• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOC said:
Posted by DOC

Then who created the 900 verses Thomas Jefferson cut out of the bible and said were the most moral and sublime teaching ever preached to humanity -- liars and charlatans?
Click to expand...


Who said this, DOC?


As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice​



DOC said:
It is not a argument from authority, because I am not saying the bible is true because Thomas Jefferson cut out 900 verses. In fact it is more of a question than it is an argument.
Click to expand...


Apart from the blatant dishonesty inherent in this cowardly evasion of the question that you were asked, and setting aside that you appear incapable of identifying even the most obvious of basic logical fallacies, why are you asking pointless rhetorical questions instead of providing the evidence that you claimed possession of in your opening post?

Could it be that you don't have any? Sure looks that way, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
six7s said:
Why do you respond to simple, straightforward questions with questions rather than answers?
Click to expand...


<drivelsnip>

___

And why do you falsely imply that this is something I often do (respond to a question with a question) when I doubt I've done it more than twice in 4700 posts.
Click to expand...


Let's get something straight, DOC. To point out that you often answer a question with a question is not a false implication - it is a statement of fact. I'll add to sixes' statement by pointing out that the questions you ask in these responses are sheer, unadulterated nonsense - intended by you to deflect from the obvious truth that you have no answers of your own to the questions you are asked.

That you either deny or are ignorant that this is as plain as day to every single person involved in this thread has not only completely destroyed any credibility that you may once have had (I can find no evidence that you ever did) but it's managed to imbue the thread with more humour and entertainment value than most of the threads in sub-forums which are devoted to those purposes.

Good for us, DOC - a pathetic reflection on your lies for Jeebus though.


DOC said:
More attack the messenger -- even if the attack is misleading.
Click to expand...


Don't flatter yourself, DOC. You are no messenger. You have no message. Your mission here is an abject failure.

Deal with it.
 
DOC said:
And why do you falsely imply that this is something I often do (respond to a question with a question) when I doubt I've done it more than twice in 4700 posts.
Click to expand...

:popcorn1 <<settles back to wait for the usual masterful list of the times where doc has done X>>

And I see the question mark has fallen out of favor again. Sad.
 
DOC said:
Why do you keep using the word slaves when you know 9 translations translate the word for that particular Jewish culture as servant?
Click to expand...

9 translations? Out how many? According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_by_language the Bible has been translated into 451 languages. An educated guess is that there are several different translations in at least som of those languages, so there must be well over 500 translations. Have you checked all of those to see what different translations there are of that particular word?
 
DOC said:
Because in this instance the question contained the word slave when the vast majority of the evidence says that for the word should be translated as servant. Some skeptics go nuts when I say Sir W. M. Ramsay says gospel writer Luke was a great historian but they are "loosey goosey what the heck" when joobz continues to use the word slavery when 9 translations say the word is servant. I thought joobz was supposed to be a scientist. That loosey goosey fudging for your argument's sake is not appropriate for someone who is supposed to be an impartial scientist. But I have a feeling it will continue, like it has for over a year.
Click to expand...


Oh FFS. There are so many things wrong with this it's hard to know where to begin. I'll just grab three of the more obvious ones


1) Different situations. Nobody is claiming Joobz is a great historian.

2) The ire of the skeptics when you bring up Ramsay is due to your dishonesty. You imply, by careful misquotation, that Ramsay said Luke was a great historian and that therefore the events in the Gospel of Luke are true. But what Ramsay actually said specifically excludes all supernatural, magical and non-scientific writings. By intentionally leaving this out, you are quote-mining. Read: lying.

3) Why do you harp on about the slaves/servants issue? Does the word make a difference in the point Joobz is asking you to address? Perhaps you consider it morally acceptable to beat servants, but not slaves. If that is the case, just say so. If not, and it is immoral to beat servants/slaves, then Joobz's point stands, regardless of which translation he uses. Face it, DOC, your obsession with the issue is a dodge, and you know it.



Elizabeth I said:
:popcorn1 <<settles back to wait for the usual masterful list of the times where doc has done X>>

And I see the question mark has fallen out of favor again. Sad.
Click to expand...


I have never done DOC
 
Helen said:
9 translations? Out how many? According to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_by_language the Bible has been translated into 451 languages. An educated guess is that there are several different translations in at least som of those languages, so there must be well over 500 translations. Have you checked all of those to see what different translations there are of that particular word?
Click to expand...
41 Peter ax, "Jebus, wtf? R u talking to lolcats or to all ppl?"
42 Jebus sed, "Boss cat givz deputeh kitteh cheezburgrs 2 shaer wit evrybody and goed away.
43 "If him coem hoem an seed deputeh kitteh dun gud job, him rly happi.
44 Den him sai 'DEPUTEH KITTEH GETS ALL MAH CHEEZBURGERS!'"
45 "But if deputeh kitteh sez 'Boss cat not heer, me eat all his cheezburgerz an not shaer,' and eated them, and then kitteh rollz all in catnip,
46 "Boss cat goes 'SURPRIZ!!!!! IZ HOEM EARLY!!!! BAD KITTEH!!!!!11!! U GIT SKWRT BOTTEL!!!!'"
47 "Teh kitteh who noes not to eated all cheezburgerz and eated all cheezburgers git sprayd lots an lots wit skwrt bottel. Srsly!48 Kitteh who not noes not to eated all cheezburgers and eated all cheezburgers gits sprayd littel bit wit skwrt bottel. Kitteh who gots many cheezburgerz, gets axed lots, an from kitteh who gots much trusted, much more axed too, lol."
Click to expand...
Luke 12
 
DOC said:
Why do you keep using the word slaves when you know 9 translations translate the word for that particular Jewish culture as servant?
Click to expand...
One does not beat a SERVANT, if one does they LEAVE.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Paulhoff said:
One does not beat a SERVANT, if one does they LEAVE.

Paul

:) :) :)
Click to expand...
Not always. It depends on how much will they have left. Think of it like an abused woman, lots don't leave the relationship because the guy "can change" if she just <fill in the blank>. In the same way, a servant can be so dominated that they are like a slave.

In any case, DOC is still being dishonest (I know, I know BIG MFin' shock). And we still have no evidence for why blah blah blah.
 
DOC said:
Because in this instance the question contained the word slave when the vast majority of the evidence says that for the word should be translated as servant. Some skeptics go nuts when I say Sir W. M. Ramsay says gospel writer Luke was a great historian but they are "loosey goosey what the heck" when joobz continues to use the word slavery when 9 translations say the word is servant.
Click to expand...
Truth isn't decided upon by committy. Popular opinion doesn't change reality.
Dolous = Bond Servant = slave.
 
If they die after three days from a bad beating, no problem, what kind of morals is that.

Paul

:) :) :)
 
Last edited:
X said:
3) Why do you harp on about the slaves/servants issue? Does the word make a difference in the point Joobz is asking you to address? Perhaps you consider it morally acceptable to beat servants, but not slaves. If that is the case, just say so. If not, and it is immoral to beat servants/slaves, then Joobz's point stands, regardless of which translation he uses. Face it, DOC, your obsession with the issue is a dodge, and you know it.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Just for snicks, I looked up the 7 Spanish translations of Luke 45-48 at biblegateway.com. 5 use "serf," one uses "servant" and the Castilian, always the most proper, uses "butler." :) Most use the word "golpear" which means to hit or beat, but a few use "castigar" which theoretically could mean "punish." The most accurate to me uses "azotes" meaning the serf will receive lashes, like from a whip.
 
carlitos said:
Just for snicks, I looked up the 7 Spanish translations of Luke 45-48 at biblegateway.com. 5 use "serf," one uses "servant" and the Castilian, always the most proper, uses "butler." :) Most use the word "golpear" which means to hit or beat, but a few use "castigar" which theoretically could mean "punish." The most accurate to me uses "azotes" meaning the serf will receive lashes, like from a whip.
Click to expand...

Oh, Jesus was just condoning the beating of Serf and Butlers.
DOC, you are right. This isn't a big deal at all. Everyone knows you can physically wound your butler if was to break a rule he didn't know about.*



*provided you more severely bloody your butlers who knowingly disobey your loving self.
 
joobz said:
Dolous = Bond Servant = slave.
Click to expand...

Maybe in the Greek culture but were not talking about the Greek Culture were talking about the Jewish culture of that time.

And even your own website you brought in has the second definition as servant.

If you want to use the word slave in the future regarding the Jewish culture you should be honest and put an asterisks by it and say this is my minority opinion because the vast majority of translations use the word servant for that Jewish culture (and I will have no problem with that).
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
You are clearly in favor of the beating of servants.
Click to expand...

I am pretty sure there were something about marking ones servants with an aul. (Some kind of earring)
And the job were apparently inheritable as someone born of a servant would also be certain to be offered a job as a servant.
 
Maybe in the Greek culture but were not talking about the Greek Culture were talking about the Jewish culture of that time.

And even your own website you brought in has the second definition as servant.

If you want to use the word slave in the future regarding the Jewish culture you should be honest and put an asterisks by it and say this is my minority opinion because the vast majority of translations use the word servant for that Jewish culture (and I will have no problem with that).
Click to expand...

You're getting a little incoherent. Take a deep breath and slow down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom