Dad on Youtube

[dad]

Even this Christian site readily admits that the gospels were written in Greek:

The Language of the Gospel


Again, guess who the evidence supports. Not dad.

Without evidence you fail.

?? Who cares if they were written in Persian, or French? What I take exception with is the snide insinuation, nay blatant accusation even, that the records that were put in (whatever language they got someone to put it) were somehow not from those folks who we knew them to be from.

 

[Subduction Zone]

?? Who cares if they were written in Persian, or French? What I take exception with is the snide insinuation, nay blatant accusation even, that the records that were put in (whatever language they got someone to put it) were somehow not from those folks who we knew them to be from.

Once again the evidence supports my claims.

The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

 

[dad]

Once again the evidence supports my claims.

The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses.

Yes some were! That is not determined by who they hired or used to make the official copy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes some were! That is not determined by who they hired or used to make the official copy.

Show the evidence that they were.

So far the evidence says no.

 

[Strathos]

He makes the sun to shine on the wicked and the righteous. Even the Sumerians (as wild as their pagan records might be) spoke of very long life spans.

It makes no sense to assume that God sent pixies around to the gardens of the good folks, so that only their trees grew at fast rates, or that half the world lived 1000 years, the rest 70!

I thought you said the pagan records of long-lived beings were demons/spirits.

 

[dad]

Show the evidence that they were.

So far the evidence says no.

Absurd. Looking at what language we used for some official version of a record does nothing like you claim.

 

[dad]

I thought you said the pagan records of long-lived beings were demons/spirits.

No. The accurate years they lived is another matter. The basic fact that they admitted very very very long lives in the past is the issue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absurd. Looking at what language we used for some official version of a record does nothing like you claim.

There was no "official record".

Sadly the fact that the gospels were written in Greek shows that they are not the mythical accounts of the apostles. Keep trying dad. One day you may be actually right on a claim.

 

[dad]

There was no "official record".

The records as given in whatever language and preserved were official, until they were gathered and compiled into the bible. Then that was official.

Sadly the fact that the gospels were written in Greek shows that they are not the mythical accounts of the apostles.

Absurd. I could hire a Greek or anyone I want to make a book in any language I want.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The records as given in whatever language and preserved were official, until they were gathered and compiled into the bible. Then that was official.
Absurd. I could hire a Greek or anyone I want to make a book in any language I want.

Then show the evidence that they did.

The disciples at that time were not known to be rolling in dough.

And again, the works don't have the hallmarks of being translated. They have the hallmarks of being written in Greek.

 

[anyathesword]

There was no "official record".

Sadly the fact that the gospels were written in Greek shows that they are not the mythical accounts of the apostles. Keep trying dad. One day you may be actually right on a claim.

Wait, what are you saying? Since the gospels were written in Greek, they show that they are not mythical accounts? I'm lost.

 

[RealityCheck]

Wait, what are you saying? Since the gospels were written in Greek, they show that they are not mythical accounts? I'm lost.

"Of the apostles" he said. Meaning the apostles did not write them.

 

[dad]

"Of the apostles" he said. Meaning the apostles did not write them.

They were responsible and at least wrote by proxy using another person.

 

[RealityCheck]

Besides the Gospels there are other books of the Bible, you know?

Greek was the dominant language and culture back in the day. All manuscripts like the Old Testament were translated into Greek.

There are qoutes from the Gospels quoting the Septuigant of the Old Testament.

So why would Matthew and Mark and John not able to speak or write Greek? It was the dominant culture back then.

Because learning to write any language, much less write in another language, was for scholars, not fishermen and shepherds and such. Merely because you can speak the language doesn't mean you can write it.

It's very unlikely even Jesus spoke Greek. The dominant local language in Palestine was Aramaic in those days. Being an insular culture it's unlikely the common Jews of Palestine would care to learn an international language like Greek. That was for the Romans, or the really scholarly Jews. Or Paul, since he was both.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They were responsible and at least wrote by proxy using another person.

The timing of when they were written makes that claim extremely dubious too. The earliest gospel was written at least 30 years after Jesus' death. John was written about 70 years after the event. It is no wonder that the last gospel written had the most magic in it. Stories grow with the telling. Back then just as they do today.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Your claim that God copied from pagans is laughable.

Humans copy. Gods don't seem to do anything.
Clearly, you haven't read the epic of gilgamesh. You should.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The book was not invented by me.

The natural laws of nature being changed is not mentioned by said book. That's all you.

No. The reason I point out that our laws really are dependent on time and are not known to be eternal, is to strip evos of the excuses they have used to believe in the godless religion they have thought was science!

That's nonsense. And you probably know it as well.

Reality is bigger than the few inches in front of your nose actually.

I don't really on only my senses. My senses are not that thrustworthy actually. Which is why we invent tools. For example, my senses alone are not enough to tell the tempurature outside. I could feel cold on a hot day, and I could feel hot on a cold day (all it takes is having a little fever or something and my senses will no longer work properly).

You see? The easiest person to fool is yourself.

You could arrest God, and bring Him to earth for a trail, and have Him admit He actually lied. Until then, guess who is True?

Either you didn't understand my question, or you answered it without realising it.

The point was, off coure, that if your bible is wrong, it would mean that the god depicted therein does not exist.

But off course, you understood that. You just can't bring yourself to admitting that you might be wrong. Because you fear that.

Have a dose of intellectual honesty.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Unfortunatly the Bible was written by more than just 'goat herders'. You should know that, right?

It's figure of speech. The fact is that that society was ruled by ignorance and superstition. Not a single person at that time understood forces like genetics, gravity, relativity, plate tectonics, germs, etc. And it shows in those texts.

You were not in the past, the long past. Written history recorded what happened in nature such as the Flood.

The flood definatly, demonstrably did not happen. It's been falsified to hell and back. It's disproven, debunked, shown false.

It predicts things we should observe today which we don't. Meaning that it didn't happen. Ever. If you're going to take the story literally, I can only tell you that you are wrong and that you're believing false things.

Geology and genetics rule out such a flood ever took place. It's literally impossible. And I'm not even talking about the physics involved. Purely by circumstantial evidence - or rather, MISSING circumstantial evidence.

IF the flood took place, we should find a global geological flood layer (which we don't) and all life should have an identical genetic bottleneck (which it hasn't). It definatly did not happen. There's no way around it and it's not up for debate. It's ruled out. It's false.

Answer me this. How are you sure that the laws of nature were exactly the same as they are now?

1. we observe them to be constant
2. our model of physics assumes them to be constant and it works
3. there is no model that works that allows for changeable laws
4. the universe looks exactly like it should look if the laws were constant
5. burden of proof shifting... YOU people are the ones claiming that they were different in the past, upto you to prove it. (and no, some warped reading of an ancient book is not evidence)

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can science predict the future?

Yes. And the only reason it can do so, is because the laws of nature are constant.

Here's a prediction: jump from the empire state building. You will be falling at 9.81 meters per second per second. And no amount of praying will change that.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No. People will still be alive on earth when the sun goes out. Soon too....get saved people, avoid the frightful times ahead.

Care to put a date on it? So I can put a reminder in my phone to laugh at you the very next day.