Christians: Please Explain

[Aractus]

You may be making assumptions based on the translation, that aren't inherent to the original language.

If you're not a Greek scholar then you need to back up that claim please with evidence.

The Greek word "χώρα" can mean land, region, country, and even field.  It's basically describing an area.

Yes I acknowledged that, and it only solves the problem of "Matthew" not "Mark" and "Luke".

I don't think it's an issue; they are just using different references for the region. Wikipedia cites Gadara as the local center of power, whereas Matthew referred to Gerasa, the regional city of power.  Especially depending on who I was talking to, when talking about my past, I may mention Erie, Pittsburgh, or Meadville as a reference (Pennsylvania).  It just depends on how specific I was being, who my audience was, or what the focus was in my telling.

Well I think it is an issue. They were two different "powerful" cities (relativly). The point is that no one would say "region of Gerasa" if they meant "region of Gadara". That'd be like getting Melbourne confused with Sydney; or Los Angeles confused with New York.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

I bet you if I added some branches to that no one would notice a thing

The scary part of that one day we will face mass extinction on that...

Mass extinctions only happen when the Earth crosses the plane of the galaxy.  We have a few hours before that happens.
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/201...varez.html

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

[hide]


I've asked this question before. I never seem to get an honest and straightforward answer. This is a map showing part of first century Palestine.

In Mark 5:1-20/Luke 8:26-39/Matt 8:28-34, Jesus comes across a man possessed by a Legion of daemons, he casts them out into a herd of pigs, and then somehow makes the pigs stampede into the Sea of Galilee to be drowned. A great tale of how Jesus saved a man possessed by evil. But there's a big problem with this story!

Mark 5:1: They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.
Luke 8:26: They sailed to the region of the Gerasenes, which is across the lake from Galilee.
Matt 8:28a: When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes


The problem is that the location is wrong. Mark and Luke both clearly say the location is Gerasa. Gerasa is a full 50km away from the Sea, and that's in a direct line, and that's longer than a marathon. Matthew seems to be aware that Mark got it wrong, and so changed the city to Gadara. It would have taken the pigs hours and hours to stampede into the Sea, and I doubt very much that a pig could physically sustain that kind of pace for that length of time. Dogs might be able to do it, but pigs are nowhere near as athletic. Do you really think pigs could run a marathon? If pigs could fly perhaps...

Once you look at it on a map the problem is obvious. It's not as obvious if you just read it in your study-Bible notes as it offers up (seemingly) possible explanations. It's true the Bible doesn't specify the city itself, which does make it possible that the even takes place in Hippus (or perhaps south of Hippus somewhere along the Sea) - at least in Matthew. But Luke and Mark tells us it takes place in the region of Gerasa - and by region it probably means something like a 5-10km radius around the city. Since Gerasa and Gadara are both major cities there is no way they shared a "region", especially north of Gadara.

---

You may be making assumptions based on the translation, that aren't inherent to the original language.  The Greek word "χώρα" can mean land, region, country, and even field.  It's basically describing an area.  The translations I looked at used "country".  The atlas I looked at, also shown Gergasa (just north of Hippo opposite Capernaum) as believed to be the site in which they landed (and is also cited by Origen as known in his day).  It does appear that this is a place where there are some variances in the manuscripts (in all three accounts) and even some other cities in the area being used. 

I don't think it's an issue; they are just using different references for the region. Wikipedia cites Gadara as the local center of power, whereas Matthew referred to Gerasa, the regional city of power.  Especially depending on who I was talking to, when talking about my past, I may mention Erie, Pittsburgh, or Meadville as a reference (Pennsylvania).  It just depends on how specific I was being, who my audience was, or what the focus was in my telling.

Why do we have to translate the Bible everytime we read it?

[RoadRunner79]

they are just using different references for the region.

Ah, so you're going with the "it's the literal word of fucking god until it doesn't make any sense" routine.... then it becomes interpreted.

Common among your ilk.

No.. I do t think so. I explained why and directly form the words used, why it's perfectly valid exactly as it reads. Where do you think there is a problem with the explanation?

