Secret organizations and cults? Recruiting? Lol, don't you think if I had a cult and was seeking to recruit people I would have jumped at the opportunity when you tried to stroke my ego and asked me about my canon? After all, you noticed I did not try to "recruit" you, (lol, and you appear to be pretty bent out of shape over it too). It does not appear that you think your accusations out very well before spewing them. If you are going to defile yourself, by lying about someone to show your hatred, shouldn't you at least make your lie sound believable so that you get your soul's worth out of the transaction? Why destroy your soul for nothing? At least tell a lie that someone else might believe so that when you get to your final destination six feet under you can tell yourself and your worms it was worth it. I'm somewhat disappointed myself also: how am I supposed turn the other cheek? You didn't actually do or say anything to hurt or offend me. :chuckle:
Scripture. What is considered Scripture?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
Secret organizations and cults? Recruiting? Lol, don't you think if I had a cult and was seeking to recruit people I would have jumped at the opportunity when you tried to stroke my ego and asked me about my canon? After all, you noticed I did not try to "recruit" you, (lol, and you appear to be pretty bent out of shape over it too). It does not appear that you think your accusations out very well before spewing them. If you are going to defile yourself, by lying about someone to show your hatred, shouldn't you at least make your lie sound believable so that you get your soul's worth out of the transaction? Why destroy your soul for nothing? At least tell a lie that someone else might believe so that when you get to your final destination six feet under you can tell yourself and your worms it was worth it. I'm somewhat disappointed myself also: how am I supposed turn the other cheek? You didn't actually do or say anything to hurt or offend me. :chuckle:
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Matthew said Jesus told them
“Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her; untie them and bring them to me.”
Mark said Jesus told them:
“Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately as you enter it, you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden; untie it and bring it.‘
Luke said Jesus told them:
“Go into the village ahead of you, and as you enter it you will find tied there a colt that has never been ridden. Untie it and bring it here.”
That's better Lon now you are engaging in the debate with a worthwhile thought. This seems nearer the truth.
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
I think it looks like two in the Hebrew.
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
There it is right there Lon.
For if you look in Zec 9:9 the first donkey is male, (chamor), but that is not how Matthew reads. Matthew has the feminine gender autes. So the female donkey is tied, and the colt is with her, and he says to bring [it] the colt to him. Thus by comparing the passages we can see what is going on. Luke uses the exact same form of luo, (lusantes), but with auton (masculine).
Luke 19:30 W/H
30 λεγων υπαγετε εις την κατεναντι κωμην εν η εισπορευομενοι ευρησετε πωλον δεδεμενον εφ ον ουδεις πωποτε ανθρωπων εκαθισεν και λυσαντες αυτον αγαγετε
Matthew 21:2 W/H
2 λεγων αυτοις πορευεσθε εις την κωμην την κατεναντι υμων και ευθεως ευρησετε ονον δεδεμενην και πωλον μετ αυτης - λυσαντες αγαγετε μοι
This is why most honest translations will have them in italics ("bring them to me"), if that word is used at all, because it can be understood either way depending on how the reader decides to "hear" the text, (the context thus defines how it should be read). But in this case the context is not explicit enough so one must go back to the quote from where it speaks. Since the quote speaks of a male donkey the Matthew statement cannot mean bring them both because the donkey in the Matthew statement is female, (autes - αυτης).
Matthew 21:2 YLT
2 saying to them, 'Go on to the village over-against you, and immediately ye shall find an *** bound, and a colt with her--having loosed, bring ye to me;
In the Young's Literal Bible above it is more clear and fairly easy to be seen that he speaks of merely bringing the colt which was with the female donkey. In the Zechariah passage both a male and female donkey are mentioned. The first is a he-donkey, (chamor), while the colt is the son or foal of a she-donkey. It is therefore just as Matthew records it:
Zechariah 9:9
9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon a he-donkey, [H2543 chamowr] even upon a colt, the foal of a she-donkey [H860 'athown].
The he-donkey is the colt, the son of a she-donkey, and was with its mother just as Matthew records, and the Master did not tell the disciples to bring both of them but rather to bring the colt. Once again, as even you have said a while back, Cobra is beffuddled over a mere translational issue and crying foul about something he does not understand because he did not dig deep enough before making his accusation against the scripture.
At last you are now engaging in the debate. Please consider this from the word for word Greek and Hebrew:
Matt 21:2
AND immediately YE SHALL BE FINDING a*s HAVING been BOUND AND COLT WITH her (autEs G846) LOOSing BE LEADING to-ME
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/mat21.pdf
846. autos ►
Strong's Concordance
autos: (1) self (emphatic) (2) he, she, it (used for the third pers. pron.) (3) the same
Original Word: αὐτός, αὐτή, αὐτό
Part of Speech: Personal Pronoun
Transliteration: autos
Phonetic Spelling: (ow-tos')
Short Definition: he, she, it, they, them, same
Definition: he, she, it, they, them, same.
http://biblehub.com/greek/846.htm
Zec 9:9
and riding on donkey (chmur G2543) and on colt son of female donkeys
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/zec9.pdf
2543. chamor ►
Strong's Concordance
chamor: a male a*s
Original Word: חֲמוֹר
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: chamor
Phonetic Spelling: (kham-ore')
Short Definition: donkey
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/2543.htm
So in Zechariah it is a male donkey with a colt (male) or possibly the male donkey and colt are one and the same?
And in Matthew it is an a*s (donkey) with a colt (male) but 'autes' can be male or female according to Strongs.
