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

[Alice Shortcake]

Has Kurious Kathy been raptured? This thread is crying out for her unique brand of pig ignorance and unintentional hilarity. As are several other threads.

 

[kmortis]

Has Kurious Kathy been raptured? This thread is crying out for her unique brand of pig ignorance and unintentional hilarity. As are several other threads.

She's posted in the thread, 38 times in fact. I guess she doesn't want to interfere with a Brother in the Faith's "good works". Humilty, thy name is Kurious_Kathy.

 

[Paulhoff]

Has Kurious Kathy been raptured? This thread is crying out for her unique brand of pig ignorance and unintentional hilarity. As are several other threads.

We can only hope she has.

Paul

 

[Toke]

Has Kurious Kathy been raptured? This thread is crying out for her unique brand of pig ignorance and unintentional hilarity. As are several other threads.

I hope she shows up.
She never gave an answer to my question on whether women have real souls, like men have.

 

[tsig]

I must admit, on re-consideration I can't help noticing that this is a really good thread to hide out in if one is prone to being a little eccentric, which explains all but one of the posters here, who goes so far as to assume evidence not in evidence.

Hey, I resemble that remark!!

I refuse to be a member of a group that has low enough membership standards that they will admit me.

Yes, I intend to die old, alone and friendless and that thought keeps me going.

 

[Lucian]

The older translations I have access to have servant (tjänare in Swedish), and so does our newest translation (NT in 1980); bowing to tradition, and keeping quotations intact. There is a new translation on the way, and there doulos is correctly translated with slav (Swedish for slave). As far as I can tell (a simple search by Google), there really is no controversy here; translators and believers alike agree that it means slave.

Icelandic has þjónn, obviously a cognate of tjänare. It likewise means servant; however, I am using Old Icelandic dictionaries to translate a modern Icelandic word. A modern online Icelandic dictionary translates it as "waiter."

ETA Old English has þeow, which can be translated as either slave or servant.

 

[kmortis]

Hey, I resemble that remark!!

I refuse to be a member of a group that has low enough membership standards that they will admit me.

Yes, I intend to die old, alone and friendless and that thought keeps me going.

Really? I have a friend who intends on dying at the age of 100 while escaping from a second storey window by being shot in the back by a jealous husband. But to each his own, I guess.

 

[Moss]

In German doulos in Luke 12:47 is translated as "Knecht" (servant or serf) in the Lutherbibel (1912), again as "Knecht" in the Schlachter 2000 translation, "Knecht" in the Revised Elberfelder, "Diener" (servant) in the Gute Nachricht Bibel.

 

[AdinDraco]

They can call the servants/slaves 'treasured, beloved employees who we luv very, very much', but we still get to beat them, kill them, sell them, inherit them and trick them into lifelong servitude by giving them spouses and then keeping their spouses....

Theists who want to argue the slave/servant thing - you're arguing about the wrong thing. Call them 'slaves', 'servants' or 'fluffy kittens', your made-up god is a dick and the bible is corrupt. Please just accept that a bunch of stories written down thousands of years ago did mean 'slave', realise that morality has evolved, realise that you are morally surperior to the characters in this book and move on.

 

[Moss]

I hope that wasn't directed at me. I was just providing the german translations. (Which seem to be largely inspired by Luther's translation as "Knecht". Which actually makes a lot of sense given the context of his time. Serfdom was still around and known to the people, more than slavery. And I wouldn't consider serfdom that much of an improvement.)

 

[DOC]

It's safe to infer that God approved of what David did. David was beloved of the Lord.

It's not safe to infer (for example) God approving of David being an adulterer and wrongly killing someone. In fact it is safe to infer the opposite. Just like it is not safe to infer God approved of Peter denying Christ 3 times.

 

[Akhenaten]

It's not safe to infer (for example) God approving of David being an adulterer and wrongly killing someone. In fact it is safe to infer the opposite. Just like it is not safe to infer God approved of Peter denying Christ 3 times.

Lacking so much as an atom of evidence for this mythical creature that you're on about, it's not only unsafe, but completely delusional to assume it either approves or disapproves of your favourite fairy tales.

