Galatians 3 vs. Genesis 12
I've been re-reading some of Paul's New Testament letters lately. He seems to like to do a fair amount of quote-mining from the Old Testament. Sometimes he takes things out of context, and other times he is wrong. But, he was a very intelligent and highly-educated man, so I wonder what is going on here?
What, then, was the purpose of the Law? It was added in order to show what wrongdoing is, and it was meant to last until the coming of Abraham's descendant, to whom the promise was made. The Law was handed down by angels, with a man acting as a go-between. But a go-between is not needed when only one person is involved; and God is one.
Paul is refering back to Yahweh's promise to Abraham
When Abram was seventy-five years old, he started out from Haran, as the Lord had told him to do; and Lot went with him.5 Abram took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and all the wealth and all the slaves they had acquired in Haran, and they started out for the land of Canaan.
When they arrived in Canaan, Abram traveled through the land until he came to the sacred tree of Moreh, the holy place at Shechem. (At that time the Canaanites were still living in the land.) The Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, "This is the country that I am going to give to your descendants." Then Abram built an altar there to the Lord, who had appeared to him. After that, he moved on south to the hill country east of the city of Bethel and set up his camp between Bethel on the west and Ai on the east. There also he built an altar and worshiped the Lord. Then he moved on from place to place, going toward the southern part of Canaan.
The Good News Translation at least uses the plural form in Genesis. For a lot of Jews, this is probably one of the Bible's most important passages, and is very central to their faith.
And Paul, of all people, should have known that the original Hebrew used the plural form (if, indeed, it does).
So, what is going on here? Is Paul trying to pull one over on the Galations, who weren't Jews? Or, does the original Hebrew have it in the singular, and this was translated (in English) into a plural form?
If the topic is biblical homosexuality, then the discussion goes on for pages and pages.
If the topic is unrelated to homosexuality, then not so much as a nibble.
Okay, fine. Let's see whether we can jizz this one up a bit, using King James' version.
So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, "Unto thy seed will I give this land." And there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. "The law ... was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." Who gave the law to Moses? Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
I think that Paul is full of poop here. When referring to Abram's ejaculant, or "seed", it is obvious to me that Yahweh is referring to Abram's descendents who will acquire a specific piece of land, after a great deal of coitus and ejaculant entering vaginas.
When Yahweh says "Unto thy seed I will give this land", he couldn't have been referring to Jesus, because Jesus never had any chance of acquiring the land. There were hundreds of years of ejaculations between Abram and Jesus.
Granted, "seed" is a singular noun, even in English.
2. A propagative part of a plant, as a tuber or spore.
3. Seeds considered as a group.
4. The seed-bearing stage of a plant.
5. Something that resembles a seed, as a tiny bubble in a piece of glass.
6.
a. A small amount of material used to start a chemical reaction.
b. A small crystal used to start a crystallization process.
7. Medicine A form of a radioactive isotope that is used to localize and concentrate the amount of radiation administered to a body site, such as a tumor.
8. A source or beginning; a germ.
9. Offspring; progeny.
10. Family stock; ancestry.
11. Sperm; semen.
12. A seed oyster or oysters; spat.
13. Sports A player who has been seeded for a tournament, often at a given rank: a top seed.
But, the singular form can be used in a plural sense.
If Yahweh had meant just one ejaculant, as Paul suggests, then this would be referring to Isaac or Ishmael, and not Jesus.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
If the topic is biblical homosexuality, then the discussion goes on for pages and pages.
If the topic is unrelated to homosexuality, then not so much as a nibble.
Okay, fine. Let's see whether we can jizz this one up a bit, using King James' version.
Patience. I'm playing a gig in a couple of hours and am in the middle of loading up so I can get to soundcheck on time. Gimme a day or two on this and I'll have something for you. At the moment I'm stumped, but only because I've never seen this one before. If I'm up to 4:00 tomorrow morning, it might be tomorrow evening before I even feel like looking all that up.
The simple answer is that Paul qualifies as an apostolic source, so what he writes is inspired and, therefore, true. You need something a little more in-depth than that, obviously, but I can only be in three places at a time.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
If the topic is biblical homosexuality, then the discussion goes on for pages and pages.
If the topic is unrelated to homosexuality, then not so much as a nibble.
Okay, fine. Let's see whether we can jizz this one up a bit, using King James' version.
So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him, and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land. And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, "Unto thy seed will I give this land." And there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.
Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. "The law ... was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." Who gave the law to Moses? Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.
I think that Paul is full of poop here. When referring to Abram's ejaculant, or "seed", it is obvious to me that Yahweh is referring to Abram's descendents who will acquire a specific piece of land, after a great deal of coitus and ejaculant entering vaginas.
When Yahweh says "Unto thy seed I will give this land", he couldn't have been referring to Jesus, because Jesus never had any chance of acquiring the land. There were hundreds of years of ejaculations between Abram and Jesus.
Granted, "seed" is a singular noun, even in English.
2. A propagative part of a plant, as a tuber or spore.
3. Seeds considered as a group.
4. The seed-bearing stage of a plant.
5. Something that resembles a seed, as a tiny bubble in a piece of glass.
6.
a. A small amount of material used to start a chemical reaction.
b. A small crystal used to start a crystallization process.
7. Medicine A form of a radioactive isotope that is used to localize and concentrate the amount of radiation administered to a body site, such as a tumor.
8. A source or beginning; a germ.
9. Offspring; progeny.
10. Family stock; ancestry.
11. Sperm; semen.
12. A seed oyster or oysters; spat.
13. Sports A player who has been seeded for a tournament, often at a given rank: a top seed.
But, the singular form can be used in a plural sense.
If Yahweh had meant just one ejaculant, as Paul suggests, then this would be referring to Isaac or Ishmael, and not Jesus.
This is interesting because the words in both Hebrew and Greek can refer to seed as singular OR plural. My translation uses the word "offspring." There doesn't seem to be much way around this in English, either, is there?
God makes additional promises in regards to Isaac and Ishmael, though. Abraham will be the father of a great nation. His line will be traced through Isaac. All the nations of the earth will be blessed through him. If you take the word for "offspring" as singular, it's a messianic prophecy and Paul is correct.
But, the singular form can be used in a plural sense.
If Yahweh had meant just one ejaculant, as Paul suggests, then this would be referring to Isaac or Ishmael, and not Jesus. Well, Yahweh does say that Abraham's line will be traced through Isaac. But what is important here is that Abraham was told to sacrifice his only son--that is, the only son that was promised to him through Sarah. The substitutionary sacrifice of the ram was provided, which points to the "only begotten" of God, the Messiah, being sacrificed to save all the world.
This is interesting because the words in both Hebrew and Greek can refer to seed as singular OR plural. My translation uses the word "offspring." There doesn't seem to be much way around this in English, either, is there?
God makes additional promises in regards to Isaac and Ishmael, though. Abraham will be the father of a great nation. His line will be traced through Isaac. All the nations of the earth will be blessed through him. If you take the word for "offspring" as singular, it's a messianic prophecy and Paul is correct.
But, the prophecy concerns a specific piece of land, which Jesus never acquired. So, it couldn't have been a messianic prophesy concerning Jesus.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
But, the singular form can be used in a plural sense.
If Yahweh had meant just one ejaculant, as Paul suggests, then this would be referring to Isaac or Ishmael, and not Jesus. Well, Yahweh does say that Abraham's line will be traced through Isaac. But what is important here is that Abraham was told to sacrifice his only son--that is, the only son that was promised to him through Sarah. The substitutionary sacrifice of the ram was provided, which points to the "only begotten" of God, the Messiah, being sacrificed to save all the world.
This is interesting because the words in both Hebrew and Greek can refer to seed as singular OR plural. My translation uses the word "offspring." There doesn't seem to be much way around this in English, either, is there?
God makes additional promises in regards to Isaac and Ishmael, though. Abraham will be the father of a great nation. His line will be traced through Isaac. All the nations of the earth will be blessed through him. If you take the word for "offspring" as singular, it's a messianic prophecy and Paul is correct.
But, the prophecy concerns a specific piece of land, which Jesus never acquired. So, it couldn't have been a messianic prophesy concerning Jesus.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
Please elaborate. It didn't appear scatological.
Er, no...it has nothing to do with excrement.
ESCHatological. Meaning end-times. It could mean that the Messiah will inherit the land of Israel and reign from there. Since Jesus didn't fulfill this prophecy during His earthly ministry, it could be that this prophecy will be fulfilled when He returns. Depending on your views of dispensationalism, this might be interpreted to mean after the rapture and tribulation and at the start of of the millennial reign.
YESSSSSS. Nobody should listen to Paul. He was a jerk when he was Saul and he was a jerk after the name change.
AngelRho
Veteran
Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile
YESSSSSS. Nobody should listen to Paul. He was a jerk when he was Saul and he was a jerk after the name change.
Do prefer the old Saul when he was killing Christians?
Paul brought Christianity to the Gentiles in a huge way. I think he only seems like a jerk because he demanded that his followers get it right. It was a brand-new religion and there was too much to lose if those first churches screwed it up. The Christians at Corinth seemed to have had an especially tough time.
In fact, they all did. Just read the letters John sent to the churches in Revelation. It's a report card not just of those particular churches, but of churches that imitated them. Personally, I think I'd enjoy reading what Paul might have to say about the RC church if he could have seen what eventually became of it (the later Crusades and the inquisitions).
But if you think all Christians should die, then I can see how you might prefer the old one to the new one.
First of all, girl what.
Paul hated women and gays. I am a queer woman. I am not fond of Paul. I think the modern world would be a lot different (and nicer) if we did not listen to him any more. Please do not intimate that I want all Christians to die because I do not like a guy who does not like me.
Also I want this to be the end of the derailing (my bad, original poster. Love your topic, so sorry) so I would prefer if we have this discussion over PM or open up our own topic.
And I would love to read Paul's letter to the Southern Baptists.
That does sound like a fun thing to do: imagine yourself as Paul, and write letters to various churches.
He never praises any of the churches.
But, he was expecting Jesus to return any day, to raise the dead, and cart off his believers to Heaven, certainly while most of the people in his day were still alive. If he were to return today, he might decide that it was all rather silly after all.
One more point: Christians generally subscribe to at least one of the nativity stories of Matthew or Luke, or some bits and pieces from each. They thus consider the procreation of Jesus to have been seedless--her mother was a virgin, and no human ejaculant entered her vagina. Abraham's seed would have had nothing to do with Jesus. Some Christians take this one step further, and believe that Mary entered the world as a result of parthenogenesis.
Possibly Paul didn't know that Jesus' mother was a virgin, or else didn't believe it.
