Where did the shipwrecked Paul land?, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 10-6-2011 @ 07:25 PM by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by redjim



It does say it in some translations...but a lot of the description...like venomous snakes...doesn't add up. I haven't spent my whole life in Malta, only a total of 6-7 now (and two of those years were the first two of my life), but I've never heard of a native venomous snake on Malta ever...

Also, I know Cypriots who disagree with the Maltese and claim that Paul shipwrecked in (Greek) Cyprus.


reply posted on 10-6-2011 @ 07:26 PM by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by LHP666



Good source, though I've come across this stuff before. I do want to see what Christians have to say because of the general...fuzziness...surrounding early Christian history.


reply posted on 11-6-2011 @ 08:21 PM by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by NOTurTypical



...so I'm trying to understand people's positions better and you're just going to appeal to ridicule? I'm raising a legitimate curiosity because the issue came up over a lunch. I've only heard Catholic perspectives on it, as the vast majority of Maltese are Catholics.

I do know that, at the very least, the cultural tradition that Malta was converted to Christianity and remained such until the present day is blatantly false, as Malta was predominately Muslim under Arab rule, but I'd like to see people's take on one of the parts of the Bible that doesn't make too much sense for a person that lives in the area described.

This verse just doesn't make any sense:

Acts 28:6
The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.


An island that has no history of venomous snakes would not have a populace which expected venom reactions from snakebites.

Hoodwinked? No, maybe a second or third hand account ended up messing up the location. It's only one word in the whole text, isn't it?
edit on 11/6/11 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 12-6-2011 @ 06:01 AM by eight bits
The element of conspiracy is hard to see. Also, there's nothing religious at stake in which Melite was referred to in Acts. It is predictable that local people anywhere will be only too happy to show tourists where "local tradition says" any famous person visited. Local tradition says a lot of things in a lot of places.

There is nothing in the pasage that rules out Malta. Acts 26:8 doesn't say that Paul was bitten by a venomous snake, only that a snakebite created an expectation in onlookers that Paul might "swell up" or "suddenly fall dead."

Here is a contemporary report of a non-venomous exotic snake biting human beings on Malta resulting in swelling:

www.hylawerkgroep.be...

A note on the toxicity of the saliva of Hemorrhois algirus
After being bitten in the right hand, three of us (Jan, Anniek and myself) developed swelling of lymphoid glands in our right armpit. This is most likely associated with Duvernoy's gland secretion. The largest Algerian Whip Snake had the opportunity to administer a long, chewing bite to all three of us. So far, we are all still as OK as before, so no severe consequences were associated with the bite.

What Duvernoy's gland secretes is not a venom, but can be toxic to human beings if administered under the skin, as by biting.

The Acts report says only that the people in question had a disjunctive expectation that Paul would be adversely affected. We don't know the basis for that expectation. We do know the people were superstitious (they thought Paul was a god, after having thought his snakebite was retribution for a crime, after having thought that his not being drowned was bound up in divine administration of justice).

Since it is well-attested that Malta has snakes of the required toxicity to fulfill the diffuse and disjunctive specification, Malta's candidacy must be excluded on other grounds, if at all.

Hope that helps in your inquiries.


reply posted on 12-6-2011 @ 07:40 AM by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by eight bits



That was informative and interesting...and the reason I tossed it here wasn't that it was conspiratorial (except maybe a few churches that are trying to fill some collection baskets with relics...) but that it was...conjectural.

The info on the snake bites is good. I do know of other lizards that have toxic or otherwise adverse but non-venomous properties and was unaware that we had snakes of that sort here.

Eh, just a local curiosity at the end of the day.


reply posted on 3-7-2011 @ 10:39 AM by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul



Act 28:1

Once safely on shore, we found out that the island was called Malta.




I've never heard of a native venomous snake on Malta ever...


Venomous snakes could be extinct in that closed Eco system by now, that's almost 2000 years ago.


reply posted on 5-7-2011 @ 09:40 AM by KJV1611
reply to post by madnessinmysoul



As for which island is Malta, I could really care less. Paul could have shipwrecked on any of the small islands around them parts. Names change in two thousand years.

As for the whole venomous snakes on your island, this is super easy to explain to any one with an ounce of common sense, ESPECIALLY on a island.

Given two thousand years, don't you think the inhabitants of your island could and would have killed all the venomous snakes off by now? Its not hard to come up with this explanation if you were not BIASED.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



The Truth About the Garden of Eden Story
  Posted 8 days ago with 49 member flags
The Mormon Church is a Cult
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags
Where is the gospel of jesus?
  Posted 2 days ago with 18 member flags
Google Earth proves Muhammad-Islam
  Posted 1 days ago with 17 member flags
Who killed the prophet Muhammad? A 1400 year old murder mystery.
  Posted 16 days ago with 16 member flags
Quake Reveals Day of Jesus\' Crucifixion
  Posted 3 days ago with 12 member flags
Is The Bible Real?
  Posted 19 days ago with 9 member flags