Search results

Well, I guess we're done here. "I have made thee a god (Elohim) to Pharaoh" uses a plural form of "God" to refer to a singular person, Moses. There is no way around that.

I asked you why Moses would be referred to as Elohim. Matthew chapter 3 surely does not answer that question.

So how do you explain the use of Elohim in Exodus 7:1?

Seems as though you are assuming that whenever the plural form Elohim is found in the Torah, it must refer to more than one person/entity/being. But Exodus 7:1 proves that that cannot be true. (There is only one Moses!)

My friend, you have truncated my quote and flipped the meaning! What I said was "there is just no way to conclude that Jesus declared “I WILL BE.” So his audience must have favored the “I AM” interpretation of Exodus 3:14." I'd have to think about equating "I AM" with "The Eternally Existing...

It’s interesting that you favor future tense over present tense here, when the Hebrew grammar allows for either to be correct. I’m not saying you’re wrong. But the overwhelming consensus of bible translations favors I AM over I WILL BE. Exodus 3:14 - Bible Gateway That should at least give you...

I am not trying to discount the Word of God, I'm just trying to ascertain just what IS the word of God -- and errors in Matthew figure into this. Let me give another example. In Matt. 23:25 the author confuses two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and...

I neglected to mention that Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, Book 3, ch. 7, rejects the copyist error theory, but does agree with Jerome that Matthew's proper reference should have been Zechariah rather than Jeremiah: "Now, if any one finds a difficulty in the circumstance that this...

Where does Jeremiah mention purchase of the potter's field?

I agree. It's not a big deal to me. But then, I am not an inerrantist.

Because Jeremiah doesn't mention buying a potter's field either. Because the analogue to Zechariah is far stronger than to Jeremiah. 30 pieces of silver, for example, is mentioned only in Zechariah. I have to agree with Jerome here.

Not this one. Matt. 27:9 has no analogue in Mark's gospel. (Mark has his own issues with OT quotes. Mark 1:2 attributes a quote to Isaiah that is actually an amalgam of two quotes, one from Isaiah and one from Malachi.)

By that logic, Matt. 3:3 should likewise have said "Jeremiah" rather than Isaiah!

Matthew 27:9 mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah. All of the extant manuscripts of his gospel reference Jeremiah (amazingly, no writing of a single copyist who bothered to correct Matthew seems to have survived). “This passage...

The LXX used phulai for "people" or "clans," and ethnē for "nations." Gen. 10:31-32 does so twice (NIV): v.31 “These are the sons of Shem, by their clans (LXX phulai) and languages, in their territories and nations (LXX ethnē).” v. 32 “These are the clans (LXX phulai) of Noah’s sons...

So, the distinction is between annihilating a group based on its genetic affinity, and annihilating a group that may or may not be genetically linked based on its immoral actions or beliefs. Got it. I'll take your word for it that there are folks out there who are "blurring the distinction"...

Well, I don't know what you are counting as "erroneous teaching" here, but there is a lot of generally accepted Christian doctrine that has evolved through various Church councils and through writings of the Church Fathers, which finds rather tenuous confirmation in the NT, and then only with a...

Respectfully, the fact that no oral teaching may contradict Scripture doesn't preclude oral teaching from supplementing Scripture. As long as both are consistent, both may be valid sources of teaching. Scriptura need not be Sola as long as the oral traditions don't gainsay what is written.

I'll go further than that. The gospel of salvation through Christ was initially a matter of oral transmission alone, premised on the authority of eyewitness apostles long before the first Pauline letters, even longer before the four canonical gospels, were penned. Question: why should the...

Define "Ethic destruction," please.