Is Scripture Corrupt?

[stovebolts]

The greek word "aner" , from the greek, into English , should always be translated - "man". The reason being, is because this is what this greek word means, plain and simple.

The translators translated this word "aner" as husband. But that is not the correct translation of this word "aner" ! The correct translation of this word "aner" is --- "man". The correct translation of the English word "father" is the the greek word - "pater" . The correct translation of the English word "husband" is the greek word -- "hupandros"

From Perseus.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... ior=brotoi\#lexicon


???? Root !????
a man, Lat. vir (not homo):
I. a man, opp. to a woman, Hom., etc.
II. a man, opp. to a god, ????? ?????? ?? ???? ?? id=Hom.
III. a man, opp. to a youth, a man in the prime of life, id=Hom., etc.; ??? ?????? ??????????? to be enrolled among the men, Dem.
IV. a man emphatically, a man indeed, ?????? ????, ????? Il.; ?????? ??? ????????, ?????? ?? ?????? many human beings, but few men, Hdt.
V. a man, opp. to his wife, a husband, Hom., etc.; ????? ????, Virgil's vir gregis, Theocr.

Here is an example outside of the Bible where ???? is used as husband.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... g=original
For this slaughter, these women made a custom and bound themselves by oath (and enjoined it on their daughters) that no one would sit at table with her husband or call him by his name, because the men had married them after slaying their fathers and husbands and sons. This happened at Miletus.

Here is an indepth study of said word.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... =1#lexicon

Sorry Hervey, your assertion just doesn't stand up when one considers other greek writings that support ???? as being translated as Husband.

I would suggest that words can take on different nuances. Look at the word love in Greek as example. (John 21:16)

Hervey,
Care to set the guys at Perseus straight?

 

[Mysteryman]

Hervey,

There are Three columns.
Each column has 14 rows.
How many items are there total?
(hint 3*14=x)

And you're right, you can't count David twice, so the math gets a bit trickier.

3x14=x x-1=y
What is the sum total of y?

Perhaps you would like to list the genelogical names for us just like Synth did so we can see, and count for ourselves?

Hi Jeff:

Its apparent that you havn't read the previous posts where I give the answer.

Still waiting for a coherent answer ! :yes

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote dadof10 - "That's not what the VAST MAJORITY OF GREEK SCHOLARS THINK. It's only what you think. Can you find a Greek scholar that agrees with you that Joseph is Mary's father? This is, after all, your point."
--------------------------

Vast majority ? Are you suggesting then, that some greek scholars agree with me ?

What I do care about, is truth ! Not assumptions. I told you not to leave any stone unturned. Yet your replies are full of holes. As well as needless comments from time to time.

The word "aner" should have been always translated "man" or "men" in the case of plurality within a context.

With the 50 times the translation translated "aner" --- husband, they were interpreting instead of translating ! Some of the times the interpretation fit, and some of the times the interpretation didn't . Matt. 1:16 is an excellent example of where it did not fit, and thus is a corruption of scripture !

It is my contention, that they interpreted this word "aner" to read what they wanted the readers to read. Thus corrupting scripture on purpose ! When they should have been translating instead !!

I will say this one last time --- The word "aner" is always ------ in relationship too

Once again, I will await coherent replies to this thread, and this paticular portion of this thread.

 

[dadof10]

Quote dadof10 - "That's not what the VAST MAJORITY OF GREEK SCHOLARS THINK. It's only what you think. Can you find a Greek scholar that agrees with you that Joseph is Mary's father? This is, after all, your point."
--------------------------

Vast majority ? Are you suggesting then, that some greek scholars agree with me ?

I don't know. I haven't run across any. I'm just giving you the benefit of the doubt. Have you run across any that agree that "aner" is ALWAYS translated as "man", and that "man of Mary" is INTERPRETED as "father"? Didn't think so.

What I do care about, is truth ! Not assumptions. I told you not to leave any stone unturned. Yet your replies are full of holes. As well as needless comments from time to time.

I come here because I enjoy it. I don't feel the need to be totally serious all the time. Lighten up.

