C'mon, Look At All This Stuff That's Real

[DeistPaladin]

just incase you missed it:

how do I know which herod is being discussed for that we turn to a concordance: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2264&t=KJV scroll down to section "B" and all your objections will be throughly be answered concerning the person in luke 1 is speaking of.

And again in chapter three where he is referred to as the 'tetrarch' same man different title one jewish in authority one roman in authority same person.

How soundly must you be proven wrong before you conceded?

The link doesn't work.

[Drich]

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lex...2264&t=KJV

try this one

---

then you have this one showing where I got the text/passage or word from it's orginal context
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/...onc_974005

If verse 5 is not open click on it and then again on herod's name open in interlinear. and it should bring you to the actual definition.

---

-or- Goto blueletterbible.org
in the top center header search bar type Luke 1 then click search
Then scroll down to chapter 1 verse 5 and click on it and it should open in interlinear automatically then click on the english word herod. that shows you every single use of the word that holds the same or common definition..ifyou will note this version of herod is used when ever speaking of the king of judea at the time of Christ's birth. Also note this is not herod the great by clicking on G2264 (Ever word in the bible is in this lexicon and each word has a number) this use or defination of this word is G2264 and it will give you the intended definition or meaning of this word

[Amarok]

just incase you missed it:

how do I know which herod is being discussed for that we turn to a concordance: https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2264&t=KJV scroll down to section "B" and all your objections will be throughly be answered concerning the person in luke 1 is speaking of.

And again in chapter three where he is referred to as the 'tetrarch' same man different title one jewish in authority one roman in authority same person.

How soundly must you be proven wrong before you conceded?

The link doesn't work.

Nor will it's case

[DeistPaladin]

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lex...2264&t=KJV

try this one

---

then you have this one showing where I got the text/passage or word from it's orginal context
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/...onc_974005

If verse 5 is not open click on it and then again on herod's name open in interlinear. and it should bring you to the actual definition.

---

-or- Goto blueletterbible.org
in the top center header search bar type Luke 1 then click search
Then scroll down to chapter 1 verse 5 and click on it and it should open in interlinear automatically then click on the english word herod. that shows you every single use of the word that holds the same or common definition..ifyou will note this version of herod is used when ever speaking of the king of judea at the time of Christ's birth. Also note this is not herod the great by clicking on G2264 (Ever word in the bible is in this lexicon and each word has a number) this use or defination of this word is G2264 and it will give you the intended definition or meaning of this word

Thank you for wasting my time. Your top link only proves my case that Luke called Antipas "the tetrarch" and "Herod King of Judea" was a reference to Herod the Great. Bold emphasis mine:

Herod surnamed "Antipas", was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. After the death of his father he was appointed by the Romans tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. His first wife was the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia; but he subsequently repudiated her and took to himself Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Philip; and in consequence Aretas, his father-in-law, made war against him and conquered him. He cast John the Baptist into prison because John had rebuked him for this unlawful connection; and afterwards, at the instigation of Herodias, he ordered him to be beheaded. Induced by her, too, he went to Rome to obtain from the emperor the title of king. But in consequence of the accusations brought against him by Herod Agrippa I, Caligula banished him (A.D. 39) to Lugdunum in Gaul, where he seems to have died. He was light minded, sensual and vicious.

He was neither "king" nor did he rule all of Judea. Further, I've provided you with textural evidence that Luke specifically referred to Antipas as "the tetrarch" (Luke 9:7) and it would have been an inconsistency for him to have earlier called him "king of Judea". 

"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. ...You lose. Good day, sir." 

[Amarok]

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/Lex...2264&t=KJV

try this one

---

then you have this one showing where I got the text/passage or word from it's orginal context
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/...onc_974005

If verse 5 is not open click on it and then again on herod's name open in interlinear. and it should bring you to the actual definition.

---

-or- Goto blueletterbible.org
in the top center header search bar type Luke 1 then click search
Then scroll down to chapter 1 verse 5 and click on it and it should open in interlinear automatically then click on the english word herod. that shows you every single use of the word that holds the same or common definition..ifyou will note this version of herod is used when ever speaking of the king of judea at the time of Christ's birth. Also note this is not herod the great by clicking on G2264 (Ever word in the bible is in this lexicon and each word has a number) this use or defination of this word is G2264 and it will give you the intended definition or meaning of this word

Thank you for wasting my time. Your top link only proves my case that Luke called Antipas "the tetrarch" and "Herod King of Judea" was a reference to Herod the Great. Bold emphasis mine:

Herod surnamed "Antipas", was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. After the death of his father he was appointed by the Romans tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. His first wife was the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia; but he subsequently repudiated her and took to himself Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Philip; and in consequence Aretas, his father-in-law, made war against him and conquered him. He cast John the Baptist into prison because John had rebuked him for this unlawful connection; and afterwards, at the instigation of Herodias, he ordered him to be beheaded. Induced by her, too, he went to Rome to obtain from the emperor the title of king. But in consequence of the accusations brought against him by Herod Agrippa I, Caligula banished him (A.D. 39) to Lugdunum in Gaul, where he seems to have died. He was light minded, sensual and vicious.

He was neither "king" nor did he rule all of Judea. Further, I've provided you with textural evidence that Luke specifically referred to Antipas as "the tetrarch" (Luke 9:7) and it would have been an inconsistency for him to have earlier called him "king of Judea". 

"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. ...You lose. Good day, sir." 

Told you

[Drich]

Thank you for wasting my time. Your top link only proves my case that Luke called Antipas "the tetrarch" and "Herod King of Judea" was a reference to Herod the Great. Bold emphasis mine:

Herod surnamed "Antipas", was the son of Herod the Great and Malthace, a Samaritan woman. After the death of his father he was appointed by the Romans tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea. His first wife was the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia; but he subsequently repudiated her and took to himself Herodias, the wife of his brother Herod Philip; and in consequence Aretas, his father-in-law, made war against him and conquered him. He cast John the Baptist into prison because John had rebuked him for this unlawful connection; and afterwards, at the instigation of Herodias, he ordered him to be beheaded. Induced by her, too, he went to Rome to obtain from the emperor the title of king. But in consequence of the accusations brought against him by Herod Agrippa I, Caligula banished him (A.D. 39) to Lugdunum in Gaul, where he seems to have died. He was light minded, sensual and vicious.

He was neither "king" nor did he rule all of Judea. Further, I've provided you with textural evidence that Luke specifically referred to Antipas as "the tetrarch" (Luke 9:7) and it would have been an inconsistency for him to have earlier called him "king of Judea". 

"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. ...You lose. Good day, sir." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ

I'm gonna give you the benfit of the doubt.. you are proud and stupid.. you probably never used a lexicon before so let me walk it though AGAIN because you seem to have missed the proof before...

click on the link:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lex...2264&t=KJV

4th box down you will see this:
KJV Translation Count — Total: 44x

The KJV translates Strong's G2264 in the following manner: Herod, Antipas (27x), Herod, the Great (11x), Herod Agrippa (6x).

now click on herod, antipas (27x)

what this is is that the lexicon is saying out of the whole bible the word herod in context has been translated refering to antipas 27 different times.. Now when you click on this it will give you each and every verse that has antipas as it's intended translation... Now douche bag click on it and seek if Luke 1 is in that list...

Oh wait a tick it is on the list of Antipas translations!











You would have already known this if you just listen the first time!

---

Thank you for wasting my time. Your top link only proves my case that Luke called Antipas "the tetrarch" and "Herod King of Judea" was a reference to Herod the Great. Bold emphasis mine:



He was neither "king" nor did he rule all of Judea. Further, I've provided you with textural evidence that Luke specifically referred to Antipas as "the tetrarch" (Luke 9:7) and it would have been an inconsistency for him to have earlier called him "king of Judea". 

"It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. ...You lose. Good day, sir." 

Told you

you should at least wait to see what the guy with 25 years of translating biblical texts has to say before you jump on a broken argument, you might just learn something WITHOUT being stigmatized as being a moron yes man or a johnny come lately.

[DeistPaladin]

you should at least wait to see what the guy with 25 years of translating biblical texts has to say before you jump on a broken argument, you might just learn something WITHOUT being stigmatized as being a moron yes man or a johnny come lately.

I hope nobody actually paid you for that job.

[Drich]

you should at least wait to see what the guy with 25 years of translating biblical texts has to say before you jump on a broken argument, you might just learn something WITHOUT being stigmatized as being a moron yes man or a johnny come lately.

I hope nobody actually paid you for that job.

paid or poor I'm 100% right here and in the other thread when it came down to a basic use of the lexicon.

I don't get youse guys logic some times. like here I soundly kicked your teeth in and destroyed your argument first line yet you drag it out me John Cena Horse slamming you all along the way... Then when you finally get it you call me stupid in some form or fashion (like my efforts were not good enough to be paid)...

Now think about this... If I am a dumb ass who just made you look like a 4th grader who missed snack and nap time with my 'unskilled skill' what does that make you? If I am dumb how much dummer are you for taking 4 posts before you finally get your argument was over in my first post to you?

Don't you get it? if I am dumb and I just whooped you ass that makes you a mf-ing retard!

So why call me dumb after soundly beating you in the last two posts where I took the blue letter bible and set you straight?

Just think about how much of this atheist shit you believe comes down to a simple matter of translation you again misunderstand? or a detail like how antipas and the great are determined/translated. Does it scare yo that there is legitimate scholarship behind everything in the bible and you are not talking to just blind faith goat herders? if no why be so nasty when you are forced to acknowledge the truth?

[DeistPaladin]

paid or poor I'm 100% right here and in the other thread when it came down to a basic use of the lexicon.

No, you're not. You lost that exchange. 





Your interpretation that Luke's reference to "Herod, king of Judea" must be about Herod Antipas is, at best, a stubborn, unfounded assumption defended against the textural evidence to the contrary and it's every bit as strange as your interpretation that the word "God" (big G, proper name "God") is a title and not a being. I'll be kind and call your beliefs "heterodox". 

YahwehIsTheWay would call you a "dumbass phony Christian" but he's a bit more rude than I am.

[DeistPaladin]

Just because I feel the need to be thorough, I looked up Luke chapter 1 in my New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) published by Oxford University Press and here's what it had to say about Luke 1:5

"In the days of King Herod of Judea" refers broadly to 37-4 BCE.

So both his sources and mine confirm the reference is to Herod the Great and not Antipas.

------
Edit to add: I'm sure everyone was in complete suspense, on the edges of your seats about this matter. Drich is way out on the fringe of Christian apologetics. What a shock.