gandaulf

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Adam #582
    Martin Poeniegandaulf
    Participant

    Just a correction – I posted 1 John 3:16 but should have been 1 John 3:12

     

    in reply to: Adam #580
    Martin Poeniegandaulf
    Participant

    I do not think this is very easy to resolve from the Biblical data. Gen 3 refers to two seeds, one from Eve one from the Serpent. Reference is made to this in the NT (John 8:44, 1 John 3:16, Jude 1:11 – see Num 16). That Eve is the mother of all the living needs definition. All the living would include all animal life if not restricted. Furthermore the use of the perfect tense suggests this is completed before she has a child or else a prophetic perfect pointing to Christ perhaps.

    in reply to: Adam #576
    Martin Poeniegandaulf
    Participant

    I would add a note to my comment. The battle between textual traditions – the Western versus Westcott-Hort MS traditions covers a long history. It has also moved beyond that to some degree. The Nestle-Alund Green NT is mostly Westcott-Hort but additional scholarship/judgement has weighed in. Yet W-H have been criticized for their excessive dependence on a few MS such as B which are not as good as they once thought. So ultimately, what you do with haimatos will come down to a battle over these two traditions, which will no doubt be futile and unreasonable for people here. My feeling is that haimatos, regardless of whether it is in the autograph or not, serves an important function, one that was recognized early on, as to clarifying and preserving how they understood “one”. In other words, in the event that haimatos was a later addition (and I will not take sides) it accurately clarified the intended sense of “one”.

    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Martin Poeniegandaulf.
    • This reply was modified 7 years, 5 months ago by Martin Poeniegandaulf.
    in reply to: Adam #575
    Martin Poeniegandaulf
    Participant

    Haimatos or blood is present a number of manuscripts but not in Aleph, A & B. Given the priority that Westcott and Hort give to these MS, then, it would be left out. AT Robertson regards haimatos as a later explanatory addition. If one is inclined towards the textus receptus as with the KJV, then haimatos is present. However, even without it, “one” without an article gives us a qualitative sense. So Paul is affirming the unity of humanity. In that sense, adding “blood” , even if not in the autograph, serves a purpose of conveying that qualitative sense rather than pointing directly to Adam.

    in reply to: In the news #357
    Martin Poeniegandaulf
    Participant

    I do not think there is any similarity to the Star. The search is based on the original studies of Ryan and Pitman who did coring samples. They showed the sudden conversion of a shallow fresh water lake to the Dead Sea. The area is in exactly the right place and approximately the right time for the flood. While the article hypes the story, the finding that there were villiages and people inundated by that flood is interesting and I think adds something to the story. Personally I am glad to see Ballard exploring this.

     

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)