• 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.
Do you have any evidence you were born on earth and not transported here by aliens A birth certificate could be forged (Some say that is what happened with Obama). Your relatives could be lying to you. Do you have film of your actual birth. Even that could be a fake.
Obviously, I was making a point that some things are impossible to prove, even your own birth on earth. But I guess some people didn't get that.
NO

It's obvious that you are trying to DODGE the issues...

If you can't see this, try:
  1. removing your blinkers
  2. thinking
you have nothing to lose but your delusions
I did answer the issue in post 12857
Yet again... NO

The issues pertain to the OP: Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

The closest you get is yet another spam, citing the oh-so-often-debunked Ramsay:
Yes, it was written by gospel writer Luke. Luke is the person respected archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay said was a great historian regarding things that can be proven by historical and archaeological evidence. Given that fact it is more likely than not this is what the man Jesus (whom most historians believe was a historical person) said.
That is a dodge, NOT an answer to the issues

Please, do try harder

So are you okay with beating servants?
Personally I'd rather get a some lashes and be sore a few days than spend several years in jail like could happen today if a person beat several men and beat several woman like the servant did in Luke 12 47.
Got any evidence that the people who wrote that story were telling the truth, DOC?

Are you okay with beating:
  1. servants?
  2. employees?
  3. anyone?

Do you have any evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth?
 
And joobz brought in a website where the second definition was servant. When a word has 2 definitions that means it has two definitions translators can choose from.

No. No it doesn't. Read what I have quoted below:

ROFL. A further spotlight on your ignorance. Did you look up the word cleave before you answered John Jones' post?

And one slight derail: you seem to think that "translation" means looking up text word-by-word in a dictionary. In fact, accurate translation is a difficult, highly skilled discipline, combining knowledge, art and craft, and requiring a great deal of intelligence and almost total immersion in at least two languages. A good translator thinks almost simultaneously in both languages and the words flow.

The word-by-word translation can lead to your making yourself look really ignorant, and, worse, becoming a figure of fun.

One example: a guidebook I once bought in Guadalajara discussed a church which out-baroqued Baroque, and in Spanish said its design was, "...barroco, casi herreriana," meaning that its design and ornamentation reached almost the level of that created by a church architect named Herrerra. The English translation read, "baroque, almost a heresy."

Another, very simple, example: in Spanish, there are two words for fish: pez and pescado. You will look stupid if you use one for the other.

Elizabeth I is in the habit of being right. Annoying, I know, but something we all have to live with.

If, for instance, you look up the Swedish word får in a Swedish-English dicitionary, the first word you find would be sheep. The second would be get/acquire. I would expect a translator to know which to use, and not go for the second choice, just because DOC thinks that "translators shouldn't limit themselves to always choosing the first definition of a word."
 
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.

I will tell you WHY they use the word servant instead of slave. Because they realized it makes them look bad, and look like they endorse slavery. Therefore they decided to retouch a bit the trnaslation and use servant instead.

It is all marketing to make the bitter part more acceptable. And you are swallowing it hook and sinker.

But what they can't retouch is history. The previous version before translation are known, and they are all about slavery.
 
Obviously, I was making a point that some things are impossible to prove, even your own birth on earth. But I guess some people didn't get that.


You can post utter nonsense like this and then express concern that others may be harming their credibility?

Seriously, DOC, take a step back from the thread and have a good look at what you've written. This is straight from the copybook of Anita Ikonen, formerly of Arcturus. How the hell does that make you feel?

You can make all the ridiculous claims you like about people 'attacking the messenger', but the truth is that it's guff like the above that's being taken to task, and you have no right to claim the status of 'messenger' since it's you, and only you, who authors this mindless drivel.

Has it ever occurred to you that this thread is devoid of other apologists helping you to deliver your 'message'?

Now that I've pointed out that this is the case, how do you explain it?

Can you spell 'embarrassment'? (copy/paste from here if you like)
 
I will not answer your question unless you use the name Jesus, Christ, Yeshua, or Yahshua in reference to the quote. You might ask yourself why you feel uncomfortable using the name of a historical person.

Can you please show us some evidence for this historical man Yeshua outside of the N/T ?
 
Elizabeth I is in the habit of being right. Annoying, I know, but something we all have to live with.

:blush: I'm just leaving this part in because it may be first time someone has ever said such a thing. :D

If, for instance, you look up the Swedish word får in a Swedish-English dictionary, the first word you find would be sheep. The second would be get/acquire. I would expect a translator to know which to use, and not go for the second choice, just because DOC thinks that "translators shouldn't limit themselves to always choosing the first definition of a word."

får: I'd like to see the etymology of that one!
 
If anybody in the last 300 years that this thread has been running has already mentioned this, then I apologise for the repeat. :)

If you look at Exodus 21.2 it "says": If thou buy a hebrew servant.....
and 21.7: And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant.....

So - it seems that it makes not a jot of difference whether you use the term slave or servant, they're still bought.

Um... Your Pharoahness - please bring on that herring yet again. :)

So DOC - as it doesn't make any difference how the greek word is translated -- is it OK to punish your servants/slaves?

Only my arm's beginning to ache while I hold it up ready to chastise them.
 
Actually, I could have added Leviticus 25:44 - As for your male & female slaves/servants who you may have: you may buy male & female slaves/servants from among the nations that are around you.

Oh - I just did :)

and Exodus 22:2-3 where a thief who has nothing should be sold for his theft.
 
Last edited:
DOC:
Obviously, I was making a point that some things are impossible to prove, even your own birth on earth. But I guess some people didn't get that.

You know DOC, That's the most truthful statement you've made on this whole crazy thread (minus the "your own birth on earth"/Obama thing--Certificates of Live Birth are generally considered "proof" for legal purposes--not to mention the whole walking around, living thing ;) ).

If you had just accepted that to begin with, it would have made every argument on this thread moot.

GB
 
You might ask yourself why you feel uncomfortable using the name of a historical person.
You might ask yourself IF you feel uncomfortable acknowledging the glaringly obvious fact that (without resorting to logical fallacies, repeatedly spamming the thread with thoroughly debunked nonsense, etc) you are completely and utterly unable to support your claim in the OP that you would/could provide "evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"
 
Yes, it was written by gospel writer Luke.

This is a lie. This ridiculous claim has been debunked in more places and by more people than you and I have had hot breakfasts. You know this, and yet you persist.

What are you talking about? Are you saying respected archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay just made up some character named Luke and then said he was one of the world's greatest historians (regarding facts that can be proved by history and archaeology).

Some skeptics like you and Pax love shock words like "lie". And will use them at the drop of a hat. Unfortunately you lose credibility when you use them so often and then they are shown to be just that - empty meaningless unfounded shock words.
 
Last edited:
Why are you uncomfortable answering such a simple question?
Because the question you ask does not use the actual historical name in it, all you have to do is ask the question using the real Hebrew or Greek name of Jesus, it's a very simple and appropriate thing to do.
 
What are you talking about? Are you saying respected archaeologist Sir William M. Ramsay just made up some character named Luke and then said he was one of the world's greatest historians (regarding facts that can be proved by history and archaeology).

You forgot to footnote the fact that Ramsay specifically excluded Luke from being an accurate historian WRT miraculous claims about Jesus -- even though this has been pointed-out to you a hundred times.

You have even excepted that criticism of Ramsay.

I have no choice but to conclude that you are being deliberately disingenuous yet again.
 
I'm sorry.
No, your not, and the evidence is in your next sentence.
I misread your other drivel filled post.
As you yourself have noted numerous times, one of the benefits of discussions in this medium is that anyone can go back and re-read the posts in full context:
I'm sorry. I misread your other drivel filled post. I apologize for assuming you tried to answer a question that has been asked of you...about hundred plus times already. For that my apologies.
Anyhoo...

DOC, stop wasting bandwidth and start addressing the issues!

Are you okay with beating:
  1. servants?
  2. employees?
  3. anyone?
Do you have any evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth?
 
DOC said:
It is if God chooses to punish those who sin in a similar manner to the servant who beat several men and woman like the servant did in Luke 12:47.

And like I said before receiving some lashes is probably more lenient than making a person spend several years in jail.. If you were to ask people who have to spend 4 years in jail if they would submit to 10 lashes on the back if they could walk free, I doubt anyone would not agree to do it.

Bottom line if you read the bible, there is a price to pay for any unforgiven sin. God, being perfect, is not flippant about sin.

What does any of this piffle have to do with the topic, DOC?

The 2nd paragraph above is a philosophical/logical argument about Luke 12:47 which is in the NT. If giving some lashes as punishment for the crime of the servant who beat several men and woman is a less severe punishment then would be given today (where a person might get several years in jail for beating several men and beating several women) then all this talk about Jesus being so cruel for not speaking out against the giving of lashes is much ado about nothing.
 
Last edited:
The 2nd paragraph above is a philosophical/logical argument about Luke 12:47 which is in the NT. If giving some lashes as punishment for the crime of the servant who beat several men and woman is a less severe punishment then would be given today (where a person might get several years in jail for beating several men and beating several women) then all this talk about Jesus being so cruel for not speaking out against the giving of lashes is much ado about nothing.

See the title of this thread.
 
The 2nd paragraph above is a philosophical/logical argument about Luke 12:47 which is in the NT. If giving some lashes as punishment for the crime of the servant who beat several men and woman is a less severe punishment then would be given today (where a person might get several years in jail for beating several men and beating several women) then all this talk about Jesus being so cruel for not speaking out against the giving of lashes is much ado about nothing.
But he wasn't lashed for beating servents.

Read it again. He was beaten for not following his owner's wishes.

For ignoring his owner's wishes when he knew what they were, gets some serious ABH.
For ignoring his owner's wishes when he did not know what they were gets a light beating.

If the beating was simply a revenge punishment for beating other men and women the punishment would have been identical in both cases.

Jesus suggests that extreme violence is appropriate for a slave ignoring his owners wishes.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
It is if God chooses to punish those who sin in a similar manner to the servant who beat several men and woman like the servant did in Luke 12:47.

And like I said before receiving some lashes is probably more lenient than making a person spend several years in jail.. If you were to ask people who have to spend 4 years in jail if they would submit to 10 lashes on the back if they could walk free, I doubt anyone would not agree to do it.

Bottom line if you read the bible, there is a price to pay for any unforgiven sin. God, being perfect, is not flippant about sin.
Akhenaten said:
What does any of this piffle have to do with the topic, DOC?
The 2nd paragraph above is a philosophical/logical argument about Luke 12:47 which is in the NT. If giving some lashes as punishment for the crime of the servant who beat several men and woman is a less severe punishment then would be given today (where a person might get several years in jail for beating several men and beating several women) then all this talk about Jesus being so cruel for not speaking out against the giving of lashes is much ado about nothing.
Please explain how ANY of this is pertinent to the OP

Also...

Are you okay with beating:
  1. servants?
  2. employees?
  3. anyone?
Do you have any evidence that the New Testament writers told the truth?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom