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

[amb]

Time to bring a little comedy to this discussion. Boy do we need it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1-bbz3crjw&NR=1

 

[Lothian]

The translation joobz is referring to (Masoretic) was done almost 1000 years after the (Septuagint) which translated the word as "pierced. Also any politics or bias that might be involved in the translation would not happen in the Septuagint version because it was made 2 to 3 hundred years before Christ. The preponderance of the evidence is that the original written word was most likely karu and thus should be translated "pierced".

If that argument has merit it would apply to all differences between the translations. The fact that the Masoretic text is almost universally accepted as the official version suggests that your Septuagint was first argument will not convince any jury.

 

[kmortis]

Martyred Apostles!

BINGO!

I win! I win! I won at DOC Bingo!

 

[Akhenaten]

Also it would probably be turned over on appeal because there is no evidence that joobz has the supernatural knowledge to know what he said in his #6 above.

Appeal? That's Babylon you're thinking of there, mate.

We're doing this thing Egyptian style.

Logic dictates outcomes, not appeals.

 

[Akhenaten]

BINGO!

I win! I win! I won at DOC Bingo!

Oh Darn! I still have 'evidence' and 'truth' to fill in on my card.

 

[Mojo]

So you believe the 11 of 12 apostles and the thousands of other Christians martyrs and even martyrs of other religions who died horrible martyrs death had a personal desire to die this way even if they weren't religious and even if they had no desire to do the will of God.

DOC, just in case you haven't noticed this before, belief is not, in itself, evidence of the truth of that belief.

BTW, I notice that you are now bringing in "martyrs of other religions". Do you consider them evidence that those religions are true?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Unfortunately it would probably be overturned on appeal because unless Joobz has supernatural knowledge no one knows what the "original" Hebrew text uses for the word in question. In fact logic says it is most likely "pierced" because the word Karu requires an extra vertical line to pass thru the last letter. If that extra vertical line is not there it doesn't make sense to read it as karu. So since it was translated in the 3-2nd century BC as karu it is probable that that extra vertical line was there and thus it was most likely originally written as "pierced".

The translation joobz is referring to (Masoretic) was done almost 1000 years after the (Septuagint) which translated the word as "pierced. Also any politics or bias that might be involved in the translation would not happen in the Septuagint version because it was made 2 to 3 hundred years before Christ. The preponderance of the evidence is that the original written word was most likely karu and thus should be translated "pierced".

Also it would probably be turned over on appeal because there is no evidence that joobz has the supernatural knowledge to know what he said in his #6 above.

Really?

To which Septuagint versions do you refer? There were no politically/theologically motivated changes to the Septuagint after the Christian era? You realized that we don't have that many copies that pre-date the Christian era.

So, let me ask you a question, how was the tetragrammaton translated in the Septuagint? What word was used in it's place?


But, ultimately, the real question is, "Why does any of this matter?" Would you like to look at the psalm in detail? You will find, if you do, that Joobz interpretation is correct.

ETA:
For instance, the LXX Septuagint, originally translated around 285-250 B.C. does not use either word that you guys are discussing, but a word that translates as "to dig a trench" from what I understand. The earliest surviving copies of this text of which I am aware date from the fourth century A.D.

Maybe someone knows what word was used in copies surviving from the pre-Christian era? My understanding is that there are a few early copies of the Septuagint but they are few and far between.

But, again, what difference does it make? There is a reason why you can translate the word either way, or that either word is fine -- because when animals attack they can easily pierce your hands and feet; and enemies were often portrayed as raging animals.

ETA ETA:

Best as I can figure, the better translation of the word in question from the LXX text -- which many scholars think reflects the earlier Hebrew version -- is "to dig a trench" or "gouge". The person in psalm 22 has been thrown to the ground, so "to dig a trench" or "gouge" his hands provides a very vivid description. That doesn't sound at all like a reference to crucifixion, which becomes more apparent when one reads the whole text.

 

[Paulhoff]

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires."

- Susan B. Anthony
​

BINGO

Paul

 

[joobz]

Unfortunately it would probably be overturned on appeal because unless Joobz has supernatural knowledge no one knows what the "original" Hebrew text uses for the word in question. In fact logic says it is most likely "pierced" because the word Karu requires an extra vertical line to pass thru the last letter. If that extra vertical line is not there it doesn't make sense to read it as karu.

