Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer

Religions > Atheism > Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Budikka"
Date:	20 Sep 2003 01:16:05 AM
Object:	Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer

On Septermber 11th, Jason Gastrich posted:
-------------
Hello,
I hope you are well, today.
I'm Jason Gastrich and I've written a book that corrects and explains
numerous
Bible difficulties. It's called "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
Corrected and
Explained." You can see it here: http://sab.jcsm.org.
No, this isn't an ad for my book. I'm posting this message to say
that I'm
happy to answer any questions you may have about the Bible. If I
don't know
the answer, I will research it and find it for you. All I ask is that
you
refrain from profanity and name calling.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
http://jcsm.org
-------------
Note the key phrase: "I'm posting this message to say that I'm
happy to answer any questions you may have about the Bible. If I
don't know
the answer, I will research it and find it for you."
In response, I posted this:
-------------
Are you saying that you, yourself are inerrant? If you cannot make
such a claim, then how can you possibly be certain that you are not in
error over your claim that the Bible is inerrant? Especially when I
can demonstrate that the Bible clearly is errant:
1. The Bible claims the entire universe was created out of nothing
and the Earth created and populated in a period of six, literal 24
hour successive days. Are you saying this is true? If so, please
post your three best evidences supporting such a claim. If not,
please withdraw your claim that he Bible is inerrant.
2. Has everyone sinned or not? According to John 15:22, there were at
least some people who had no sins until Jesus talked to them, and from
that point on they were apparently awash in sin: "If I had not come
and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak
for their sin." But Paul, the inventor of christianity, said, "For
all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Ro 3:23). So
which is it?
3. How many people were at the tomb of Jesus when it was discovered
to be empty? Was it Miriam of Magdala and Miriam the mother of
Jacobus (according to Matthew), or was it Miriam of Magdala, an
unnamed israelite or Christian whose name became Joanna/Salome over
retellings, Miriam the mother of Jacobus, and a host of women
(according to Mark/Luke), or was it Miriam of Magdala alone (according
to John)?
4. Why are there two different genealogies, different names, different
lengths, given for Jesus, one in Matthew 1, and the other in Luke 3?
And what is the point of these detailed genealogies if Joseph was not
Jesus' father anyway?
5. Why does god use the word 'us' to describe himself in several
instances, such as gen 1:26, 11:7, etc?
6. Was man really made from silicon (dirt) and woman from calcium
(bone?). If so, how come they are essentially made from the same
things nowadays?
7. Which generation was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?
8. Just what did the inscription on the cross say, since there is a
different description of it in each of the gospels. Are all of these
differing inscriptions inerrant?
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matthew)
"THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Mark)
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Luke)
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS" (John)
9. If Jesus' "death" on the cross destroyed the devil, as Hebrews
suggests (Heb 2:14: "...he also himself likewise took part of the
same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of
death, that is, the devil.") why is he still alive and well today?
10. Why didn't Adam die "in the day" he ate of the tree of knowledge,
as God had predicted in Gen 2:17?

Does God visit the sins of the parents on the children?

This one rings a bell. Please give me the reference in question.

Exo 34:7

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

* Jesus said it is the greatest of all herbs and becomes a tree. This is true.

The mustard seed is not the smallest (the least of all seeds). There
are orchid seeds which are considerably smaller.
-------------
Gastrich failed to respond in any way at all, and he did the same when
I reposted the same questions to remind him that he had not answered
them. I think we can safely conclude from this that he is unable to
fulfil the extravagant claim he made about answering questions.
Budikka
.

User: "Jim07D3"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	20 Sep 2003 12:40:15 PM

(Budikka) said:

On Septermber 11th, Jason Gastrich posted:
-------------
Hello,

I hope you are well, today.

I'm Jason Gastrich and I've written a book that corrects and explains
numerous
Bible difficulties. It's called "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible:
Corrected and
Explained." You can see it here: http://sab.jcsm.org.

No, this isn't an ad for my book. I'm posting this message to say
that I'm
happy to answer any questions you may have about the Bible. If I
don't know
the answer, I will research it and find it for you. All I ask is that
you
refrain from profanity and name calling.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
http://jcsm.org
-------------

Note the key phrase: "I'm posting this message to say that I'm
happy to answer any questions you may have about the Bible. If I
don't know
the answer, I will research it and find it for you."

In response, I posted this:
-------------
Are you saying that you, yourself are inerrant? If you cannot make
such a claim, then how can you possibly be certain that you are not in
error over your claim that the Bible is inerrant? Especially when I
can demonstrate that the Bible clearly is errant:

1. The Bible claims the entire universe was created out of nothing
and the Earth created and populated in a period of six, literal 24
hour successive days. Are you saying this is true? If so, please
post your three best evidences supporting such a claim. If not,
please withdraw your claim that he Bible is inerrant.

2. Has everyone sinned or not? According to John 15:22, there were at
least some people who had no sins until Jesus talked to them, and from
that point on they were apparently awash in sin: "If I had not come
and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak
for their sin." But Paul, the inventor of christianity, said, "For
all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Ro 3:23). So
which is it?

3. How many people were at the tomb of Jesus when it was discovered
to be empty? Was it Miriam of Magdala and Miriam the mother of
Jacobus (according to Matthew), or was it Miriam of Magdala, an
unnamed israelite or Christian whose name became Joanna/Salome over
retellings, Miriam the mother of Jacobus, and a host of women
(according to Mark/Luke), or was it Miriam of Magdala alone (according
to John)?

4. Why are there two different genealogies, different names, different
lengths, given for Jesus, one in Matthew 1, and the other in Luke 3?
And what is the point of these detailed genealogies if Joseph was not
Jesus' father anyway?

5. Why does god use the word 'us' to describe himself in several
instances, such as gen 1:26, 11:7, etc?

6. Was man really made from silicon (dirt) and woman from calcium
(bone?). If so, how come they are essentially made from the same
things nowadays?

7. Which generation was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?

8. Just what did the inscription on the cross say, since there is a
different description of it in each of the gospels. Are all of these
differing inscriptions inerrant?
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matthew)
"THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Mark)
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Luke)
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS" (John)

9. If Jesus' "death" on the cross destroyed the devil, as Hebrews
suggests (Heb 2:14: "...he also himself likewise took part of the
same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of
death, that is, the devil.") why is he still alive and well today?

