PedanticDan  Dansplaining The Bible

November 17, 2019

The Blood of Jesus

Filed under: What, You Didn't Know That? — Tags: , , — PedanticDan @ 12:28 pm

There is a false doctrine being promoted by some Independent Fundamental Baptists that Jesus did not have human blood. They claim that the blood of Jesus was divine. They argue this from two directions:

1) They claim that it is a biological fact that infants get their blood from their fathers.

2) They misinterpret multiple passages in the Bible to support this belief.

On point #1, they claim that since the placenta isolates a mother’s blood from a fetus’ blood, fetuses must by necessity get their blood from their father. This is very bad reasoning.

Biology tells us that 100% of the fetus’ blood comes from the fetus. Not one drop of the either parent’s blood is passed on to the child.

Neither an egg cell nor a sperm cell contain any blood whatsoever. The father passes on half of his DNA, and the mother passes on half of her DNA. The combination results in complete DNA for a new and unique person. When the egg and sperm unite, they become a single human cell that contains no blood whatsoever. The cell begins to multiply, and it takes several days before the cells begin to specialize. Only then do the first blood cells form. These new blood cells are neither the father’s nor the mother’s. These blood cells will have elements in common with the mother’s blood and elements in common from the father’s blood, but these cells are not the father’s blood.

Fetuses do not get their blood from their fathers.

As for point #2, one of the verses they misinterpret is Hebrews 2:14a, which says (in KJV), “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise TOOK PART of the same;” … they say that proves that Jesus only took human flesh, but not human blood. They interpret “took part” to mean He only took the “flesh part” of “flesh and blood.”

But, took part is ambiguous in English. Does it mean took a part and left a part, or does it mean partook or shared in? It turns out the original Greek is not ambiguous at all. In the Greek, it is a single word that means to partake or to share in.

So, a proper exegesis of Hebrews 2:14a actually proves that Jesus had human flesh and human blood, just as we do.

The “Divine Blood” doctrine is bad biology AND bad theology.

What, you didn’t know that?

May 11, 2011


Filed under: What, You Didn't Know That? — PedanticDan @ 2:07 pm

There has been a lot of fuss over the years about using the word “he” when referring to a general unidentified person. Somewhere along the line authors (or editors) began using “he/she”, “he or she”, or even just “she” in these instances so everyone feels included. A few even alternate between “he” and “she” for each occurrence. All of these options are awkward and confusing.

The Oxford English Dictionary entry for “they” lists this as definition number 2:

2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= ‘he or she’).

Several examples are given dating back as far as the year 1526. Some dictionaries and usage manuals grudgingly mention this usage of “they”, adding that this is not acceptable in formal writing (neglecting to mention that one uses the word “one” in formal writing).

The fact is that “they” is singular in this case and it is grammatically correct to use “they” instead of the awkward modern alternatives. This has always been true. The word “they” has always been plural or singular depending on what “they” is referring to.

How can “they” be plural sometimes and singular sometimes? That would mean we have to use “they are” when it’s plural, and “they is” when it’s singular, right? Nonsense. “You” can be either plural or singular depending on context, yet we never say “you is”, but always “you are” and no one is confused by this.

Just like “you”, “they” can be plural or singular, and is a great way to eliminate the “he/she” nonsense from the English language.

What, you didn’t know that?

August 15, 2008

Would Of, Could Of, Should Of

Filed under: What, You Didn't Know That? — PedanticDan @ 3:02 pm

It’s common in the U.S.A. to contract would have, could have or should have in every day speech.

But if you must write the contractions, they are not “would of”, “could of”, “should of.”

They are:

  1. would’ve
  2. could’ve
  3. should’ve

The same is true of must have.

What, you didn’t know that?

May 22, 2006

The Da Vinci Code

Filed under: What, You Didn't Know That? — PedanticDan @ 11:40 pm

It’s fiction!

What, you didn’t know that?

Powered by WordPress