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

[joobz]

I'm not talking about Misquoting someone.

But that is what WE are talking about.
Removing text which changes the context is misquoting. That's dishonest. That is what you did with Waterman's post.

 

[Simon39759]

I'm not talking about Misquoting someone. I'm talking about taking a portion of a someone's quote and leaving out another portion of that quote. Are you saying you've never done that?

I have done that many times because for one it is easier for the reader to read, and another reason is that the other portions of the quote are not always specifically relevant to the exact point I am making. And If anyone is curious they can always go back to the original post as you have done.

But to call me a liar now for something others in here including yourself have done is ridiculous. It's just the attack the messenger mode on full blast because of the important Greenleaf article brought in here.

The difference have already been explained to you, in one of the many posts you apparently didn't read.

Considering how many posts you skip that invalidate your points, maybe you should refrain from posting unless you have time to read everything.

Or, even better, maybe you should stop this conversation and devote your free time on catching up with the basic history of your own country. The American revolution is quite a big deal for a U.S citizen...

 

[Simon39759]

But that is what WE are talking about.
Removing text which changes the context is misquoting. That's dishonest. That is what you did with Waterman's post.

It actually fits in the definition of a lie that was given earlier: an attempt to control the flux of information you give to a person in an attempt to guide him toward non-factual conclusions...

 

[Akhenaten]

I'm not talking about Misquoting someone. I'm talking about taking a portion of a someone's quote and leaving out another portion of that quote. Are you saying you've never done that?

my bolding


I am. You've been doing it since page 1. It's lying by omission, not snipping for brevity as paximperium and others do.

Got that DOC? It's lying.

I have done that many times because for one it is easier for the reader to read, and another reason is that the other portions of the quote are not always specifically relevant to the exact point I am making.

Absolute sewage, DOC. You are incapable of displaying consideration for anyone reading this mess, you wouldn't know 'relevant' if it bit you, and you have no points to make.

And If anyone is curious they can always go back to the original post as you have done.

Why are you incapable of seeing that this is exactly what other posters have been doing? Only one person here is consistently dishonest in not doing this, and his screen name is DOC.

But to call me a liar now for something others in here including yourself have done is ridiculous.

Tu quoque, eh? A new fallacy for the next round of Bingo. Cool.

It's just the attack the messenger mode on full blast because of the important Greenleaf info article brought in here.

Change the record, DOC. It was drivel the first 300 times you said it, and it's driveller now.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Where does Jefferson talk about his experiences in the Revolutionary War in one of my posts.

Are you being purposely obtuse or are you really that clueless?

 

[Simon39759]

Do we know of any hieroglyphic swear word? It seems that our favourite Pharaoh could use some...

 

[Simon39759]

Are you being purposely obtuse or are you really that clueless?

Again... all of the above?

 

[joobz]

Do we know of any hieroglyphic swear word? It seems that our favourite Pharaoh could use some...

How about this:

 

[I Ratant]

How about this:

.
Umm... the sheep image is mirrored from reality.

 

[Akhenaten]

Do we know of any hieroglyphic swear word? It seems that our favourite Pharaoh could use some...

How about this:

Ya gotta laugh, eh?

Typical Pharaohnic reaction to a DOC posting​

 

[Lucian]

<snip>
The opinion of a man {Simon Greenleaf} who has wrote what some call the definitive book on evidence and a founder of Harvard Law school should be considered when you talk about evidence.

And you talk about the advancement of legal thinking but don't explain what that advancement is. This is similar to Pax and Hoku who often talk about recent findings of modern scholars but rarely say what those new findings are.
<further snip>

You know, I'd be the first to admit that, in some fields, old scholarship doesn't mean crappy, worthless scholarship. I'm a medievalist: a lot of groundbreaking work we rely on and build on was done long ago. For instance, the contributions Eduard Sievers and Jakob Grimm made to metrical studies and linguistics respectively are absolutely seminal, and J.R.R. Tolkien's lecture (later published), "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics," marked a sea-change in Beowulf studies.

That said, scholarship has advanced. Sievers' work has been expanded on and revised; Grimm's Law was soon supplemented by Verner's Law; Beowulf studies have moved on since Tolkien.

Furthermore--and I can't emphasize this enough--anything these men might have thought about the Bible is irrelevant because they weren't biblical scholars, theologians or archeologists. Similarly, a legal historian is not an expert on theology or the bible, and, although legal history is not my field, I feel confident in saying that that field has progressed since Greenfield's time. All fields of study do, however much we build on what came before us.