10. Why didn't Adam die "in the day" he ate of the tree of knowledge,
as God had predicted in Gen 2:17?

Does God visit the sins of the parents on the children?

This one rings a bell. Please give me the reference in question.

Exo 34:7

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

* Jesus said it is the greatest of all herbs and becomes a tree. This is true.

The mustard seed is not the smallest (the least of all seeds). There
are orchid seeds which are considerably smaller.
-------------

Gastrich failed to respond in any way at all, and he did the same when
I reposted the same questions to remind him that he had not answered
them. I think we can safely conclude from this that he is unable to
fulfil the extravagant claim he made about answering questions.

Maybe the research is taking a long time?
Jim07D3
.

User: "Budikka"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	20 Sep 2003 05:24:24 PM

Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<s74pmvspml4ujsa49d3i1hcajhp5lkn3pt@4ax.com>...

Maybe the research is taking a long time?

As arrogant as he is that he has all the answers, you wouldn't think
he would need research, but there's a difference between, on the one
hand, acknowledging a series of questions and requesting time to
research, which is perfectly fine and on the other hand, completely
ignoring questions because he cannot answer them.
Budikka
.

User: "Jim07D3"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	20 Sep 2003 06:36:01 PM

(Budikka) said:

Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<s74pmvspml4ujsa49d3i1hcajhp5lkn3pt@4ax.com>...

Maybe the research is taking a long time?

Yes and it seems to me that if our salvation hangs in the balance,
he'd be more diligent and timely about it. Is there a penalty for
letting souls slip away after promising to help them?
Jim07D3
.

User: "Jason Gastrich"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	20 Sep 2003 04:00:35 PM

(Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0309192216.63e5ccb4@posting.google.com>...

No.

If you cannot make
such a claim, then how can you possibly be certain that you are not in
error over your claim that the Bible is inerrant?

My claim is based on my research and knowledge. I'm open to arguments
against inerrancy. Feel free to make one.

Especially when I
can demonstrate that the Bible clearly is errant:

1. The Bible claims the entire universe was created out of nothing
and the Earth created and populated in a period of six, literal 24
hour successive days. Are you saying this is true? If so, please
post your three best evidences supporting such a claim. If not,
please withdraw your claim that he Bible is inerrant.

Casting doubt on a biblical miracle is not an error.

2. Has everyone sinned or not? According to John 15:22, there were at
least some people who had no sins until Jesus talked to them, and from
that point on they were apparently awash in sin: "If I had not come
and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak
for their sin." But Paul, the inventor of christianity, said, "For
all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" (Ro 3:23). So
which is it?

Let's read this passage. John 15:19-24 reads, (NIV) "If you belonged
to the world, it would love you as its own. As it is, you do not
belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world. That is
why the world hates you. 20Remember the words I spoke to you: �No
servant is greater than his master.'� If they persecuted me, they will
persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours
also. 21They will treat you this way because of my name, for they do
not know the One who sent me. 22If I had not come and spoken to them,
they would not be guilty of sin. Now, however, they have no excuse for
their sin. 23He who hates me hates my Father as well. 24If I had not
done among them what no one else did, they would not be guilty of sin.
But now they have seen these miracles, and yet they have hated both me
and my Father."
By the context, before and after the partial verse that you quoted, we
see that Jesus is clearing talking about sinners (indicated by their
hate for believers). Therefore, we know that Jesus was saying, in
verse 22, that they would not "feel guilty of sin" if He did not speak
to them, but since He did, they are with "no excuse for their sin."
All throughout the Bible, we see that all people have sin. This
concept isn't unique to the Old Testament, it's not unique to Jesus'
teaching, and it's not unique to the remainder of the New Testament.
In short, you misinterpreted this passage by not reading the context.

3. How many people were at the tomb of Jesus when it was discovered
to be empty? Was it Miriam of Magdala and Miriam the mother of
Jacobus (according to Matthew), or was it Miriam of Magdala, an
unnamed israelite or Christian whose name became Joanna/Salome over
retellings, Miriam the mother of Jacobus, and a host of women
(according to Mark/Luke), or was it Miriam of Magdala alone (according
to John)?

Here are the SAB's assertions and my corrections and explanations for
this alleged contradiction.
SAB:
28:1 - Matthew says that two women went to the sepulchre on Easter
morning; all of the other gospels disagree. Mark (16:1) says there
were three, Luke (24:10) says there were five or more, and John (20:1)
says there was only one.
28:1 - John (Jn.20:1) says that the women arrived at the sepulchre
"early, when it was yet dark." But in this verse Matthew says they
arrived "as it began to dawn."
SAB: Corrected and Explained
* John does not say that only one woman visited the tomb. John
records Mary Magdalene's visit to the tomb (in the dark).
* Matthew 28:1 reports that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were
visiting the tomb at dawn.
* Mark reports that Mary Magdalene, the other Mary and Salome were
visiting the tomb while the sun was rising.
* Luke uses the word "they" and does not indicate who was visiting the
tomb. He only indicates who told the account to the disciples.
* These accounts do not contradict. First, there can be no argument
from silence. With this in mind, there are no conflicting stories,
only separate accounts. In order for a true conflict, one author
would need to say that one of the women listed, in one or more of the
gospels, was not there.
* If we take these accounts literally and assume each author knew
exactly who was where at all times, then Mary Magdalene went to the
tomb first. Next, the other Mary joined her. Immediately thereafter,
Salome joined them. After this, they returned and told the disciples
what had happened.

4. Why are there two different genealogies, different names, different
lengths, given for Jesus, one in Matthew 1, and the other in Luke 3?
And what is the point of these detailed genealogies if Joseph was not
Jesus' father anyway?

* Genealogies were important up until the time of Jesus Christ. He
fulfilled the numerous, lineage prophecies. However, after His birth,
life, death, and resurrection, it wasn't necessary to trace the Jewish
lineages.
* Joseph was Jesus' father by law.
* There are some omissions in the genealogies. Neither claim to be
exhaustive.

5. Why does god use the word 'us' to describe himself in several
instances, such as gen 1:26, 11:7, etc?

He was referring to the Godhead (the trinity): God the Father, God the
Son, and God the Holy Spirit. They are eternal.

6. Was man really made from silicon (dirt) and woman from calcium
(bone?). If so, how come they are essentially made from the same
things nowadays?

Yes. God performed a miracle as He created man and woman.

7. Which generation was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?

This word for "generation" is also translated "age." Jesus was
referring to the church age that we are still in. The church age
began in the 1st century.
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
till all these things take place."

8. Just what did the inscription on the cross say, since there is a
different description of it in each of the gospels. Are all of these
differing inscriptions inerrant?
"THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matthew)
"THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Mark)
"THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Luke)
"JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS" (John)

In this case, we have four authors recording similar things. It is
altogether possible for this to happen. If you were to have four
people see a crime or something emotional, they would surely give
stories with differing details. Therefore, it is likely that one is
correct and the other contain omissions. They all contain "The King
of the Jews."

9. If Jesus' "death" on the cross destroyed the devil, as Hebrews
suggests (Heb 2:14: "...he also himself likewise took part of the
same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of
death, that is, the devil.") why is he still alive and well today?

This verse indicates that Jesus destroyed the Devil's power over
people. It doesn't indicate that He literally destroyed the Devil.

10. Why didn't Adam die "in the day" he ate of the tree of knowledge,
as God had predicted in Gen 2:17?

* The death Adam suffered was separation from God and imputed sin to
his descendants. This Hebrew word for death can be used figuratively,
so literal death was not the punishment for his sin.

Does God visit the sins of the parents on the children?

This one rings a bell. Please give me the reference in question.

Exo 34:7

* Exodus 34:7 states that the "iniquity of the fathers" will visit
their children . . . to the fourth generation. Deuteronomy 24:16
states that the son shall not be put to death for the father's sin and
the father shall not be put to death for the son's sin. The passage
in Exodus warns about sin (like generational curses, such as
alcoholism, addiction, etc.) and the passage in Deuteronomy is
regarding the death penalty.

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

Untrue. Trying reading Strong's, again. "Least" is clearly mentioned
as one of the definitions.

Gastrich failed to respond in any way at all, and he did the same when
I reposted the same questions to remind him that he had not answered
them. I think we can safely conclude from this that he is unable to
fulfil the extravagant claim he made about answering questions.

Budikka

Budikka failed to present anything that was unique. These alleged
contradictions have been floating around the internet for years and
are easily clarified. Would you care to tell us where you got them?
Or was it a coincidence that you regurgitated the same ones?
At any rate, Budikka has failed to show a biblical error. If anyone
else would like to step up to the plate, please do.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
P.S. I didn't see this message until today, but I was happy to
correct and explain your misunderstandings.
.

User: "Gregory A Greenman"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	20 Sep 2003 05:22:35 PM

On 20 Sep 2003 14:00:35 -0700, Jason Gastrich
groups@jcsm.org said...

budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0309192216.63e5ccb4@posting.google.com>...

On Septermber 11th, Jason Gastrich posted:
-------------

* There are some omissions in the genealogies. Neither claim to be
exhaustive.

Matthew 1:2 (KJV)
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat
Judas and his brethren;
Matthew 1:17 (KJV)
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen
generations; and from David until the carrying away into
Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying
away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
If you look at jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1:2-16, you see
each person is listed as having begat the next, as shown in
Matthew 1:2 above. Further, verse 17 clearly states the
number of generations from Abraham to David, from David to
the Babylon captivity and then from Babylon to jesus as
fourteen each. If you count the generations listed they
actually come to 14, 14 and 13. So, obviously Matthew is
trying to be complete. He either missed one or he just
can't count.
Luke 3:24 (KJV)
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna,
which was the son of Joseph,
Luke's genealogy lists each person as being the son of the
next one mentioned, as shown in Luke 3:24. At no point is
there any indication that any names are omitted. If this
isn't intended to be a complete list, then Luke did an
awfully good job of hiding that fact.
Here's the genealogy according to Matthew:
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judas
Phares
Esrom
Aram
Aminadab
Naason
Salmon
Booz
Obed
Jesse
David
Solomon
Roboam
Abia
Asa
Josaphat
Joram
Ozias
Joatham
Achaz
Ezekias
Manasses
Amon
Josias
Jechonias
Salathiel
Zorobabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Sadoc
Achim
Eliud
Eleazar
Mattan
Jacob
Joseph
jesus
Here's the genealogy according to Luke:
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Juda
Phares
Esrom
Aram
Aminadab
Naason
Salmon
Booz
Obed
Jesse
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menan
Melea
Eliakim
Jonan
Joseph
Juda
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Jose
Er
Elmodam
Cosam
Addi
Melchi
Neri
Salathiel
Zorobabel
Rhesa
Joanna
Juda
Joseph
Semei
Mattathias
Maath
Nagge
Esli
Naum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Janna
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
jesus
So, Luke lists 56 generations where Matthew claims 41 or
42. They both ~do~ claim to be exhaustive, Matthew making
the claim explicitly by giving us the number of
generations. They can't both be right. At least one is
wrong.

7. Which generation was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?

This word for "generation" is also translated "age." Jesus was
referring to the church age that we are still in. The church age
began in the 1st century.

"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
till all these things take place."

That's the New King James Version. I thought you used the
King James Version?
You claimed that the KJV contained only one error. Either
this is it, or the word "generation" is the correct one,
not "age". "Generation" is used in both the KJV and NKJV.
Further, there's no indication from the context that jesus
meant anything by "generation" other than what it normally
means. Thus, jesus should have returned a long time ago. He
didn't, so the bible is wrong.

The reason witnesses tell different stories is because some
of them get the story wrong. Is that the analogy you really
want to make?
While each version does say "The King of the Jews", they
contradict in the other part of the phrase they quote.
Perhaps Mark did not quote the entire inscription. That
just means that at most Mark and one other got it right.
So, here are two more places where the bible is wrong.

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

Untrue. Trying reading Strong's, again. "Least" is clearly mentioned
as one of the definitions.

