Rapture - 23rd September 2015

[Craig B]

There are no good reasons to suppose anything.

You have just revolutionised not merely philosophy but human thinking in the most general sense. Wonderful. I think I'm starting to understand the ideology that informs your statements. Thank you.

 

[Leumas]

You have just revolutionised not merely philosophy but human thinking in the most general sense. Wonderful. I think I'm starting to understand the ideology that informs your statements. Thank you.

Straw manning of the highest caliber.

 

[Leumas]

That is nonsense. The Torah says nothing about Jesus.

Straw manning of the highest caliber.

 

[Leumas]

You very evidently have a "thing" about this, which inhibits you from rational consideration of the subject.

So are you going to ask me if I was an altar boy too?

Here is the list of illogical fallacies you have committed in just one sentence...

• Ad hominem
• Appeal to motive
• Poisoning the well
• Bare assertion

 

[Leumas]

What process of CHERRY PICKING illogical fallacies enables one to arrive at that "core material"?

No process at all of that kind.

What do you call this... what reasons do you have to suppose that later material is more fabricated than earlier material.

gJohn contains little or no genuine historical material, but is late and elaborated.

And that is on top of utter wishful thinking compounded with bare assertions and circular unreasoning.

There are reasons for supposing that some gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material.

So just suppositions and misplaced bets?

Are earlier versions of Zeus worship any more real than later versions of his worship?

Are earlier books written about medicine more accurate than later books about medicine?

How do you know that John is more fake than Mark.... just because Mark is written earlier? Couldn't Mark be just as equally fabricated as John? How do YOU know it is not?

How do you know that John is not drawing from an even earlier material than Mark, which is now lost to us?

You keep harping on about how Mark is drawing on a NONEXISTENT HYPOTHETICAL Q gospel... how do you know there was not an earlier P-gospel which Mark did not know but John did and thus John is in fact a more accurate depiction of the Christian fables?

Do you see how ABSURD this kind of illogic can become?

It is nothing but BARE ASSERTIONS and circular unreasoning.... and coming from you who is not a scholar in the subject is a load of APPEAL TO BIASED and VESTED AUTHORITY while you malign and ridicule and belittle other SCHOLARS (like Carrier et al) who show the absurdity of this load of WAGERING and SUPPOSITIONS in support of WISHFUL THINKING!

 

[barehl]

Yes. That's the test. Well done. But not to be restricted to Homer, which is very archaic Greek. Later works (pre-Christian) should be looked at too.

I suppose you're right. I guess we're going to have to get it down to the right dialect of Greek.

You would think that the dialect would be Aeolic since that would include Thessaly. However, it appears that after Alexander the Great's conquest, the common (Koine) Greek was actually an Attic dialect which is what they spoke in Athens and Ionia. Herodotus, for example, was before the Hellenistic Age and would have been Doric which would be a different dialect.

I suppose if Matthew 24:34 had been written by Homer he would have used optative instead of subjunctive. Using aorist subjunctive should make the sentence an expectation rather than a statement. On the other hand, he uses the double negative which is emphatic. This explains Young's translation as:

Verily I say to you, this generation may not pass away till all these may come to pass.

This would be accurate without the double negative.

 

[Nihilianth]

That all depends on what you mean by the word word!

You see word can have many words that signify the word word and if word is not used in the right way then MY WORD will you get in all sorts of trouble.

In other words you need to define exactly your words before you can venture a word in edgewise.

Boy, this language thing. It sure gets very annoying very quickly. All these different rules.And stuff.

 

[Nihilianth]

I'll just quote this one response even though looks like you have made several that all say the same thing. Which is incorrect by the way, all of them.

Did I accidentally blow your agenda out of the water or something? Strong's Concordance, and the other references I gave previously, ALL list "Race" as one of the definitions for "generation". Not just some of them, but ALL of them list it in the definition. Why is that so upsetting?
Chris B.

Interesting, how you keep repeatin strongs concordance, over ,over again. But not one time have you wver answered a single post of mine when I was specific and direct. Interesting indeed.

 

[Leumas]

... he is also depicted as an observant Jew... There seems here to be a core of material identifying him as a Jewish preacher.

According to the [LAWS OF the] Torah Jesus was a blasphemer and thus he could not have been an observant Jew nor a Jewish preacher. Jews do not pick up stones to stone an observant Jewish preacher unless his "preaching" is non-observant blasphemy (see below).

...gJohn contains little or no genuine historical material, but is late and elaborated. .... There are reasons for supposing that some gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material...

Why do you not throw out gMark etc. also as you do gJohn? Could it be that because gJohn does not suit your bare assertions and wishful thinking?

So in the process of your cherry picking and wishful thinking and bare assertions are the following admissions of BLASPHEMY by Jesus also to be thrown out while you are trying to circularly unreason an "observant Jewish preacher" Jesus?

Do observant Jewish preachers say that they are the SONS OF GOD and that THERE ARE THREE GODS and that they have powers in heaven and that they will be with their students forever?

Or are you now going to CHERRY PICK again and throw gMatthew out too?

Matthew 28:18-20

• 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
• 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
• 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Do observant Jewish preachers bless their students for acknowledging that they are the SON OF GOD and then promise to give them the KEY TO HEAVEN?

Are you going to bare assert that this is also a fabrication and that gMatthew is later than gMark therefore it too should be thrown out?

Matthew 16:15-19

• 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
• 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
• 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
• 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
• 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Do observant Jewish preacher often get convicted of blasphemy by the top religious authority for calling themselves the sons of God who are going to sit on a THROWN on the RIGHT HAND SIDE of YHWH?

Or are you going now to Cherry pick that too out of gMark... shouldn't you throw gMark out too as you did for gJohn?

Mark 14:61-64

• 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
• 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 14:63 Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses?
• 14:64 Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.

Here is Matthew too agreeing with Mark since you seem to be fond of SUPPOSING that REPEATING FAKERY makes it more PROBABLY true.... or are you going to bare assert that this is a later fabrication as if that makes the earlier fabrication true?

Matthew 26:63-66

• 26:63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
• 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
• 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
• 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

Here is Luke in concordance with both Matthew and Mark... do you now want to throw out all three books now just like you did for gJohn?

Luke 22:69-71

• 22:69 Hereafter shall the Son of man sit on the right hand of the power of God.
• 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am.
• 22:71 And they said, What need we any further witness? for we ourselves have heard of his own mouth.

Do observant Jewish preachers go round cursing entire cities because they did not believe their claims that they are the SONS OF GOD?

Matthew 11:20-27

• 11:20 Then began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not:
• 11:21 Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.
• ....
• 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
• 11:26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
• 11:27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Do observant Jewish preachers often perform miracles right after being accused of committing blasphemy?

Or is this a later fabrication too? How much fabrication in a book are you willing to cherry pick out before you throw the entire book out as a total fabrication like you did for gJohn?

Mark 2:5- 12

• 2:5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
• 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
• 2:7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?
• ...
• 2:11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house.
• 2:12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

And here again Matthew agrees with Mark... are they both to be CHERRY PICKED out too?

Matthew 9:2-7

• 9:2 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
• 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
• ...
• 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
• 9:7 And he arose, and departed to his house.

Jesus was deluded that he was the son of god since childhood.... or is this also to be cherry picked out? Is gLuke too to be thrown out like gJohn?

Luke 2:49-50

• 2:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
• 2:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

 

[DGM]

Is this enough proof for everyone?

http://www.sbnation.com/lookit/2015...n-florida-a-raccoon-is-riding-on-an-alligator

 

[barehl]

Israel was actually quite a military power at one time.

If you are still trying to figure out when this military power existed, let me see if I can narrow it down for you.

In 1650 BC, the region was taken over by the Canaanites all the way to the Nile delta. The Egyptians called them Hyksos. The important cities in the area were Hazor, Megiddo, and Kadesh.

By 1550 BC, Canaan was controlled by the Hitites in the north and Egypt in the south.

After 1386 BC, the Hittites expanded into Syria and Canaan taking territory away from Egypt.

The Battle of Kadesh was in 1274 BC. This was the army of Egypt against the army of the Hittites at the Syrian border. This indicates that area south of this was still under Egyptian control. Note that the Bible makes no mention whatsoever that this entire area was under Egyptian control. However, the archeology supports the Egyptian record.

After the battle of Kadesh, the Hittites began losing territory to Assyria but Egypt still controlled Canaan in 1209 BC.

The tribal leader, David, was succeeded by Solomon in 970 BC. At this time, no state of Israel existed. Either Solomon built only a small temple or perhaps he only began building a temple. But at any rate, he certainly was not building anywhere near Jerusalem.

About 930 BC, Israel became an independent state which would be right after Solomon's death. It is likely that an actual temple was built at this point in Samaria.