 

[kmortis]

Kinda makes me want to petition TPTB to close this thread. No information is forthcoming and really all we've been doing for the last 20+ pages or so is BSing, Waterman excluded .

What say ye?

Aye.

.
I say Amen, Brother k, Amen!

Done. Either it'll get closed, or I'll get warned.

Place your bets...place your bets here!

 

[joobz]

Done. Either it'll get closed, or I'll get warned.

Place your bets...place your bets here!

Cue DOC claiming "They're attempting to suppress the truth" or similar argument in 3....2....1....



If we look at the thread Title:
"Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth."
All that has been demonstrated is that the OP doesn't seem to know what the words evidence, know, writers and truth mean.

 

[Elizabeth I]

Done. Either it'll get closed, or I'll get warned.

Place your bets...place your bets here!

Why would you get warned?

I'll miss the place though - it's gotten real comfortable here, not like other threads where Fiona had to hitch up her wagon every few hundred posts.

<<wanders around taking down pictures and packing up the favorite coffee mug>>

 

[kmortis]

Why would you get warned?

I'll miss the place though - it's gotten real comfortable here, not like other threads where Fiona had to hitch up her wagon every few hundred posts.

<<wanders around taking down pictures and packing up the favorite coffee mug>>

If I hit the wrong mod, I could conceivably get hit with a "abuse of reporting system" warning. I'd ttake that as a long shot...well at least I'd take it as a long shot before I posted this, now it's a certainty.

ETA: and I wouldn't worry too, too much. I'm sure if it does get closed, DOC will just start a new, hopefully more grammatically titled, thread and we'll be back here in another two years.

ETA2: DOC, as a friendly suggestion, for you next thread, could you just number it. That way when it gets closed due to length you can just increment and we'll continue? OK? Thank you, buh-bye.

ETA3: More reason to kill this thread? This thread has 10k+ replies. The next most replied to thread has 3.3k. Granted, since it's a holocaust denial thread, both have about as much evidenciary support....

 

[joobz]

If I hit the wrong mod, I could conceivably get hit with a "abuse of reporting system" warning. I'd ttake that as a long shot...well at least I'd take it as a long shot before I posted this, now it's a certainty.

ETA: and I wouldn't worry too, too much. I'm sure if it does get closed, DOC will just start a new, hopefully more grammatically titled, thread and we'll be back here in another two years.

ETA2: DOC, as a friendly suggestion, for you next thread, could you just number it. That way when it gets closed due to length you can just increment and we'll continue? OK? Thank you, buh-bye.

Perhaps the next thread could be
"Evidence for why we know that Jesus Condoned the beating of slaves."

 

[kmortis]

Perhaps the next thread could be
"Evidence for why we know that Jesus Condoned the beating of slaves."

Well, you could start that one. Have your OP be that passage out of Matthew (?).

Except then it'd be a one post thread.

Cause you'd have presented the evidence.

I guess the rest of us could come in and sling poo for a while to make you feel better.

 

[Simon39759]

For what it is worth and if it matters to the mods (maybe they want the opinion from the thread regular posters), I agree that the thread has not progressed anywhere significant since it started.

It's clear now that it is not going anywhere. All possible proofs that the New Testament writers told the truth has probably long be lost to time. If such proofs ever surface, it will most likely be reported in its own thread by posters more knowledgeable than Doc and that, unlike him, have a genuine interest in the question.

Right now, all this thread promise (and delivers) is the same endless repetition of rejected and unoriginal arguments shimmering in a sauce of intellectual dishonesty and obfuscation by the OPer...
I agree with kmortis, let's close this dreg of a thread and focus our efforts on more constructive endeavours.


As I said, I posted that in case the mods would make their decision about this thread based on the opinions of regular posters, whereas we think it should be closed or not.
Maybe we should start a poll on the subject?

 

[kmortis]

As I said, I posted that in case the mods would make their decision about this thread based on the opinions of regular posters, whereas we think it should be closed or not.
Maybe we should start a poll on the subject?

<kaf>

Kinda makes me want to petition TPTB to close this thread. No information is forthcoming and really all we've been doing for the last 20+ pages or so is BSing, Waterman excluded .

What say ye?

 

[Simon39759]

I was thinking about the formal poll option that comes with brightly coloured bars and such... Not sure how you create one though.