Strong's lists "least" as a definition of "least"?
Greg the Reprobate
Missionary of Death
-------------------
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.

User: "Jason Gastrich"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 02:22:23 AM

Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below> wrote in message news:<MPG.19d68ffb9b90352f989aab@netnews.comcast.net>...

On 20 Sep 2003 14:00:35 -0700, Jason Gastrich
groups@jcsm.org said...

budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0309192216.63e5ccb4@posting.google.com>...

On Septermber 11th, Jason Gastrich posted:
-------------

* There are some omissions in the genealogies. Neither claim to be
exhaustive.

Matthew 1:2 (KJV)
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat
Judas and his brethren;

Matthew 1:17 (KJV)
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen
generations; and from David until the carrying away into
Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying
away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

If you look at jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1:2-16, you see
each person is listed as having begat the next, as shown in
Matthew 1:2 above. Further, verse 17 clearly states the
number of generations from Abraham to David, from David to
the Babylon captivity and then from Babylon to jesus as
fourteen each. If you count the generations listed they
actually come to 14, 14 and 13. So, obviously Matthew is
trying to be complete. He either missed one or he just
can't count.

Luke 3:24 (KJV)
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna,
which was the son of Joseph,

Luke's genealogy lists each person as being the son of the
next one mentioned, as shown in Luke 3:24. At no point is
there any indication that any names are omitted. If this
isn't intended to be a complete list, then Luke did an
awfully good job of hiding that fact.

Here's the genealogy according to Matthew:
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judas
Phares
Esrom
Aram
Aminadab
Naason
Salmon
Booz
Obed
Jesse
David
Solomon
Roboam
Abia
Asa
Josaphat
Joram
Ozias
Joatham
Achaz
Ezekias
Manasses
Amon
Josias
Jechonias
Salathiel
Zorobabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Sadoc
Achim
Eliud
Eleazar
Mattan
Jacob
Joseph
jesus

Here's the genealogy according to Luke:
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Juda
Phares
Esrom
Aram
Aminadab
Naason
Salmon
Booz
Obed
Jesse
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menan
Melea
Eliakim
Jonan
Joseph
Juda
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Jose
Er
Elmodam
Cosam
Addi
Melchi
Neri
Salathiel
Zorobabel
Rhesa
Joanna
Juda
Joseph
Semei
Mattathias
Maath
Nagge
Esli
Naum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Janna
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
jesus

So, Luke lists 56 generations where Matthew claims 41 or
42. They both ~do~ claim to be exhaustive, Matthew making
the claim explicitly by giving us the number of
generations. They can't both be right. At least one is
wrong.

Hi,
I'm glad you have researched this and care. However, you have
forgotten to define the English word "begat" from the Greek. This is
where the solution lies.
The word "begat" is only designating lineages. It does not simply
designate father/son relationships.
The Greek word is "gennao" and it is from the word "genos," which
means "offspring" and "generation."
Matthew's lineage has omissions for a very good reason. Every name
that is missing from Matthew's lineage has been shown, from the Old
Testament, to have fallen into idolatry.

7. Which generation was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?

This word for "generation" is also translated "age." Jesus was
referring to the church age that we are still in. The church age
began in the 1st century.

"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
till all these things take place."

That's the New King James Version. I thought you used the
King James Version?

You claimed that the KJV contained only one error. Either
this is it, or the word "generation" is the correct one,
not "age". "Generation" is used in both the KJV and NKJV.
Further, there's no indication from the context that jesus
meant anything by "generation" other than what it normally
means. Thus, jesus should have returned a long time ago. He
didn't, so the bible is wrong.

You are making a typical error. You are trying to hold an English
translation to an unreasonable standard. You are also ignoring the
Greek and Hebrew texts. If you want to be a good apologist, you'll
have to investigate the Greek and Hebrew. I suggest buying my CD -
http://sab.jcsm.org. There is a copy of a KJV Bible with Strong's
Greek and Hebrew numbers, dictionaries, and concordances. You could
also buy a paper one or find one online.
I see that you continually want to rush to judgment (e.g. "the bible
is wrong"). I hope you become a more diligent pursuer of the truth
and wait to make judgment. With all due respect, you need to research
and learn more.

The reason witnesses tell different stories is because some
of them get the story wrong. Is that the analogy you really
want to make?

While each version does say "The King of the Jews", they
contradict in the other part of the phrase they quote.
Perhaps Mark did not quote the entire inscription. That
just means that at most Mark and one other got it right.
So, here are two more places where the bible is wrong.

There is a difference between an omission and an error. All of the
above are surely true and correct. However, there are some omissions.
This isn't a problem for the reasons I already gave.

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

Untrue. Trying reading Strong's, again. "Least" is clearly mentioned
as one of the definitions.

Strong's lists "least" as a definition of "least"?

Here is a Bible and you can even read the Greek and Hebrew, too. It's
totally free. Link: http://study.jcsm.org.
Mark 4:31 reads, "It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it
is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the
earth."
In the Strong's, "least" is one of the definitions of the English
(KJV) word "less."

Thanks for playin', Greg. May God bless you richly. Feel free to ask
anything you wish. I'll hunt down the answer and do my best to
answer.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
.

User: "Jim07D3"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 11:55:56 AM

(Jason Gastrich) said:

Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below> wrote in message news:<MPG.19d68ffb9b90352f989aab@netnews.comcast.net>...

On 20 Sep 2003 14:00:35 -0700, Jason Gastrich

said...

budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0309192216.63e5ccb4@posting.google.com>...

On Septermber 11th, Jason Gastrich posted:
-------------

* There are some omissions in the genealogies. Neither claim to be
exhaustive.

Matthew 1:2 (KJV)
Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat
Judas and his brethren;

Matthew 1:17 (KJV)
So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen
generations; and from David until the carrying away into
Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying
away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.

If you look at jesus' genealogy in Matthew 1:2-16, you see
each person is listed as having begat the next, as shown in
Matthew 1:2 above. Further, verse 17 clearly states the
number of generations from Abraham to David, from David to
the Babylon captivity and then from Babylon to jesus as
fourteen each. If you count the generations listed they
actually come to 14, 14 and 13. So, obviously Matthew is
trying to be complete. He either missed one or he just
can't count.

Luke 3:24 (KJV)
Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna,
which was the son of Joseph,

Luke's genealogy lists each person as being the son of the
next one mentioned, as shown in Luke 3:24. At no point is
there any indication that any names are omitted. If this
isn't intended to be a complete list, then Luke did an
awfully good job of hiding that fact.

Here's the genealogy according to Matthew:
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Judas
Phares
Esrom
Aram
Aminadab
Naason
Salmon
Booz
Obed
Jesse
David
Solomon
Roboam
Abia
Asa
Josaphat
Joram
Ozias
Joatham
Achaz
Ezekias
Manasses
Amon
Josias
Jechonias
Salathiel
Zorobabel
Abiud
Eliakim
Azor
Sadoc
Achim
Eliud
Eleazar
Mattan
Jacob
Joseph
jesus

Here's the genealogy according to Luke:
Abraham
Isaac
Jacob
Juda
Phares
Esrom
Aram
Aminadab
Naason
Salmon
Booz
Obed
Jesse
David
Nathan
Mattatha
Menan
Melea
Eliakim
Jonan
Joseph
Juda
Simeon
Levi
Matthat
Jorim
Eliezer
Jose
Er
Elmodam
Cosam
Addi
Melchi
Neri
Salathiel
Zorobabel
Rhesa
Joanna
Juda
Joseph
Semei
Mattathias
Maath
Nagge
Esli
Naum
Amos
Mattathias
Joseph
Janna
Melchi
Levi
Matthat
Heli
Joseph
jesus

So, Luke lists 56 generations where Matthew claims 41 or
42. They both ~do~ claim to be exhaustive, Matthew making
the claim explicitly by giving us the number of
generations. They can't both be right. At least one is
wrong.

Hi,

I'm glad you have researched this and care. However, you have
forgotten to define the English word "begat" from the Greek. This is
where the solution lies.

The word "begat" is only designating lineages. It does not simply
designate father/son relationships.

The Greek word is "gennao" and it is from the word "genos," which
means "offspring" and "generation."

Matthew's lineage has omissions for a very good reason. Every name
that is missing from Matthew's lineage has been shown, from the Old
Testament, to have fallen into idolatry.

This is what I'll call Type II Bible Inerrancy, wherein the normal,
direct meaning we apply to sentences has to be taken as incorrect in
order to maintain the inerrancy claim.
(Type I inerrancy is where the normal, direct view of what is real,
obtained via observation, historical record, or science, has to be
taken as incorrect in order to maintain the inerrancy claim.
Even if the people whose names are missing from Matthew's lineage fell
into "idolatry" (their view of god fell out of the orthodox view by
the time of Matthew) the "begat" lineage is stated the same way. So
you are defending "Type II Bible Inerrancy" here.
Not that there's anything wrong with that -- or is there?
Jim07D3
.

User: "Gregory A Greenman"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 03:32:45 AM

On 21 Sep 2003 00:22:23 -0700, Jason Gastrich
groups@jcsm.org said...

Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below> wrote in message news:<MPG.19d68ffb9b90352f989aab@netnews.comcast.net>...

On 20 Sep 2003 14:00:35 -0700, Jason Gastrich
groups@jcsm.org said...

budikka1@netscape.net (Budikka) wrote in message news:<e1e30450.0309192216.63e5ccb4@posting.google.com>...

On Septermber 11th, Jason Gastrich posted:
-------------

* There are some omissions in the genealogies. Neither claim to be
exhaustive.

<snip>

Here's the genealogy according to Luke:

<snip>

So, Luke lists 56 generations where Matthew claims 41 or
42. They both ~do~ claim to be exhaustive, Matthew making
the claim explicitly by giving us the number of
generations. They can't both be right. At least one is
wrong.

Hi,

Hello

I'm glad you have researched this and care. However, you have
forgotten to define the English word "begat" from the Greek. This is
where the solution lies.

Nonsense. The Greek texts have nothing to do with anything.
We're discussing the KJV. That's in English. Do I need to
remind you that you claimed that the KJV contained only one
error? If so, there's no need to go back and see what the
original Greek manuscripts said, unless this is that one
error. Is it?

The word "begat" is only designating lineages. It does not simply
designate father/son relationships.

begat -
To procreate, as a father or sire; to generate; -- commonly
said of the father.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=begat
It looks to me that in order to beget someone, you need to
be their father (apparently, mothers cannot beget). That's
what the word means in English.

The Greek word is "gennao" and it is from the word "genos," which
means "offspring" and "generation."

Who gives a damn?
(Actually, even if that did matter, neither of those words
support your position anyway.)

Matthew's lineage has omissions for a very good reason. Every name
that is missing from Matthew's lineage has been shown, from the Old
Testament, to have fallen into idolatry.

Matthew quite clearly says there were three stages of
fourteen generations each - that's 42 generations. He then
lists 41 generations. Either he can't count, or he omitted
exactly one generation. So your apologetic about missing
generations doesn't work.
I'll give you another problem with the lineages. According
to Matthew, the son of David that jesus' lineage passed
through is Solomon. According to Luke it's Nathan.
2 Samuel 5:14-16
And these be the names of those that were born unto him
[David] in Jerusalem; Shammuah, and Shobab, and Nathan, and
Solomon, Ibhar also, and Elishua, and Nepheg, and Japhia,
And Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphalet.
See, Solomon and Nathan were both sons of David. Your jesus
cannot have his lineage traced through both.

7. Which generation was Jesus talking about in Matthew 24:34?

This word for "generation" is also translated "age." Jesus was
referring to the church age that we are still in. The church age
began in the 1st century.

"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away
till all these things take place."

That's the New King James Version. I thought you used the
King James Version?

You claimed that the KJV contained only one error. Either
this is it, or the word "generation" is the correct one,
not "age". "Generation" is used in both the KJV and NKJV.
Further, there's no indication from the context that jesus
meant anything by "generation" other than what it normally
means. Thus, jesus should have returned a long time ago. He
didn't, so the bible is wrong.

You are making a typical error. You are trying to hold an English
translation to an unreasonable standard.

You set the standard. The standard is that the KJV contains
only one error. Is this it? If not, exactly how low of a
standard do I need to set before your all knowing, all
powerful god is capable of meeting it?

You are also ignoring the Greek and Hebrew texts.

Again, we're discussing the KJV. It's in English. Greek and
Hebrew texts have nothing to do with this.

If you want to be a good apologist, you'll
have to investigate the Greek and Hebrew.

I have no desire to become a good apologist. I prefer to
use my brain to think, if you don't mind.

I suggest buying my CD - http://sab.jcsm.org.

Why, when you're doing so well here?

There is a copy of a KJV Bible with Strong's
Greek and Hebrew numbers, dictionaries, and concordances. You could
also buy a paper one or find one online.

I see that you continually want to rush to judgment (e.g. "the bible
is wrong").

What "rush to judgment"? It's been almost 2000 years since
the people died, to whom jesus had promised a return during
their lifetimes.

I hope you become a more diligent pursuer of the truth
and wait to make judgment. With all due respect, you need to research
and learn more.

Jason, I hate to tell you but every apologist that's come
into aa has proven to be an idiot at best, and many of them
look good in comparison to you. So, if I were you, I'd can
the condescension.
I'll give you this much though, you make more sense than
Manny.

The reason witnesses tell different stories is because some
of them get the story wrong. Is that the analogy you really
want to make?

While each version does say "The King of the Jews", they
contradict in the other part of the phrase they quote.
Perhaps Mark did not quote the entire inscription. That
just means that at most Mark and one other got it right.
So, here are two more places where the bible is wrong.

There is a difference between an omission and an error. All of the
above are surely true and correct. However, there are some omissions.
This isn't a problem for the reasons I already gave.

First of all, omissions can be errors. However, putting
that aside, can you tell me what the inscription could
possibly have been, that would be consistent with all four
versions cited above?

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

Untrue. Trying reading Strong's, again. "Least" is clearly mentioned
as one of the definitions.

Strong's lists "least" as a definition of "least"?

Here is a Bible and you can even read the Greek and Hebrew, too. It's
totally free. Link: http://study.jcsm.org.

If you haven't noticed, I've used several bible quotes. Do
you think I have them memorized, or do you think that
maybe, I already have access to a bible. FYI, I use
biblegateway.com.

Mark 4:31 reads, "It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it
is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the
earth."

In the Strong's, "least" is one of the definitions of the English
(KJV) word "less."

And what exactly did they mean by "least", if not smallest?
Here's Mark 4:32 (KJV):
But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater
than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that
the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.
It's pretty clear that jesus is trying to contrast the
small size of the seed with the large size of the resulting
plant. Unfortunately, he got it wrong on several accounts.
The mustard seed is not the least of all seeds and, looking
at the pictures that someone else cited, it looks like a
weedy flower about two to four feet tall.

Thanks for playin', Greg.

May God bless you richly.

<again, comment withheld>

Feel free to ask anything you wish.

How old were you when you lost your intellectual integrity?
Were you fasting at the time?

I'll hunt down the answer and do my best to answer.

Or dodge.
Greg the Reprobate
Missionary of Death
-------------------
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.

User: "Abner Mintz"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 08:59:42 AM

Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below> wrote:

Jason, I hate to tell you but every apologist that's come
into aa has proven to be an idiot at best, and many of them
look good in comparison to you. So, if I were you, I'd can
the condescension.

I'll give you this much though, you make more sense than
Manny.

Um, Gregory, Madlibs make more sense than Manny. Manny is
only slightly more coherent than a random number generator
hooked up to an askii conversion program.
.

User: "Gregory A Greenman"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 09:38:49 AM

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:59:42 GMT, Abner Mintz
abnermintz@earthlink.net said...

Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below> wrote:

Jason, I hate to tell you but every apologist that's come
into aa has proven to be an idiot at best, and many of them
look good in comparison to you. So, if I were you, I'd can
the condescension.

I'll give you this much though, you make more sense than
Manny.

Um, Gregory, Madlibs make more sense than Manny. Manny is
only slightly more coherent than a random number generator
hooked up to an askii conversion program.

You know that, I know that, but does Jason know that? I'll
bet he's basking in the glow of this wonderful compliment
right now.
Greg the Reprobate
Missionary of Death
-------------------
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.

User: "Abner Mintz"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 05:31:55 PM

Gregory A Greenman <see@sig.below> wrote:

You know that, I know that, but does Jason know that? I'll
bet he's basking in the glow of this wonderful compliment
right now.

Perhaps, but it's more likely that he's killfiling each
of us as we show our spiritual deadness by disagreeing
with him ... Certainly he stopped answering my questions
when I tried to get a straight answer out of him.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	20 Sep 2003 11:19:43 PM

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:00:35 -0700, Jason Gastrich wrote:

All throughout the Bible, we see that all people have sin.

Begs the question.
(Boy you sure do THAT a lot)
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.

User: "Jason Gastrich"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 02:23:59 AM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2003.09.21.04.19.43.87129@eac.org>...

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:00:35 -0700, Jason Gastrich wrote:

All throughout the Bible, we see that all people have sin.

Begs the question.

(Boy you sure do THAT a lot)

Hmmm. Didn't I write several pages of information? It seems like you
missed the boat, Mr. Bilbo. Or perhaps you just forgot to thank me.
The sentence above was a simple paraphrase of the doctrine of man's
depravity. It is an understood concept, so I didn't feel that I
needed to prove it. Do I?
Sincerely,
Jason
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 09:21:43 AM

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 00:23:59 -0700, Jason Gastrich wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <iskanipa-y@hoo.com> wrote in message
news:<pan.2003.09.21.04.19.43.87129@eac.org>...

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:00:35 -0700, Jason Gastrich wrote:

All throughout the Bible, we see that all people have sin.

Begs the question.

(Boy you sure do THAT a lot)

Hmmm. Didn't I write several pages of information? It seems like you
missed the boat, Mr. Bilbo. Or perhaps you just forgot to thank me.

Getting testy aren't we Mr. Apologetics?
So you've posted pages of warmed over tripe I remember from my years as a
christian fundamentalist. Big whoopee. Still begs the question.

