Nathan_Jr

You skipped 3:9. “And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?” Really?? Lord God can’t see them?

Sure. Of course. Paul’s letters and the epistles of the apostolic fathers and I’m sure other lettres that are long gone. In some churches 1 & 2 Clement were read as scripture alongside the gospels and Paul. I’m making a point about the To/For Bullingerism. Hey, it’s a novel, systematic theology contrived in the 19th century. If it helps, go with it, but I find it to be narrow, shortsighted, and un inspired.

Paul wasn’t writing TO you, either. He was writing TO members of his ekklesia in Thessalonika, Galatia, Corinth, Phillipi…

There are two creation myths in the Bible: Genesis 1–2:3; Genesis 2:3–… Inerrantists do not or will not see it. And that’s just fine. But it’s not hard to see. The language and style are different. The gods are different - El and Yahweh El. The first describes a perfect creation, the second describes a carnal, corrupted creation.

Fair observations. When one steps back to take an unfiltered look at it, the absurdity gets pretty gnarly. And, careful, that five-fingered glove won’t fit that twelve-fingered hand. I always wondered: what am I being saved from?

No. The whole point is to value this life, to be alive. Gracefully. With compassion. Where is heaven? Above? In the sky? How do you know where or what this heaven is? What will you do there? Show off your rewards? Demonstrate what an obedient slave you are? Jesus said, “If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you.” And a few related quotes from Henry Miller, “Every moment is a golden one for him who has the vision to recognize it as such.” “The moment one gives close attention to any thing, even a blade of grass it becomes a mysterious, awesome, indescribably magnificent world in itself.” “The aim of life is to live, and to live means to be aware, joyously, drunkenly, serenely, divinely aware.”

“….all the social advantages there are in being in a cult.” What could ever be said to someone who beleeeves this? It is daunting to even imagine the level of delusion required, yet, I see it and read about it every day. Very, very sad.

The juice is dead.

What year was this? It sounds like that period of victor’s increasing unbelief/disbelief, hence his fatigue.

The error of four crucified is not explained by fundamentalism. It's surprising that this actual error was invented by a man as educated as Bullinger. That he would point to an 18th century cemetery in France as supporting evidence is even more surprising for such a man, until you find out he was a fervent flat earther. Then, it's, "Ohhhhhh..." It's surprising that a scholar as proficient in languages as Bullinger would fail so profoundly to understand how translation works and why word for word literal translations of idiomatic expressions like ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν are ineffectual. The word "one" wasn't added in the way it is suggested. It is not a corrupt interpolation motivated by some nefarious agenda. Translators add words sometimes so an expression in the source language will make sense in the target language. This is not a radical idea. That Bullinger pretended not to understand ἐντεῦθεν is an adverb modifying the verb crucified and answering the question "Where?" is beyond astonishing. It does not modify "two." That Bullinger defecates on all that he should know about Greek and English is suspect. Who now has the nefarious agenda? Why would he invent such deception? Four crucified is so blatantly inaccurate and irresponsible that, for me, it calls into question everything Bullinger wrote. I'm not saying Bullinger was wrong about everything, just that everything he wrote deserves scrutiny.

Right. He very briefly and stupidly mentions the Hebrew radicals (the sequence of consonants forming the root of the verb) and that they are the "most difficult radicals in all of Hebrew"... yada yada bull yada shonta... but quickly trails off because he has no fcking clue what he is talking about and then changes the subject to Paul and what he says about Christ sitting at the right hand of God... yada bull yada shonta... therefore, BOOM! Shabath means to sit, not to cease working, because God doesn't need to rest, he sits, Sits, SITS!!.. See, kidz? Math! Accuracy! Like in so many sermons or "teachings," he mentions something technical (or mundane) that he read once or heard somewhere or imagined in a fantasy but never quite understood, because stupidity, and he regurgitates it incorrectly, hoping his audience won't understand it, either, but will be impressed with the esoterica and just smugly mutter, "Mmmmph." Short answer: E. Coli-laced word salad. And he is a charlatan.

