Christians: Please Explain

[Aractus]

I don't understand here.  In one instance you acknowledge my definition, and then the other you ask me to back it up.  "Region" to me is a fairly broad and generalized term.  I am unsure if it is a cultural difference or what, as to why you are being fairly restrictive in it's application.  

Anyways, here is a link to a Babylon translation (keep in mind this is modern use) http://translation.babylon.com/greek/to-...%81%CE%B1/  and here is the strongs definition along with varied uses in the bible http://biblehub.com/greek/5561.htm

No RR, you claimed  that I'm likely "making assumptions based on translation and not what is inherent in the original Greek". That claim you need to back up with evidence. Strong's is a poor dictionary, but I suppose you know that and you're using it anyway just to troll this thread. If you're going to look up the Greek at least use something other than Strong's (Blue Letter Lexicon for example). However what you're claiming is essentially that all modern translators (most of whom by the way are Evangelicals) got the translation wrong, and that smells of straight-up BS to me.

It is incredibly difficult to find genuinely scholarly material for Biblical criticism, as most Journals are not open-access. Thus most of the information that is easily accessed is of poor academic quality, and fundamentally flawed.

Here's one example of a "solution": "I believe that the Textus Receptus has the better reading concerning this textual problem.  The proper reading of the text should be the region of the “Gergesenes” in Matthew’s gospel (8:28), and the region of the “Gadarenes” in Mark’s (5:1) and Luke’s (8:26) gospels." Yep that's right, this guy's solution is to ignore modern scholarship and just "decide" what the correct reading should be arbitrarily. Of course that shouldn't surprise you being the website is literally titled "Bible Archaeology".

Here's another explanation from a militant Evangelical with no academic qualifications (Matt Slick): "In Matthew it says, 'Gadarenes,' while in Mark and Luke it says, 'Gerasenes.' There are two possible explanations for the difference in spelling. First, there could be a minor scribal copying error on the spelling as there are different spellings in different manuscripts. Second, Gadara may have been the capital of the region in the Gerasenes, and Matthew may have simply referred to it by a more local term: the Gaderenes." Notice how he claims it's a "difference in spelling", but is not qualified to make such a determination about the Greek language! Like many Evangelical-Apologist types, they don't like to have their views polluted by modern scholarship. It's fucking pathetic, it's like an art teacher trying to explain chemistry, and why only the art teachers know the real truth, and not the chemists.

You just have to look up the way that the Orthodox church still defends the use of "the" LXX in spite of modern scholarship showing the MT is a far better representation of the ancient Hebrew scriptures to see how apologists will believe whatever their doctrine requires of them, and will forcibly ignore all evidence contrary to their "inspired" beliefs.

So again, I'm not interested in hearing an answer from amateurs, from apologists, from Evangelicals, or from your Bible commentary (which typically represents the views only of Evangelically-minded scholars). I want to hear the answer straight from the most qualified Greek scholars, and no one else.