makes the promises to Abraham and his "seed"----meaning many,----that's what Gal. 3:16 has to be about.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #73]

Why bother calling the Bible historical if its history can be interpreted in any way anyone wants?

I don't know what you mean by "calling the Bible historical," or, again, what that has to do with the point I was making.

If the Christian Bible isn't to be regarded as historical, then it's going to be hard for Christians to regard its record of Jesus as historical.

We're not really having a conversation here so much as you are just hurling arguments my way. What gives?

I'm trying to respond to arguments with my counterarguments. Does that constitute "hurling"?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #72]

Where is the Jewish Messiah ever mentioned in the Hebrew Tanakh? For the purpose of refuting any challenge between Genesis and Galatians, it doesn't matter.

Here's one place:

And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
Ezekiel (37:24)

[historia]

We know the context of Gal 3 is Gen 21, not Gen 15 for two simple reasons: Gal 3 quotes words from Gen 21, not from Gen 15. And the context of Gal 3 is same as Gen 21, not Gen 15.

I think you're right here in the second part of your argument: The broader context of Galatians 3-4 would indicate that what Paul has in mind is specifically the promise given to Isaac and his offspring in Genesis 21.

But the first part of your argument is mistaken, I think. Paul gives the quote specifically as "καὶ τῷ σπέρματι σου," "and to your seed." That is a verbatim quote from the LXX in Genesis 13:15, 13:17 (note the difference with the MT), 17:7, 17:8, 26:3 (the quote given in the OP), 28:4, and 28:13.

So this not a direct quote from either Genesis 15 or 21.

[historia]

I'm trying to respond to arguments with my counterarguments. Does that constitute "hurling"?

It does when your "counterarguments" don't address the point I was making, and are seemingly designed to get me to pick up and defend some other point or position that I may not hold.

My argument in post #61 has nothing to do with whether the Bible is historically accurate or not (as if we can speak in such simplistic terms to begin with), but that's the rabbit hole you've gone down in your replies.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #78]

My argument in post #61 has nothing to do with whether the Bible is historically accurate or not (as if we can speak in such simplistic terms to begin with), but that's the rabbit hole you've gone down in your replies.

Your argument is essentially, "Aw, c'mon.....give 'em a break! Just let it go....."

How many rabbit holes in other religions do Christian apologists just let go?

[servant1]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #70]


I have. Trinity translations are altered and erred by satans will, misleading all using them.