FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.

Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Reload this Page The Original Language of the New Testament?
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM
Search

 
Page 6 of 11 « First 45 6 78 Last »
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-01-2006, 10:17 AM   #51
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default
There is discussion about a potential signing of Luke.
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 11:56 AM   #52
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 740
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaleq13 View Post
It is my understanding that the current consensus of modern scholarship is that they were originally anonymous.
Indeed--although I wouldn't quite call it a "consensus," but rather a "majority"--however, it is my understanding that even those who believe they were anonymous realize it is reasonably possible one or more were not. Also, as Malachi noted I think even that majority might be waning for Luke.
hatsoff is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 12:03 PM   #53
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Most mainstream translations after the KJV have been done by the top scholars of the field of the time.


spin
Come on Spin you have claimed that the evidence for the peshitta has been peer reviewed.

Who did it?

What arguments did they examine?

Do I sense you wish to avoid the details here?
judge is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 12:12 PM   #54
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
Indeed--although I wouldn't quite call it a "consensus," but rather a "majority"--however, it is my understanding that even those who believe they were anonymous realize it is reasonably possible one or more were not. Also, as Malachi noted I think even that majority might be waning for Luke.
Except that it is thought that it wasnt signed by anyone named Luke
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 12:16 PM   #55
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky View Post
Now, here's an argument even a child would understand... But the NT professors are still having trouble understanding this!

:Cheeky:

Yuri.
You hit it perfectly this time, Yuri. You're absolutely correct: it's an argument that children understand, but not college-trained professionals, because, unlike children, professors can easily see the fallacy in the statement. It's a non-sequitur, pure and simple. Just because Christianity started in Palestine, does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the gospels, written decades after the events are purpoted to have happened, were written there as well.

Was Lucretius writing in Greek because that's where Epicureanism was started? The argument is shallow and insipid. Sorry Doug, try again.
Chris Weimer is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 12:27 PM   #56
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Colorado
Posts: 8,674
Default
Not only that, but we dont really know if Christianity really started in Palestine anyway, thats just the claim of the writers of the story....
Malachi151 is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 12:40 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 740
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malachi151 View Post
Except that it is thought that it wasnt signed by anyone named Luke
Ha ha, very funny. I meant "GLuke" for anyone seriously confused by my statement.
hatsoff is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 01:09 PM   #58
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Bli Bli
Posts: 3,135
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Weimer View Post
Just because Christianity started in Palestine, does not in any way, shape, or form mean that the gospels, written decades after the events are purpoted to have happened, were written there as well..
Chris you don't know when the gospels were written.

It always amazes me how supposed skeptics are never skeptical about their own beliefs
judge is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 04:02 PM   #59
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky View Post
How does it acknowledge its derivation?
By improving the text.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
But maybe it was based on something else?
How would that explain Latinisms and explanations for a Latin audience?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
Why not?
It's dependence on Mk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuri Kuchinsky
The original names were not the same as later names.
That's right. Take Matthew for example.


spin
spin is offline  
Old 11-01-2006, 04:03 PM   #60
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by judge View Post
Come on Spin you have claimed that the evidence for the peshitta has been peer reviewed.
You have misread what I said.


spin
spin is offline  
 
Page 6 of 11 « First 45 6 78 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:07 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.