By 880 BC you had the Phoenician area in the north along the coast which included the cities of Beirut and Tyre. South of this was Israel. East of Israel was Damascus and Ammon. South of Israel was the new state of Judah which was never part of Israel. Judah did not have a capitol at this point. The Philistines held the coast to the west of Judah. South of Judah was Edom and to the east was Moab.

Curiously, Jewish scholars claim the Temple of Solomon was built in 832 BC. Obviously it couldn't have been built by Solomon who would have been dead for a century and who was born before Israel even existed. But this would be around the time that Jerusalem became the capital of Judah so it could have been built then.

By 824 BC, Assyria had absorbed Damascus. The temple at Samaria was probably a century old by this time and apparently the stories began claiming that it was built by Solomon.

In 722 BC, Assyria destroyed Samaria, the capitol of Israel, and presumably the temple that stood there. Refugees from Israel moved into Judah. The temple at Jerusalem would probably have been over a century old by that point and apparently was confused with the temple at Samaria after a few generations. The wealth of Solomon was nonsense but so was the claim that the army of Judah killed half a million men in the army of Israel. The combined armies of both areas couldn't have been more than 1/5th of that. The tall tales continue with Egypt invading with 1 million men and Asa repelling them with an army of 580,000. To put this idiocy in perspective, the largest battle of the US Civil War, Gettysburg, had 165,000 combatants. The exaggeration for Israel and Judah is just as absurd on both sides.

By 720 BC, Assyria had absorbed Phoenicia, Israel, and Ammon.
By 671 BC, the Assyrians had conquered all of Egypt.

The Assyrian empire began falling apart in 616 BC and its territories were taken over by Babylon.

In 586 BC, Judah was conquered, Jerusalem, the capitol destroyed, and the so-called temple of Solomon destroyed. Babylonian control lasts until 538 BC.

Now, under Persian control, they were allowed to build another temple which was completed in 516 BC.

In 445 BC, Jerusalem again became the capitol.

In 332 BC Alexander's army captured the walled city of Tyre and then continued through to Egypt putting Judah under Greek control until the Maccabean Revolt 160 years later.

So, where in the above history would a great army have existed?

 

[ddt]

I suppose you're right. I guess we're going to have to get it down to the right dialect of Greek.

You would think that the dialect would be Aeolic since that would include Thessaly. However, it appears that after Alexander the Great's conquest, the common (Koine) Greek was actually an Attic dialect which is what they spoke in Athens and Ionia. Herodotus, for example, was before the Hellenistic Age and would have been Doric which would be a different dialect.

I suppose if Matthew 24:34 had been written by Homer he would have used optative instead of subjunctive. Using aorist subjunctive should make the sentence an expectation rather than a statement. On the other hand, he uses the double negative which is emphatic. This explains Young's translation as:

Verily I say to you, this generation may not pass away till all these may come to pass.

This would be accurate without the double negative.

Young's "literal" translation is crock. It translates every subjunctive slavishly with "may", and so does not convey the actual intended meaning. I've had this discussion before with DOC, on the same passage in Mark. As he just ignored my posts, we didn't even get around to this verse.

The double negative ου μη is an emphatic negation, and is used especially with the (aorist) subjunctive.
Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament:

Emphatic negation is indicated by ου μη plus the aorist subjunctive or, less frequently, ου μη plus the future indicative (e.g., Matt 26:35; Mark 13:31; John 4:14, 6:35). This is the strongest way to negate something in Greek. [...] ου μη + the subjunctive denies a potentiality

And that's not limited to Biblical Greek.
Here is Herbert Weir Smyth, A Greek Grammar for Colleges:

ου μη, and the compounds of each, are used in emphatic negative predictions and prohibitions.

with references to use from, a.o., Thucydides and Xenophon. No mention of use with the optative. My intuition says it wouldn't suit with the construct.

ETA:
The Greek text at biblehub.com, with grammatical annotation.
So, the correct translation is along the lines of "Truly, I say to you that damned sure this generation will not have passed away until these things will have taken place."

 

[Leumas]

If you are still trying to figure out when this military power existed, let me see if I can narrow it down for you.

In 1650 BC, the region was taken over by the Canaanites all the way to the Nile delta. The Egyptians called them Hyksos. The important cities in the area were Hazor, Megiddo, and Kadesh.

By 1550 BC, Canaan was controlled by the Hitites in the north and Egypt in the south.

After 1386 BC, the Hittites expanded into Syria and Canaan taking territory away from Egypt.

The Battle of Kadesh was in 1274 BC. This was the army of Egypt against the army of the Hittites at the Syrian border. This indicates that area south of this was still under Egyptian control. Note that the Bible makes no mention whatsoever that this entire area was under Egyptian control. However, the archeology supports the Egyptian record.

After the battle of Kadesh, the Hittites began losing territory to Assyria but Egypt still controlled Canaan in 1209 BC.

The tribal leader, David, was succeeded by Solomon in 970 BC. At this time, no state of Israel existed. Either Solomon built only a small temple or perhaps he only began building a temple. But at any rate, he certainly was not building anywhere near Jerusalem.

About 930 BC, Israel became an independent state which would be right after Solomon's death. It is likely that an actual temple was built at this point in Samaria.

By 880 BC you had the Phoenician area in the north along the coast which included the cities of Beirut and Tyre. South of this was Israel. East of Israel was Damascus and Ammon. South of Israel was the new state of Judah which was never part of Israel. Judah did not have a capitol at this point. The Philistines held the coast to the west of Judah. South of Judah was Edom and to the east was Moab.

Curiously, Jewish scholars claim the Temple of Solomon was built in 832 BC. Obviously it couldn't have been built by Solomon who would have been dead for a century and who was born before Israel even existed. But this would be around the time that Jerusalem became the capital of Judah so it could have been built then.

By 824 BC, Assyria had absorbed Damascus. The temple at Samaria was probably a century old by this time and apparently the stories began claiming that it was built by Solomon.

In 722 BC, Assyria destroyed Samaria, the capitol of Israel, and presumably the temple that stood there. Refugees from Israel moved into Judah. The temple at Jerusalem would probably have been over a century old by that point and apparently was confused with the temple at Samaria after a few generations. The wealth of Solomon was nonsense but so was the claim that the army of Judah killed half a million men in the army of Israel. The combined armies of both areas couldn't have been more than 1/5th of that. The tall tales continue with Egypt invading with 1 million men and Asa repelling them with an army of 580,000. To put this idiocy in perspective, the largest battle of the US Civil War, Gettysburg, had 165,000 combatants. The exaggeration for Israel and Judah is just as absurd on both sides.

By 720 BC, Assyria had absorbed Phoenicia, Israel, and Ammon.
By 671 BC, the Assyrians had conquered all of Egypt.

The Assyrian empire began falling apart in 616 BC and its territories were taken over by Babylon.

In 586 BC, Judah was conquered, Jerusalem, the capitol destroyed, and the so-called temple of Solomon destroyed. Babylonian control lasts until 538 BC.

Now, under Persian control, they were allowed to build another temple which was completed in 516 BC.

In 445 BC, Jerusalem again became the capitol.

In 332 BC Alexander's army captured the walled city of Tyre and then continued through to Egypt putting Judah under Greek control until the Maccabean Revolt 160 years later.

So, where in the above history would a great army have existed?

Nice post!

 

[Craig B]

So are you going to ask me if I was an altar boy too?

No.

 

[Craig B]

You keep harping on about how Mark is drawing on a NONEXISTENT HYPOTHETICAL Q gospel

I don't remember saying that. Anyway I don't believe it. Mark does not use that "Synoptic Sayings source" common to Matthew and Luke.

It is nothing but BARE ASSERTIONS and circular unreasoning.... and coming from you who is not a scholar in the subject is a load of APPEAL TO BIASED and VESTED AUTHORITY while you malign and ridicule and belittle other SCHOLARS (like Carrier et al) who show the absurdity of this load of WAGERING and SUPPOSITIONS in support of WISHFUL THINKING!

Lots of caps! Carrier again! I'm maligning and ridiculing him? That is, I think he's completely wrong, as well as an arrogant self aggrandising person. But I don't in fact reject the opinion of the bulk of scholars in this field, which may be studied here. The linked article also explains why some Gospel material is more likely to be authentic than other material, and the means by which this may be discerned.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

If you are still trying to figure out when this military power existed, let me see if I can narrow it down for you.
In 1650 BC, the region was taken over by the Canaanites all the way to the Nile delta. The Egyptians called them Hyksos. The important cities in the area were Hazor, Megiddo, and Kadesh.

By 1550 BC, Canaan was controlled by the Hitites in the north and Egypt in the south.

After 1386 BC, the Hittites expanded into Syria and Canaan taking territory away from Egypt.

The Battle of Kadesh was in 1274 BC. This was the army of Egypt against the army of the Hittites at the Syrian border. This indicates that area south of this was still under Egyptian control. Note that the Bible makes no mention whatsoever that this entire area was under Egyptian control. However, the archeology supports the Egyptian record.

After the battle of Kadesh, the Hittites began losing territory to Assyria but Egypt still controlled Canaan in 1209 BC.

The tribal leader, David, was succeeded by Solomon in 970 BC. At this time, no state of Israel existed. Either Solomon built only a small temple or perhaps he only began building a temple. But at any rate, he certainly was not building anywhere near Jerusalem.

About 930 BC, Israel became an independent state which would be right after Solomon's death. It is likely that an actual temple was built at this point in Samaria.

By 880 BC you had the Phoenician area in the north along the coast which included the cities of Beirut and Tyre. South of this was Israel. East of Israel was Damascus and Ammon. South of Israel was the new state of Judah which was never part of Israel. Judah did not have a capitol at this point. The Philistines held the coast to the west of Judah. South of Judah was Edom and to the east was Moab.

Curiously, Jewish scholars claim the Temple of Solomon was built in 832 BC. Obviously it couldn't have been built by Solomon who would have been dead for a century and who was born before Israel even existed. But this would be around the time that Jerusalem became the capital of Judah so it could have been built then.

By 824 BC, Assyria had absorbed Damascus. The temple at Samaria was probably a century old by this time and apparently the stories began claiming that it was built by Solomon.

In 722 BC, Assyria destroyed Samaria, the capitol of Israel, and presumably the temple that stood there. Refugees from Israel moved into Judah. The temple at Jerusalem would probably have been over a century old by that point and apparently was confused with the temple at Samaria after a few generations. The wealth of Solomon was nonsense but so was the claim that the army of Judah killed half a million men in the army of Israel. The combined armies of both areas couldn't have been more than 1/5th of that. The tall tales continue with Egypt invading with 1 million men and Asa repelling them with an army of 580,000. To put this idiocy in perspective, the largest battle of the US Civil War, Gettysburg, had 165,000 combatants. The exaggeration for Israel and Judah is just as absurd on both sides.

By 720 BC, Assyria had absorbed Phoenicia, Israel, and Ammon.
By 671 BC, the Assyrians had conquered all of Egypt.

The Assyrian empire began falling apart in 616 BC and its territories were taken over by Babylon.

In 586 BC, Judah was conquered, Jerusalem, the capitol destroyed, and the so-called temple of Solomon destroyed. Babylonian control lasts until 538 BC.

Now, under Persian control, they were allowed to build another temple which was completed in 516 BC.

In 445 BC, Jerusalem again became the capitol.

In 332 BC Alexander's army captured the walled city of Tyre and then continued through to Egypt putting Judah under Greek control until the Maccabean Revolt 160 years later.

So, where in the above history would a great army have existed?

First hilite: Nope, I'm not trying to figure it out at all. But, that's a nice partial quick reference list of a few important dates/facts, with some speculation included too. I suppose my favorite battle description comes from 2nd Kings. Concerning the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians and the end result. 2 Kings 19:35 "Then it happened that night that the angel of the LORD went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men rose early in the morning, behold, all of them were dead."

Second hilite: Israel had what we would refer to as a "militia" in the beginning. Of course the most action and warring occurred under the Kings Saul, David and Solomon IMO.
David, and the Kings after him organized and equipped a regular army for Israel. Surprisingly, very little is written on how the army was organized. But I have no doubt King David, who was a "King" by the way and considered a little more than just "tribal leader" was in every respect a good military commander. King David was a military leader and had quite a vision for his Country. He created an army and devised a military conquest that would create an empire. After David became King, the country saw intense military activity. He attacked the Canaanite population centers in the north, and added Megiddo, Beth Shean, and Taanach to Israel's territory.

Surpisingly, missing from the list above would be the first two battles fought when David became King. The battles at Baal Perazim and Rephaim where he defeated the Philistines and forced them back to the coastal plains, thereby effectively ridding the area of their presense. Yes, under King David, Israel was quite a military power and he is one of my favorite Bible topics (as you can see) . Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Words are important. As Leaumas said:

This generation (γενεὰ) shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Matthew 1:17 So all the generations (γενεαὶ) from Abraham to David are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ); and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ); and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations (γενεαὶ).
Matthew 1:17, as Leaumus pointed out, repeatedly used the word γενεαὶ. With that i at the end, is the plural form of γενεὰ, and gives examples three different times in the same passage of what that means. It is very, very specific.

Sorry, but you can';t just make **** up as you go along.

I saw your other post about answering this one. I wasn't planning on a reply simply because of the last line in hi lite. The reason being is that everyone that visited the links I gave previously to several Concordances and sources already knows the first definition listed for γενεά , Genea , is "Race". End of story.

I've not made anything up. It's there in black and white and in every source cited. I won't bother to link the references again. So why persist arguing about it? Why deny something that is readily available and clearly defined? Why try to substitute the plural forms, and why try to use only one definition as being acceptable for every use of the word? I really don't understand your motive but I am certain you have one.

I've shared one of my personal interpretations of one passage in the Bible. When questioned, I even provided references as to why and how I could arrive at that interpretation. I even provided hints and here it is again, there is more to the passage than you think as there were three questions answered in that one passage by Jesus. If you will not do your own homework then you'll never arrive at any personal understanding of that passage.
Chris B.

 

[Border Reiver]

First hilite: Nope, I'm not trying to figure it out at all. But, that's a nice partial quick reference list of a few important dates/facts, with some speculation included too. I suppose my favorite battle description comes from 2nd Kings. Concerning the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians and the end result. 2 Kings 19:35 "Then it happened that night that the angel of the LORD went out and struck 185,000 in the camp of the Assyrians; and when men rose early in the morning, behold, all of them were dead."

Second hilite: Israel had what we would refer to as a "militia" in the beginning. Of course the most action and warring occurred under the Kings Saul, David and Solomon IMO.
David, and the Kings after him organized and equipped a regular army for Israel. Surprisingly, very little is written on how the army was organized. But I have no doubt King David, who was a "King" by the way and considered a little more than just "tribal leader" was in every respect a good military commander. King David was a military leader and had quite a vision for his Country. He created an army and devised a military conquest that would create an empire. After David became King, the country saw intense military activity. He attacked the Canaanite population centers in the north, and added Megiddo, Beth Shean, and Taanach to Israel's territory.

Surpisingly, missing from the list above would be the first two battles fought when David became King. The battles at Baal Perazim and Rephaim where he defeated the Philistines and forced them back to the coastal plains, thereby effectively ridding the area of their presense. Yes, under King David, Israel was quite a military power and he is one of my favorite Bible topics (as you can see) . Chris B.

The problem with declaring Israel a military power at the time is that none of the other "great powers" of the region felt it important enough to declare it so. A calling David King is fine - just remember that we can call him a King, but he still only had dominion over a relatively small and unimportant tribal grouping.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

The problem with declaring Israel a military power at the time is that none of the other "great powers" of the region felt it important enough to declare it so. A calling David King is fine - just remember that we can call him a King, but he still only had dominion over a relatively small and unimportant tribal grouping.

The Assyrians would disagree with that view. My favorite battle (mentioned above) from 2nd Kings, is also mentioned in the Assyrian culture in cuneiform texts. Though the details are not specific, the confirmation of the battle is.

Certainly David was a "King" as it is widely used throughout the text of the Bible.

This small tribal grouping took and held Megiddo. Holding that one piece of property is a perfect example of their military capability. Certainly you realize the importance of the city and area to the entire region. To me, the consideration of this "small tribal group" would have been on the minds of all the surrounding cultures of the time. To downplay the task of taking and holding the city of Megiddo and to further disregard its importance to the region, both would be highly insulting to me if I were Jewish. It was a major accomplishment IMO. Chris B.

 

[Border Reiver]

The Assyrians would disagree with that view. My favorite battle (mentioned above) from 2nd Kings, is also mentioned in the Assyrian culture in cuneiform texts. Though the details are not specific, the confirmation of the battle is.

Certainly David was a "King" as it is widely used throughout the text of the Bible.

This small tribal grouping took and held Megiddo. Holding that one piece of property is a perfect example of their military capability. Certainly you realize the importance of the city and area to the entire region. To me, the consideration of this "small tribal group" would have been on the minds of all the surrounding cultures of the time. To downplay the task of taking and holding the city of Megiddo and to further disregard its importance to the region, both would be highly insulting to me if I were Jewish. It was a major accomplishment IMO. Chris B.

The Egyptians and the Hittites however did not recognize the military capability of the Israelites at the time of David.

That the Assyrians later recognized said capability no more validates the military capacity of David's "Kingdom" than Rourke's Drift validates the military capability of pre-restoration England.