[RoadRunner79]

---

You may be making assumptions based on the translation, that aren't inherent to the original language.  The Greek word "χώρα" can mean land, region, country, and even field.  It's basically describing an area.  The translations I looked at used "country".  The atlas I looked at, also shown Gergasa (just north of Hippo opposite Capernaum) as believed to be the site in which they landed (and is also cited by Origen as known in his day).  It does appear that this is a place where there are some variances in the manuscripts (in all three accounts) and even some other cities in the area being used. 

I don't think it's an issue; they are just using different references for the region. Wikipedia cites Gadara as the local center of power, whereas Matthew referred to Gerasa, the regional city of power.  Especially depending on who I was talking to, when talking about my past, I may mention Erie, Pittsburgh, or Meadville as a reference (Pennsylvania).  It just depends on how specific I was being, who my audience was, or what the focus was in my telling.

---

It seems rather ironic that you willingly select one religion but can't even muster up an ounce of intellectual honesty when critically analyzing it, always somewhat arriving to the conclusion of "Well it looks wrong, but trust me, it's right, I just haven't figured out why yet".

Actually now that I rethink it, it's not ironic moreover just purely stupid which is to be expected, the same logic applying to this as applied to god that "Well it looks wrong, but it's right, I know it has to be right, I just can't figure out a good reason why".

I don't think that it is a case of "Well it looks wrong, but it's right, I know it has to be right, I just can't figure out a good reason why". Where do you think, that I am being intellectually dishonest? Frankly, I got the reason I gave from the English translation (particularly the translation given in the OP), When I went to look it up for context in another version, it said "country", which I think "region" is a better translation (exactly because the word "country" may cause people lead people to assume restrictions which are not required in the original language.

However, if you would like to "wow" me with your critical analysis... feel free to do so.

[KUSA]

I can't figure out why Jesus had to kill the pigs. What did they ever do to him? What a dick!

[RoadRunner79]

You may be making assumptions based on the translation, that aren't inherent to the original language.

If you're not a Greek scholar then you need to back up that claim please with evidence.

The Greek word "χώρα" can mean land, region, country, and even field.  It's basically describing an area.

Yes I acknowledged that, and it only solves the problem of "Matthew" not "Mark" and "Luke".

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

I don't think it's an issue; they are just using different references for the region. Wikipedia cites Gadara as the local center of power, whereas Matthew referred to Gerasa, the regional city of power.  Especially depending on who I was talking to, when talking about my past, I may mention Erie, Pittsburgh, or Meadville as a reference (Pennsylvania).  It just depends on how specific I was being, who my audience was, or what the focus was in my telling.

Well I think it is an issue. They were two different "powerful" cities (relativly). The point is that no one would say "region of Gerasa" if they meant "region of Gadara". That'd be like getting Melbourne confused with Sydney; or Los Angeles confused with New York.

The Wikipedia article which I looked at seemed to indicate that Gerasa was a larger and more powerful than Gadara.  Which would make sense, since it is farther away.  The text mentions, that they found the man, when they stepped ashore; so I would think that this precludes either city directly as they are not coastal cities on the Sea of Galilee. 

Since you mentioned Sydney and Melbourne, can I assume that you are from Australia?   My understanding of that region is that it is either very densely populated or fairly sparsely populated with a large gap in between (especially as you head inland). Perhaps this may be slanting your understanding.  I live in the country, so for me it is not uncommon to reference a larger city, even though it may be an hour or more away driving.  And in such a reference, you may get different responses from different people, one person may reference State College, PA, while another may reference Pittsburgh (or they may cite smaller and closer cities as well). 

Do you have other information, that leads you to the conclusion that "no one would say "region of Gerasa" if they meant "region of Gadara"

[Neo-Scholastic]

Marl 5:1 identifies the region into which the went by the nationality of the occupants. That's presumably a much larger area than central city-state of Gerase and could have included a costal area. 50 klicks is less than a days ride by horse, a reasonable radius of influence.

[JuliaL]

My views:
There is a vitally important disconnect in the approaches used by atheists and theists.
Skeptic atheists consistently try to bludgeon theists with empirically supported truths or at least the concept that empirically supporting ones truths is important.

