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

Hi,

tduncan said:
The issue is solved in one of three ways:
Click to expand...

You omitted the one sensible solving.

The pure Bible text is right, and Luke and Mark never wrote the swine marathon Gerasenes text.

Gerasenes arose only as a textual smoothing corruption, as explained by Safrai and Dalman above. And the more astute scholarship today recognizes the pure Bible reading, contra the CT version machine.

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

For those stuck with the corruption text, who reject the pure Bible, you can "solve" the problem in all sorts of conflicting fanciful and unlikely and illogical ways.  Many more than given above.  This was documented early in the thread, using the Glenn Miller multi-buckshot attempt.  (Note that Glenn does much better when he is not trying to hold down the flank of a critical text corruption.)

However the simple fact is that the more scholastically honest scholars will say that it is Mark or Lukan geographical ignorance, or a scribal corruption. 

And the skeptics will properly tear your position to shreds, while you are a bit obtusely "defending" a textual corruption.

And since you really have no idea what text is original, at least you should consider the pure Bible text, rather than looking foolish defending Alexandrian and modern version corruptions.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Hi,

Adding to post #85 is Gleason Leonard Archer, Jr. (1916-2004) who is surprisingly blunt and eschews the faux apologetics.

It is virtually impossible to relate Gerasa with an episode that seems to have taken place on the eastern shore of Gennesaret (the Sea of Galilee). ... scribal error substituting the name of Gerasa, possibly because at a later period the name of Gerasa had become more widely known than that of Gadara. New International Enyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1982, p. 324-325.

Just for a hokey minority corruption, the opponents of the pure Bible do attempt the "virtually impossible" -- come up with an excuse for the swine marathon.

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

(Note that the Archer analysis has a semi-flaw, since Gadara was reasonably well known, Gergesenes was not, this only affects the question of the precise mechanics of transmission.)

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

Similarly a modern web writer, Ben Smith, who is careful in analysis and conclusions:

"If any of the synoptists wrote of Gerasa in connection with this exorcism, the geography is mistaken. Gadara, however, is readily defensible"

The exorcism of the Gadarene demoniac(s).
Ben Smith
http://www.textexcavation.com/exorcismgadarene.html

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

And I have not shown many of the skeptics on this thread, they tend to see the blunder as humorous (similar to Fitzmyer in that sense).

Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark - Chapter 5
Michael Turton
http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark05.html

Gerasa is thirty miles from the Sea of Galilee, and thus the idea of pigs galloping all those miles to toss themselves into the water is a bit of a stretch, even for a miracle.

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

And the proper response to the skeptics is not to fabricate a "virtually impossible" scenario for an ultra-minority Hortian corruption, more simply -- affirm the pure Bible. Here is one response from a gentleman Billy, writing on a site satirical to the atheists. Billy sees Gergesenes and Gadarenes as one region, and gets to the heart of the matter.

Discussion 14 to Meditation 38 The New Testament (The Gospels)
by Billy
http://uctaa.net/articles/meds/med02/med038d14.html

Lastly, Mark's gospel uses the word "Gadarenes" (KJV) to describe this place and people. However, in the NIV, the word "Gerasenes" is used!

The city of Gerasa, where the Gerasenes lived, is about 25 miles southeast of Gadara. If the NIV was correct, the pigs had to run about 30 miles before they could enter the water! Obviously, this is another translation error.

When we use the KJV and take the word "Gadarenes" to the Greek manuscripts, we see the word "Gadarenos". This makes perfect sense because Gadara and Gergasa are in the same region, near the water and near the Sea of Galilee.

In conclusion, is the KJV has the closest translation to the original scriptures and the best text to use when doing research. The only better text is the actual Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The NIV has allowed many errors and changes. Unfortunately, the changes in the NIV (only a couple of the many changes and omissions were mentioned here) have corrupted the text.

The two demoniacs were in the territory of the Gergasenes and the Gadarenes.

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

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery 
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

tduncan said:
The issue is solved in one of three ways:
Click to expand...

You omitted the one sensible solving.

The pure Bible text is right, and Luke and Mark never wrote the swine marathon Gerasenes text.

Gerasenes arose only as a textual smoothing corruption, as explained by Safrai and Dalman above. And the more astute scholarship today recognizes the pure Bible reading, contra the CT version machine.

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

For those stuck with the corruption text, who reject the pure Bible, you can "solve" the problem in all sorts of conflicting fanciful and unlikely and illogical ways.  Many more than given above.  This was documented early in the thread, using the Glenn Miller multi-buckshot attempt.  (Note that Glenn does much better when he is not trying to hold down the flank of a critical text corruption.)