The word "aner" should have been always translated "man" or "men" in the case of plurality within a context.

With the 50 times the translation translated "aner" --- husband, they were interpreting instead of translating ! Some of the times the interpretation fit, and some of the times the interpretation didn't . Matt. 1:16 is an excellent example of where it did not fit, and thus is a corruption of scripture !

It is my contention, that they interpreted this word "aner" to read what they wanted the readers to read. Thus corrupting scripture on purpose ! When they should have been translating instead !!

I will say this one last time --- The word "aner" is always ------ in relationship too

Didn't you say this:

I know for a fact, that I gave to this board, more than once, the fact that the word "aner" in Matt. 1:16 is not translated properly. The KJV translates it as the "husband" of Mary, and it should have been translated the "man" of Mary. This man of Mary, was her father, not her husband ! Then and only then do you arrive at 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ.

And this:

For instance, I told you that the word "aner" was translated improperly in Matt. 1:16. I informed you that the word was translated "husband" instead of "Man". Then I informed you that if the word "aner" was translated "husband", that this would leave us with only 41 generations from Abraham unto Christ. But if translated "man" , which means her father ( I didn't say it should be translated to the word Father, I said that the word "man" means her father), then and only then would there be 42 generations from Abraham unto Christ. Which then would include Mary as one of the generations.

And this:

When it came to deal with Mary and her father Joseph, Matthew could not use the word "begotten" as pertaining to Mary. So Matthew used the word "aner" , which should have been translated the "man" of Mary, which indicates his offspring which was not begotten, but nonetheless an offspring of this man Joseph.

Please note, the phrase is "man of Mary" not "husband of Mary" or "father of Mary".

You INTERPRET the phrase "man of Mary" as "father of Mary". Everyone else on the planet...OK the vast majority of those on the planet including every Greek scholar I could find, interprets the literal words "man of Mary" as "husband of Mary".

Could you please explain why only YOU are allowed to INTERPRET the phrase? Why when others interpret, including EVERY GREEK SCHOLAR I COULD FIND, they are somehow "corrupting" Scripture?

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you by everyone on this thread, the word "aner" is used contextually as "husband" in many places in Scripture, and used as "father" in exactly zero places.

Once again, I will await coherent replies to this thread, and this paticular portion of this thread.

They have all been coherent, with one exception...

 

[l'Chante]

Stupid question I guess, but if Joseph was Mary father, why did he want to divorce quitely when he found out that she was pregnant? Could parents actually divorce their children?

Sorry, I’m still a Pampers Christian.

 

[Mysteryman]

Stupid question I guess, but if Joseph was Mary father, why did he want to divorce quitely when he found out that she was pregnant? Could parents actually divorce their children?

Sorry, I’m still a Pampers Christian.

Hi

Always remember that in asking questions, this is one way in which you can receive an answer to your questions.

First, you must understand that there are two Joseph's here. In verse 16 this Joseph is the father of Mary, and in verse 19, this Joseph is the husband of Mary.

At this time in history, the tradition was , that there was a waiting period before they were to come together as husband and wife. Maybe someone could explain the length of this waiting period.

However, in verse 19 , we read of Joseph being a just man, and he didn't want Mary to be a public example of her pregnancy, so he wanted to put her away privately, as to hide her pregnancy. But the Lord appeard unto Joseph in a dream, and told Joseph to take Mary and go unto her as his wife. This means that they lived together, but did not join unto one another until after her firstborn was delivered.

So as you can see, there was no divorce .

 

[francisdesales]

Stupid question I guess, but if Joseph was Mary father, why did he want to divorce quitely when he found out that she was pregnant? Could parents actually divorce their children?

Sorry, I’m still a Pampers Christian.

Hi

Always remember that in asking questions, this is one way in which you can receive an answer to your questions.

At this time in history, the tradition was , that there was a waiting period before they were to come together as husband and wife. Maybe someone could explain the length of this waiting period.