Here is another example of victor contradicting himself. There are hundreds of examples of this kind of error laced throughly throughout "his writings" and recorded sermons. Either he was a liar or just stupid, or both. Either way, he hoped no one would notice or question the dead rabbits pulled from his hat. If one digs beneath the glowing, seductive, superficial word salad of his "teachings," one can find out. Now, this effort will require a sharp and sturdy tool to penetrate the thick, petrified crust of bullshonta. An infant's fingernail should suffice. I want to know what the text says. I have no doctrinal agenda. (For a doctrinal perspective, go to WordWolf's excellent discussion of Genesis 1 he started in the Doctrinal forum.) As far as I can tell, there is no adverb then in Genesis 1:2. There is no textual evidence supporting victor's bloody rabbit. None. NONE. To say there should be is to tip one's hand to using an eisegetical process of "private interpretation" - a method victor CONSTANTLY railed against! To your point, like the serpent, victor added words to the text ALL THE TIME. As you know, he also deleted words, even entire paragraphs - "Cross it out!" Indeed, there are inauthentic, interpolated words and verses that made it into the Bible, but only those that didn't fit victor's glove were crossed out. And he crossed out added words because he didn't understand how translations work, as in John 19:18. victor also frequently changed the meaning of words. Partly because he didn't understand how language works and partly as a means to force fit his voodoo into his bloody glove. Further into Genesis at chapter 2 verse 2, he changes the meaning of the Hebrew verb shabbath. He says it means SIT, not REST, and not that it should mean SIT, but that it actually means SIT, because God doesn't need to REST. A complete invention! Total bullshonta! A blatant lie from the mouth of a liar! Shabbath means to cease, to desist, to rest (from labor), to stop working. Period. It never, ever, EVER means to sit.

Right. Errancy is only a problem for inerrantists, but I don't see a contradiction among the gospels requiring linguistic gymnastics, magic tricks and glove fitting. Luke says from the very beginning he studied many accounts before writing his version. Maybe the majority of his sources had one of the bandits asking for mercy, and the simple math convinced him, so he includes it in his narrative. What's the problem? The links I provided above deal with John 19:18. It all starts in The B-Greek Forum, a very geeky place for scholars, teachers, hobbyists and students of Ancient Greek - lots of PhDs and ThDs and MDivs and grad students and language nerds. A wonderful forum of civility, humility and expertise - no doctrine, only language. The thread I posted was started by someone who sounds like a Wayfer or a member of an offshoot or a Bullingerite. Here is the original post: I have a two part question. The first has to do with the expression found in John 19:18, (" καὶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ἄλλους δύο ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐντεῦθεν μέσον δὲ τὸν Ἰησοῦν), " and with him others two on this side and that and in the middle Jesus.". This expression is also found in Revelation 22:2, (εν μεσω της πλατειας αυτης και του ποταμου εντευθεν και εντευθεν ξυλον ζωης ), "In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life". There is a similar expression in Ezekiel 47:7, (ἐν τῇ ἐπιστροφῇ μου καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐπὶ τοῦ χείλους τοῦ ποταμοῦ δένδρα πολλὰ σφόδρα ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν), "Now when I had returned, behold, on the bank of the river there were very many trees on the one side and on the other." Most of the translations I've read have something like this: "Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle." They all seem to take the number "duo" as a total, rather than distributing it with the expression. Why are they doing this, and why wouldn't "duo" be distribued in the expression? The second part of my question is with regards to the word "allos", which as I understand it, is a numerical distinction, the second of two where there may be two or more, rather than the Gr. "heteros" , or "another of a different kind, (usually denoting generic distinction)" as used in Luke 23:32, "Two other men, both criminals, were also led out with him to be executed". In the examples from Ezekiel and Revelation, the "many trees", and the "tree of life" are distributed with the expression, why isn't this the case with "duo" in John 19:18? Thanks, Ted Twitchell

Errors of translation abound throughout PFAL, indeed, throughout the entire corpus of victor's transcribed sermons, aka collaterals. I've held onto these bookmarks for years. Like arguing against a flat Earth or against Geocentrism, arguing the blatant error of four crucified is just exhaustingly daunting. Black is not white and white is not black, no matter how well you think your gloves fit. Four crucified is an actual, not an interpretive error, though it is also that. https://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=950&p=33635&hilit=Niedergall#p33635 https://niedergall.com/an-obscure-greek-question-no-longer-waiting-for-an-answer/

And factor all this with a geometric relationship to your needs… Mmmph! …just a tremendous kernel …a real dandy of an equation… a mathematically precise glove.