Re: To Hazard A Guess... I dunno. I thought tony1 could shed some light on this topic also. I hope you know what I am talking here right?. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Shucks, folks... where is the world's sense of humor? My comment was strictly a light-hearted post based on the Jonah/goofyfish/pisces "connection". No personal attack or disruption was intended -- the pseudoscience jab was aimed at the astrology theme (I guess I'll hear from them next.) If you can smile now, terrific. If not, you have my sincerest apology. Peace.
'' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! No need to apology. I didn't take it all serious. lol. But thanks for reply. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
On the off chance http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08497b.htm (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Jonah) http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV8N3A3.asp (James T Dennison, Jr) http://www.islamzine.com/bible/jonah.html (Ahmed Deedat) http://lin.cbl.com.au/~bga/godcal.htm#SIGN (Central Highlands Christian Publications--?!) http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/jonah.html (John Gilchrist, answering Deedat) http://www.logon.org/english/s/p013.html (Christian Churches of God; opposes by nature Gilchrist's fixation on colloquialisms) http://www.tulip.org/trf/mat12d.htm (Max A Forsythe; yet another take on days and nights, cf. Gilchrist, Deedat) http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/crucifixion/1.html (Samuele Bacchiocchi; Biblical literalism is taking a beating by this point) http://www.columbia.edu/cu/ubf/StudyResources/sunday_messages/lk39.html (I believe this is the University Bible Fellowship at Columbia University; there's less of the Gilchrist/Deedat focus on time here) http://home.cwnet.com/crm/jonahsign.htm (Bob Schlenker) http://answering-islam.org/Cross/sign.html (Jochen Katz, response to "Dr. Rauf", whose original document I have not yet located) http://www.asians4christ.org.uk/web2/muslim_graphic_files/m14.htm (Abdullah Ibrahim; another fixation on colloquialisms and time; cf. Gilchrist, Deedat, &c.) http://www.fbcss.org/sm121599.htm (Dr Dan Ivins) I'm going to stop here; most of this is just for reading. These are extracted from the first three pages of a Google search for "Sign of Jonah". Most notable is the fixation on time (which debate seems to be slugging the crap out of Biblical literalism). I've read less than half of these; I hadn't intended any notation except for the authors' names, but the Deedat/Gilchrist dichotomy seemed to run quite thick (it's already afoot here, I see). There's a bit to read, so I'm happy to do my homework first on the general topic. But I did want to insert one question, drawn from Dr Ivins' sermon: As a basic question: What parts of the New Testament existed in Jesus' time? At any rate, Markx ... senses of humor aside, I thought I'd throw these links up just in case anyone wishing to comment doesn't know what you're referring to. Compelling topic. Of the reading I've done, the Christian responses are, as they frequently are, adequate to explain the isolated issue, but dangerous toward the larger faith issue. Like the issue of how many days and nights; it's so obviously simple that the Christian perspectives cannot even come to an agreement on this seemingly vital point of faith. I mean, I'll buy Gilchrist's argument that the sticking point comes when people take modern literal translations of ancient colloquialisms. Perhaps that's the problem: the Bible is colloquial, and therefore dated. In this case, I'll accept Gilchrist's argument, but so much for the Bible being for all ages. But there's plenty of reading to be done .... thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Whew! I think I'll take Ben's point over yours, tiassa. Shorter, sweeter and actually has a point, as contrasted with your manure sprayer of a post.
Tiassa, Hey thank you for links. The one by deedat is amazing. Anyways thank you. I will post it for you Tony1 if you like. If not then you can read any of those links. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
*Originally posted by Markx The one by deedat is amazing. Anyways thank you. I will post it for you Tony1 if you like. If not then you can read any of those links.* Feel free, if you like. Keep in mind that deedat was attacking a strawman. "Sign" mean "sign," not exact duplicate in every detail. When you are driving to NYC, you don't stop at the first sign that mentions "NYC" and say ,"I have arrived!!!" do you?
Aw, Tony1, what's wrong? * Why take Ben's post, Tony1? Is it easier than thinking? * I'm not ready to make a definitive point on this one; there's a lot of contrasting views on this, even from the Christian side of the aisle. What's the point of making a definitive point if the next person to consider is going to rule it invalid based upon presuppositions? I might as well read the opinions available and consider the argumentative points offered. Why rush headlong into a faith opinion? Is Christian faith really that impulsive? * You should give a few of those links a read, including Deedat, Gilchrist, and the couple that are noted to be associated with it. There's some interesting questions presented, first by Deedat, and then poorly refuted by Gilchrist, adequately addressed by others, and leaving a dichotomy 'twixt various Christian interpretations of the Sign of Jonah. Not to mention the debate over the number of days seems to undermine both Biblical literalism and the idea that the Bible is intended for all ages; to refute the latter of those two issues involves discussion of why the English translations of the Bible are so apparently inadequate as to not resolve this issue up front. In other words, I'd advise that you should give a couple of the links and give it your thought; since you consider your opinions so definitive, we'd appreciate your insight into these issues that even the Christian faithful can't come to terms on. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Give it a try, Tony1 ... don't be afraid of what other Christians believe And if you read some of the links, you'll see what that point has achieved. For instance, the Gilchrist/Deedat debate. Gilchrist, in making his point about Hebrew colloquialisms, notes of Deedat: Unfortunately Deedat here overlooks the fact that there was a big difference between Hebrew speech in the first century and English speech in the twentieth century. Yet only two paragraphs later, he reinforces his point by noting that, We never, speaking English in the twentieth century, speak in terms of days and nights. If any one decides to go away for, let us say, about two weeks, he will say he is going for a fortnight, or for two weeks, or for fourteen days. I have never yet met anyone speaking the English language say he will be away fourteen days and fourteen nights. Gilchrist seems to undermine his own point about the differences between Hebrew and English by implying that modern English speech patterns have any significance in relation to ancient Hebrew. Furthermore, the guy needs to get out more. Gilchrist, obviously, has never booked a hotel, where one speaks of days and nights, nor rented at Blockbuster Video where, at least the last time I bothered with them (1994) "3 days" equals forty-eight hours and one minute, and "1 day" equals forty-seven hours, fifty-nine minutes. Somebody who is prepared to make such generalizations about the English language. So it's an interesting debate to watch. Like I noted to Markx: Gilchrist can have his point about colloquialisms in ancient Hebrew, but it means the Bible is colloquial and not literal, and it indicates that Gilchrist bases his argumentation in generalizations. It works, but much like a proper syllogism, it does not have to represent reality. What does a more literal-minded Christian think of the idea that the Bible doesn't say quite what it says? What does it say of the dedicated Christians who translate the Bible so poorly as to leave such issues to question and debate? What does it say of the propriety of faith to have such points of faith unresolved? It really will be an interesting one; a vital point of faith, various interpretations that undermine the larger faith paradigm as well as each other. It's kind of like the docetism argument in that one: I'll buy either side, so to speak, but the faithful still can't come together on a most central point of faith. These kinds of issues need resolution among Christians: it's part of why so many infidels think the flock is nuts--One God, one book, one Truth, and yet as we go from one to the next (even when we were part of that faith) it seems that none of you agree on that one anything, and while it's annoying enough to have people constantly correcting you toward their presuppositions, it's even more annoying when the credibility of those presuppositions--invested in the flock itself--is unestablished. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's not what Bible said. It clearly said there will be no other sign but this one sign. Now what you are saing here interms of new york is irrelevant of the topic or you are acting like the same jews who were keep asking for sign after sign. Now again you like to believe what you think is right not what the Bible stated. Yet you say you follow Bible and Jesus's teachings???........??Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
"It clearly said there will be no other sign but this one sign" Where did you get that? "Why take Ben's post, Tony1? Is it easier than thinking?" How about because all your links boil down to my post? Some people like to just get to the point. Lots of words don't always mean thinking. Sometimes it just mean rambling with the intent of sounding intelligent. Ben
Can't handle that much reading??.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Here, Let me show you........What did Jesus said. " AN EVIL AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION SEEKETH AFTER A SIGN; AND THERE SHALL NO SIGN (no miracle) BE GIVEN TO IT, BUT THE SIGN (miracle) OF THE PROPHET JONAS: FOR AS JONAS WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE WHALE'S BELLY; SO SHALL THE SON OF MAN BE THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE HEART OF THE EARTH." (Matthew 12:39-40) Now it is from Bible. Would you deny this?.
Right. No sign shall be given to "it" as in the "EVIL AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION" Didn't say there would be no other signs at all for anyone. And actually for the death and resurrection I don't think there were many signs or prophecies anyway. Ben
Why do you speak for each other so often? And, actually, KalvinB, that's not problematic. What crushes me laughing is that you're wrong. Thank you for admitting that you did not read the links you're criticizing. I mean, if you'd read the links, you might have found that Gilchrist and the Ibrahim links do support your argument, while the Deedat link (which Gilchrist responds to) and the Christian Churches of God link present difficulties in consideration of the Gilchrist argument. Now, if you were capable of showing how all the links "boil down to your post", you might have a case. But at present, you don't. Can you present that argument, or is the best you can do insisting that you're right? Really, KalvinB, don't be so afraid to let Tony1 speak for himself. Don't be so afraid to demonstrate your assertions. Quit with this stupid expectation that we should accept what you say merely because you're KalvinB. We can start with a simple question: Is the Bible written in colloquial language? --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I did read the links and I'm aware there's a dissagreeance. This is the internet afterall. I'd be more inclined to argue with those who don't agree if they could learn to make a point without babbling in the process. "Is the Bible written in colloquial language?" What does the writting style have to do with anything? It varies depending on the topic. Ben
Read the Gilchrist page again Well, Gilchrist is arguing colloquialisms in relation to time, and thereby sending literalism into the hole and pulling validation from the idea that those people who dedicated their time and efforts to translating the Bible did so very poorly. It seems to put a couple of issues at stake: * Literalism is out. (Which is more than simply fine with me.) * The Bible in the English language is inaccurate. (Well? If it doesn't say what it says because of an inadequate translation ....) So tell me, how does the Deedat link lead back to your point? It points out that three days and nights do not equal three days and nights. To judge by Gilchrist's approach, one should never trust a speaking Jew; by Gilchrist's approach, one can never be sure that they're saying what they're saying. --Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Kneedeep in crap in your post, that's what's wrong *Originally posted by tiassa Why take Ben's post, Tony1? Is it easier than thinking?* That's like asking why go around the cesspool. Going thru the cesspool is just TOO much. *I'm not ready to make a definitive point on this one* Debate is so, uh, not ready for definitive points, huh? *since you consider your opinions so definitive, we'd appreciate your insight into these issues that even the Christian faithful can't come to terms on.* Sure. Day of preparation - one day Day of preparation night - one night Sabbath - two days Sabbath night -two nights Sunday, - three days So far, 3 days and 2 nights are accounted for, as per .... After two days will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. (Hosea 6:2, KJV). One more night... The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light. (Romans 13:12, KJV). We are the Body of Christ. Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. (2 Corinthians 4:14, KJV). Parts of the Body of Christ are still buried. Sunday counts as a day since... Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17, KJV). *What does a more literal-minded Christian think of the idea that the Bible doesn't say quite what it says?* You'd have to read the whole thing, not just parts. *What does it say of the dedicated Christians who translate the Bible so poorly as to leave such issues to question and debate?* The issues are only open to debate for those who don't read the whole thing. *What does it say of the propriety of faith to have such points of faith unresolved?* What's unresolved? *the faithful still can't come together on a most central point of faith.* Even the faithful have to read the whole thing. *Originally posted by Markx It clearly said there will be no other sign but this one sign.* TO THIS WICKED AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION. A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed. (Matthew 16:4, KJV). For us who are not wicked and adulterous, there are plenty of signs. You wicked and adulterous guys are the ones who get the one sign to choke on. *AN EVIL AND ADULTEROUS GENERATION SEEKETH AFTER A SIGN; AND THERE SHALL NO SIGN (no miracle) BE GIVEN TO IT, BUT THE SIGN (miracle) OF THE PROPHET JONAS* There. See? You quoted the same section yourself. It's the wicked and adulterous who only get one sign.
