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

[Hokulele]

Yes, you do need faith, but you don't need "blind" faith, because God does give us sufficient evidence to believe in Christianity. I couldn't have made 1600 posts without it.

Ah, blinkered faith it is.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, you do need faith, but you don't need "blind" faith, because God does give us sufficient evidence to believe in Christianity. I couldn't have made 1600 posts without it.

I not only could have, I've actually done it. No faith was required, of any visual accuity, to acheive this amazing feat.

Maybe you're doing it wrong?

 

[Akhenaten]

From 5 months ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4967272#post4967272

You know how people keep pointing out that using the bible as evidence that the bible is true is a completely invalid argument?


Well using your own posts as evidence that your own posts are true is similarly invalid.

It's a lot funnier though, so maybe it's not such a bad tactic after all.


Why did Benjamin Franklin say this, DOC?

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."​

Why did Thomas Jefferson say this?

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."​

I note that both of these men have made considerably more than 1600 posts in a far more demanding forum than this one.

 

[amb]

This is a false statement because Christianity has plenty of historical evidence a I've shown throughout this thread.

You have shown nothing but your blind faith. You cannot prove historical evidence for christianity as there is none. You are still clinging to a three tiered Universe as written in Genesis. Even if your beliefs were true, there is no way a saviour could be sent to probable trillions of other worlds out there that would surely need redemption. If that is so, you Christ is hanging from a tree in some corner of the universe as I type. See how stupid that sounds?
Remember, there are around 200 billion stars in this galaxy alone, and that's a very conservative estimate. There are probably in the order of 400 billion galaxies in the known universe. Again, a very conservative estimate.

Feel insignificant yet?

 

[Worm]

more Quote mining for fun:

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

- Thomas Jefferson​

 

[DOC]

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



evidence please. I would like for you to reference prime sources showing that the oldest known version of the psalm says "Karu"...

How about the Dead Sea Scrolls as a source:

From the MessianicArt website

"The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls also gave us a major contribution to textual scholarship, providing some of the most ancient Biblical texts known in history. The Scrolls, which could not have been influenced by an apologetic or defensive theology on either side of the debate, have ka'aru, instead of ka'ari! This seriously damages the anti-missionary allegation of a "mistranslation", and provides significant textual weight for the translation "pierced"."

http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/psalm22.htm

 

[joobz]

How about the Dead Sea Scrolls as a source:

From the MessianicArt website

"The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls also gave us a major contribution to textual scholarship, providing some of the most ancient Biblical texts known in history. The Scrolls, which could not have been influenced by an apologetic or defensive theology on either side of the debate, have ka'aru, instead of ka'ari! This seriously damages the anti-missionary allegation of a "mistranslation", and provides significant textual weight for the translation "pierced"."

http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/yeshua/psalm22.htm

That's funny. I couldn't find
1. Any image of the dead sea scrolls there.
and
2. any proof that Karu is actually pierce and not dig or shriveled.

You must have a different definition of "prime sources" than I do.

 

[joobz]

From 5 months ago:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=4967272#post4967272

All I am doing is presenting the facts about christianity and Jesus. What one does with those facts is one's business....

 

[DOC]

That's funny. I couldn't find
1. Any image of the dead sea scrolls there.
and
2. any proof that Karu is actually pierce and not dig or shriveled.

You must have a different definition of "prime sources" than I do.

Well then it should be easy for you to find a website that states the Dead Sea Scrolls translates it as "like a lion" instead of "pierced".

 

[joobz]

Well then it should be easy for you to find a website that states the Dead Sea Scrolls translates it as "like a lion" instead of "pierced".

I've asked you to present it. Not the other way around. My point in doing so is because a hand written document is never quite as clear as one pretends it to be.

But for sake of argument, let's pretend you are right and that the accurate word is "Karu". NOw, please support the argument that it is to be translated as Pierced and not (As modern christian scholars believe) as "Shriveled".

 

[Akhenaten]

That's funny. I couldn't find
1. Any image of the dead sea scrolls there.
and
2. any proof that Karu is actually pierce and not dig or shriveled.

You must have a different definition of "prime sources" than I do.

Well then it should be easy for you to find a website that states the Dead Sea Scrolls translates it as "like a lion" instead of "pierced".

While joobz is doing that, will you be looking up the definition of 'prime sources' which was the actual point of the post that you are pretending to respond to?

 

[X]

Well then it should be easy for you to find a website that states the Dead Sea Scrolls translates it as "like a lion" instead of "pierced".

Why a website? Would that somehow make it more true?

Why not the earliest copies he can find, and then do the translation work himself. You should be able to verify the translation with a little effort. Instead of relying on a random, possibly biased, website.

 

[Paulhoff]

Yes, you do need faith, but you don't need "blind" faith, because God does give us sufficient evidence to believe in Christianity. I couldn't have made 1600 posts without it.

That is not the truth and you and we know it. Stop trying to talk down to us, it doesn't work.

Paul

 

[Paulhoff]

How about the Dead Sea Scrolls as a source:

What, more copies of the same stories means what, that they are now true? Because it doesn't. The Scrolls where only used to show how much the writters of the bible did and/or didn't change the stories, no more, no less.

Paul

 

[zooterkin]

Yes, you do need faith, but you don't need "blind" faith, because God does give us sufficient evidence to believe in Christianity.

Well, clearly your standards of evidence are different from the rest of us.

I couldn't have made 1600 posts without it.

And the fact that nearly 8400 posts have been made against your position proves what?

 

[DOC]

But for sake of argument, let's pretend you are right and that the accurate word is "Karu". NOw, please support the argument that it is to be translated as Pierced and not (As modern christian scholars believe) as "Shriveled".

These modern Christian scholars you allude to (without a source) must not include the people who wrote almost almost all of the biblical translations because nearly all of them except the one that Pax mentioned translates the word as "pierced".

 

[DOC]

Why not the earliest copies he can find, and then do the translation work himself. You should be able to verify the translation with a little effort...

Well the oldest Septuagint translation in existence is from the 4th century CE. The Jewish historian Josephus thought the Septuagint's authors were divinely inspired. And if we are to believe almost all of the biblical translations, the Septuagint translates Psalm 22:16 as they "pierced" my hands and feet.

 

[joobz]

These modern Christian scholars you allude to (without a source) must not include the people who wrote almost almost all of the biblical translations because nearly all of them except one that I know of translates the word as "pierced"

The NRSV translates it as shriveled, and it is the most accurate English translation of the bible.

for a more detailed response why it Shriveled is likely the more accurate translation, check Roberts, J.J.M. "A new root for an old crux, Ps 22:17c." Vetus
Testamentum 23 (1973) 247-252.

 

[DOC]

And the fact that nearly 8400 posts have been made against your position proves what?

It proves there are about 220 skeptics in this thread compared to maybe 2 or 3 Christians.

 

[zooterkin]

It proves there are about 220 skeptics in this thread compared to maybe 2 or 3 Christians.

Which surely proves we are right, right?