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?

[bjs1]

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?

This is false. The Hebrew for seed (singular) is זֶרַע . The Hebrew for seeds (plural) is זרעים. The Hebrew in Genesis says seed, not seeds. Galatians is correct about the Hebrew grammar.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #2]

This is false. The Hebrew for seed (singular) is זֶרַע . The Hebrew for seeds (plural) is זרעים. The Hebrew in Genesis says seed, not seeds. Galatians is correct about the Hebrew grammar.

The Hebrew in Genesis does indeed say "seed", including here:

"And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered." (13:16),

.....and here:

"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be." (15:5)

Since "seed" in these verses obviously refers to many and not to one, the argument made in Galatians falls flat.

[1213]

Christians: Do you ever feel like you have been left 'holding the bag' having to defend the Christian Testament?

No, because all the anti-Bible people offer is lies, straw-man arguments and silly interpretations.

...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....

If zera can mean seed and seeds, how do you know it is not about a seed?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #4]

If zera can mean seed and seeds, how do you know it is not about a seed?

"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."
(Gal. 3:16)

The author of Galatians is arguing that "seed" means only one, and that for the text to mean many, it would have to say "seeds".

But......


"And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered." (Gen. 13:16)

"And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be." (Gen. 15:5)

We know that the author of Genesis is using "seed" to mean many because he links it to examples of many things: dust particles and stars.

[servant1]

[Replying to Avoice in post #1]


Imagine an athiest thinking he can decipher Gods truth from the bible.

[AquinasForGod]

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?

I don’t believe this is a genuine question, but rather an attempt at a "gotcha" moment—though it isn’t one. I’m responding only to clarify why that’s the case. Paul is making a theological point, not a grammatical one. In Hebrew, zeraʿ in Genesis 22:18 is grammatically plural, as indicated by the plural helping verbs like "shall be blessed" (וְהִתְבָּרֲכוּ). However, Paul is speaking theologically, as seen in Genesis 3:15, where seed clearly refers to one person. His point is that the ultimate fulfillment of this promise is in Christ.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #7]

I don’t believe this is a genuine question, but rather an attempt at a "gotcha" moment—though it isn’t one. I’m responding only to clarify why that’s the case. Paul is making a theological point, not a grammatical one. In Hebrew, zeraʿ in Genesis 22:18 is grammatically plural, as indicated by the plural helping verbs like "shall be blessed" (וְהִתְבָּרֲכוּ). However, Paul is speaking theologically, as seen in Genesis 3:15, where seed clearly refers to one person. His point is that the ultimate fulfillment of this promise is in Christ.

If Paul isn't making a grammatical statement in Galatians 3:16, why does he draw a grammatical distinction between what's supposedly said and what's supposedly not said in Genesis?

If the seed of the woman in Genesis 3:15 refers to only one and that one is supposed to be Jesus, then who is the serpent's seed? Is that also supposed to be an individual?

To assume that the woman's seed in Gen. 3:15 must be the individual Jesus, you have to assume that the woman in that verse is the individual Mary since she's the one who bore Jesus, but how is the woman Mary when Eve is the only woman present and every reference to "the woman" up to that point is a reference to her?

The assumption that the promises made to Abraham refer to the Messiah as an individual, when the text indicates something entirely different, is founded on wishful thinking. If it were founded on anything more, you wouldn't have to go all the way over into a different story to try to defend it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to servant1 in post #6]

Imagine an athiest thinking he can decipher Gods truth from the bible.

Imagine assuming that someone must be an atheist just because they don't believe in Jesus.

[servant1]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #9]


Oh sorry for my error, Which God do you believe in?