Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[six7s]

I do not believe a woman is second to man before God. I believe they are equal partners before God.

What about single women and men, widow(er)s, divorcees, gays, lesbians, trans-genders, etc? All equal, too? Or is there some wiggle room?

 

[Ducky]

What about single women and men, widow(er)s, divorcees, gays, lesbians, trans-genders, etc? All equal, too? Or is there some wiggle room?

There's plenty of wiggle roo--- you know what, I can't even finish making that joke.

 

[six7s]

There's plenty of wiggle roo--- you know what, I can't even finish making that joke.

Fnaar!

@DOC
Please note: It was (and still is) a sincere question

 

[DOC]

Second.... you remember how we mentioned how many portions of the Bible were, according to archeological evidences, fictitious?
That does include the history of David...

You might of mentioned it but I don't remember any sources. But I do remember me sourcing how a a famous secular archaeologist became a Christian after studing the Gospel of Luke. He also said something to the nature that Luke was a first rate historian. Geisler supports this with a very long list of details about that period that Luke reported correctly.

 

[DOC]

Funny indeed that you do not see fit to quote the passage from the very Wiki article you quote that presenURL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity_of_David"]how doubtful[/URL] is the whole story...

Where does it say how doubtful is the whole story? I did read this howerver"

The question of David's historicity therefore becomes the question of the date, textual integrity, authorship and reliability of 1st and 2nd Samuel. Since Martin Noth put forward his analysis of the Deuteronomistic History biblical scholars have accepted that these two books form part of a continuous history of Israel, compiled no earlier than the late 7th century BC, but incorporating earlier works and fragments. Samuel's account of David "seems to have undergone two separate acts of editorial slanting. The original writers show a strong bias against Saul, and in favour of David and Solomon. Many years later, the Deuteronomists edited the material in a manner that conveyed their religious message, inserting reports and anecdotes that strengthened their monotheistic doctrine. Some of the materials in Samuel I and II , notably the lists of officers, officials, and districts are believed to be very early, possibly even dating to the time of David or Solomon. These documents were probably in the hands of the Deuteronomists when they started to compile the material three centuries later."[36]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity_of_David

And one must always take into consideration that Wiki's founder is an atheist and the website has received some criticism about a bias against Christianity. Although some of their articles seem OK.

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

Is DOC still confused about sexism? Well, he is only a male -- we really can't expect him to grasp these complex ideas, can we? Here, I'll explain it so that you don't have to worry your pretty little head about it, ok?

(this is from my original reply to that ridiculous "most women want that" claim)

In my opinion, if you're married, President of the US, and get a BJ from a White House intern, you're a cheating horn-dog.

Still, that's not sexism. Allow me to clarify:

Women are to keep silent in church = sexism.

Women are unfit to be part of the clergy = sexism.

Women are vessels of sin or otherwise unclean due to their biology = sexism.

Women were created to be subservient to men = sexism.

Women are to blame for the Fall of Man and that they are inferior or deserve punishment for it = sexism.

Unmarried women must remain "pure" while "boys will be boys" (wink,wink) = sexism.

And, just in case you forgot your own words, here's on that applies specifically to you and your beliefs:

Man has the final say in a household and most women agree with that and want that = sexism.

 

[DOC]

Is DOC still confused about sexism? Well, he is only a male -- we really can't expect him to grasp these complex ideas, can we? Here, I'll explain it so that you don't have to worry your pretty little head about it, ok?

(this is from my original reply to that ridiculous "most women want that" claim)

It would only be ridiculous if it was untrue.

.

In my opinion, if you're married, President of the US, and get a BJ from a White House intern, you're a cheating horn-dog.

Still, that's not sexism. Allow me to clarify:

Women are to keep silent in church = sexism.

Women are unfit to be part of the clergy = sexism.

Women are vessels of sin or otherwise unclean due to their biology = sexism.

Women were created to be subservient to men = sexism.

Women are to blame for the Fall of Man and that they are inferior or deserve punishment for it = sexism.

Unmarried women must remain "pure" while "boys will be boys" (wink,wink) = sexism.

And, just in case you forgot your own words, here's on that applies specifically to you and your beliefs:

Man has the final say in a household and most women agree with that and want that = sexism.

__________________

The post above has to be one of the most confusing and deceptive I've seen in a long time. Why don't you use my exact quotes. I said none of the above. And you left out an important part of the last sentence.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3494480#post3494480[/ur

 

[joobz]

You might of mentioned it but I don't remember any sources.

We presented several, of which you refused to read. Ehrman would be a good start.

But I do remember me sourcing how a a famous secular archaeologist became a Christian after studing the Gospel of Luke.

That's funny. Ehrman was extremely devout and wanted to read the texts in thier original language as to better understand god's word. It was this process of researching the bible that forced him to stop believing.