Therefore it must be a male donkey with a colt. This is further supported here:
Matt 21:7
THEY LED THE a*s AND THE COLT AND THEY ON PLACE upon OF them THE GARMENTS OF them AND THEY ON seat upon OF them
Two Animals not one!
Last edited:
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
You sound angry and twisted. Why would anyone hate you? This is just an online forum, it's not like you've murdered one of my family members.
You still haven't told us all here what is in your secret canon.
:listen:
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
After looking a little deeper I will say that it could very well be that the gender of the donkey(s) does not matter at all: for Jerusalem of above is our mother-covenant, (Gal 4:22-27), and has all kinds of symbolic and allegorical significance, (for instance "new Jerusalem" of the Apocalypse would thus be the symbolism of the new covenant and "daughter of Zion-Jerusalem" in the allegory-analogy). Moreover Jerusalem is typed as a wild donkey in Jer 2:23,24 and the daughter of Zion and daughter of Jerusalem has hoofs, (of brass), in Mic 4:13, (again here the scripture speaks of the daughter of Zion and the daughter of Jerusalem as the same, Mic 4:8, just as in Zec 9:9). The Master already had the new covenant during his ministry according to Yohanan:
John 3:27-31 KJV
27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
30 He must increase, but I must decrease.
31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
The Testimony of the Messiah is the new covenant, and his Testimony he received from the heavens, from above, (from the Father without measure, Jhn 3:34), and he that has the bride is the groom: the bride therefore is the new covenant which descends from the heavens, (as in the Apocalypse, it is deep symbolism). However the new covenant is actually a renewed covenant, and thus the old or primary is the new when it is interpreted through the new revelation of Messiah given to us in his Testimony in the Gospel accounts: in other words they are the same, the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, but understood through the Testimony of Messiah with new "spiritual eyes" given to us through the Testimony of the Messiah. This can be seen in the accounts of the last Seder where there are two of the multiple cups mentioned: Messiah passes not one but two cups around to his disciples, one during the meal and one afterwards, (mentioned in Luke). The first cup is the confirmation of the primary covenant "for many", (Dan 9:27, Mat 26:28 ASV, Mrk 14:24 ASV, Luk 22:17 ASV), while the second cup after the meal is the new covenant, ("shed for you", it is private, personal, and individual, Luk 22:20 ASV). So it may be that the Matthew 21 passage speaks in these terms, that is, Zion-Jerusalem of above, and the daughter of Zion-Jerusalem, (both covenants: one donkey "accustomed to the yoke", and one young-new donkey, regardless of gender because it speaks of heavenly cities, lol).
Galatians 4:22-26
22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
These things very well could be . . .
I have much more to study now: thank you Cobra, (sincerely).
Yes two donkeys representing old and new testaments and also perhaps Heaven as His Throne and Earth as His Footstool.
It looks like that to people accustomed to English and not trained in Hebrew.
I don’t have much time now, but perhaps this might help:
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/files/zechariah_9.pdf
I think the definitive version of Zech 9.9 is in the Old Testament.
Last edited:
See that little open quote before Wallace’s own words “Grammatical solecisms in Revelation abound!“:doh: See that little '15' there? It means 'said Guthrie' whom Wallace said he largely disagrees with.
I really cannot help you much any more. Your brain is simply not ready for this
?
Revelation is very poor Greek. Wallace says so himself.
I suppose they did not mention that in your seminary training, attempting to maintain the delusion that God chose the words.
I do appreciate your sharing that there are many things on which none of the translators agree with you.That does not keep me from the truth. If only you knew how many things "none of the translators agree with me" on: and yet in most all of those things I can either prove them wrong with the scripture and in some cases show how they are bold faced liars who had the truth and blatantly ignored it because of paradigm-mindset, (Matthew 11:10 quoting Exodus 23:20a being one of those cases). However, as I said to your pal Watchman: what you do in your house is between you and the Master, but in my house there is peace and light, the light of the truth, in the Messiah.
I don’t know the other cases, but I do understand that being told to go find two things, followed by the command bring, should either be left “bring to me” or “bring them to me.” And that is the correct approach that the other translators took.
Lon’s implication that context doesn’t matter in translation is something that is difficult to believe came out of a post by a person who attended seminary.
Inserting “it” is a transparent and failed attempt to reconcile the error.
Don’t let honest debate and investigation bother you so much.
Lon said much worse things to me than anyone said to you, and I just drive along seeking and sharing truth.
Why would you think I am not also driving along seeking and sharing the truth?
Is that supposed to be only you and no one else?
It's all in your mind captain ego. :chuckle:
Wrong-made up, liar. I've consistently, w/o reservation, given my position on this issue on TOL for years.
All scripture is(not "was") given by inspiration.
Where can we get a copy of the scriptures that are "inspired of God?"
Watch the dance, dodge ball.....Watch...
And, chapter, verse, that asserts that a translation cannot be "is given by inspiration" scripture.
Slower:He did not answer my questions, so I gave him chapter, verse, my answer, as the Saviour did, to those who were engaged in sophistry, with trap questions, and deceit.
Start paying attention, you ignorant(a great biblical word)blow hard, who wouldn't know the difference between a gyros, and "Hebrew National," or the book of Joel, and Billy Joel.
Can you dig it? Good.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
I am a little like that. Opinion is important, but we are to champion God's truth when we know it. Iron does sharpen if we apply the friction carefully.
At the very least, burrs are worn down so we can be sharp again (by the biblical analogy). :e4e: -Lon
Lon
Well-known member
:chuckle: "Not to bright" hit him hard in the gut, so of course it was 'worse.' Another? Child of Satan but no, 'my' post hit him where it counts
lain:
Lon
Well-known member
That about sums it up, brother John.