 

[Elizabeth I]

It's not safe to infer (for example) God approving of David being an adulterer and wrongly killing someone.

Why not? According to the Bible, God was always talking to people back then. Why didn't He tell David to stop it?

And I notice you say nothing about Lot or the bears.

 

[DOC]

So you base your argument on 11 translations, out of thousands? Not very convincing, is it? Could you please tell me why those translations should carry so much weight? Do you somehow believe that English translations are more important than others, or that English translators are the ultimate experts?)

We are speaking the English language in this thread. If someone wants to use the word slave, to be honest just put an asterisks by it and say *(most English translations use the word servant).

Some people went nuts in here when I said Sir William M. Ramsay said Gospel writer Luke was a great historian without providing additional info, but joobz gets a free pass and no one but me says a whimper when he continues to state as fact Jesus condones slavery even though 9 English translations say the word is servant (not slave.)

And probably no one in here has an accurate understanding of the Jewish social culture of that time and how slaves and servants fit into that complex Roman/Jewish culture.

 

[Akhenaten]

Just a request here for all the posters that can read a language other than English. If you are so inclined, would you please look up the verse that joobz refers to and tell us if the word is slave, servant, or something else. Thank you in advance.

Srangely, I can't find any ancient Egyptian bibles, however, according to the list of the most commonly used hieroglyphs as composed by Alan Gardiner:

Hope this helps.


Reference

 

[Helen]

The language of the Bible was not English, you do realise that, DOC? Translations may say anything (that is one of the reasons why some texts are translated several times; to try to make the translations more accurate), it's the original that is relevant. The original says slave. There is absolutely no reason to add any asterisks.

Can someone tell my why I am doing this? Do I actually expect DOC to answer honestly? And if so, why?

 

[Belz...]

It's not safe to infer (for example) God approving of David being an adulterer and wrongly killing someone. In fact it is safe to infer the opposite. Just like it is not safe to infer God approved of Peter denying Christ 3 times.

Why ? Wasn't that part of his plan ?

 

[Akhenaten]

We are speaking the English language in this thread. If someone wants to use the word slave, to be honest just put an asterisks by it and say *(most English translations use the word servant).

Does it matter what you call someone, does that give you the right to beat them.

Paul

Does your god thing say it's OK to beat *********** Servants **********, DOC?

Some people went nuts in here when I said Sir William M. Ramsay said Gospel writer Luke was a great historian without providing additional info, but joobz gets a free pass and no one but me says a whimper when he continues to state as fact Jesus condones slavery even though 9 English translations say the word is servant (not slave.)

Setting aside your hyperbole and rhetoric, the simple response to the point you're trying to make is that joobz has established a great deal of credibility through his postings in this and other threads, whereas you have utterly and forever destroyed any semblance of credibility that you may once have had.

See how that works, DOC?

And probably everyone in here has no understanding at all of the Jewish social culture of that time and how slaves and servants fit into that complex Roman/Jewish culture.

You're projecting, DOC. There are folks here who know heaps about this stuff, whilst the totality of your own knowledge could be chiselled onto a canary's kneecap with a crowbar.

 

[DOC]

As far as I can tell (a simple search by Google), there really is no controversy here; translators and believers alike agree that it means slave.

Then someone forgot to tell the 9 major translations that used the word servant.

I really don't understand how you can make such a statement, haven't you read the 9 translations. Go to Gateway or Blue Letter Bible and look at each and every translation for the verse in question Luke 12 47. The great majority use servant not slave.

I'm pretty much done with this whole slavery issue. If someone wants to continue to use the word slave without an asterisk I guess I can't stop you, but I think it hurts your credibility.

 

[Akhenaten]

<facts which DOC will ignore>

There is absolutely no reason to add any asterisks.

They're pretty.

And he sees the vision splendid of the sunlit plains extended,
And at night the wond'rous glory of the everlasting stars.

- Banjo Patterson​

Can someone tell my why I am doing this? Do I actually expect DOC to answer honestly? And if so, why?

1. Sport.

2. Not if you wish to retain your sanity.

3.

Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.

-Alexander Pope, An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733 ​