Bible PROPHECY for the ENDtime

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

from Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Quote:

When was the Bible written and who wrote it?

The following dates are not always exact, but are very good estimates.

Old Testament

Book Author Date Written

Genesis Moses ? - 1445 B.C.

Exodus Moses 1445 - 1405 B.C.

Leviticus Moses 1405 B.C.

Numbers Moses 1444 - 1405 B.C.

Deuteronomy Moses 1405 B.C.

Joshua Joshua 1404-1390 B.C.

Judges Samuel 1374-1129 B.C.

Ruth Samuel 1150? B.C.

First Samuel Samuel 1043-1011 B.C.

Second Samuel Ezra? 1011-1004 B.C.

First Kings Jeremiah? 971-852 B.C.

Second Kings Jeremiah? 852-587 B.C.

First Chronicles Ezra? 450 - 425 B.C.

Second Chronicles Ezra? 450 - 425 B.C.

Ezra Ezra 538-520 B.C.

Nehemiah Nehemiah 445 - 425 B.C.

Esther Mordecai? 465 B.C.

Job Job? ??

Psalms David 1000? B.C.

Sons of Korah wrote Psalms 42, 44-49, 84-85, 87; Asaph wrote Psalms 50, 73-83; Heman wrote Psalm 88; Ethan wrote Psalm 89; Hezekiah wrote Psalms 120-123, 128-130, 132, 134-136;

Solomon wrote Psalms 72, 127.

Proverbs Solomon wrote 1-29

Agur wrote 30

Lemuel wrote 31 950 - 700 B.C.

Ecclesiastes Solomon 935 B.C.

Song of Solomon Solomon 965 B.C.

Isaiah Isaiah 740 - 680 B.C.

Jeremiah Jeremiah 627 - 585 B.C.

Lamentations Jeremiah 586 B.C.

Ezekiel Ezekiel 593-560 B.C.

Daniel Daniel 605-536 B.C.

Hosea Hosea 710 B.C.

Joel Joel 835 B.C.

Amos Amos 755 B.C.

Obadiah Obadiah 840 or 586 B.C.

Jonah Jonah 760 B.C.

Micah Micah 700 B.C.

Nahum Nahum 663 - 612 B.C.

Habakkuk Habakkuk 607 B.C.

Zephaniah Zephaniah 625 B.C.

Haggai Haggai 520 B.C.

Zechariah Zechariah 520 - 518 B.C.

Malachi Malachi 450 - 600 B.C.

New Testament

Book Author Date Written (A.D)

Matthew Matthew 60's

Mark John Mark late 50's

early 60's

Luke Luke 60

John John late 80's

early 90's

Acts Luke 61

Romans Paul 55

1 Corinthians Paul 54

2 Corinthians Paul 55

Galatians Paul 49

Ephesians Paul 60

Philippians Paul 61

Colossians Paul 60

1 Thessalonians Paul 50 - 51

2 Thessalonians Paul 50 - 51

1 Timothy Paul 62

2 Timothy Paul 63

Titus Paul 62

Philemon Paul 60

Hebrews (Paul, Apollos, Barnabas...?) 60's

James James, half brother of Jesus 40's or 50's

1 Peter Peter 63

2 Peter Peter 63 - 64

1 John John late 80's

early 90's

2 John John late 80's

early 90's

3 John John late 80's

early 90's

Jude Jude, half brother of Jesus 60's or 70's

Revelation John late 80's

early 90's

http://carm.org/when-was-bible-written-and-who-wrote-it

[Musicman1228]

Great resource.

Now look up the approximate time of the death of Peter and see what you get. This is not Paul hating-facts are impartial.

[wayfinder]

This is taken from the book "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene" by Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford University Press 2006. Page 77

"One other writer who tried to show that Peter and Paul were on the same wavelength was the author of the so-called Second Letter of Peter in the New Testament. In this particular case there is less disagreement among critical scholars; whoever wrote 2 Peter, it was not Simon Peter the disciple of Jesus.

Unlike 1 Peter, the letter of 2 Peter was not widely accepted, or even known, in the early church. The first time any author makes a definitive reference to the book is around 220 CE, that is, nearly 150 years after it was allegedly written. It was finally admitted into the canon somewhat grudgingly, as church leaders of the later third and fourth centuries came to believe that it was written by Peter himself. But it almost certainly was not."

[John317]

Peter probably died in or around 64 AD.

Here is what the wikipedia says about 1 and 2 Peter:

Quote:

Church tradition ascribes the epistles First and Second Peter to Apostle Peter, as does the text of Second Peter itself. .....Some scholars regard First Peter as not authored by him, and there is still considerable debate about the Petrine authorship of Second Peter. However the Greek in both books are similar, and the early Church was adamantly opposed to pseudographical authorship.

Conclusion: there is certainly no conclusive or even compelling evidence that Peter was not the author of the epistles attributed to him.

In all liklihood, Peter had help in writing the letters, and the secretary who helped write the first one may have been different from the one who helped him write the second. Bible writers often had help from secretaries, and these include Jeremiah and Paul. As an uneducated fisherman, no doubt Peter also had an assistant. Peter may even have written the original letter in Aramaic and then Peter oversaw its translation into Greek. The Greek of both letters is that of someone whose native language was not Greek. The same may be said of Revelation.

In any case, like the wikipedia article mentiones, the early church would not have accepted those letters if it believed someone besides Peter wrote those letters.

[John317]

This is taken from the book "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene" by Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford University Press 2006. Page 77

Bart Ehrman is a non-believer and an agnostic. I don't see why I should accept the advice on the Bible of someone who doesn't even believe in Christ or in the Bible as God's word.

[wayfinder]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4):

1. The literary dependence on Jude rules this out. II Pet 1 and 3 already have a number of contacts with Jude: cf. II Pet 1:5 with Jude 3; II Pet 1:12 with Jude 5; II Pet 3:2 f with Jude 17 f; II Pet 3:14 with Jude 24; II Pet 3:18 with Jude 25. The most striking agreements with Jude are shown in the portrayal of the false teachers in II Pet 2 and also in the illustrations based on the OT and the pictures drawn from nature, agreements in the exact wording and extensive agreements in sequence. The false teachers deny the Lord Christ and lead a dissolute life (II Pet 2:1 f = Jude 4), they despise and blaspheme the good angelic powers (II Pet 2:10 f = Jude 8 f), they speak in high-handed fashion (uperogka; II Pet 2:18 = Jude 16), they are blotches on the communal meal (spigoi suneuwcwmenoi; II Pet 2:13 = Jude 12), they are clouds tossed about by the wind, devoid of water, for whom the gloom of darkness is reserved (II Pet 2:17 = Jude 12 f), they are denounced for their fleshly corruption and their unrestrained mode of life (II Pet 2:10, 12 ff, 18 = Jude 7 f, 10, 12, 16). The sequence of examples of punishment from the OT in Jude 5 ff (Israel in the desert, fallen angels, Sodom and Gomorrah) is arranged in historical order in II Pet 2:4 ff and modified (fallen angels, Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah) because the author of II Pet needs the example of the Flood to combat the deniers of the parousia. The general statement in II Pet 2:11 makes sense only if note has been made of the concrete example mentioned in Jude 9. The image in Jude 12 f is more genuine and more plastic than the parallel in II Pet 2:17.

This material shows, therefore, that it is II Pet which is the dependent factor. It is further to be observed that the quotation from a noncanonical writing (Jude 14 f = the Apocalypse of Enoch 1:9; 60:8) is lacking in II Pet, and that by omitting certain essential features the allusions to the apocryphal writings have been somewhat obscured in Jude 6 (fallen angels) and 9 (the struggle between the archangel Michael and the Devil). From this it may be concluded that II Pet is already reluctant to use this literature whereas Jude has a naive attitude toward it. II Pet betrays a literary strategem in that the false teachers who are characterized by Jude as being in the present are depicted in II Pet as future and indeed predicted by Peter (2:1 ff, in the future; 3:3, 17 proginwskontes). But in spite of this they are also described in the present tense (2:10, 12 ff, 20), and indeed the past tense is used (2:15, 22). Consequently it is almost universally recognized today that II Pet is dependent on Jude and not the reverse. Then II Pet 3:3 ff portrays the libertines as the deniers of the parousia. In this way he representes a more developed stage, while a less developed stage is evident in Jude, who does not yet know that the false teachers against whom he directs his attention might have denied the parousia. Since Jude belongs in the postapostolic age, Peter cannot have written II Pet.

2. The conceptual world and the rhetorical language are so strongly influenced by Hellenism as to rule out Peter definitely, nor could it have been written by one of his helpers or pupils under instructions from Peter. Not even at some time after the death of the apostle.

The Hellenistic concepts include: the areth of God (1:3), virtue in addition to faith (1:5); knowledge (1:2, 3, 6, 8; 2:20; 3:18); participation in the divine nature (qeias koinwnoi fusews) "in order that one might escape corruption that is present in the world because of lust" (1:4); the term epoptai comes from the language of the mysteries (1:16); placed side by side are a quotation from Proverbs and a trite saying from the Hellenistic tradition (2:22).

I guess you may believe what ever you want to believe.

[phkrause]

Peter probably died in or around 64 AD.

Here is what the wikipedia says about 1 and 2 Peter:

Quote:

Church tradition ascribes the epistles First and Second Peter to Apostle Peter, as does the text of Second Peter itself. .....Some scholars regard First Peter as not authored by him, and there is still considerable debate about the Petrine authorship of Second Peter. However the Greek in both books are similar, and the early Church was adamantly opposed to pseudographical authorship.

Conclusion: there is certainly no conclusive or even compelling evidence that Peter was not the author of the epistles attributed to him.

In all liklihood, Peter had help in writing the letters, and the secretary who helped write the first one may have been different from the one who helped him write the second. Bible writers often had help from secretaries, and these include Jeremiah and Paul. As an uneducated fisherman, no doubt Peter also had an assistant. Peter may even have written the original letter in Aramaic and then Peter oversaw its translation into Greek. The Greek of both letters is that of someone whose native language was not Greek. The same may be said of Revelation.

In any case, like the wikipedia article mentiones, the early church would not have accepted those letters if it believed someone besides Peter wrote those letters.

Not only Jeremiah and Paul, but obviously Moses couldn't have finished his writings without help. We were just talking about this in SS this Sabbath, how many of the Bible writers probably didn't write there books but dictated to a scribe or as you mentioned a secretary.

[John317]

.... it is almost universally recognized today that II Pet is dependent on Jude and not the reverse. .... Since Jude belongs in the postapostolic age, Peter cannot have written II Pet.

The resource that Musicman called a "great source" places the writing of Jude in the 60s and 70s. Peter died about 64, 65 AD. That is not "postapostilic." Therefore it is clear that Peter could have written II Peter.

It all depends on the year of Peter's death and year of the writing of the book of Jude. No one knows for sure when Peter died and no one can be sure of when the book of Jude was written. So we are really dealing with theories here, not facts. I'm not going to reject 2 Peter and the book of Jude on the basis of someone's theories.

Originally Posted By: Wayfinder

2. The conceptual world and the rhetorical language are so strongly influenced by Hellenism as to rule out Peter definitely, nor could it have been written by one of his helpers or pupils under instructions from Peter. Not even at some time after the death of the apostle.

The Hellenistic concepts include: the areth of God (1:3), virtue in addition to faith (1:5); knowledge (1:2, 3, 6, 8; 2:20; 3:18); participation in the divine nature (qeias koinwnoi fusews) "in order that one might escape corruption that is present in the world because of lust" (1:4); the term epoptai comes from the language of the mysteries (1:16); placed side by side are a quotation from Proverbs and a trite saying from the Hellenistic tradition (2:22).

The same kind of arguments and reasoning have been used by the "Jesus Seminar" to jettison 3/4 of the Gospels as genuine, and that includes much of the Gospel of John.

Originally Posted By: Wayfinder

I guess you may believe what ever you want to believe.

It is true that everyone must decide. You've evidently chosen to decide to believe the opinions and theories of men, including a man whose opinions have led him to disbelieve in Christ and the Bible. Based on my understanding of the evidence, I have chosen to believe that such a man's opinions are wrong and that the Bible is right.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: wayfinder

This is taken from the book "Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene" by Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford University Press 2006. Page 77

Bart Ehrman is a non-believer and an agnostic. I don't see why I should accept the advice on the Bible of someone who doesn't even believe in Christ or in the Bible as God's word.

Good scholarship is not dependent on ones religious philosophy, and neither are the conclusions derived from that scholarship. You can disagree with ANY conclusion by ANY writer regardless of the depth of their research IF you allow what you believe in your heart to supercedes the facts; this is called 'faith'. As a matter of fact it was religion that caused Galileo to be thrown out of the Catholic church even though he was correct in his proposition that the earth revolved around the sun and not the other way around. This kind of thing happens when a universal paradigm becomes so engrained that when proven wrong by facts the belief remains unmodified. Many would call this 'enlightenment'.

[John317]

Good scholarship is not dependent on ones religious philosophy, and neither are the conclusions derived from that scholarship.

But I'm sure you would concede that there are good Bible scholars who disagree with Bart's conclusions about the epistles of Peter and Jude. So it is not really only a matter of "good scholarship."

Do you agree with everything Bart says? The same "good scholarship" that leads Bart to reject 2 Peter and Jude as genuine has led him to reject the entire Bible as inspired, and has also led him to reject Christ as His Lord and Savior. Those are not really questions that can be settled only by "good scholarship." And neither can the acceptance or rejection of 1 or 2 Peter and Jude.

I believe the bottom line is as Jesus said, "If you are willing to do the will of my Father, you will know if the teaching is from God."

John 10:26

you do not believe because you are not part of my flock.

John 8:47

Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God."

Also see Daniel 12: 10; John 8: 31, 32.

Notice Jesus did not say, "You do not believe because you lack good scholarship." Nor did Jesus say the problem was due to poor education or low IQ. The real issue is the spiritual condition of the heart and mind, whether we are willing to do the will of the Father.

[Musicman1228]

I don't believe everything anyone says, except for the words and teachings of Jesus Christ as he gave them to His own eyewitness disciples while He was here on earth. For me this solves the problem of having to decide who and what to believe based on either faith or scholarship.

[John317]

Why, then, do you believe that Acts 2: 3 should be translated as "a tongue" rather than as every translation has it, "tongues"? You'll notice that verse 5 also has the word "tongues," and in both instances, the Greek noun is plural. If you agree that verse 5 should read "tongues," then the same form of the word must be translated the same way in verse 4.

Why do you believe Bart when you know his way of thinking has led him to reject even the existence of God, much less the inspiration of Scripture?

[Guest]

Good scholarship is not dependent on ones religious philosophy, and neither are the conclusions derived from that scholarship.

WRONG as usual. Without the guidence of the Holy Spirit, one cannot understand the Bible properly or correctly.

Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...

[Musicman1228]

Richard,

I guess you forgot about this one:

"For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." Matt.5:45.

Truth is Truth from whatever source, because God is the God of Truth, not just YOUR personal truth. The Holy Spirit can guide you all SHE wants, but if you are unwilling to lay aside your own personal beliefs in favor of HER'S then you will never, and indeed can NEVER learn the truth about anything.

John,

As to the word TONGUE; you can complain all you want about my ability or lack thereof in the Greek language but in my Strong's lexicon (The Sword Project) the definition is as follows:

1100 glossa gloce-sah' of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

Therefore, I am satisfied that the text should read:

And a divided tongue as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.

This implies that a SINGLE cloven or divided tongue alighted upon each in the room IN TURN, and not all at once as we have been taught. It happened this way because Satan (the Serpent) is not omnipresent (as is God) and could not go to everyone at the same time.

This makes complete sense to me, so to you I will appear to be stupid. So be it. I am more than willing to risk being stupid rather than risk being foolish in being deceived.

And on what animal do you find a divided or cloven tongue? A Serpent, of course.

[John317]

John,

As to the word TONGUE; you can complain all you want about my ability or lack thereof in the Greek language but in my Strong's lexicon (The Sword Project) the definition is as follows:

1100 glossa gloce-sah' of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

Therefore, I am satisfied that the text should read:

And a divided tongue as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.

This implies that a SINGLE cloven or divided tongue alighted upon each in the room IN TURN, and not all at once as we have been taught. It happened this way because Satan (the Serpent) is not omnipresent (as is God) and could not go to everyone at the same time.

This makes complete sense to me, so to you I will appear to be stupid. So be it. I am more than willing to risk being stupid rather than risk being foolish in being deceived.

But what you say here, MM, is utter nonsense. That is like someone who looks in our dictionary and, after seeing the word "nest," says it proves the word "nests" is singular. (As someone who is thoroughly familiar with English, you know that "nests" is NEVER singlular; but you would know the same thing about the words we're talking about if you knew Greek the same way you know English.)

The Lexicon noun form is always nominative singular, NEVER plural; but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether a word in the Greek NT is singular or plural.

In the following sentences, is the word "apple" singular or plural?

"I picked out some apples to eat." Plural or singular? Plural of course, right?

"I ate an apple and a sandwich for lunch." Plural or singular? Singular, of course, right?

Is "apples" ever singular? NO. Neither is the Greek form of the word as it appears in Acts 2: 3 ever singular. (The form of the word in Acts 2: 3 is "glossai." It is plural ALWAYS. The lexicon form of the word is "glossa." That is singular ALWAYS.)

But what if I looked at the English dictionary and told you that the word "apples" is singular because I see the word "apple" in it? Would that make sense to you? I hope not. You are doing exactly the same thing when you claim the word in Acts 2: 3 is singular because of what you see in Strongs Lexicon.

It can only lead to one conclusion to people who know Greek and that is that you don't know what the lexicon is saying. Lexicon's aren't made to tell you what form the word is in the Greek text any more than English dictionaries are made to tell you whether a word is plural or singular in a news article or story. To know this information, it is necessary to know that when we add an "s" or "es" on the end of a noun, it changes the word from a singular to a plural. That is similar to the way Greek words change from singular to pluarl. The suffixes and prefixes of Greek words will determine their number. It is as plain as the addition of an "s" or "es" on the ending of English words.

Let me give you a simple example:

In Acts 2: 3, the word is "glossai." --nominative feminine plural

In Acts 2: 4, the word is "glossais."-- dative feminine plural

The Lexicon form is "glossa." "Glos" is what we call the stem. Anything added to "Glos" will determine its function and how it relates to the other words in the sentence.

A good student of NT Greek can look at these words alone and tell you what part of speech they are, whether they are pluaral or singular, and whether it's the subject or object of the sentence or phrase.

Similarly you can look at the word "apples" and tell me that it is a plural noun. For you to insist that word "glossai" is singular makes as much sense to me as I would make to you if I told you that "apples" is referring to only one apple.

[Musicman1228]

Does a snake have more than one tongue even if it is divided in two at the tip? What you are saying is that a snake has 'tongues' because the tongue is divided or cloven. You are also saying that it is impossible for someone that does not know Greek as thoroughly as their own language to be able to use common resources to come to a conclusion as to the intent of the author. To me this is an elitist attitude which says that "you can't possibly know more that me because you don't have my level of education or training. Therefore you must trust my interpretation of Scripture." This is exactly the attitude that the Catholic church used to keep their church population and the world under their theological control during the Dark Ages.

You have also neglected to address the aspect of translator bias in issues involving singular vs. plural usage, or male vs. female gender, or grammar issues. One of my favorite texts that I use as an illustration of this is found in Luke 23:43:

And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Here we clearly see the bias of the translator(s) which demonstrates their belief that you go directly to Heaven when you die. The issue here is where the comma should be placed considering that there are no punctuation in Greek as we know it in English. Placing the comma on one side of 'today' shows the common Christian understanding that the dead go to Heaven; placing the comma on the other side of 'today' would indicate that they don't. So which would you choose? You would naturally choose the one that reflects your own personal theology.

Using the singular of the word tongue reflects my theology, and in this regard is just as valid as your use of the plural 'tongues' to reflect your theology, in spite of your complex explanation of 'proper' Greek.

[John317]

...As to the word TONGUE; you can complain all you want about my ability or lack thereof in the Greek language but in my Strong's lexicon (The Sword Project) the definition is as follows:

1100 glossa gloce-sah' of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally unacquired):--tongue.

Therefore, I am satisfied that the text should read:

And a divided tongue as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.

OK, the word in the Lexicon is given as glossa. Is that singular or plural?

Now look in your Greek New Testament and tell what form of the word appears in the text of Acts 2: 3.

[John317]

Does a snake have more than one tongue even if it is divided in two at the tip? What you are saying is that a snake has 'tongues' because the tongue is divided or cloven.

I'm wondering if you read and understood what I wrote.

Your answer here indicates that if you read it, you didn't understand it.

What does any of this have to do with a snake's tongue? There is no mention of a snake anywhere in the passage.

Acts 2: 3 is not talking about one tongue that was split or divided.

Notice what it says, "And divided tongues as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them."

Here the word, "divided," is translated from diamerizo, Strongs #1266, meaning "to distribute." It is found in Mark 15: 24; Luke 11: 17ff; 22: 17; and Acts 2: 3, 45.

"divided his garments"

"Every kingdom divided against itself..."

"If Satan also is divided against himself..."

"Take this [cup of juice] and divide it among yourselves..."

"and sold their possessions and goods and divided [or distributed] them

Jay P. Green's Literal Translation of Acts 2: 3 reads, "And tongues as of fire appeared to them, being distributed, and it sat on each of them."

So it is not a matter of one tongue being split but of "tongues" "being distributed," which is exactly the literal reading of it. Notice that as the word diamerizo occurs in this verse, it is a participle, or verb, not an adjective.

Yet the way you've described it, as "a divided tongue" or "a split tongue," it would require an adjective together with a singular noun, none of which, however, occur in Acts 2: 3.

An Expanded Translation reads, "And there appeared to them tongues that had the appearance of fire, these tongues being distributed among them, and one of these tongues took up a position upon each of them."

[John317]

... I am satisfied that the text should read:

And a divided tongue as of fire appeared to them and rested on each one of them.

This implies that a SINGLE cloven or divided tongue alighted upon each in the room IN TURN, and not all at once as we have been taught. It happened this way because Satan (the Serpent) is not omnipresent (as is God) and could not go to everyone at the same time.

This is all conjecture and is not at all suggested by the text.

Here's Kenneth S. Wuest's translation: "And there appeared to them tongues that had the appearance of fire, these tongues being distributed among them, and one of these tongues took up a position upon each of them."

The tongues appeared to be like fire and these tongues were distributed among the people who were gathered there. One of those tongues took up a position on each person.

[John317]

You are also saying that it is impossible for someone that does not know Greek as thoroughly as their own language to be able to use common resources to come to a conclusion as to the intent of the author.

The problem is that you don't understand the resources and you show that you refuse to listen to them.

The Greek Lexicon gives all nouns in their nominative singular form. That form has nothing to do with the form of the word you find in Acts 2: 3.

In the lexicon, the form is "glossa." In ACts 2: 3, it is "glossai." It makes the difference between a singular and a plural noun.

So it is not a question of whether "someone" can understand common resources; it is a question of whether you understand what is being said.

Do you see a difference between "tongue" and "tongues"? What is the differences? Is "tongues" ever singular? Is "cars" or "men" ever singular? NO. WEll, neither is "glossai" ever singular, and neither is "glossa ever plural.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

To me this is an elitist attitude which says that "you can't possibly know more that me because you don't have my level of education or training. Therefore you must trust my interpretation of Scripture." This is exactly the attitude that the Catholic church used to keep their church population and the world under their theological control during the Dark Ages.

But that is not what I'm saying. I'm not asking you to trust my interpretation of Scripture. I'm suggesting that you take this information to anyone who knows or teaches NT Greek and ask them if the word "glossai" is singular or plural. I'm telling you to look in the translations and in the Analytical Lexicons to see if "glossai" is singular or plural.

I am astonished that a writer who knows nothing of Greek would publish a book in which he discusses the Greek language and yet not ask anyone who knows the language to verify the information. That would be like my publishing a book on music or math without finding anyone to verify the information I've written on those topics, and then defending the errors when someone points them out.

[John317]

...You have also neglected to address the aspect of translator bias in issues involving singular vs. plural usage,

Give a couple of examples of translator bias regarding singular vs. plural usage.

Quote the passage and show why you believe the word has been translated wrongly and why it is pluaral or singular.

[Guest]

Richard,

I guess you forgot about this one:

"For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust." Matt.5:45.

The only problem with that is, that the text is not talking about leading the ungodly into the truth. It is talking about both good and bad things happening in the lives of the just and the unjust. But I think you already knew that. You just refuse to admit when you're wrong.

I think it's funny. To believe that ordinary ungodly men can properly understand God's word, and the things of God, without God's help is idiotic at best, and shows just how far you have gone in your folly.

Man cannot guide himself into God's truth.

Dan 12:10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand;

Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD....... For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Hos 14:9 Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the LORD are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall stumble in them.

Pro 2:1,5 My son, if you will receive my words, and lay up my commandments with you.....Then shall you understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.

2Th 2:10,11 And with all deception of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

This is what happens when people try to study God's word apart from His guidence.

Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

So when you quote people who don't even believe in God, as reference for your studies, it shows others just how far off the path of truth you have gotten, and makes you look silly.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

...You have also neglected to address the aspect of translator bias in issues involving singular vs. plural usage,

Give a couple of examples of translator bias regarding singular vs. plural usage.

Quote the passage and show why you believe the word has been translated wrongly and why it is pluaral or singular.

Yes, I would love to see that.

[Musicman1228]

Richard,

As I stated before Truth is Truth no matter the source, and God is the author of ALL truth.

Example: Most Christians believe that the earth is only 6000 years old. Yet the sciences show that it is much older than that, certainly by many thousands of years. Christians believe that Adam and Eve were the progenitors of the entire human race and were created around 4000 BC, yet archaeology shows that the Mayan civilization produced a calendar that was put into service around 3850 BC. This would have given Adam and Eve only 150 years to produce not only all of the other nations of the world but specifically a nation the infrastructure of which would be able to produce the astronomy and math that it would take to create a civilization and calendar of great sophistication and depth all in less that 150 years. Now add in the fact that it was 120 years after the death of Able that Adam and Eve had Seth and you can see that the creation of an advanced civilization in this amount of time is absurd.

But since this does not equate to your understanding based upon your own personal faith you will dismiss it as hyperbole at the very least. And then you will state categorically that it cannot possibly be true, and dismiss the scientific evidence that backs it up by saying that since it does not agree with your interpretation of the Bible it cannot possibly be of the Holy Spirit so it just has to be wrong. God is the God of science whether the scientist believes in God or not. It is just possible that their reading of the 'facts' and your reading of the 'facts' are BOTH wrong, and there is an explanation that encompasses both that fits inside God's Truth.

You, however, are so steeped in your beliefs and so canalized into your way of thinking that whenever someone presents something that is outside that channel you automatically reject it as wrong. Even secular scientists don't do that, because they base their research on the 'scientific method' of duplicatable results. Christian believers are not bound by such restrictions, and can believe anything they want because the Holy Spirit led them to that belief.

And yes, scientists can fall into that same trap. The goal for anyone seeking spiritual truth or temporal truth is to use not only Scripture but other resources to prove the point, all confirmed through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

[Guest]

Richard,

As I stated before Truth is Truth no matter the source, and God is the author of ALL truth.

Yes God is the author of all truth. But that doesn't mean that what Godless men come up with on their own, is the truth. Jesus said that it is the Holy Spirit that leads men into the truth. Not intellect.