Oldman’s observation only tells us about his culture and time, not about that of Hebrew speakers when the text was composed and then written. Consequently his observation is linguistically irrelevant, culturally ignorant, and anachronistic.

Languages are very different from each other, and the systems of thought and organization that they encode are equally different from each other. Hence his statement proves nothing excep that the organization / categorization doesn’t make sense to him (or me either, but then again I’m not a 4,000 year old Hebrew speaker).

regards,
John

You must fulfill the old Covenant by the example of Christ to receive the New Covenant.

The resurrection of the son of man is re-birth by repentance.

The sign of jonah is that Christ rested in the tomb for 3 days and 3 nights. The resurrection from death occured 3 years earlier.

See the link to my site for evidence of this.

God Bless

Fish, actually by implication the copies are inerrant. Scripture is inerrant because it is God breathed (2 Timothy 3:16). The text is inspired by God, which by extension applies to the copies.

Lisa:

Here is the ETS doctrinal statement:

ARTICLE III: DOCTRINAL BASIS

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.

God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.

Can you name any officer or member of the Evangelical Theological Society or any professor at Dallas Theological Seminary who claims or says that the ETS doctrinal statement re: inerrancy implies that the copies are inerrant?

Can you refer me to a doctrinal statement on inerrancy by an official church or organization that claims that the copies by implication or by extension are also inerrant?

Yes, you can group snakes and chickens together if you want to, but the connection is very thin. The creator knows better. You should too.

http://www.thedeathandresurection.com/pdf/diffinitive%20evidence%20the%204%20gospels%20came%20from%20one%20original%20source.pdf

The true Gospel will only come from the mouth of God through those who believe and obey to judge rightously.

God Bless

I was wondering if there was a linguistic element to this, but hadn’t had a chance to look it up. Thanks!

How about an equally unsupported, “Of course they didn’t”? Unless you have some documentary or linguistice evidence to support your point, I’m unconvinced.

Linnean classification is, obviously, a recent development and our present day scientific definition of what a “bird” was did not exist either. Classification systems of semitic peoples were based on function or form. In this case, the Hebrew word ‘owph which is translated as “birds” means merely “owner of a wing”, and is derived from a root word which means to cover or to fly. Consequently the category of ‘owph includes flying things such as birds, bats, and certain insects. Even today we still classify some things by form or function or even location rather than on inherent biological traits. For example, modern ecologists classify water-dwelling life according to their mode of living: plankton (floaters/drifters), nekton (swimmers) and benthos (bottom-dwellers). (Finally, after more than a decade, my university class in ecology has come in handy).

regards,
#John