RELIGIONS DON'T CARE ABOUT TRUTH, no matter the lip service of their adherents to the contrary.
Religions are engaged in their own perpetuation.  Those (e.g. sacrificing to Dianna) which don't persist and go extinct are not generally mentioned (losers.)  Those which depend on views which cannot be empirically supported must deny the importance of empiric support or must contort the practice enough to claim that empiric support does exist (e.g. through re-translation, customized interpretation or dependence on mere assertion.)  Else they go extinct.
Hence we see the perverse and twisted logic of only the survivors.  Those who might say, "Oops, I guess demons can't be driven into marathon running pigs after all,"  slouch off and don't get represented in the next mutated iteration of the religion. 
I find it more interesting to examine the underlying motivation of the single theist with the aim of establishing some commonality within their population which, en masse, makes up the slow and stupid animal that is their religion.  The whole, the religion, is less intelligent, but more robust, than the isolated theist. Showing a single person their behavior in rejecting empiricism and the reasons behind that behavior can be effective in restoring sanity and objectivity.



I am ambivalent to the fact that definitive proof cannot be forced on individuals who simply choose (insert objections to libertarian free will here) not to believe. Catastrophic climate change would be easier to head off if it could, but dystopic fascist states would also be more easily inflicted on the people.

---

Obviously they would jump in the kangaroo's pouch and hop across the 50km back and forth each time,

clearly they all got hella ripped, and had calves bigger than kurt angle's allowing all the kangaroo's to hop over to Australia on the land bridge before Ken Ham was born without any of them dying you evolutionassholes.

---

Are... you a troll...... 

---

---

[Minimalist]

Ah, so you're going with the "it's the literal word of fucking god until it doesn't make any sense" routine.... then it becomes interpreted.

Common among your ilk.

No.. I do t think so.  I explained why and directly form the words used, why it's perfectly valid exactly as it reads.  Where do you think there is a problem with the explanation?

Your apologetics fail.  The fact that there are geographical fuckups in your precious bible seems to be a mystery only to you.  

And Danny,

No it doesn't, what kind of bullshit is that? People who are indigenous to the land always feel a connection to it, and that's something we've learned pretty conclusively over the last few decades. Let's put it this way: just because "Australia" and its constitute states and territories exist doesn't mean that the Indigenous boundaries don't exist. Yes the Romans occupied and controlled the land, but just as "Israel" today, the indigenous people of the land feel that it is theirs and have their own territories.

where are you getting your history from?  A cereal box?

In 722 BC the Assyrians overran the northern kingdom.  The bible claims that the "Ten Tribes" were moved out and others brought in.  Assyrian records, doubtlessly more accurate as they were written at the time, also indicate that the upper classes of society were relocated and the area, which included Galilee, was under Assyrian control until the Babylonians took it from them and then the Persians took it from the Babylonians and then Alexander took it from the Persians and finally Alexander's generals, Ptolemy and Seleucus fought over it.  The Seleucids were the last people on top of the mountain bringing us down to the mid 2d century BC.  So when did Galilee come under "Jewish" control?  Obviously you have no clue so I'll tell you.

During the reign of Aristobulus I, 104-103, BC this son of John Hyrcanus completed his father's projected conquest of the northern regions which the Seleucids could no longer control.
Also like his father he instituted a policy of forced conversion to judaism - including forced circumcision - which must have gone over like a limp dick.  By the end of the reign of his successor, Alexander Jannai, who was no prize himself, the Hasmonean Dynasty was in full fledged meltdown due to dynastic squabbles which raises serious doubts of their ability to control outlying areas.

Finally, in 64 BC Gnaeus Pompey's legions came rolling through and put an end to the fiction of an independent jewish kingdom which means, all told, that Galilee was under "jewish" rule for a mere 40 years.  Contrast that with the 3 centuries of Greek rule and the roughly 4 prior centuries of Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian rule.  In modern parlance, the Galileans were JINOs.  Jews In Name Only.  Their identification with Jerusalem is a product of xtian story telling.  They didn't want any part of those smelly rebels...that's why they told Josephus to go fuck himself.

You started the thread with a good question about the gospel's silly geographical errors, which are well known.  But you need to learn the history of the region and you are not getting that from the stupid fucking bible.