Country of Gergesenes...Gadarenes: Where did the pigs run?

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

[ anyone who isn't dumb like us!

Scott, I don't think you are dumb, or even lacking much background, as shown by the respect I have that you are familiar with Popperian falsifiability concepts. 

However, I do think that smart people hold unto dumb ideas. Look at all the brilliant scientists who can not shake off molten rocks to amoeba (or uni-cell organisms) to man evolutionary theory. 

And Hortian theories, unto their nouveau-Hortian residues in Critical Text versions, do frequently qualify as similarly dumb.  In the case above, it was a Warfield theory that was a Hortian sidekick.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Steven Avery]However, I do think that smart people hold unto dumb ideas. Look at all the brilliant scientists who can not shake off molten rocks to amoeba (or uni-cell organisms) to man evolutionary theory.  [/quote]

What you described isn't evolutionary theory. It's a hypothesis about biogenesis.  :-X

 

[Ransom]

However, I do think that smart people hold unto dumb ideas. Look at all the brilliant scientists who can not shake off molten rocks to amoeba (or uni-cell organisms) to man evolutionary theory.

And all the alleged Ph.D.s who believe that God specially blessed a 17th-century Anglican translation of the Bible above all others.

And Hortian theories, unto their nouveau-Hortian residues in Critical Text versions, do frequently qualify as similarly dumb.  In the case above, it was a Warfield theory that was a Hortian sidekick.

And then there are all the people who like to pretend they are smarter than they are by inventing all sorts of obscure buzzwords only they can understand.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

What you described isn't evolutionary theory. It's a hypothesis about biogenesis.  :-X

Nope. Once you have amoeba or uni-cellular organisms heading towards to man you are into evolutionary theory sans the biogenesis and abiogenesis component.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[rsc2a]

Hi,

What you described isn't evolutionary theory. It's a hypothesis about biogenesis.  :-X

Nope. Once you have amoeba or uni-cellular organisms heading towards to man you are into evolutionary theory sans the biogenesis and abiogenesis component.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Yes. But you didn't say that...

However, I do think that smart people hold unto dumb ideas. Look at all the brilliant scientists who can not shake off molten rocks to amoeba (or uni-cell organisms) to man evolutionary theory.  - Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You are only helping others see why I ignore some of your posts.  

> Look at all the brilliant scientists who can not shake off molten rocks to amoeba (or uni-cell organisms) to man evolutionary theory.  - 

You really do not understand that the 2nd to 3rd part, in bold, is straight evolutionary theory that does not involve abiogenesis?

In other words, the quote did include abiogenesis (whether you consider that an element of evolutionary theory or not).

Pretending that Evolutionary Theory is Separable from Abiogenesis
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/pretending-that-evolutionary-theory-is-separable-from-abiogenesis/

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution”
Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1631
... Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so.

And then evolutionary theory that is totally outside of abiogenesis.  You have been falsely claiming that my quote did not involve evolutionary theory.

I'll see if there is an ignore function in the forum.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[rsc2a]

Hi,

You are only helping others see why I ignore some of your posts.  

Because I care about accuracy or because I pointed out that you were wrong?


[quote author=Steven Avery]
> Look at all the brilliant scientists who can not shake off molten rocks to amoeba (or uni-cell organisms) to man evolutionary theory.  - 

You really do not understand that the 2nd to 3rd part, in bold, is straight evolutionary theory that does not involve abiogenesis?[/quote]

Yes, and the 1st to 2nd part concerns biogenesis, not evolutionary theory which you equated it to.

[quote author=Steven Avery]In other words, the quote did include abiogenesis (whether you consider that an element of evolutionary theory or not).[/quote]

Are you now arguing with yourself?

[quote author=Steven Avery]
Pretending that Evolutionary Theory is Separable from Abiogenesis
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/pretending-that-evolutionary-theory-is-separable-from-abiogenesis/

“Abiogenesis is Irrelevant to Evolution”
Jeff Miller, Ph.D.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=1631
... Historically, evolutionists have recognized that abiogenesis is a fundamental assumption inherent in evolutionary theory, and intuitively must be so. [/quote]

So you found some people on the internet that don't understand the basics of evolutionary theory? (And from an apologetics site no less!) Is there a point? I mean, really, this is the equivalent of claiming the Big Bang theory is a fundamental assumption inherent in the theory of evolution.

[quote author=Steven Avery]And then evolutionary theory that is totally outside of abiogenesis.  You have been falsely claiming that my quote did not involve evolutionary theory.[/quote]

No. I stated that your quote confused evolutionary theory with biogenesis. In other words, the exact opposite of your complaint here.

[quote author=Steven Avery]I'll see if there is an ignore function in the forum.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven [/quote]

A rabid KJVO-ist who doesn't understand logic wants to ignore my posts? 

=======

"Yours in Jesus"
rsc2a

 

[Ransom]

You are only helping others see why I ignore some of your posts.

Because you're embarrassed when you change your story, and someone quotes your own words back at you?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

No ignore function here. If you don't like what you see, just pass over it.

Will do. Thanks.

The dynamics of various forums are different.  The purposes are different. Ignore is used one way on FFF, one way on CARM, and de facto ignore one way here.

Even your posts here our quite a bit different in tone and style, so far, than they were on FFF.  Only a handful have had that left field sense.

So far the purpose here has been mainly to offer studies on Gergesenes and the Gerasenes blunder. That has been successful, so the sojourn so far has been satisfactory, while bypassing nothing posts.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[tduncan]

So are you saying your position is the only one that is correct?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

There are five principle different region verse layouts mentioned in Bibles and version editions.

              LAYOUT OF FIVE MAIN ALTERNATES

                Matthew 8:28          Mark 5:1      Luke 8:26 8:37
TR-AV          Gergesenes        Gadarenes      Gadarenes
NA-27 WH    Gadarenes          Gerasenes        Gerasenes
NA-26          Gadarenes          Gerasenes        Gergesenes (Tischendorf)
Peshitta      Gadarenes          Gadarenes        Gadarenes 
Vulgate        Gerasenes          Gerasenes        Gerasenes (Lachman)

Three of these are geographical blunders with the swine marathon, and one of the five is the only accurate text, the TR-AV.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[tduncan]

Again....is your view the only one that is correct?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Again....is your view the only one that is correct?

To restate, I have a strong conviction (my "view") that the text of the Received Text - Authorized Version is accurate in the four verses, and the other four principle textual layouts are wrong, incorrect.

Feel free to share "your view".

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[tduncan]

It doesn't matter what I hold to as it is not a doctrinal issue.  You come across as the final authority on the issue.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

not a doctrinal issue. 

It is not a doctrinal issue if the word of God has a blatant geography blunder?

The skeptics certainly claim that geographical errors by Luke and Mark constitutes a type of falsification of the Bible.  Agree?

So it seems you have no doctrine of infallibility or inerrancy that applies to the actual Bible text. 

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

It is not a doctrinal issue if the word of God has a blatant geography blunder?

You're the only one here proposing it is a "blatant geography blunder" as opposed to a question of regional nomenclature.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You're the only one here proposing it is a "blatant geography blunder" as opposed to a question of regional nomenclature.

The people stuck with the blunder corruption in their versions come up with a wide variety of unsatisfactory attempts.  Although some, the more scholastically honest, simply say it is Markan and Lukan ignorance, or scribal corruption (when they are stuck with the corruption).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

The people stuck with the blunder corruption in their versions come up with a wide variety of unsatisfactory attempts.

You're the only one here alleging a "blunder corruption," and the only "unsatifactory attempt" so far is yours, to persuade.

Although some, the more scholastically honest,

It's humourous that you prefer weasel words to naming names.  Been caught one too many times mis-citing an authority you hadn't actually read, eh?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The wide list of unsatisfactory attempts for Gerasenes is in #3 and #5, also Darrell Bock in #53.  (More in the earlier FFF threads as well.)

Some support the pure Bible reading, so they have no swine marathon, like Gordon Franz in #26 and Peter John Williams in #28 and #52, plus all TR and AV supporters.

It's humourous that you prefer weasel words to naming names.

Earlier in the thread I gave a number of writers who avoid any of the deficient apologetics, and reference either Markan and Lukan ignorance or scribal corruption as the Gerasenes cause.  They are more scholastically honest than the grab-bag of faux apologetics.  However, that is uncomfortable for evangelicals stuck with the corruption, since they like to think of themselves as inerrantists.

For you, I will put some here in a few.

In post #34 you have a few examples of relating the contradiction and difficulty, without any of the bogus Gerasenes apologetics, from William David Davies and Dale C. Allison Jr.,  Jostein Ã…dna, David L. Turner and Robert H. Gundry.

Post #49 has Joseph Fitzmyer and Robert H. Stein and Merrill Unger and Theodor Zahn who highlight the contradiction.

Post #53 references  Eerdman, Zondervan and Halley's Bible Handbook although on those three I would have to check if the context fits your request.  Above I am sticking right now to what is in the thread.

Bruce Metzger is given in post #56,  avoiding any of the faux apologetics, he says the probability is that:

"Gergesēnōn [English: Gergesene] is a correction"

A correction of the geographical error, which he discussed as follows.

Gerasa was a city of the Decapolis (modern Jerash in Transjordan) located more than thirty miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee and, as Origen perceived (Commentary on John, v, 41 (24)), is the least likely of the three places.

And I will mention Ze'ev Safrai, who not only avoided the faux apologetics, but pointed out that, logically, Gergesenes would have been original and changed by distant, less informed scribes.

Incidentally, here we have an illustration of a well-documented philological tendency: in the copying of ancient texts, an unknown name will almost always be "corrected" to a known name. In the case of Gergesenes-Gerasenes-Gadarenes, therefore, we should prefer the less known place-name (Gergesa) over those that are better known (Gerasa and Gadara)

Similarly Gustav Dalman:

The reading Gerasenes "might have had its origin in the Gospels through the substitution of a well-known name for the obscure one " Sacred Sites And Ways Studies In The Topography Of The Gospels (1935) p. 178

So I suggest that somebody who comments might first read the thread.  Nonetheless, it is good to start to organize the material a bit more.

=============

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[tduncan]

Hi,

not a doctrinal issue. 

It is not a doctrinal issue if the word of God has a blatant geography blunder?

The skeptics certainly claim that geographical errors by Luke and Mark constitutes a type of falsification of the Bible.  Agree?

So it seems you have no doctrine of infallibility or inerrancy that applies to the actual Bible text. 

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

The issue is solved in one of three ways:

1 - It is a matter of regional names for the same place.  Such things exist today.  This would allow for both Mark and Luke (two different writers with different audiences) to speak of one event yet have different names.

2 - There are two separate but similar events.  Since we nor ANY scholar were present, you cannot absolutely say this is not possible.

3 - None of the solutions that you, I, or any other person are correct.  God knows and will let us know the correct view once we get to Heaven.

And yes, I believe that the Bible is infallible and inerrant.  For to you say otherwise is being dishonest.