I'm curious, What logic are you referring to when you say this? Can you show me the original text where this "extra line" is even there?

So since it was translated in the 3-2nd century BC as karu it is probable that that extra vertical line was there and thus it was most likely originally written as "pierced".

Nope. Speculative.

And you are making a glaring error, assuming karu means pierced. Can you show me this to be true?

The translation joobz is referring to (Masoretic) was done almost 1000 years after the (Septuagint) which translated the word as "pierced. Also any politics or bias that might be involved in the translation would not happen in the Septuagint version because it was made 2 to 3 hundred years before Christ. The preponderance of the evidence is that the original written word was most likely karu and thus should be translated "pierced".

evidence please. I would like for you to reference prime sources showing that the oldest known version of the psalm says "Karu". Once you do this, then explain why Karu means pierce.

Also it would probably be turned over on appeal because there is no evidence that joobz has the supernatural knowledge to know what he said in his #6 above.

Are you saying the gospel writers DIDN'T include jesus saying that?

DOC, why not include your source for your information?

 

[Lothian]

Guess what I am working on?

B | I | N | G | O |
2 | 11 | 20 | 31 | 41 |
4 | 13 | 22 | 32 | 43 |
6 | 15 | ** | 34 | 45 |
8 | 17 | 24 | 36 | 47 |
10 | 19 | 25 | 38 | 49 |

I have my 50 balls. I just need to find a neat way of selecting random numbers, a few players and we are away.

 

[Paulhoff]

Guess what I am working on?

B | I | N | G | O |
12 | 21 | 32 | 55 | 66 |
14 | 30 | 42 | 51 | 73 |
6 | 16 | ** | 46 | 75 |
8 | 17 | 34 | 60 | 61 |
10 | 29 | 41 | 48 | 71 |

I have my 75 balls. I just need to find a neat way of selecting random numbers, a few players and we are away.

There, I fixed it for you

Paul

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm in.

 

[Waterman]

Unfortunately it would probably be overturned on appeal because unless Joobz has supernatural knowledge no one knows what the "original" Hebrew text uses for the word in question.

OK lets approach that in the same flavor, I am not a lawyer but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

In fact logic says it is most likely "pierced" because the word Karu requires an extra vertical line to pass thru the last letter. If that extra vertical line is not there it doesn't make sense to read it as karu. So since it was translated in the 3-2nd century BC as karu it is probable that that extra vertical line was there and thus it was most likely originally written as "pierced".

Objection! Bolding above is mine. Sheer speculation. The Defendant is claiming super natural knowledge about what was written on document that he has not seen in order to change the meaning of what actually IS written.

Non-lawyer interjection: In addition the reasoning invoked only makes sense if you have already concluded that the passage is referring to a crucifixion and ignore the actual context with in the passage itself. I believe this would be a form of circular reasoning which is not a valid logical argument. As the passage is written ‘shriveled’ actually fits better in the context of the passage if you are not approaching from a preconceived conclusion.

The translation joobz is referring to (Masoretic) was done almost 1000 years after the (Septuagint) which translated the word as "pierced. Also any politics or bias that might be involved in the translation would not happen in the Septuagint version because it was made 2 to 3 hundred years before Christ. The preponderance of the evidence is that the original written word was most likely karu and thus should be translated "pierced".

Objection! Defendant is making unfounded claims that the one translation is free of politics or biases while another is not. Additional supporting data would be needed to determine if manuscripts that say ‘pierced’ actually date to pre-christian times. It is not unheard of for a transcriber / translator to modify the text to improve the coherence of the document and make it fit with his understanding of the scriptures. If the source is a copy of the pre-christain era document that was transcribed written after the Jesus story was well establish then it is subject to the same political influence or biases that are claimed for the other translation.

Also it would probably be turned over on appeal because there is no evidence that joobz has the supernatural knowledge to know what he said in his #6 above.

The appeal based on these foundations would likely be rejected based on DOCs claim of supernatural knowledge of what was written on a piece of parchment that no longer exists. As well as unsupported claims and speculation about what could have happened, merely stating that something could have happened a certain way without providing contrary evidence to the alternate explanation is not valid will not win you any points in logical argument.

 

[DOC]

Objection! Bolding above is mine. Sheer speculation. The Defendant is claiming super natural knowledge about what was written on document that he has not seen in order to change the meaning of what actually IS written.

When the proof is not there it is logical to look at all the evidence and choose the one most likely to be true. That is what I did, and that is what is done at civil trials. I would only be claiming supernatural knowledge if I did what Joobz did and claim that we "know" what the original word in the text said.

And you too are claiming supernatural knowledge by implying you know what word was actually written in the "original text".

 

[joobz]

When the proof is not there it is logical to look at all the evidence and choose the one most likely to be true. That is what I did, and that is what is done at civil trials. I would only be claiming supernatural knowledge if I did what Joobz did and claim that we "know" what the original word in the text said.

You keep using the word "logical", when it is clear that you do not use logic.

Example of this is that you ignored the salient point waterman made (and that I made). Even if we accept that Karu is the correct word. in context, "Shriveled makes sense", "Dig" doesn't.

 

[Akhenaten]

When the proof is not there it is logical to look at all the evidence and choose the one most likely to be true.

The proof that the NT writers told the truth is not there.

We have applied logic and looked at the evidence.

It is not likely that the NT writers told the truth.


Since this has already been done, repeatedly, what's next?

That is what I did . . .

No you have not. This entire thread is composed of your logical fallacies and rebuttals of them. The only reason people allow the thread to continue is that it's a textbook for people learning how to deal with fundamentalist apologetics.

and that is what is done at civil trials.

Since this appears to be something else you know nothing about, and it's vague, irrelevant and not even your joke to start with, I think we should drop it.

I would only be claiming supernatural knowledge . . .

You haven't stopped doing that since Post #1

. . . if I did what Joobz did and claim that we "know" what the original word in the text said.

See DOC, this is where your entire posting history comes back to haunt you.

The difference between yourself and joobz is that you have utterly destroyed your own credibility, while joobz has established tonnes of it.

It's your blindness to this that amazes me even more than your inabilty to see the complete lack of coherence, structure, logic or critical thinking in your arguments.

And you too are claiming supernatural knowledge by implying you know what word was actually written in the "original text".

You know what DOC? A number of people in this thread, apart from yourself have, in fact made supernatural claims. Nobody ever calls them on it like they do to you.

Why do you think that is?


I must admit, I don't have a complete answer for that myself, but it's hilarious, and wild horses couldn't tear me away from this thread.

"The trouble with theocracy is that everyone wants to be Theo."

- James Dunn ​

 

[Waterman]

When the proof is not there it is logical to look at all the evidence and choose the one most likely to be true. That is what I did, and that is what is done at civil trials. I would only be claiming supernatural knowledge if I did what Joobz did and claim that we "know" what the original word in the text said.

The points noted here are from Joobz post 9525 in this thread
Evidence as it stands:
1. Original Hebrew text contained the term kari, not Karu.

I belive that he did post asource for this, if you dispute this source please state why. (Other than the fact that you don't like the conclusion.)​

2. Kari translates "like a lion" not pierce

Is this incorrect? If so please provide a source.​

3. karu translates as "to dig or shriveled" not pierce.

Is this incorrect? If so please provide a source.​

4. Psalm 22 is written from the standpoint of a man not a man/god

This seems to be more of a literary critique / interpretation than any proof per se but as it reads to me at face value be something that I can agree with.​

5. Psalm 22 speaks of present sorrow which will be replaced by joy from the coming of god's kingdom, a popular theme in the apocalyptic cults

Do you disagree with this point?​

6. The Gospel writers wrote Jesus saying "my god, my god.." as an intentional allusion to this popular apocalyptic Psalm

This is perhaps the weakest of statements in his list and as worded is implying that he has knowledge of the intent of the authors. This is speculation but it worded differently could still be very valid point. lets say...

Apocalyptic Cults were common during that period and this Psalm fits the pattern seen in other writings of the period and is not unique.​

7. The early Christian cult emerged from the Apocalyptic cults.

Do you disagree with this point? Note that the the word cult here is being used in the most generic from to describe a small splinter sect from a religion that often has a charasmatic leader. I don't think the usage of the word was intended to include sinister intent.​

And you too are claiming supernatural knowledge by implying you know what word was actually written in the "original text".

I am making no claim about the word being translated. I recognize what areas I am knowledgeable in and where I should listen and learn. Joobz is reporting on what HAS BEEN observed and documented. He does do some speculation but identifies it as such. You on the other hand focus instead on the possibility that a missing stroke on the paper / papyrus / parchment causes the difference of opinion. That is pure speculation. That is NOT evidence.

 

[Waterman]

When the proof is not there it is logical to look at all the evidence and choose the one most likely to be true. That is what I did, and that is what is done at civil trials. I would only be claiming supernatural knowledge if I did what Joobz did and claim that we "know" what the original word in the text said.

The points noted here are from Joobz post 9525 in this thread
Evidence as it stands:
1. Original Hebrew text contained the term kari, not Karu.

I belive that he did post asource for this, if you dispute this source please state why. (Other than the fact that you don't like the conclusion.)​

2. Kari translates "like a lion" not pierce

Is this incorrect? If so please provide a source.​

3. karu translates as "to dig or shriveled" not pierce.

Is this incorrect? If so please provide a source.​

4. Psalm 22 is written from the standpoint of a man not a man/god

This seems to be more of a literary critique / interpretation than any proof per se but as it reads to me at face value be something that I can agree with.​

5. Psalm 22 speaks of present sorrow which will be replaced by joy from the coming of god's kingdom, a popular theme in the apocalyptic cults

Do you disagree with this point?​

6. The Gospel writers wrote Jesus saying "my god, my god.." as an intentional allusion to this popular apocalyptic Psalm

This is perhaps the weakest of statements in his list and as worded is implying that he has knowledge of the intent of the authors. This is speculation but it worded differently could still be very valid point. lets say...

Apocalyptic Cults were common during that period and this Psalm fits the pattern seen in other writings of the period and is not unique.​

7. The early Christian cult emerged from the Apocalyptic cults.

Do you disagree with this point? Note that the the word cult here is being used in the most generic from to describe a small splinter sect from a religion that often has a charasmatic leader. I don't think the usage of the word was intended to include sinister intent.​

And you too are claiming supernatural knowledge by implying you know what word was actually written in the "original text".

I am making no claim about the word being translated. I recognize what areas I am knowledgeable in and where I should listen and learn. Joobz is reporting on what HAS BEEN observed and documented. He does do some speculation but identifies it as such. You on the other hand focus instead on the possibility that a missing stroke on the paper / papyrus / parchment causes the difference of opinion. That is pure speculation. That is NOT evidence.

 

[Akhenaten]

Well I believe you both times.

 

[joobz]

The points noted here are from Joobz post 9525 in this thread
Evidence as it stands:
1. Original Hebrew text contained the term kari, not Karu.

I belive that he did post asource for this, if you dispute this source please state why. (Other than the fact that you don't like the conclusion.)​

It seems to be somewhat of a debate about whether it is Karu or Kari. The difference in the written form is literally the tiniest of lines, and the written yud/vav ambiguity seems to be common in hebrew texts. So, it seems no one has a certainty on which it was.

6. The Gospel writers wrote Jesus saying "my god, my god.." as an intentional allusion to this popular apocalyptic Psalm

This is perhaps the weakest of statements in his list and as worded is implying that he has knowledge of the intent of the authors. This is speculation but it worded differently could still be very valid point. lets say...

Apocalyptic Cults were common during that period and this Psalm fits the pattern seen in other writings of the period and is not unique.​

I certainly agree with your statement. My point was that we know Mathew 27:46 directly patterns Psalm 22. It is HIGHLY unlikely for this to be an accident, and was purely intentional allusion. What we can't claim is if it was an allusion made by jesus or if it was a literary creation by the author of matthew. Afterall, it seems quite unlikely that a text written 20-40 years after Jesus' death would have all statements of jesus accurately written.

But, my main point was that apocalyptic was highly common during Jesus' time and that Psalm 22 was an apocalyptic style song of sorrow. It is much more probably that Jesus, as an apocalyptic rabbi, would quote the song of sorrow to his people; Not as prophecy fulfilled, but of affirmation of the apocalyptic faith.



Thank you, waterman, for helping me get my argument across better.