Christians: Does this embarrass you?

[Avoice]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to RBD in post #98]

I think you mean absence of evidence does not prove something's not there. Absence is itself evidence of absence, but not proof there's nothing there.

Absence of evidence is proof that evidence is not there.

Gen 13/15 is all about the natural seed promised mulititudes and land.

Where does Jehovah make a different promise to Abraham and his seed in Jewish scripture? When you resort to quoting Galatians and Hebrews you're just using Christian scripture to justify itself, and that's what makes your argument circular.

[servant1]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #99]


Show me contradictions, i will show you your error.

[RBD]

THE QUESTION FOR CHRISTIANS: How do you defend Galations that claims if it meant more than one seed it would have said it. As if the word ZERA would say ZERAS if it meant plural. NO IT WOULDNT.

There is no claim of a grammatical contradiction between one part of the Bible speaking of seed, and another place saying it's seeds (or vica versa).

The actual accusation is that the writer of Gal 3 was suggesting that 'seeds' would have been written in Hebrew, if the plural was meant. As though the learned Hebrew Paul of Tarsus did not know, that there was no plural word for seed, such as sheep.

The charge is so rediculous, that it's triviality is missed because we're look for something of substance to refute.

Paul the apostle was only pointing out that the singular was meant in Genesis, and if he were writing in Hebrew, he would have put it that way. But, because he was also well-learned in Greek, he was able to say seeds was not meant.

[RBD]

[Replying to historia in post #73]

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

Bible is history and doctrine and prophecy. History is confirmed factually or not. Doctrine and prophecy can be interpreted.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #99]


Show me contradictions, i will show you your error.

I did supply some and you didn't show any errors. It would be a waste of my time to supply even more at this time as those reading here were already made aware.

Be well.

[RBD]

[Replying to RBD in post #72]

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

Here's one place:

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

The question was rhetorical, in that any proof of Messiah in Genesis, is irrelevant to any contradiction with Genesis elsehwere in the Bible. Arguing against Jesus Christ being the Messiah is only by intepretation of prophecy.

And the first prophecy of Messiah coming to the earth is of 'that prophet' like Moses, and the LORD Himself coming to judge the earth and govern all nations.

Not until later is the suffering Messiah prophesied born of a woman. The anti-NT Jews are still waiting for their hero messiah to come and destroy all their physical enemies. (Many have thought to come even to this day, but they just die off like other men). The NT Jews and Christians are still waiting for our Lord Jesus Christ to come and recieve us to Himself into the air.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to historia in post #73]

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

Bible is history and doctrine and prophecy. History is confirmed factually or not. Doctrine and prophecy can be interpreted.

I don't take issue with there being some history in the Bible and there certainly is doctrine. However, the idea that humans can predict the future gives me pause. Can you make the idea that humans can tell the future reasonable or is such a thing just an unreasonable assertion and that must be assumed to be true via faith?

Have you ever met someone with the ability to predict the future?

[RBD]

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

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

Correct, especially in Gal 4, which is a continuation of Gal 3, that preaches the eternal inheritance of the children of Abraham by faith.

But the first part of your argument is mistaken, I think. Paul gives the quote specifically as "καὶ τῷ σπέρματι σου," "and to your seed." That is a verbatim quote from the LXX in Genesis 13:15,

While there is certainly an appearance of similarity, when speeking of seed, promise, and inheritance, Gal 3 is not referring to Gen 13/15, because the land inheritance of the natural seed has no part in Gal 3-4. Paul is not arguing that the new Gentile converts to the faith of Abraham have some sort of share in the land promised the natural seed alone.

The only role the natural seed play in Gal 3, is those trusting in the law to be rightedously justified with God. The promise of land, as well as numbers, is never a part of the argument, and so Gen 13/15 has no part.

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

Correct, and so any suggestion of contradiction of words is one again concocted just to find fault.

The subject matter and preaching of Gal 3-4 , is clearly from Gen 21. In fact, the only quote from Gen 21 is in Rom 9: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.

Once again we see the gospel difference made between natural seed alone (including their promised land), and the promise of spiritual and eternal inheritance with Abraham by faith.

Rom 9:8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.

The word of promise in Gal 3 is the seed of faith, not the land of the natural seed.

[RBD]

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

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

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

Diversion is a common tool for empty or failed arguments. It's a good lesson in debate not to go down that rabbit hole, but stick with the argument at hand.

[RBD]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #49]


Paul and Jesus are in harmony, otherwise God wouldn't have used his writings in the bible. Its men who twist things into disharmony.

As what shown to you, Paul and Jesus were not in harmony. I put in the work to show this and all you are doing now is sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating dogma.

2 Tim 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Just to be clear, if there is any contradiction in the Bible, then it is one Author with Himself.

If there is a contradiction between any 'apostle' with Scripture, then it is a false prophet and apostle of Jesus Christ, who has no part in the Bible.

2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

There have been many false prophets and apostles speaking and writing in the name of the God of the Bible, which is why they are not included in the Bible.