However the simple fact is that the more scholastically honest scholars will say that it is Mark or Lukan geographical ignorance, or a scribal corruption. 

And the skeptics will properly tear your position to shreds, while you are a bit obtusely "defending" a textual corruption.

And since you really have no idea what text is original, at least you should consider the pure Bible text, rather than looking foolish defending Alexandrian and modern version corruptions.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Click to expand...

I am not concerned in the least bit over what skeptics do.  If they use this issue in an attempt to shoot holes in the authority of Scripture, they are beyond help anyways.  And I am not defending any "textual corruption."  The issue is not where it happened...the issue is that the writers were showing Jesus' power over demons.  You keep looking at the "trees" and attempting to paint yourself a scholar (which you are not) and miss the forest.

Oh, and your statement about it being Markan or Lukan geographical ignorance....seems that you (again) seem to know more than God or the scholars.  I simply accept that I have God's words in my hand.
 
Hi,

It is true that modern version supporters generally do not defend their corruptions well against skeptic attacks. Glenn Miller provided a good example.  More informed than most, he simply threw out a grab-bag of attempts to mask the swine marathon corruption.

Or, like their poster above, they say they really do not care and abandon the field of Bible defense.  Those seeking to know if God's word is available to us, infallible and inerrant, do note the dialog.  Or the fact that the (modern version) Christian apologists really do not offer a sensible defense.

=========

The statements about Markan and Lukan geographical ignorance are a common conclusion of scholars who look at the text through the eyes of the modern version corruptions.  Here is an example, notes on Gerasa by E Bruce Brooks of Amherst:

Gerasa
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/publications/studies/notes/n-gerasa.pdf

Gerasa ... It is an impossible setting for the story of Jesus driving demons into a herd
of pigs which forthwith run down a slope and drown in the sea. (Mk 5:1f), which must instead have taken place near Gergesa, halfway down the east shore of the Sea of Galilee. ... Mark misheard “Gergesenes” as “Gerasenes,” but then saw a problem: Gerasa did not extend to the Sea of Galilee; the Decapolis city of Gadara (only
6 miles SE of the Sea) stands in the way (ZAB 312). Mark blurred the problem ... What we have here is an oral error of Mark, who misheard the actual name, and did his best, with limited knowledge of Galilean geography, to produce an  intelligible transcript.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

It is true that modern version supporters generally do not defend their corruptions well against skeptic attacks. Glenn Miller provided a good example.  More informed than most, he simply threw out a grab-bag of attempts to mask the swine marathon corruption.

Or, like their poster above, they say they really do not care and abandon the field of Bible defense.  Those seeking to know if God's word is available to us, infallible and inerrant, do note the dialog.  Or the fact that the (modern version) Christian apologists really do not offer a sensible defense.

=========

The statements about Markan and Lukan geographical ignorance are a common conclusion of scholars who look at the text through the eyes of the modern version corruptions.  Here is an example, notes on Gerasa by E Bruce Brooks of Amherst:

Gerasa
http://www.umass.edu/wsp/publications/studies/notes/n-gerasa.pdf

Gerasa ... It is an impossible setting for the story of Jesus driving demons into a herd
of pigs which forthwith run down a slope and drown in the sea. (Mk 5:1f), which must instead have taken place near Gergesa, halfway down the east shore of the Sea of Galilee. ... Mark misheard “Gergesenes” as “Gerasenes,” but then saw a problem: Gerasa did not extend to the Sea of Galilee; the Decapolis city of Gadara (only
6 miles SE of the Sea) stands in the way (ZAB 312). Mark blurred the problem ... What we have here is an oral error of Mark, who misheard the actual name, and did his best, with limited knowledge of Galilean geography, to produce an  intelligible transcript.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
Click to expand...

Your comments as related to my post do not make sense.  And, btw, my name is not "poster." 

Your position seems to be that the locations as listed in the KJV are wrong (i.e. Mark and Luke are wrong).  Is that what you are trying to say?
 
Hi,

tduncan, I do not consider your comments particularly relevant, as I explained they simply are in the style of those stuck with the modern versions -- moving away from actual Bible defense and any belief in tangible infallibility and inerrancy.  So I use your comments as simply a starting point for additional study.

Here is Frank Zindler, a skeptic who does state the truth about the corruption, it is an absurd geographical error (and if it were the Bible text ... would demonstrate Mark and Lukan geographical ignorance.)

The most absurd geographical error Mark commits is when he tells the tall tale about Jesus crossing over the Sea of Galilee and casting demons out of a man (two men in Matthew's revised version) and making them go into about 2,000 pigs which, as the King James version puts it, "ran violently down a steep place into the sea... and they were choked in the sea." ... what's wrong with this story? If your only source of information is the King James Bible, you might not ever know. The King James says this marvel occurred in the land of the Gadarenes, whereas the oldest Greek manuscripts say this miracle took place in the land of the Gerasenes. Luke, who also knew no Palestinian geography, also passes on this bit of absurdity. But Matthew, who had some knowledge of Palestine, changed the name to Gadarene in his new, improved version; but this is further improved to Gergesenes in the King James version.

Gerasa, the place mentioned in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, is located about 31 miles from the shore of the Sea of Galilee! Those poor pigs had to run a course five miles longer than a marathon in order to find a place to drown! Not even lemmings have to go that far. 

Then, about another modern version corruption (Zindler did not know the textual elements) Zindler comments:

Apparently the translators of the King James version also knew their geography. At least they knew more than did the author of Mark! - Did Jesus Exist, 1998. 

tduncan, I know you do not care that you lose the apologetics argument against the skeptic with your modern versions, you are happy to be settled in your own mind that there must be some sort of explanation.

My point to you is simple, there is an explanation, the pure TR-AV has the proper Bible text.  The pure Bible is infallible and inerrant, and it is reasonable service and generally easy to defend against the attacks of the liberals and skeptics. Christian apologists are foolish to try to defend an ultra-minority corruption that equates to a swine marathon, simply because of some Hortian residue. And, ironically, the best recent scholarship is catching up to the pure Bible.

tduncan said:
Your position seems to be that the locations as listed in the KJV are wrong (i.e. Mark and Luke are wrong).  Is that what you are trying to say?
Click to expand...

Another example of the above, I have no idea why you would say that.  There are either two places, independent, both accurate, or one spot on the shore, pericoped into a description as Gergesenes and Gadarenes.  I have a preference for the former, however arguments for the latter are quite respectable.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Seems like you know very, very little about me.  I use and love my KJV.  I believe it is the inerrant and inspired Word of God. 

What I detest is the way the KJVO/TRO insists that their version of choice is God's final authority.  In the case of this thread, you do not know what is the actual answer.  I do not either.  But does that change the authority of Scripture?  No!

The difference between you and FSSL/Sawbones and others is that they seek knowledge of these things to enhance their understanding of the Word of God.  You don't seem to seek knowledge at all..you act as if you already have the correct answer.  Maybe I am wrong..but when even your fellow KJVOs are against you, it should tell you something.
 
Hi,

tduncan, you are wrong, I noted your word-parsing on the FFF forum, and I see no reason to go over that again.  One thread was "1 John 5:7", where you challenged me with the classic and never modified or retracted:

Regardless if the term "Trinity" is used, does Steven believe in God as three Persons, yet still one Person?

And you expect me to try to have a logical conversation about your various parsings? 

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

You are right in one thing above, I do believe I have in my hands the pure word of God, the correct answer.  Thank you Lord Jesus for your pure and perfect word.

And you "detest" my faith and acceptance of the Bible in my hand as God's pure word.  Ironically, you will only respect my Bible position if I am unsure of how thousands of NT variants read.

Galatians 4:16
Am I therefore become your enemy,
because I tell you the truth?

One question to consider.  Do you "detest" my Bible faith and acceptance, or is the "final authority" that your reject the real underlying problem?

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

And since I am in continual contact with dozens of fine AV defenders, I take contacts from such gentlemen directly, not through those contra the purity of the AV.  TR and AV defenders, or those studying who are simpatico, are welcome to contact me about apologetics and doctrinal views, and public and private forums for hashing out issues, including AV defense, Christology, dating of the NT, Calvinism and OSAS, eschatology, and much more.  I always like to study and learn. 

And I find the shared acceptance of the pure word of God is a fine starting point.  (Studies with those confused on the Bible text, such as at CARM, invariably get way-laid into alternate corruption texts, and an abundance of weak, contradictory translations.  A good example, watch the CARM discussions that focus around "God was manifest in the flesh".)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
I don't "parse" words.  I speak clearly and without the need to restate everything.

I do not detest your faith.  As usual, you resort to making up things.  If you believe you have God's perfect Word in your hands, then I accept that.  What I detest, sir, is your condescending attitude towards any who disagree.  You make up names and treat them as if they were stupid. 

Oh, and btw, VERY poor use of Scripture by throwing the Galatians passage out there.  In context, the words were used by Paul in speaking to the Galatians about legalism.  You used it out of context which shows your lack of knowledge of what is in the Word itself.

Unfortunately, you are being ridiculed by many KJVOs and you don't realize it.  For that, I am truly sorry.  I daresay that if you put as much effort in studying the messages in the Bible as you do in trying to prove the KJVO/TRO position, your message would be better received.
 
Hi,

The Galatians verse has lots of fine and proper application beyond simply the legalism questions being addressed at that moment.  We do well to let scripture speak.

The FFF threads are available for the word-parsing examples. You started up the same here.

You are concerned that I "make up names"?  What if the names are simply a fine description of a situation, like the Hortian fog?  And are you so concerned about the dozens of attacks on AV defenders, or is your concern that those attacks are normally not creative or literary or textually informed, and more likely to use generic words like idiot, vomit, cult.  tduncan, I don't see you speaking up in such cases, making your complaints here obviously of no merit and consistency.  An example, I do not see you speaking up against the blasphemy of equating acceptance of the tangible Bible as perfect with "magic".  Basically, your complaints are hypocritical.

As for being ridiculed by AV defenders, again, I am in contact with many. I know there have been a few dispensational Baptists and a few "orthodox Trinitarian" that have been a smidgen hostile over the years.  However, in general, I get along quite well with AV defenders.

In fact, and ironically, the politicians like yourself are constantly complaining (e.g. on CARM) that the other AV defenders are not hostile to me, and that the AV defenders like my posts and studies.

They always try to get you coming and going.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Sorry..you used a passage out of context and got called on it.  You do this often.

Back to the thread....you are demanding that your view be the only one correct.  Sad.
 
Hi,

First, I am demanding nothing.

In this thread, I am simply declaring that the Bible I read is pure, accurate and authoritative, and the situation with the Gerasa swine marathon can help people to understand Bible purity issues.

You seem to be upset that I do not see the Gerasa corruption as a probability or a possibility.

On the actual geography issues, I carefully state that my preference for two distinct events may not be correct, so you are wrong again in what you declare above.

Mostly I do not write for the hard-core contras to the purity of the TR and AV. To a large extent, they have made their decisions.  I study to learn the issues better myself. And I share more for those studying, considering.  If they understand modern version faux apologetics, which arises for corruptions like the swine marathon, they can far more easily understand the purity, majesty and excellence of the TR and AV, and the textus corruptus opposition.  They may even pick up some techie textual background.

==========

On Galatians 4:6, I just shared that sentiment to a well-known AV defender, who had gotten upset with my sharing of a point.  And, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, it will be used occasionally when similarly appropriate.

If you want to limit your usage to discussions of legalism, that is your prerogative, and I have no objection to your decision.

My view ... Paul gave us a solid, pithy declaration to use when we are surprised at the vehemence of opposition that can come forward when we share anything that is Bible-connected rock-solid.

ie. There are two contexts:

1) Galatian legalism
2) vehement opposition to Holy Spirit sharing (granted, the opposition does not see HS)

Not one.

==========

Hebrews 4:12 
For the word of God is quick, and powerful,
and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit,
and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

==========

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Hi,

Returning to the Gerasenes swine marathon blunder, I just ran into (while looking into other geographical corruptions in the modern versions) another attempted explanation to try to paper over the modern version corruption.

Galilee through the centuries: confluence of cultures
Mark and Galilee: Text World and Historical World
Cillyers Breytenbach
http://books.google.com/books?id=znYoChYVIrcC&pg=PA79

it might he that Mark referred to a piece of land, farm or estate of the Gerasene, which then could have been on the eastern lakeside.  ... raises the question whether the oligarchy of the Greek cities possessed estates and summer resorts at the lakeside. ... the farming land of the Gerasenes,

Breytenbach still has a marathon, when the herdsmen go to the polis "Gerasa must be meant".

By making the region of the Gerasenes a type of farming summer resort vacation home on the sea of Galilee for the Hellenistic oligarchy from Gerash, you might have a rather unelegant solution  :).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery 
 
Should we be offended that we only find Avery slumming over here when he's been banned again at the CARM forums?
 
Hi,

My main research forums are WhichVersion and TC-Alternate and an AV defender forum, where iron sharpeneth is the norm. 

In fact, it was the WhichVersion post:

Mark 7:24 - modern version blunders all over the map

which was a follow-up to a Ken Matto study, that led to bumping into the new Gerasa try. :)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top