.Re: The "great dark" and Easter Morning
Lee Markland markland@rockisland.com
Thu, 31 Dec 1998 09:28:55 -0800 (00915146935, 3.0.5.32.19981231092855.00a7eac0@rockisland.com)
At 08:44 PM 12/31/98 EST, you wrote:
>In a message dated 98-12-31 18:53:52 EST, you write:
>
>
>
> At 05:22 AM 12/31/98 +0000, Joseph Crea wrote:
> >Hello, Dave!
> >
> >At 10:02 PM 12/30/98 -0500, Ronie Mooney wrote:
> >>Hi Group!
> >> I researched this further and found in Wuests *Word Studies in the
> Greek New
> >>Testament* (Vol #1) that prOi was indeed used for the fourth watch of the
> night
> >>(from 3am-6am) as well as sunrise or daybreak. This can be found in his
> >>commentary on Mark 1:35 (page 38).
> >> Hope this helps,
> >
> >
> >CREA
> > It definitely helps. By the way, you wouldn't just happen to have run
> >across any material relative to Ed's claim that Mark's use of "prOi" can be
> >simply dismissed as an instance of hapax legomenon, would you? Thanks
>again!
> >
>
> TILL
> Ed's view, by the way, is inconsistent with the doctrine of verbal
> inspiration on which the errancy doctrine is based. As I showed in a series
> of earlier postings, prominent inerrancy spokesmen of the past believed in
> and taught verbal inspiration, and there are various scriptures that express
> agreement with this view. Therefore, if Mark was verbally inspired, as
> biblical inerrantists claim, then any misuse of "prOi" in his gospel would
> not have been his mistake but the mistake of the omniscient, omnipotent
> entity who verbally inspired him.
>
> Farrell Till
> Skepticism, Inc.
> jftill@midwest.net
>==================
>Joe Alward:
>
>Since Farrell has chosen to make the same point twice in the same week (I
>don't object to this; repetition is a good thing), I feel that I may feel
free
>to do the same thing.
>
>In an earlier post Farrell noted that if the omnisicient god told Mark that
>the sun had risen, when it had not (because, according to John, it was too
>dark to see the sun's rays), then that god must be errant. Till treats "the
>sun had risen" as equivalent to "the rays of the sun were visible to those at
>the tomb". I pointed out that that God--through Mark--did NOT say that the
>rays of the sun were VISIBLE, only that the sun had risen, which means that a
>line from the top of the sun was tangent to the Earth at the town of
>Jerusalem. Unless the sun's rotation was halted, the sun DID rise that day
>and either God nor Mark was in error.
Lee here:
According to the Ferrar Fenton version:
Mark 1 35.
Rising up very early in the morning before daybreak, He departed into a
desert place, and there prayed.
Lee