The sentence above was a simple paraphrase of the doctrine of man's
depravity. It is an understood concept, so I didn't feel that I needed to
prove it. Do I?

You can't. Not without begging the question.
Your god is alleged to be sovereign. Hence, "depravity" is whatever he
chooses. And there exist *NO* "absolute standards" (as christians are wont
to babble about) as there cannot be any "standard" to judge a sovereign
god against. "Depravity" is arbitrarily defined.
Tomorrow--in an act that would be utterly just, moral, and holy--a
sovereign god could declare having sex with animals to be an act of
worship. You would have NO CHOICE but to obey and agree. Period.
So how does "depravity" exist? Simple, god's whim.
It's like the whole silly blood sacrifice game. God needs sacrifice to
forgive. Why? Because he said so. If he said, even now, "oh, forget it,
you're all forgiven," he'd be holy and just to do so.
You simply can't "prove" this "depravity" thing without going in circles.
Not unless you want to concede to standards that are outside and
independent of your god...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	20 Sep 2003 05:45:31 PM

On 19 Sep 2003 23:16:05 -0700,

(Budikka) posted
in alt.atheism:

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

The bible says "a grain of mustard seed". That is, after you grind
it, one of the grains. Since ground mustard seed is so fine that
it'll pass through a sieve that's too fine to allow water through, a
grain of it is small indeed. It was the smallest thing they could
think of at that time, since the individual grains are invisible.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by
.

User: "Jason Gastrich"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 02:28:43 AM

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<1vlpmvg9l6sdudaic86lnret40lp3ovmet@Pern.rk>...

On 19 Sep 2003 23:16:05 -0700,

(Budikka) posted
in alt.atheism:

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

This is an interesting theory. This theory relies on using the KJV
verbatim. Some of the other translations omit "grain."
This verse goes on to mention the word "sow." Why would a literal
grain of a mustard seed be sown? Would it produce something or would
it need to be an entire seed in order to produce?
FYI:
According to the Strong's, an alternative word for "grain" is
"kernel."
According to the Strong's, an alternative word for "sow" is "scatter."
Interesting theory, though. Thanks. Please give more support if you
wish.
Sincerely,
Jason
.

User: "Jim07D3"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 12:01:53 PM

(Jason Gastrich) said:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<1vlpmvg9l6sdudaic86lnret40lp3ovmet@Pern.rk>...

On 19 Sep 2003 23:16:05 -0700,

(Budikka) posted
in alt.atheism:

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

This is an interesting theory. This theory relies on using the KJV
verbatim. Some of the other translations omit "grain."

This verse goes on to mention the word "sow." Why would a literal
grain of a mustard seed be sown? Would it produce something or would
it need to be an entire seed in order to produce?

FYI:

According to the Strong's, an alternative word for "grain" is
"kernel."

According to the Strong's, an alternative word for "sow" is "scatter."

Interesting theory, though. Thanks. Please give more support if you
wish.

Nonetheless, the verse says the mustard seed is the least of all
*seeds*. It doesn't say its kernel or ground bits are the least of all
kernels or ground bits.
Again, a "Type II" Bible Inerrancy claim. See another reply to you on
type I and II.
Jim07D3
.

User: "Jason Gastrich"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	22 Sep 2003 06:05:20 AM

Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<39mrmvg9rm75750bun377964h8cpak2ag6@4ax.com>...

groups@jcsm.org (Jason Gastrich) said:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<1vlpmvg9l6sdudaic86lnret40lp3ovmet@Pern.rk>...

On 19 Sep 2003 23:16:05 -0700,

(Budikka) posted
in alt.atheism:

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

This is an interesting theory. This theory relies on using the KJV
verbatim. Some of the other translations omit "grain."

This verse goes on to mention the word "sow." Why would a literal
grain of a mustard seed be sown? Would it produce something or would
it need to be an entire seed in order to produce?

FYI:

According to the Strong's, an alternative word for "grain" is
"kernel."

According to the Strong's, an alternative word for "sow" is "scatter."

Interesting theory, though. Thanks. Please give more support if you
wish.

Nonetheless, the verse says the mustard seed is the least of all
*seeds*. It doesn't say its kernel or ground bits are the least of all
kernels or ground bits.

Again, a "Type II" Bible Inerrancy claim. See another reply to you on
type I and II.

Jim07D3

I'm unfamiliar with type I and II.
Anyhow, the word "least" is subjective and was clearly used to
illustrate Jesus' analogy. He was making a spiritual statement about
something small growing into something large.
It is difficult to know why Jesus chose mustard and why He called it
the least. Nonetheless, we can understand the spiritual insight He
conveyed; if we don't get hung up on something trivial.
The beginning of verse 31 calls this a parable. The word "like"
indicates a simile. Jesus was saying how the mustard seed was "like
the kingdom of heaven."
Here is a thought. Has anyone considered the kinds of seeds that
Jesus' listeners had? If Jesus' listeners only had seeds that were
bigger than a mustard seed, then perhaps the alternate word "smallest"
could be used because it would be perfect for their understanding.
This would make sense and it wouldn't be an error because we have to
consider that the statement was being made to a certain audience.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
.

User: "Jim07D3"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	22 Sep 2003 10:30:49 AM

(Jason Gastrich) said:

Jim07D3 <Jim07D3@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<39mrmvg9rm75750bun377964h8cpak2ag6@4ax.com>...

(Jason Gastrich) said:

Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message news:<1vlpmvg9l6sdudaic86lnret40lp3ovmet@Pern.rk>...

On 19 Sep 2003 23:16:05 -0700,

(Budikka) posted
in alt.atheism:

Is the mustard seed the smallest seed of all?

* Jesus never said that the mustard seed was the smallest seed. He said it was
the "least."

According to Strong's, which you claim to use, the word translated as
"least" means small in size, quantity, number or dignity. Try again.

This is an interesting theory. This theory relies on using the KJV
verbatim. Some of the other translations omit "grain."

This verse goes on to mention the word "sow." Why would a literal
grain of a mustard seed be sown? Would it produce something or would
it need to be an entire seed in order to produce?

FYI:

According to the Strong's, an alternative word for "grain" is
"kernel."

According to the Strong's, an alternative word for "sow" is "scatter."

Interesting theory, though. Thanks. Please give more support if you
wish.

Nonetheless, the verse says the mustard seed is the least of all
*seeds*. It doesn't say its kernel or ground bits are the least of all
kernels or ground bits.

Again, a "Type II" Bible Inerrancy claim. See another reply to you on
type I and II.

Jim07D3

I'm unfamiliar with type I and II.

Then you didn't see my other two posts to you, yesterday.

Anyhow, the word "least" is subjective and was clearly used to
illustrate Jesus' analogy. He was making a spiritual statement about
something small growing into something large.

That's Type II.
Here they are (calling them type I and II is my idea):
Type I Bible inerrancy is where the normal, direct view of what is
real, obtained via observation, historical record, or science, has to
be taken as incorrect in order to maintain the inerrancy claim.
Type II Bible Inerrancy, wherein the normal, direct meaning we apply
to sentences has to be taken as incorrect in order to maintain the
inerrancy claim.
So you are defending "Type II Bible Inerrancy" here.

It is difficult to know why Jesus chose mustard and why He called it
the least. Nonetheless, we can understand the spiritual insight He
conveyed; if we don't get hung up on something trivial.

I couldn't agree more. But recognize, please, that an apologetics that
interprets some Bible stories literally and some figuratively,
whichever best salvages inerrancy, suggests that you are *starting*
with the premise that the Bible is inerrant, you are not reaching that
conclusion based on this analysis of the Bible. At least, that's what
it looks like to someone who does not start with that premise in hand.
C.S. Lewis did the same thing at the beginning of his apologetics on
the problem of evil. At least he admitted that one had to approach the
issue with faith already in hand, and with that, answers can more
likely be found. I think you should admit that is what you are doing.

The beginning of verse 31 calls this a parable. The word "like"
indicates a simile. Jesus was saying how the mustard seed was "like
the kingdom of heaven."

Here is a thought. Has anyone considered the kinds of seeds that
Jesus' listeners had? If Jesus' listeners only had seeds that were
bigger than a mustard seed, then perhaps the alternate word "smallest"
could be used because it would be perfect for their understanding.
This would make sense and it wouldn't be an error because we have to
consider that the statement was being made to a certain audience.

All that means is that they would have known he was wrong, which we
have since learned. Now you are asking for a type I apologetic on our
part, since we now know better than they did, whether he was correct.
Jim07D3
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	22 Sep 2003 09:11:27 PM

On 22 Sep 2003 04:05:20 -0700,

(Jason Gastrich) posted
in alt.atheism:

It is difficult to know why Jesus chose mustard and why He called it
the least.

At least get your authors correct. Jesus didn't write the NT, Saul
did.
--
"If we really know Truth, we do not fear hearing falsehoods or half-truths; if we are not sure of the truth - we shudder and try to shout down every utterance." - A. J. Mims
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

User: "Jos Flachs"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	22 Sep 2003 06:22:27 PM

On 22 Sep 2003 04:05:20 -0700,

(Jason Gastrich) wrote:

I'm unfamiliar with type I and II.

We learn something new every day. Just like diabetes. Twenty years
ago, type I and II didn't exist either. And a century and a half ago,
it was something inflicted by your benevolvent gods.

Anyhow, the word "least" is subjective and was clearly used to
illustrate Jesus' analogy. He was making a spiritual statement about
something small growing into something large.

If he only existed...

It is difficult to know why Jesus chose mustard and why He called it
the least.

Not difficult at all. The unknown writer of that story didn't know
***** about seeds. Just like you know ***** about biology, history,
meteorology, geology, theology. Come to think about it, what DO you
know?

Nonetheless, we can understand the spiritual insight He
conveyed; if we don't get hung up on something trivial.

The only spiritual or secular insight we can gain is his profound lack
of botanical knowledge.
Can we agree that this is another error in your inerrant story book?
That makes two: you [grudgingly] admitted the salt pillar story might
not be completely inerrant, and now the mustard seed story.
How's Mr. Noah doing with the sucherfish?

The beginning of verse 31 calls this a parable. The word "like"
indicates a simile.

The word "like" indicates "similar to". Falling back on new
definitions, Jason?

Jesus was saying how the mustard seed was "like
the kingdom of heaven."

No, but I guess this really is the best you can do. Jesus said about
as much as Harry Potter did. Mrs. Rowling makes him say things. Just
like the unknown bible authors did.

Here is a thought. Has anyone considered the kinds of seeds that
Jesus' listeners had?

What would YOU know about seeds? You already demonstrated (Mr. Noah &
the magical boat) that succinctly.

If Jesus' listeners only had seeds that were

----> IF <------

bigger than a mustard seed, then perhaps the alternate word "smallest"
could be used because it would be perfect for their understanding.

And if they had smaller seeds, it cannot.

This would make sense and it wouldn't be an error because we have to

It makes about as much sense as sending bibles to Germany.

consider that the statement was being made to a certain audience.

---> IF<--- your premises wasn't faulty, it would still be an error.
Mustard is not a tree.
.

User: "Al Klein"
Title: Re: Jason Gastrich Fails To Answer	21 Sep 2003 09:37:19 PM

On 21 Sep 2003 00:28:43 -0700,

(Jason Gastrich) posted
in alt.atheism:

I guess you were thinking of Matthew 13:31-32. I was thinking of
Matthew 17:20.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

Jason Gastrich Fails to Answer
JASON GASTRICH - you offered to answer McHugh's questions
JASON GASTRICH - you offered to answer McHugh's questions
FAO Jason Gastrich: You offered to answer McHugh's questions
Re: Jason Gastrich Answers
Attn: Jason Gastrich
Jason Gastrich vs. Stan Kohls - 104 minutes online NOW!
Governor Dr. Jason Gastrich

For Jason Gastrich, on AiG's Cytochrome-c Claim
Re: Jason Gastrich Answers
Re: A moment of Thought for Jason Gastrich
Jason Gastrich Interviews Dan Barker, November 2002
Oh, Jesus, Why Have You Forsaken "Dr" Jason Gastrich?
Ping Jason Gastrich
The Power of Prayer and Jason Gastrich

NEWER