Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[Dinwar]

I admit that I am not familiar with Greek in any form,

We're done, then. You've admitted that you don't know the topic, and therefore your opinion isn't based on facts. It can't be--if it were, you'd be familiar with the Greek!

 

[Lucian]

We're done, then. You've admitted that you don't know the topic, and therefore your opinion isn't based on facts. It can't be--if it were, you'd be familiar with the Greek!

Uh, he's actually quoting me there. I don't understand Greek, but I can tell that ddt knows what he's talking about.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't believe anything. That's why I'm asking you for evidence.

Either produce some or I will quite reasonably assume that this claim is, like all of your others, without merit.

I'll take the 15 minutes to look it up if you agree you will apologize if I find it and never say anything negative about me.

Apologise for asking for evidence in a thread entitled "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"?

Are you for real?

Not to mention that it's already been two hours since I asked you to ante up, so the 15 minute thing is a bit of farce as well.

You won't do that so I won't take the 15 minutes to look it up.

Do what thou wilt. It certainly makes my job a lot easier.

If you really cared about the information you would take me up on the offer.

Do you even remember the question? Or why it was asked?

 

[Akhenaten]

Well, first of all, ddt himself has studied Koine Greek and is able to explain convincingly exactly how the subjunctive is used in this instance.

I didn't see how he explained it can't mean "may pass". If you do, fine. I invite him to do it again.

Are you blind?

Discussions but no sources as to why it can't literally say "may pass".

That is an outright lie, DOC.

Oh, I'm glad you said that. I know nothing about Greek in any of its forms, but I was going to guess that was an attempt to translate the subjunctive.

You're welcome!

I'd like to point out, in general terms, why it can be problematic (or impossible) to translate verb tenses absolutely literally. In modern English, it is the convention to use the literary present ("In his famous soliloquoy, Hamlet says..."). The French, as I recall, use the historical present. Since that sounds weird in English, we translate it as the past tense. Old Norse sagas have a tendency to shift from past tense to present and back. Since that is confusing in English, translations usually stick to the past tense.

The Greek here uses the aorist. Good luck with translating that one "literally". (and let's also not forget aspect here too). However, the conjunctions used here - "when" and "until" clearly express that JC is speaking of things that will happen in the (near) future.

In modern English, the subjunctive mood is just barely hanging on by its fingernails.

God save the Queen subjunctive!

In other languages, it is used extensively and for a variety of purposes. Some uses of the subjunctive are idiomatic and don't really translate well or at all to English.

For instance, in German the subjunctive is always used in indirect speech. However, in many cases it's not apparent as most forms with (weak) German verbs coincide with that of the indicative.

Christ did say no man, including himself, knows the day or the hour of the end of the world. The "may" wording is consistent with Christ's statement that no one knows the time. But he also warned to stay vigilant because it will come like a thief in the night.

The whole chapter is about Jesus predicting the end of times. He's not giving that speech to say "well, it's possible the end of the world will come", no, he is predicting it will come, and in the lifetime of his audience.

And that he says no one knows the time but the Father is not in contradiction to that: see the unexpected hanging paradox.

Christ did say no man, including himself, knows the day or the hour of the end of the world. The "may" wording is consistent with Christ's statement that no one knows the time. But he also warned to stay vigilant because it will come like a thief in the night.

Further to this, this is what Thayer's Greek lexicon says about the conjunction ὅταν used in Mark 13:29:

ὅταν, a particle of time, compound of ὅτε and ἄν, at the time that, whenever (German dannwann;wannirgend); used of things which one assumes will really occur, but the time of whose occurrence he does not definitely fix

So yes, Christ assumed really the end of times would occur, during his apostles' lifetime.

Or do you think that ignoring things actually makes them disappear?

I admit that I am not familiar with Greek in any form, but I do know enough about how languages work to understand what he's saying. As I said in a previous post, even before ddt's explanation, I had a pretty good idea that Young was attempting rather awkwardly to translate the subjunctive.

Secondly, he so totally did cite sources.

Where does his sources say it can't literally say "may pass".

Right there in front of you where you're pretending that you can't see it.

And don't think that nobody is noticing that you're barely making sense in English here while you're attempting to quibble about the finer points of ancient Greek. It truly is hilarious.

 

[DOC]

Uh, he's actually quoting me there.

Yes, Dinwar made an error in post 1501 falsely attributing the quote to me.

 

[Krikkiter]

I've read about 30% of the book which is mostly arguing that Jesus did exist. And I see you disagree with Ehrman's statement that "Jesus certainly existed".

At the end of the book it seems his biggest argument against Jesus being divine is the ol' "This generation shall/may not pass" verse, and that Jesus was a an Apocalyptic preacher. (I however believe the evidence is there Jesus was much more than just this.)

Regarding the "This generation shall/may not pass" verse (Mark 13:30), Ehrman doesn't say a word (that I saw) that "genea" can be translated as "race", and he doesn't say a word about Young's Literal Translation of the verse that says "This generation "may" not pass.

I also didn't see him talk about the verse two verses later that says no one, not even the Son of Man knows the day or hour.

___

My main reason for talking about this book is: "skeptics won't believe me when I say the historical evidence is there that Jesus existed, but some might believe Bart Ehrman when he says Jesus certainly existed.

And before you can believe Jesus was divine you have to believe he existed. So even though I don't agree with Ehrman's final conclusion and I don't believe he was ever a real Christian filled with the Holy Spirit (he does claim he was a Christian), I think the book might help some skeptics break their Jesus never existed entrenched mindset.

No. You have read sections of the book posted on blogs and book review web pages. You don't own the book and you haven't borrowed it from a library so you have no idea about what percentage of it you've actually read.

Sorry to bore you with details Mr Google Scholar but it's actually considered quite poor form to base an entire argument around a single book that you have not read in it's entirety. And you're showing exactly why in this thread. That you're still getting civil responses (indeed, any responses) is more than likely only because it's amusing to watch you dig your hole deeper and deeper.

(Also because we wouldn't want any lurkers to get the idea that digging a hole is a good way to form an argument).

 

[Lucian]

Yes, Dinwar made an error in post 1501 falsely attributing the quote to me.

Yes, that's why I pointed it out. I don't think his mistake was malicious, so I'm not sure why you feel the need to correct him a second time.

 

[Dinwar]

Uh, he's actually quoting me there. I don't understand Greek, but I can tell that ddt knows what he's talking about.

Ah, sorry--formatting change after I posted.

And you're differing to someone who DOES know the Greek, which is usually the right way to go.

Yes, Dinwar made an error in post 1501 falsely attributing the quote to me.

No, it was an error. When I saw the post, it said that YOU had said it. I'm not sure why--could be that you formatted it weird, or could be that the forum glitched, or any number of reasons. It was an honest mistake. It happens--and at least I can admit it.

 

[Akhenaten]

Yes, Dinwar made an error in post 1501 falsely attributing the quote to me.

No. It was, as has been pointed out and explained, an honest mistake.

Compare and contrast that with your repeated lying about ddt's lack of a sourced explanation to counter your ridiculous assertions about the phrase "may pass".

And don't you dare complain about false attributions. You've been busted for doing the same thing numerous times in this thread, with plenty of evidence of malice aforethought, as well as making unannoted edits to other people's posts.

Are there no depths of hypocrisy to which you will not sink, DOC?

 

[joobz]

Where does his sources say it can't literally say "may pass".

Where do your sources say Jesus can't literally be a little girl in a tutu with a lollipop?

 

[Akhenaten]

Where do your sources say Jesus can't literally be a little girl in a tutu with a lollipop?

He'll spend 15 minutes looking that up if you promise to stop pointing out his logical fallacies.

 

[DOC]

Regarding the "shall/may pass" issue. Ddt has his opinion and "Young's Literal Translation" has their opinion.

And whoever you believe, there is still the "genea" can be translated as "race" instead of "generation" issue; and different people have different opinions on that.

And if Christ did say this generation shall not pass instead of this generation may not pass there is no law that God couldn't change his mind. We know God changed his mind in the book of Jonah after the people repented. Who knows, after he saw all the apostles being martyred, or after he possibly heard some of the prayers of those who heard Christ's speech he could of changed his mind and delayed the end of the world. It would seem an all powerful God would have that prerogative based on the future free will actions and prayers of those who believe in him.

And remember, 2 verses later, Christ said no one not even himself knew the day or hour. That seems like an odd thing to say 2 verses after he allegedly predicted a specific time period for the end of the world.

 

[Akhenaten]

Regarding the "shall/may pass" issue. ddt has his opinion and "Young's Literal Translation" has there opinion.

1. You are barely literate in English and know absolutely nothing about ancient Greek and are therefore completely unqualified even to tell if the two "opinions" differ in any significant way, much less to judge which one has the more validity.
   
   
2. The "opinion" that ddt has given is fully supported by the references he supplied.
   
   
3. None of your attempts to handwave this matter away are going to alter the fact that you have lied repeatedly about ddt having provided references to support his explanations, despite the evidence that this was the case being presented several times.

And whoever you believe, there is still the "genea" can be translated as "race" instead of "generation" issue; and different people have different opinions of that.

Are you seriously, having been caught out in one lie about the evidence with which you've been presented, going to immediately engage in exactly the same behaviour again?

Different people do not have different opinions about this translation. Only you - who have no qualifications whatsoever to make any kind of assesment - have an "opinion", while others here have presented well-documented evidence.

To assert otherwise is lying, plain and simple.

And if Christ did say this generation shall not pass instead of this generation may not pass there is no law that God couldn't change his mind.

Your pathetic, flailing, intellectually bankrupt excuse for reasoning is that one of your gods made a liar out of one of the others by changing the rules after god number two had made his prediction?

You have got to be kidding.

We know God changed his mind in the book of Jonah when the people repented. Who knows, after he saw all the apostles being martyred he could of changed his mind and delayed the end of the world. It would seem a God would have that preogative based on the future free will actions of those who believe in him.

This dreck isn't even in your Big Book of Fairytales. You're just making crap up holus-bolus as you go.

And remember, 2 verses later Christ said no one not even himself knew the day or hour. That seems like an odd thing to say 2 verses after he allegedly predicted a specific time.

It seems odd because it's a freaking story made up after the alleged facts in order to force alleged events to fit into alleged prophecies.

It would truly be miraculous if it did make any sense.

 

[Akhenaten]

It seems obvious, DOC, from my 232 posts (which are out there speaking for themselves for all to see) in this thread of Phelix's (who has been described by Sir joobz as the greatest thread starter since Alexander the Great (for whom we have no signature) wrote the constitution for the Tyre (which does not exist) Beach Volleyball Association (nets everywhere) on non-existent paper) that even if there was any evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth you would be the last person on Earth to discover it.

I'm fairly sure Jehovah himself could show up and tell you the score and you'd be all, like "Well you have your opinion and I have mine."

 

[Craig B]

... And if Christ did say this generation shall not pass instead of this generation may not pass there is no law that God couldn't change his mind. We know God changed his mind in the book of Jonah after the people repented. Who knows, after he saw all the apostles being martyred, or after he possibly heard some of the prayers of those who heard Christ's speech he could of changed his mind and delayed the end of the world. It would seem an all powerful God would have that prerogative based on the future free will actions and prayers of those who believe in him.

And remember, 2 verses later, Christ said no one not even himself knew the day or hour.

That means Jesus is not God, because he then says that the Father does know. Matthew 24.

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

The generation is known. This one. But only God knows the moment. Perfectly consistent.

DOC, is God all-knowing? Then he can see the future as easily as he sees the past. That's why he can prophesy things. Now, in the Book of Jonah why was he not able to foresee that the Ninevites would repent, and dress their domestic animals in sackcloth, so that he could spare them? In other words, could God not foresee that he would change his mind?

Moreover Jesus and his followers didn't pray for the coming of the kingdom of God to be delayed, but for it to come soon. And have you forgotten your previous statement that the Kingdom did in fact come at the time of Pentecost, and gave Christianity the power to get Dubya off the booze?

 

[joobz]

Regarding the "shall/may pass" issue. Ddt has his opinion and "Young's Literal Translation" has their opinion.

When you fall to the "Your opinion/my opinion" argument, I know you have nothing else.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Who knows...

i don't know. Who does?

...he (God) could of changed his mind..

What does that mean/imply? If I change my mind, it's an admission I was wrong about something.

Can God be wrong? In your world view, that is - I think it's a meaningless question.

 

[kmortis]

Let's dial back the rhetoric a bit. It's getting a bit uncivil.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[RoboTimbo]

I'll take the 15 minutes to look it up if you agree you will apologize if I find it and never say anything negative about me.

I'll take the 15 minutes to find reviews of Ehrman's book showing how shoddy the scholarship is if you promise to agree forever that Jesus wasn't divine.



Oh wait. I already did. You simply ignored them.

 

[catsmate]

I think that's greekified.

Hellenised...........

Actually it is no big deal to me because I've known for years the historical evidence was there. It's the skeptics who are doing the most jumping and complaining (at Ehrman), read the reviews.

Yet neither you or Ehrman can actually show this amazing evidence.

So then do you believe these alleged forgers were responsible for duping Thomas Jefferson into saying the morality of Jesus is greatest he's ever read? Those forgers really pulled a fast one on Jefferson to get him to include 60 + pages of their forgeries and to have them translated into four languages in his book.

Perhaps you should read some of Ehrman's previous books? They cover the forgeries in detail.
As for your continual invocation of Jefferson, that's just pathetic.

I've read about 30% of the book which is mostly arguing that Jesus did exist. And I see you disagree with Ehrman's statement that "Jesus certainly existed".

I don't believe you. You are a habitual liar. However that's not relevent to the fact that Ehrman singularly fails to show any evidence for a historical Jesus.

At the end of the book it seems his biggest argument against Jesus being divine is the ol' "This generation shall/may not pass" verse, and that Jesus was a an Apocalyptic preacher. (I however believe the evidence is there Jesus was much more than just this.)

Further evidence of your failure to read Ehrman or failure to understand.

My main reason for talking about this book is: "skeptics won't believe me when I say the historical evidence is there that Jesus existed, but some might believe Bart Ehrman when he says Jesus certainly existed.

Rubbish. You've jumped on the book because you need to believe Jesus was/is real.

And before you can believe Jesus was divine you have to believe he existed. So even though I don't agree with Ehrman's final conclusion and I don't believe he was ever a real Christian filled with the Holy Spirit (he does claim he was a Christian), I think the book might help some skeptics break their Jesus never existed entrenched mindset.

More cherry picking.