Johnny Skeptic

All unproven assertions are speculative, including your speculation that the God of the Bible exists, and inspired the writing of the Bible. Hypothetical arguments are valid. Christians frequently use them when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' 'Lord, Liar, or Lunatic' is a good example. If I said "If John Smith invented a cure for cancer, he would be greatly appreciated around the world, including by Christians", that would be speculation, but it would be sensible, reasonable, and logical speculation, and most likely true.

All humans already hunger for a better existence. For instance, skeptics would be most appreciative if God were to stop creating hurricanes and killing people with them.

For example, food, shelter, clothing, educations, and medical treatment, or tangible things that you have asked God for. Now do you agree that if the God of the Bible does not exist, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs or worldview? Please answer the question. When you ask questions, you want answers. So do I. If you wish to have a debate where each side always answers a question with a question, or with a request to define a word, in other words, a debate where neither side ever directly answers a question, I will be happy to do that.

Please reply to my posts #117, #118, and #119.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: If the average human lifespan became one million years, and no one advocated the death penalty, how long a prison sentence for murder would you endorse?

Do you believe that the Bible endorses slavery? If not, will you agree with me that the Bible does not clearly oppose slavery?

DBT

There is no proof for anything relating to the Gospels, or any of the claims they make, for that matter.
But the best estimates are;

Wiki.
"The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996 (for a fuller discussion of dating, please see the articles for each Gospel):"

"Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Some historians interpret the end of the book of Acts as indicative, or at least suggestive, of its date; as Acts does not mention the death of Paul, generally accepted as the author of many of the Epistles, who was later put to death by the Romans c. 65. Acts is attributed to the author of the Gospel of Luke, and therefore would shift the chronology of authorship back, putting Mark as early as the mid 50's. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):

Mark: c. 50's to early 60's, or late 60's
Matthew: c. 50 to 70's
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70's to 80's
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50's to 70 "



"In certain contexts AIONIOS can imply this sense when understood together
with other words in the context,

"The most frequent use of AIONIOS in the NT is with ZWH 'life,' for example,
... 'so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life' John 3:15.
In combination with ZWH there is evidently not only a temporal element, but
also a qualitative distinction. In such contexts, AIONIOS evidently carries
certain implications associated with AIONIOS in relationship to divine and
supernatural attributes."

douglas

Finally, you seem to be getting the point. I certain amount of insanity is required to hold the position that the bible exists as "God's revelation." Even if I believed this (which I don't) why can't God use words that mean one thing in a certain context, and mean something else in a different context?

It has been shown to you REPEATEDLY how a word can mean different things depending on the context, yet you refuse to believe that "aionion" can mean anything but a fixed duration of time.:banghead:

TonyN

Oh, I thought you were going to give me "proof" that the gospels were written 60 years after as you wrote here: "Nothing was spoken by Christ, as everything we have on the life of Christ was based on oral tradition, and written down at least 60 years after the events were supposed to have occurred. " So if Christ lived to between 33 and 36 AD then the gospels would have had to be written by people who had died before they were written (except for John who wrote Revelation around 97-99 A.D.)

Tony's reply:
So you are making the noun modify the adjective which is against the rules of grammar. The adjective modifies the noun, not the other way around.

Eonian life is the life pertaining to the eon or eons as the case may be.
So according to your way of thinking:

red volkswagon Beetle
red Fire Engine

Since the fire engine is much larger than the beetle, it should modify "red" into a different meaning.

Or
Loving Giant
Loving midget

The Giant has to have a different kind of loving than the midget and so "loving" when connected with Giant should be "hateful" since it is the opposite of the size of the midget. That is what you are doing by making the noun modify aionios.

Al Fresco

How does it feel to shift into the Christian persecution mode?
You blithely dismiss the analysis by Darby (see here) as if it did not exist. What specific elements of his analysis do you think are unfounded and what is your reason for thinking so?

In this forum, an excerpt from Plato’s “Timaeus” is discussed as follows:

“The crucial text is in Timaeus 37c-39e, which I have titled as Time, where you can have both the Greek original and the translation. Although you don’t follow the original, maybe you can trace just the use of the words you are interested in, that is aidios and aionios, and I’ll try to help.

Before the metaphor we discuss, Plato thinks about the creation of the world as a living being, “the created image of the eternal [aidioi] gods”. Aidios comes from two words, from aei (ever, always) and idios (same). Aidios means “always same”, immutable, unchanged and thus eternal not only in an ever lasting existence, but also in an ever same existence, that does not change to opposites, today like this, tomorrow like that, etc.

The father of the world perfected this created image of the eternal being (aidion on). Now Plato uses the word aionios as a synonym of aidios: “the nature of the ideal being was everlasting” (aionios), a condition impossible for the created world, to which He bestowed the closest possible condition to eternity, that is “a moving image of eternity” (kineton aionos). This image is time, a moving of the standing eternity, an eternal (aionios) image, however, not standing in an ever-lasting-present, as the eternal (aidios) nature stands always the same, without generations and becoming. Time eternally passes from past to future.

Therefore according to Plato, and also according to Christian (at least Orthodox) theology, time, as the condition of created beings, is our way of making our own the eternal now of the uncreated nature, and in this way time can be considered the “image” of eternity.”

What specifically do you think is wrong with this explanation of Plato’s meaning of the word? (Other than the fact that it does not agree with your take on the subject.)

In 2 Cor. 4:18, “aionios” is set of in opposition to the word “proskairos” which means temporary. “….for the things that are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.” Why is this not evidence that “aionios” was sometimes used to signify unbounded periods of time?
But, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, the same word or words can have quite different meanings and connotations in different contexts. For example, the phrase “alpha and omega” can be used to simply signify the first and last words of the Greek alphabet. But, as used in Revelation in reference to Jesus, it takes on a much broader meaning, i.e., existing from the beginning of time and through eternity.
Rev. 22:7 – “Behold, I come quickly; blessed is he that keep the sayings of the prophecy of this book.” (KJV)

The Greek word "tachu" is translated as "quickly" in this passage and in Rev, 3:11, 22:12, and 22:20. How do you think this word should be translated in these passages?
Are you prepared to PROVE that the Bible is god’s revelation to us. You do realize that using the Bible to prove itself is circular reasoning, do you not?
Example: The Hebrew word “barak” is translated 302 times in the KJV Bible as “bless.” It is also used 6 times to mean the exact opposite, i.e., “curse” (4) or “blaspheme” (2). For example, in Job 1:11, it is translated as “curse” - “But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.” This is an example of context determining the meaning of a word that can have opposite meanings.

Insanity is to profess certainty about something that rests on inconclusive evidence.

TonyN

I only have time for one more post.
Darby is just plain wrong. I can hopefully post a translation of Timeus which disproves him sometime in the future.

Sorry friend, but the KJV is not inspired. The Septuagint translation from Hebrew into Greek by Hebrew/Greek scholars a couple thousand years ago uses the word eulogesei for "bless" for barak in Job 1:11. Barak does not have opposite meanings in the Sacred texts. It is bless in every case. What I personally think is that someone would bless God in a condescending way which is wrong like in a fit of anger. When Job's wife told Job to barak God (bless God) she wanted him to do it in a disparagingly way.

DBT

I said, there is no proof - but Paleography, the testimonies of the writers of the time, references in other works that we can better date....give a fair indication of their dating. So unless new evidence comes to light, there is no reason to think that their dating is flawed.

Al Fresco has already covered that issue very well. We are just going around in circles.

DBT

How can you tell? How do you personally determine which translations are supposed to be inspired?

Al Fresco

Well now that certainly provides the specific rebuttal I was looking for, not.
Finally something we both agree upon. That puts it in the same category as all the rest of the Bible translations.
The use of “bless” does not make sense in this context. This is a story in which god praises Job for his devotion and the devil responds (to paraphrase), “Yes, but you have always protected him and made him prosperous. But take all that away from him now, and I’ll bet he will curse you.” As a result, god gives the devil power to test Job’s faithfulness to show the devil that he is wrong. (Job 1:6-12) The devil then, with god’s blessing, proceeds to make life miserable for Job and his family.

The word translated as “But” at the beginning of verse 11 is “’uwlam” which means “but” or “however.” The use of this word makes it clear that “barak” is used in a context that would evoke a negative response.

The KJV was translated directly from the Masoretic text which is the Hebrew text of the Tanakh approved for general use in Judaism. Robin Lane Fox in “The Authorized Version” has the following to say about the Greek translations of the early Hebrew texts:
“Their Hebrew texts were written in a Hebrew script with consonants but not fully expressed vowels, a system which could lead to ambiguity in places where no living tradition of recitation or interpretation preserved the words’ sense. Inevitably , they misunderstood and mistranslated from tine to time. They also had their pet words and little touches, so that the translation of individual books into Greek varies quite widely.” “It is not even clear exactly what the first translators wrote. Their translations were revised by fellow Jews, and again by Christians, from the first century BC to the early fourth century AD. These revisions tended to take the Greek ever further from its earliest Hebrew base, and they underlie most of the Greek which we have now.”

Any notion of divine inspiration and error-free translation in the case of the Septuagint is wishful thinking at best.