However, in verse 19 , we read of Joseph being a just man, and he didn't want Mary to be a public example of her pregnancy, so he wanted to put her away privately, as to hide her pregnancy. But the Lord appeard unto Joseph in a dream, and told Joseph to take Mary and go unto her as his wife. This means that they lived together, but did not join unto one another until after her firstborn was delivered.

So as you can see, there was no divorce .

The whole idea behind "putting her away in private" indicates that Joseph was indeed betrothed to Mary. Fathers don't "put away" their daughters, that right belongs to the soon-to-be husband.

 

[jasoncran]

emincipation by children from their parents was in that judeo culture then. we have this in america, but is very rare.seldom will a judge do that.

 

[Mysteryman]

I believe the waiting period was 12 months / a year.

Jason, can you shed some light on this ?

 

[l'Chante]

So as you can see, there was no divorce .

Oh no, I understood that bit. Thanks. What I wanted to know is why Joseph wanted to divorce her if he was her father. (I understand that Joseph never actually divorced her, but that the thought crossed his mind)

19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

 

[Mysteryman]

So as you can see, there was no divorce .

Oh no, I understood that bit. Thanks. What I wanted to know is why Joseph wanted to divorce her if he was her father. (I understand that Joseph never actually divorced her, but that the thought crossed his mind)

19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Okay, then your question was misunderstood by me then.

But did you realize that there were two Joseph's here in chapter one of Matt. ?

 

[Sinthesis]

But did you realize that there were two Joseph's here in chapter one of Matt. ?

Nobody "realizes" that but you, MM.

 

[Mysteryman]

But did you realize that there were two Joseph's here in chapter one of Matt. ?

Nobody "realizes" that but you, MM.

Oh , trust me, I am not the only Christian that can count to 42 - :rolling

 

[jasoncran]

I believe the waiting period was 12 months / a year.

Jason, can you shed some light on this ?

its rare that its done as often its done only with celebreties. b.spears in a sense was emincapated from her parents.

when one is emincapated no matter the age one is an adult legally.

 

[dadof10]

So as you can see, there was no divorce .

Oh no, I understood that bit. Thanks. What I wanted to know is why Joseph wanted to divorce her if he was her father. (I understand that Joseph never actually divorced her, but that the thought crossed his mind)

19 Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Hi l'Chante,

Joseph toyed with the idea of divorcing Mary because he was betrothed to her and therefore, NOT her father. There is only ONE Joseph, the "husband" of Mary, not two.

There is only one person on the face of the earth that believes that the Joseph mentioned in Matt. 1:16 is Mary's father and the Joseph mentioned in verse 18 is her husband. That person just happens to be on this forum.

Please decide for yourself, common sense will lead you to the truth. You might want to read the previous posts in this thread. They will help with the Greek words.

and Jacob the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ.
17 So all the generations from Abraham to David were fourteen generations, and from David to the deportation to Babylon fourteen generations, and from the deportation to Babylon to the Christ fourteen generations.

Here is the first meeting of Joseph in Matthew's Gospel. he introduces him in the "genealogy of Jesus Christ" as the "husband of Mary". This interpretation of the word Greek word "aner" to the English word "husband" is UNIVERSAL among Greek scholars. That should be enough to convince you, but there's more...

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit; 19 and her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to send her away quietly. (Matthew (RSV) 1)

You'll notice Matthew did not introduce another person named "Joseph". He simply says he is the person that "had been betrothed" to Mary, which squares perfectly to the "husband of Mary" in verse 16. There is absolutely NO contextual reason to assume that Matthew is introducing another person, who Mary is betrothed to, who happens to have the same name as her father. Is Matthew trying to fool us?

Please don't get confused. Just do a little study and you will know the truth.

 

[l'Chante]

My apologies for the delay in response, but I wanted to read through the whole thread and I referred back to the Bible in my mother tongue. Unfortunately we don’t have as many translations as the English, and the English ones go a bit over my head.

I do have a couple of questions regarding this and I hope someone will take the time to explain it to me.

1. Why is it important to calculate 42 generations? I’m sure it must be important as I believe everything in the Bible is important, but I just don’t understand why?
2. The bloodline that the Scripture refers to is Joseph’s bloodline and not Mary’s, right?
3. Yet the fact that Joseph wanted to ‘divorce’ Mary clearly indicates that he was not her father.

I would really appreciate it if someone could explain these questions to me in layman’s terms. (Some of you have very impressive vocabularies, but I don’t always understand what you are saying. )

 

[Ashua]

I just want to add that people who find fault with the generations of Christ not adding up properly; read it carefully. It says:

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 Messiah are fourteen generations.

You must realize that David is the numeric seal of one set of 14 and also the beginning of another.


1. Abraham
2.Isaac
3.Jacob
4.Judas and his brethren;
5.Phares and Zara of Thamar;
6.Esrom
7.Aram
8.Aminadab
9.Naasson
10.Salmon
11.Booz of Rachab
12.Obed of Ruth
13.Jesse
14.David the king;

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations;

1. David the king
2.Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;
3.Roboam
4.Abia
5.Asa
6.Josaphat
7.Joram
8.Ozias
9.Joatham
10.Achaz
11.Ezekias
12.Manasses
13.Amon
14.Josias; (Lifetime overlapping the Babylonian exile)

and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations;

1.Jechonias and his brethren, (They were begotten) about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
2.And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel;
3.Zorobabel;
4.Abiud
5.Eliakim
6.Azor;
7.Sadoc
8.Achim
9.Eliud
10.Eleazar
11.Matthan
12.Jacob
13.Joseph the husband of Mary,
14.of whom was born Yeshua, who is called Messiah.

and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Messiah are fourteen generations.
so, it is broken interpretation and not translation that we should attribute culpability to.
Its a detailed word problem. not simply an addition problem. people see numbers and want to go gung-ho adding. You have to read it carefully to pick up on the fact that David is a bench mark dividing the three sets of fourteen.

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 Messiah are fourteen generations.

 

[Ashua]

My apologies for the delay in response, but I wanted to read through the whole thread and I referred back to the Bible in my mother tongue. Unfortunately we don’t have as many translations as the English, and the English ones go a bit over my head.

I do have a couple of questions regarding this and I hope someone will take the time to explain it to me.

1. Why is it important to calculate 42 generations? I’m sure it must be important as I believe everything in the Bible is important, but I just don’t understand why?
2. The bloodline that the Scripture refers to is Joseph’s bloodline and not Mary’s, right?
3. Yet the fact that Joseph wanted to ‘divorce’ Mary clearly indicates that he was not her father.

I would really appreciate it if someone could explain these questions to me in layman’s terms. (Some of you have very impressive vocabularies, but I don’t always understand what you are saying. )

the reason it is important is because people see the verse in Matthew 1

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 Messiah are fourteen generations.

do 14X3= 42, then add up the names on the genealogy and only come up with 41 names on the list. They use this (wrongly) to say the Bible is not error proof. (The original is error proof, but not translations. The KJV is right in this example too, though; so this claim doesnt hold water.)
See the post above this to understand why the claim about this is void.

 

[Mysteryman]

Is it that people can not count up to 42 , or is it that they do not want to properly count up to 42 ? I say the latter. They want to be ignorant ( lack of knowledge ) , and the Word tells us, that if one wants to remain in their lack of knowledge (ignorance) , for one to allow them to remain in their lack of knowledge ( ignorance). :yes

 

[Mysteryman]

My apologies for the delay in response, but I wanted to read through the whole thread and I referred back to the Bible in my mother tongue. Unfortunately we don’t have as many translations as the English, and the English ones go a bit over my head.

I do have a couple of questions regarding this and I hope someone will take the time to explain it to me.

1. Why is it important to calculate 42 generations? I’m sure it must be important as I believe everything in the Bible is important, but I just don’t understand why?
2. The bloodline that the Scripture refers to is Joseph’s bloodline and not Mary’s, right?
3. Yet the fact that Joseph wanted to ‘divorce’ Mary clearly indicates that he was not her father.

I would really appreciate it if someone could explain these questions to me in layman’s terms. (Some of you have very impressive vocabularies, but I don’t always understand what you are saying. )

John 4:24 - "God is Spirit : and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth"