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

[Cactus Wren]

kmortis has made me want an orange.

Fortunately I have a tree full of them out back.

 

[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.

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

Paul

Regarding me, this must be a feeling you have. If it is based on more than a feeling please explain.

Your constant references to your pathetic little post count seem to indicate that you believe that truth is determined by the number of posts you make.

Go to the 'Community' section of the Forum (you'd be unaware of 'Community', I imagine, but there really is such a thing, for those willing to seek it out.)

In that section is a thread titled 'Word Association' which contains, more-or-less, 17½ thousand one-word posts.

By your reckoning, that thread has 10 times more credibility than your posts in this one.



Actually, that's true. Damn!

I'll try again later.

 

[Akhenaten]

This is not "blind" faith:

<advertisment redacted>

Who is so deafe, or so blynde, as is hee, That wilfully will nother here nor see.

- J.Heywood's Dialogue of Proverbs, 1546​

 

[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.

joobz has over a thousand posts in this thread, and is actually catching up to you.

Therefore, joobz is correct and you aren't.



What's a petard, DOC?

 

[Akhenaten]

Three sir!

Three!

 

[Akhenaten]

Absolute bollocks

Belief in any/all flavours of woo necessitates a blind faith acceptance of nonsense

Your sky daddy is a fictitious and utterly contemptible character devised and advocated by ignorant liars

"The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool"

- Voltaire ​

 

[DOC]

Hunger and starvation.
It's a song of sorrow. It's a song of lamenting ones woes in the world.
Another scholar believes that it may be "my hands and feet are bound".

Psalm 22:17B: "The Old Guess" Gregory Vall Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 116, No. 1 (Spring, 1997), pp. 45-56 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3266745?seq=8
Indeed, that article nicely explains the folly of the "Pierced" translation:
"First the middle "N" could not easily be explained in a root normally third weak [a reference to grammar structure]. Second, it was quite a stretch to make a verb normally used of digging pits and wells to refer to piercing hands and feet with nails. Third, crucifixion did not seem appropriate context of v.17 within psalm 22, nor to the psalm's historical origin in ancient Israel."

All of these translations fit the theme of the psalm quite well and only one translation may possibly be considered similar to the Jesus story.




Why do you think hands and feet are shriveled?

Notice how the article said "it probably read" -- that should tell you something about the article.

And show me where all 3 conclusions you came up with are derived from this short vague article.

Also I guess you disagree with the Masoretic Text that translates it "like a lion". And I know you disagree with Jewish historian Josephus' praise of the Septuagint translation (which translates it as pierced).

 

[Akhenaten]

Notice how the article said "it probably read" -- that should tell you something about the article.

And show me where all 3 conclusions you came up with are derived from this short vague article.

Also I guess you disagree with the Masoretic Text that translates it "like a lion". And I know you disagree with Jewish historian Josephus' praise of the Septuagint translation (which translates it as pierced).

DOC, it's been asked of you before, and I'll ask again.

Is this the nature of your faith, that so much of it rests on the translation of vague Hebrew words from thousands of years ago?

That's pathetic, really.

Have you considered Atenism? At least it's logical, and the glyphs appear to be a bit less obscure than the language of the reed cutters.

 

[Akhenaten]

Notice how the article said "it probably read" -- that should tell you something about the article.

And show me where all 3 conclusions you came up with are derived from this short vague article.

Also I guess you disagree with the Masoretic Text that translates it "like a lion". And I know you disagree with Jewish historian Josephus' praise of the Septuagint translation (which translates it as pierced).

I mean really . . . pages and pages of nonsense about a single word in an ancient fairytale is hardly presenting evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth, now is it?

 

[Akhenaten]

Notice how the article said "it probably read" -- that should tell you something about the article.

And show me where all 3 conclusions you came up with are derived from this short vague article.

Also I guess you disagree with the Masoretic Text that translates it "like a lion". And I know you disagree with Jewish historian Josephus' praise of the Septuagint translation (which translates it as pierced).

And leave off with the constant demands for joobz and others to show you stuff. Apart from the almost-laughable arrogance of it, you never take any notice anyway.

Less time quoting your miserable little post count and more time spent researching reputable sources might stand you in better stead.

 

[joobz]

Notice how the article said "it probably read" -- that should tell you something about the article.

the article was well sourced, rather detailed in it's analysis.
The authors were honest about the fact that NO ONE is certain what the original text states and if you had bothered to read the article, you would know that.

And show me where all 3 conclusions you came up with are derived from this short vague article.

are you actually claiming that an 11 page well reference review is "short"?

Also I guess you disagree with the Masoretic Text that translates it "like a lion". And I know you disagree with Jewish historian Josephus' praise of the Septuagint translation (which translates it as pierced).

DOC you asked a question and I answered it. It is quite rude to avoid the counter question.

 

[DOC]

DOC, it's been asked of you before, and I'll ask again.

Is this the nature of your faith, that so much of it rests on the translation of vague Hebrew words from thousands of years ago?

You're right you did ask it before and I answered it so why ask again?

And I'm not the one who is contesting the translation of almost all of biblical translations that translate the word in question as pierced.

 

[DOC]

I mean really . . . pages and pages of nonsense about a single word in an ancient fairytale is hardly presenting evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth, now is it?

As long a people contest the translation of almost all of the biblical translations of this word "pierced" from Psalm 22:16 , I have the right to respond to any points they bring up.

 

[DOC]

...are you actually claiming that an 11 page well reference review is "short"?...

The url you brought in only has one page. How do I read the other 10 pages?

 

[Hokulele]

Notice how the article said "it probably read" -- that should tell you something about the article.

Yes, it tells me that the author of that article practices intellectual honesty. I would recommend trying it some time.

 

[zooterkin]

Also I guess you disagree with the Masoretic Text that translates it "like a lion". And I know you disagree with Jewish historian Josephus' praise of the Septuagint translation (which translates it as pierced).

Do you know what the Masoretic text is? Your words suggests you do not.

The Masoretic text is the accepted Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible. It doesn't translate anything as "like a lion"; it has the Hebrew word 'ka'ari', which is translated as "like a lion".

Do you agree with the Masoretic Text, then?

(By the way, I found the article about Psalm 22:16 at a somewhat ironic URL http://www.docstoc.com/docs/23388902/Psalm-2216-–-“like-a-lion”-or-“they-pierced”-Studies-in-the )

 

[Belz...]

As long a people contest the translation of almost all of the biblical translations of this word "pierced" from Psalm 22:16 , I have the right to respond to any points they bring up.

So what's the word used in the original language, and what does it mean ?

 

[joobz]

The url you brought in only has one page. How do I read the other 10 pages?

it seems that the "Journal of Biblical literature" has restricted access. I suggest requesting it at your library.

As for my opinion to the accurate translation of that line, I cannot give you a definite answer. It seems scholars are still in contention over what it really should be translated as. There have been at least 3 response articles to the one I linked to. The only consensus seems to be that "pierced" is simply a false translation.

 

[Akhenaten]

DOC, it's been asked of you before, and I'll ask again.

Is this the nature of your faith, that so much of it rests on the translation of vague Hebrew words from thousands of years ago?

You're right you did ask it before and I answered it so why ask again?

And I'm not the one who is contesting the translation of almost all of biblical translations that translate the word in question as pierced.

Yes, of course I'm right. It goes with the Pharaoh job.

Now, in the interest of fairness, I'll allow you to be right too.

1. Re-read my post.

2. Find the post you're referring to where I previously asked you this question (you will find this is impossible)

3. Apologise.

4. Attempt an answer to the question I actually asked.​

I mean really . . . pages and pages of nonsense about a single word in an ancient fairytale is hardly presenting evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth, now is it?

As long a people contest the translation of almost all of the biblical translations of this word "pierced" from Psalm 22:16 , I have the right to respond to any points they bring up.

No question about your right to do this. Again that's not what I asked, is it?

Do you have difficulty reading Australian? Perhaps I could prepare a translation guide for you.

 

[Mojo]

The url you brought in only has one page.

That's one more page than I could see of the book you cited.