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

[tsig]

And what is your evidence that it is a mistranslation. Didn't you read that Jews for Jesus website I brought in?

Your god allows mistranslations? Mine gives such people the plague.

Sounds like my god can take your god with one attribute behind his back.

Cadge match: three gods walk in but only one god walks out.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well the person (Jesus) whom Thomas Jefferson stated gave the most moral and sublime teachings in history said it. It's your free will decision to decide if it's true or not.

That's exactly right. EXACTLY RIGHT! 100% correct,

It's everyone's free will do come to that decision, and everyone has. Have you read this thread at all?

 

[zooterkin]

Well the person (Jesus) whom Thomas Jefferson stated gave the most moral and sublime teachings in history said it. It's your free will decision to decide if it's true or not.

Here we go again.

1. You only have the word of the bible that he said it; whether that is accurate is the point of this thread, you cannot assume it.

2. Even if he did say it, he might have been lying

3. Even if he did say it, it doesn't prove the supernatural parts of the bible

4. Knock it off with the appeals to Jefferson, already.

ETA: Here's another quote, which oddly I don't remember you using:

We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

[joobz]

Evidence for this claim?

Well the person (Jesus) whom Thomas Jefferson stated gave the most moral and sublime teachings in history said it. It's your free will decision to decide if it's true or not.

im glad that you quote jefferson. it adds support to jefferson as a crime fighting cyber ninja with a laser penis.

 

[DOC]

Yes I read it and I also read Joobz's reply which demolished it. Which part of Joobz post do you disagree with, and what evidence do you have to suggest error.

I wouldn't call making contradictory statements in the same post demolishing someone:

DOC, it takes more to make an argument than just quoting a website. When I proved that the original text was "like a lion", I included the actual Hebrew line and went further by going to Hebrew to English dictionaries to confirm that "ari" does mean lion.

And indeed, modern biblical scholars think both "like a lion" and "pierced" are wrong translations.

And Joobz implies (without a source) that most modern scholars think it should be translated dig. If that is true how come I have seen no biblical translations that translate it dig.

Bottom line for it to be dig there has to be emending going on -- From article joobz cited:

The translation of that verse has long been a
debated issue in the interpretation of Psalm 22. The MT does read כארי ידי
ורגלי = ka'ari yaday veraglay, literally, "like a lion my hands and feet."
Since this phrase does not make good sense, there has been a longstanding
practice of emending כארי = ka'ari to the verbal form כרו = karu,

The Jews for Jesus website that I brought in didn't need to "emend" to respond to this issue.

 

[DOC]

Your god allows mistranslations?

What is your evidence there was a mistranslation?

 

[joobz]

Your god allows mistranslations?

What is your evidence there was a mistranslation?

ive already answered this.

 

[DOC]

What is your evidence there was a mistranslation?

ive already answered this.

Emending something is not evidence. (see post 9465 above)

 

[Akhenaten]

What is your evidence there was a mistranslation?

I go down to speaker's corner I'm thunderstruck
They got free speech, tourists, police in trucks
Two men say they're Jesus - one of them must be wrong.

- Dire Straits​

 

[zooterkin]

And Joobz implies (without a source) that most modern scholars think it should be translated dig.

No, he didn't. He said that it was because the word was interpreted to mean 'dig' that it was then translated as 'pierce'. He said it should be translated as 'shrivelled', which is what the New Revised Standard Version uses:

16 For dogs are all around me;
a company of evildoers encircles me.
My hands and feet have shrivelled;*

You can see the NRSV version at http://bible.oremus.org/ (and maybe other places too).

 

[joobz]

Bottom line for it to be dig there has to be emending going on -- From article joobz cited:

I get the sense that your ability to read is equal to your ability to reason.

The part you linked actually states (quite clearly) that the Jews for jesus site is using an emended (aka misstranslated) the text to read Karu.

In other words, this statement:

The Jews for Jesus website that I brought in didn't need to "emend" to respond to this issue.

is false.

Shall we count the number of wrongs you have in your argument?

1.) The original text never said kaaru
2.) some people translated it to Karu, because it would "make more sense"
3.) Karu is "to dig" not pierce
4.) Modern scholars state that the emended form may be reasonable, but that it fits better with "shriveled" and not dug.



The "nail in the coffin" comes in the form of simple logic.

What version makes more sense.

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Or

For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled; I can count all my bones. They stare and gloat over me; they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.

You can count your bones in your hands when they are "shriveled" not pierced.

 

[Mojo]

The "nail in the coffin" comes in the form of simple logic.

What version makes more sense.

Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.

Or

For dogs are all around me; a company of evildoers encircles me. My hands and feet have shriveled; I can count all my bones. They stare and gloat over me; they divide my clothes among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots.

You can count your bones in your hands when they are "shriveled" not pierced.

You're expecting the Bible to be internally consistent?

 

[kmortis]

Well that sucks. I'm voting for . . . whatever kmortis' thing is. Looks awesome and likes cookies. Beats the xtian god hands down.

It'd better look awesome. I stole...um, borrowed it from Giger. Paulhoff added the nose. someone else added the hat...

And yes, it likes cookies.

 

[joobz]

You're expecting the Bible to be internally consistent?

I'm not asking for the whole thing to be consistent, but at least two sentences side by side should be....

 

[DOC]

I'm not asking for the whole thing to be consistent, but at least two sentences side by side should be....

Then why did you say these two things in the same post. You need to renounce one of them as wrong or both wrong.

DOC, it takes more to make an argument than just quoting a website. When I proved that the original text was "like a lion", I included the actual Hebrew line and went further by going to Hebrew to English dictionaries to confirm that "ari" does mean lion.

And indeed, modern biblical scholars think both "like a lion" and "pierced" are wrong translations.

 

[Hokulele]

Then why did you say these two things in the same post. You need to renounce one of them as wrong or both wrong.

You do understand the difference between what the translations of the text as provided say and what modern scholars think the original text said?

 

[Think_Tank]

Then why did you say these two things in the same post. You need to renounce one of them as wrong or both wrong.

Joobz is not claiming that either is "correct", he's simply pointing out a mistranslation.

You are the one that is claiming that the bible is literal truth. Renounce away.

 

[joobz]

Then why did you say these two things in the same post. You need to renounce one of them as wrong or both wrong.

Why are you proving me right?

I get the sense that your ability to read is equal to your ability to reason.

DOC, look. Here is a listing of my points:

1.) The original text never said kaaru (Jews for jesus site is wrong)
2.) some people translated it to Karu, because it would "make more sense"
3.) Karu is "to dig" not pierce (meaning KJV and all other versions are stretches of the imagination further)
4.) Modern scholars state that the emended form may be reasonable, but that it fits better with "shriveled" and not dug. (which makes more sense in context with the rest of the psalm.)

 

[DOC]

Then why did you say these two things in the same post. You need to renounce one of them as wrong or both wrong.

Why are you proving me right?

Can you explain how your giving two contradictory statements in the same post proves you are right?

Joobz to maintain your credibility you have to answer which of these points you made in the same post is wrong.

DOC, it takes more to make an argument than just quoting a website. When I proved that the original text was "like a lion", I included the actual Hebrew line and went further by going to Hebrew to English dictionaries to confirm that "ari" does mean lion.

And indeed, modern biblical scholars think both "like a lion" and "pierced" are wrong translations.

ETA: And which post did you prove the original text said "like a lion".

 

[Akhenaten]

Joobz to maintain your credibility you have to answer which of these points you made in the same post is wrong.

Ain't so.