tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post1364756873403687799..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: How then Four Hundred, Thirty Years?Turretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-11946966103387869942009-12-16T16:47:49.514+00:002009-12-16T16:47:49.514+00:00Sorry if you think I am comparing you to a kook. ...Sorry if you think I am comparing you to a kook. That's not my intention. I am just pointing out that the exegetical approach to this passage and the pouring of meanings into words is a classic example of how I have seen Ross, Samples and Riddlebarger and many others who are long agers argue for their position. <br /><br />The reason why your understanding of a plurality of "nations&Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-33444931464954911042009-12-16T13:29:17.564+00:002009-12-16T13:29:17.564+00:00Dear Mr. Butler,
With all due respect, comparing ...Dear Mr. Butler,<br /><br />With all due respect, comparing other people to kooks is easy. Perhaps it would be better not to do that here.<br /><br />I think you're missing the point about the seed/nation comparison. My point was simply that a reference to a singular nation is not necessarily understood to be exclusive, such that because one nation is brought out there cannot be others in aTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-85695341891883979652009-12-16T13:10:25.958+00:002009-12-16T13:10:25.958+00:00Wait a moment. Though I would agree with you, you...Wait a moment. Though I would agree with you, your response contradicts Paul's argument from Galatians 3:15 ff. The very heart of this discussion. The emphasis there is on seed, not seeds. So it doesn't matter if Ismael or Esau is related to Abraham. <br /><br />None the less, that doesn't help you guys out in Genesis. The grammar of Genesis 15 for nation is a noun with an articleFred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-41922721469261418082009-12-16T00:07:55.448+00:002009-12-16T00:07:55.448+00:00Arabia (via Ishmael), Edom (via Esau), and others ...Arabia (via Ishmael), Edom (via Esau), and others ...Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-26671019772141331462009-12-16T00:00:09.417+00:002009-12-16T00:00:09.417+00:00...and those many great nations are?
I am taking i......and those many great nations are?<br />I am taking it you want to spiritualize this?Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-26326690672198543572009-12-15T23:55:51.610+00:002009-12-15T23:55:51.610+00:00Fred,
"And he said unto Abram, Know of a sur...Fred,<br /><br />"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that THY SEED shall be a STRANGER in a land that is not their's, and shall serve them; and they shall AFFLICT THEM four hundred years; And also THAT NATION, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance." Genesis 15:13-14<br /><br />"And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the LAMBSFURYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597108922754153351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-29181610326975945812009-12-15T23:52:58.855+00:002009-12-15T23:52:58.855+00:00I'm not sure you're seeing my point. Cons...I'm not sure you're seeing my point. Consider:<br /><br />Genesis 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: <br /><br />Yet many great nations came from him.Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-83403373292963928462009-12-15T23:36:56.218+00:002009-12-15T23:36:56.218+00:00Yes. Abraham's specific seed, his offspring t...Yes. Abraham's specific seed, his offspring that will be captive in that one nation. The NT doesn't really do anything to change that.Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-89542077605514071272009-12-15T23:32:09.047+00:002009-12-15T23:32:09.047+00:00Fred:
"Seed" is singular too. I wouldn...Fred:<br /><br />"Seed" is singular too. I wouldn't have thought much of it, unless I had read the NT.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-61372205264014178522009-12-15T23:01:14.671+00:002009-12-15T23:01:14.671+00:00Tom you are becoming desperate. The use of "...Tom you are becoming desperate. The use of "that nation" In Genesis is a specific singular noun. The language of the context even affirms this. To appeal to the use of the word in other contexts with different emphasis, and then read that back into the context of Genesis 15 is esigesis, not exegesis.Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-16864134878921565822009-12-15T19:12:43.819+00:002009-12-15T19:12:43.819+00:00Fred
"And also that NATION, whom they shall ...Fred<br /><br />"And also that NATION, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance." Genesis 17:14 <br /><br />When you look at other verses with the phrase "nation"<br /><br />"Judge me, O God, and plead my cause against an ungodly NATION: O deliver me from the deceitful and unjust man" Psalm 43:1 <br /><br />If a LAMBSFURYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597108922754153351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-19875958107808776782009-12-15T18:49:04.633+00:002009-12-15T18:49:04.633+00:00I wrote "nations" because he is insisten...I wrote "nations" because he is insistent this is a plurality of nations or kingdoms or whatever. It is in fact one singular nation in view here. The Nation or "that nation." Writing 15:13 must had been a transcribal error when I was glancing from his comment to my response.Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-80722095013901052082009-12-15T17:48:31.329+00:002009-12-15T17:48:31.329+00:00Mr. Butler, do you mean that Genesis 15:14 says &q...Mr. Butler, do you mean that Genesis 15:14 says "nation" (I'm not sure why you wrote "nations" or Genesis 15:13).Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-79250299576655202982009-12-15T17:42:19.444+00:002009-12-15T17:42:19.444+00:00Dude, this subject has become like your white whal...Dude, this subject has become like your white whale. <br /><br />Just a few problematic observations,<br /><br /><i> One of the arguments of the 430-year supporters is that the nation in view is only the nation of Egypt.</i><br /><br />The reason for that has to do with the original grammar of the text. "Nations" in Genesis 15:13 is a singular noun. Meaning, it's one specific Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-20413933438466037902009-12-15T14:25:28.869+00:002009-12-15T14:25:28.869+00:00"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety tha..."And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not their's, and shall serve them; and they shall AFFLICT THEM four hundred years; And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance." Genesis 15:13-14<br /><br />One of the arguments of the 430-year supporters is that the LAMBSFURYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597108922754153351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-59265158325376548872009-12-12T05:20:19.208+00:002009-12-12T05:20:19.208+00:00Exodus 12:40 is probably the most debated verse in...Exodus 12:40 is probably the most debated verse in the Bible.<br /><br />The witnesses are about equal as far as the Old Testament. 2 solid written sources say the 430 years begin with "Canaan"<br /><br />"Now the sojourn of the children of Israel and their fathers, which they dwelt in THE LAND OF CANAAN and in the land of Egypt, was 430 years." Exodus 12:40 (The Samaritan LAMBSFURYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597108922754153351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-47593998799956427552009-12-03T18:32:49.713+00:002009-12-03T18:32:49.713+00:00Fred,
I am not an "LXX-onlyist"
I am s...Fred,<br /><br />I am not an "LXX-onlyist"<br /><br />I am saying that the LXX is the most accurate translation from the original/ancient Hebrew scriptures.<br /><br />I also use the KJV, as far as complete English translations, that is the best one.<br /><br />However, the proof does not come from Protestant Tradition, or what the reformers thought, it comes from the Bible itself.<br /LAMBSFURYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597108922754153351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-88394265191309942772009-12-03T16:10:13.762+00:002009-12-03T16:10:13.762+00:00Fred:
Surely it's not your position that if a...Fred:<br /><br />Surely it's not your position that if accept one thing that the scholar has to say, I must accept everything he has to say.<br /><br />-TurretinFanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-37642850525717180602009-12-03T15:01:07.914+00:002009-12-03T15:01:07.914+00:00TF,
I guess if you want to call it ad hominem you...TF,<br /><br />I guess if you want to call it <i>ad hominem</i> you can. I am just citing to you the facts from his website. Note this concluding comment under his bio page where he talks about how his study of radical anti-biblical archaeologists "liberated" him from the Bible. <br /><br /><i>I discovered that the internal and external evidence for the fundamentalist view of the Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-60510597605455965382009-12-03T13:54:45.422+00:002009-12-03T13:54:45.422+00:00Turretinfan,
As you said you don't want to tu...Turretinfan,<br /><br />As you said you don't want to turn this to a Septuagint topic (unless you create a thread on it...which I am hoping you do in the future)<br /><br />But I will say this as far as textual criticism:<br /><br />The general rule is that the older the text the better and rule # 2 is that not all texts are the same.<br /><br />When we look at these 3 facts:<br /><br />1. LAMBSFURYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597108922754153351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-22746651415762249602009-12-03T13:47:04.945+00:002009-12-03T13:47:04.945+00:00Unfortunately, the Masoretic Hebrew text is the ma...Unfortunately, the Masoretic Hebrew text is the main Hebrew text that we have. Whether or not it represents the Hebrew original (either in general or in this particular instance) is a textual critical question. It is unclear to me why a Hebrew scribe would drop the "and in the land of Canaan" if that were in the original. That said, the Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX both attest toTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-4538676837039334952009-12-03T13:35:28.879+00:002009-12-03T13:35:28.879+00:00Fred,
The secular evidence just supports the Bibl...Fred,<br /><br />The secular evidence just supports the Biblical account.<br /><br />Now, your original statement that the "MT" is the "original Hebrew" is wrong.<br /><br />The LXX translated from a more ancient and original Hebrew then the MT text that we have from the 10th century AD.<br /><br />When we look at the Dead Sea Scrolls and the evidence from it:<br /><br />LAMBSFURYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597108922754153351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-87626746676481266162009-12-03T12:21:51.995+00:002009-12-03T12:21:51.995+00:00a) Doesn't that sound and eensy-weensy bit lik...a) Doesn't that sound and eensy-weensy bit like an <i>ad hominem</i> response? I'm sure you didn't intend it that way, but can't you see how it ends up sounding like that?<br /><br />b) In general citing a scholar whose bias is against us is more compelling than citing scholars whose bias is for us. Don't you agree?Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-55489319277388165872009-12-03T03:17:53.577+00:002009-12-03T03:17:53.577+00:00So Tom,
You really don't have a problem depend...So Tom,<br />You really don't have a problem depending upon "research" put out by a web based organization that is headed by a disgruntled, ex-fundamentalist who is admittedly liberal in his views and has an axe to grind against folks like you and TF? Really?Fred Butlerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16025967176465685306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-23640236977605455112009-12-03T01:39:07.973+00:002009-12-03T01:39:07.973+00:00More information including the Dead Sea Scholls, J...More information including the Dead Sea Scholls, Josephus, Demetrius, and tons of other secular information, that show Israel was NOT in Egypt 430 years.<br /><br />http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodusdate.htm<br /><br />TomLAMBSFURYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14597108922754153351noreply@blogger.com