He also said something to the nature that Luke was a first rate historian. Geisler supports this with a very long list of details about that period that Luke reported correctly.

Is that the same Luke who wrote that Jesus condones the beating of slaves who disobeyed the rules? Including rules they didn't even know about?(Luke 12:41-48)

Someone who is as good of historian as you say, wouldn't have gotten that wrong, would they?

 

[Simon39759]

Where does it say how doubtful is the whole story? I did read this howerver"
The question of David's historicity therefore becomes the question of the date, textual integrity, authorship and reliability of 1st and 2nd Samuel. Since Martin Noth put forward his analysis of the Deuteronomistic History biblical scholars have accepted that these two books form part of a continuous history of Israel, compiled no earlier than the late 7th century BC, but incorporating earlier works and fragments. Samuel's account of David "seems to have undergone two separate acts of editorial slanting. The original writers show a strong bias against Saul, and in favour of David and Solomon. Many years later, the Deuteronomists edited the material in a manner that conveyed their religious message, inserting reports and anecdotes that strengthened their monotheistic doctrine. Some of the materials in Samuel I and II , notably the lists of officers, officials, and districts are believed to be very early, possibly even dating to the time of David or Solomon. These documents were probably in the hands of the Deuteronomists when they started to compile the material three centuries later."[36]

So the fact that it was written at the earliest almost three hundred years after the facts doesn't bother you?
The bit about slanting?
The fact that it has 'undergone two separate acts of editorial slanting'?

And what about the whole paragraph before that that you just 'forgot' to quote?

And one must always take into consideration that Wiki's founder is an atheist and the website has received some criticism about a bias against Christianity. Although some of their articles seem OK.

I know you like calling 'strawman' on other, but here is another fallacy: It is called 'poisoning the well'.
And it is particularly irrelevant and silly in this specific case, the wiki founder only wrote the program, he does not write the definitions...
And, of course, you are the one that brought the article in the first place. Sorry that it does not fit your circonvoluted justifications...

 

[joobz]

It would only be ridiculous if it was untrue.

Well, then, prove it true. If you are only saying "I believe it true", than it remains a sexist statement.

Personally, you're going to have a hard time finding data to support you. I polled some women at work about who has final say and who they want to have final say. None of them said they wanted their husbands to have ultimate say. Interestingly, all of them said they had ultimate say.

__________________

The post above has to be one of the most confusing and deceptive I've seen in a long time. Why don't you use my exact quotes. I said none of the above.

http://www.internationalskeptics.co...ligion that is historically extremely sexist.

 

[DOC]

We presented several, of which you refused to read. Ehrman would be a good start.

List all the things in the 27 books of the New Testament that have been proved false through archaeology and give the source. And I might also ask why do archaeologists use the bible as a resource in their work?

 

[joobz]

List all the things in the 27 books of the New Testament that have been proved false through archaeology and give the source. And I might also ask why do archaeologists use the bible as a resource in their work?

Well, how about proof of Jesus existing?
I can't prove a negative.

ETA:
I noticed that you didn't deny the fact that Luke said Jesus condoned the beating of slaves.

 

[DOC]

It was only her last statement that was a quote of yours. Not the others.

Well she should have made that clear, which it wasn't, and even the last one was out of context and she left out an important part of the sentence.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Well she should have made that clear, which it wasn't, and even the last one was out of context and she left out an important part of the sentence.

You know, those of us with even minimal reading comprehension skills understood her post perfectly.

 

[DOC]

Well, how about proof of Jesus existing?
I can't prove a negative.

So you have no proof that anything in the 27 books of the New Testament has been proven false through archaeology?

 

[joobz]

So you have no proof that anything in the 27 books of the New Testament has been proven false through archaeology?

well, why not start with the census

In Christianity, the Gospel of Luke connects the birth of Jesus with this historical census, while the Gospel of Matthew places the birth at least a decade earlier, during the rule of Herod the Great. Bible scholars have traditionally attempted to reconcile these accounts; most modern scholars, according to Raymond E. Brown, regard this as an error by the author of the Luke Gospel.[3]

Since, Luke got this wrong, do you believe he also got Jesus' view on slavery wrong as well? what else did luke get wrong?


Or, if luke was right, does that mean Jesus was a bastard who condoned the beating of slaves?

 

[joobz]

Well she should have made that clear, which it wasn't, and even the last one was out of context and she left out an important part of the sentence.

Nope. It was completely clear, DOC.

I'm starting to see why you like Geisler. he seems to writes at a 3rd grade level.

 

[six7s]

Geisler supports this

DOC, you know that we know that you know that Geiseler is a buffoon. Please, stop pretending otherwise

 

[Nogbad]

This is one of those head against brick wall things isn't? Not pleasant but wonderful when it stops.

 

[paximperium]

Edited for Rule 12. Attack the argument, not the arguer.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky