Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Carson,
Carson,
Carson,
Personally I doudt that unto, until, till, to or any of the other common translatsions of what the Greek word is were what Matthew wrote. There is not usually a one to one correspondence of words from one language to another, especially Hebrew or Greek to English, that captures all the meaning. The problem of translations is a much greater one in Protestantism where you simply loose meaning from the Bible in the translatoin. In Catholicism this is not as much of a problem because Oral Tradition can take up the slack. By the way Music, I am still wondering how you can reject the parrellel between Mary and the AOC based on "How is it that the ________ should come to me.". How can the ______ come to me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Logic?? Let's look at what is presented by you.
It doesn't matter whose it is, it doesn't make a lot of sense anyway.
Sorry Carson. I have not seen it. Adelphos means brother. Every time, well over 100 times (including the plural form its over 300 times) it is always translated brother or brethren. There is another word for cousin. The Holy Spirit chose not to use that word, though it is used three other times in the Bible. I wonder why he didn't use it in Mat.13:55? Maybe because He meant for us to understand that they were his brothers.
If this is your foundational argument, then your ship just sunk, and you ought to say good-bye to the perpetual virginity of Mary heresy. As stated before, the Septuagint is a translation and only a translation: just like the RSV, ASV, KJV, NSV, etc. They are all translations, and none of them are inspired. Only the originals are inspired. God inspired the originals, and only those manuscripts that are preserved in the original manuscripts have any bearing on this discussion. In other words the definition of the New Testament word of adelphos does not come from the English word brother found in the Old Testament Hebrew and then translated into a Greek version. What you have done is gone from English to Hebrew to Greek to English again. Either go from the Hebrew Old testament straight into English or the Greek New Testamen straight into English. The Scriptures were inspired in Hebrew in the OT, and in Greek in the NT. We confine ourselves to those--not to Syriac, Egyptian, Latin, Punjabi, Pharsi, Cree, Spanish, etc. Greek and Hebrew; that is all.
This argument will not be "assimilated" and you don't seem to comprehend it. Mat.13:55,56 shows demonstrably that the brothers and sisters mentioned are the actual brothers and sisters of Christ. They can be no other. I have presented this evidence time and time again and it still has gone unrefuted. If God wanted to make it clear that they were cousins then he would have used the word for cousins, but he didn't; he used the word for brothers instead. Doesn't that tell you something?
Let's see if your example really holds water or not. And what translation uses the word "until?"Alright Todd!! Now you're actually providing arguments.. and responding for once... way to go!
You are using a narrow, modern meaning of "until," instead of the meaning it had when the Bible was written.
In the Bible, it means only that some action did not happen up to a certain point; it does not imply that the action did happen later, which is the modern sense of the term. In fact, if the modern sense is forced on the Bible, some ridiculous meanings result.
Consider this line: "Michal the daughter of Saul had no children until the day of her death" (2 Sam. 6:23). Are we to assume she had children after her death?
Context means everything doesn't it? No one knew the location of the grave until that day (the day of Moses), and no one would no it from that day forward, as Moses told them, because God buried Moses Himself. Your conclusion in this case is non sequitor. God had given the answer before you had even spoken.
For every example you give, Carson, there is a meaning to the verse. You tend to take your verses or examples out of context.
Matthew 1:25 and did not know her till she brought forth her son--the first-born, and he called his name Jesus. (YLT)
There is no controversy there. They were children born to Mary and Joseph after Jesus' birth.
That just shows you how wrong many of those church fathers were on some things, and why they cannot be trusted. If you want me to give a rant on Origen just ask.
You mean by ignoring the study of the Bible and depending on Oral Tradition, you can make up whatever doctrine you want to. You can find the most imaginable ways possible to mankind to defend an utterly unbiblical doctrine such as the perpetual virginity of Mary. Using Tradition, anything becomes possible: the sky becomes green, and the grass becomes blue. It was Origen that promoted the Greek method of philosophization and allegorization into the Bible. And he so developed a highly sturctured form of Arianism. The Catholics love him for this.
Actually the ones I knew did not. They just disagreed with my interprutation.
20 pages later Thes says "you simply have not proven Mary and Jospeh had other children."
This is your exact quote:
In other words, we cannot trust what Matthew wrote; the Greek words "unto," "until" etc. are irrelevant, and their translations are meaningless without Oral Tradition (which you mentioned later in the same post). You put Oral Tradition as having greater authority than the Scriptures. You said straight out that these prepositions I DOUBT ...THAT THIS IS WHAT MATTHEW WROTE Like the Serpent in the Garden of Eden putting doubt in Eve's mind, and then plainly denying God's Word, you have come to the place where you have plainly denied God's Word, saying it can't be translated.