My Finch Challenge

[AV1611VET]

It really was a simple question which you don't need to dance around - at the time Paul was writing, what did "doulos" mean?

Here, I'll make it easy for you:

I'll take a guess and say "doulos" meant "slave".

If not, I'll take another guess and say it meant "one who should be beaten for fun at one's leisure."

Am I close?

 

[AV1611VET]

If anyone wants to pick up the mantle that Bear dropped when he went offline, I'll be more than happy to continue the discussion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Here, I'll make it easy for you:

I'll take a guess and say "doulos" meant "slave".

If not, I'll take another guess and say it meant "one who should be beaten for fun at one's leisure."

Am I close?

It did, indeed, mean slave. So your assertion that Paul never called himself a slave is demonstrably incorrect.

 

[AV1611VET]

It did, indeed, mean slave. So your assertion that Paul never called himself a slave is demonstrably incorrect.

Then show me the source document, or admit you're taking it at faith value.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Then show me the source document, or admit you're taking it at faith value.

Huh? You think the translators just made up Paul's letter to the Romans?

 

[AV1611VET]

Huh? You think the translators just made up Paul's letter to the Romans?

What translators? the King James translators? they wrote "servant."

Remember my former post?

DeepL Translator: The world's most accurate translator, translated it thusly:

1. Christ's servant
2. slave of Christ

The King James translators used "servant," so why do you want me to use "slave"?

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What translators? the King James translators? they wrote "servant."

Remember my former post?

DeepL Translator: The world's most accurate translator, translated it thusly:

1. Christ's servant
2. slave of Christ

The King James translators used "servant," so why do you want me to use "slave"?

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

I didn't ask what word William Barlow's team chose to use 1600 years after Paul wrote the letter, I asked what the word meant at the time Paul wrote it.

 

[AV1611VET]

I didn't ask what word William Barlow's team chose to use 1600 years after Paul wrote the letter, I asked what the word meant at the time Paul wrote it.

Don't know.

You seem to think it was that Greek you posted.

Assuming Paul even wrote it in Greek, it probably meant what it means today: "slave" or "servant."

You have to assume too that Paul even used that ambiguous word.

In any event, I don't care what word he used.

If it differs from the King James Bible, it's wrong in any language.

 

[VirOptimus]

Don't know.

You seem to think it was that Greek you posted.

Assuming Paul even wrote it in Greek, it probably meant what it means today: "slave" or "servant."

You have to assume too that Paul even used that ambiguous word.

In any event, I don't care what word he used.

If it differs from the King James Bible, it's wrong in any language.

Then why does the King James bible state that Jesus turned water into wine and you state he turned it into grape juice?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Don't know.

You seem to think it was that Greek you posted.

Assuming Paul even wrote it in Greek, it probably meant what it means today: "slave" or "servant."

You have to assume too that Paul even used that ambiguous word.

In any event, I don't care what word he used.

If it differs from the King James Bible, it's wrong in any language.

And there we have it - you know exactly what the word Paul used meant, but you're not prepared to admit it.

Bibliolatry is a sin.

 

[AV1611VET]

And there we have it - you know exactly what the word Paul used meant, but you're not prepared to admit it.

Bibliolatry is a sin.

I'm not going to belabor this much longer.

You posted a Greek word and asked me what it meant.

Twice, I told you what it means.

Third time: "slave" or "servant".

You want to claim that that is the exact word used by Paul, and I'm more than willing to agree with you for the sake of arguing; but I want to make it clear that you don't have the source document, so not only do you not know what word Paul used, you don't even know what language it was.

Anyway, I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to say it was the word you posted.

But now, you want me to agree with you that it was "slave", and you're outvoted two-to-one here.

Bungle Bear: "slave"
King James Bible: "servant"
AV1611VET: "servant"

Get over it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You found his letter to the Romans!? was it lying next to the Shroud of Turin?

If it was next to the shroud, then it almost certainly would also be a fake.

There are many manuscripts of Saul's letter to the Romans that pre-date the shroud. Some by up to a millennium.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm not going to belabor this much longer.

You posted a Greek word and asked me what it meant.

Twice, I told you what it means.

Third time: "slave" or "servant".

You want to claim that that is the exact word used by Paul, and I'm more than willing to agree with you for the sake of arguing; but I want to make it clear that you don't have the source document, so not only do you not know what word Paul used, you don't even know what language it was.

Anyway, I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to say it was the word you posted.

But now, you want me to agree with you that it was "slave", and you're outvoted two-to-one here.

Bungle Bear: "slave"
King James Bible: "servant"
AV1611VET: "servant"

Get over it.

And the answer to post 209 is?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm not going to belabor this much longer.

You posted a Greek word and asked me what it meant.

Twice, I told you what it means.

Third time: "slave" or "servant".

You want to claim that that is the exact word used by Paul, and I'm more than willing to agree with you for the sake of arguing; but I want to make it clear that you don't have the source document, so not only do you not know what word Paul used, you don't even know what language it was.

Anyway, I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to say it was the word you posted.

But now, you want me to agree with you that it was "slave", and you're outvoted two-to-one here.

Bungle Bear: "slave"
King James Bible: "servant"
AV1611VET: "servant"

Get over it.

You dance, you avoid answering questions and you dissemble a lot. The one thing you fail to do is provide direct, honest answers when you know you'll look foolish. You are a grand master at pigeon chess.

But let's run with your foolishness: KJV translates the word as "servant". What word did they translate? I asked before if you thought they'd made up the story, but you failed to answer. So, did William Barlow's team have a document to work from, and of so what language was it in?

You also said you'd accept that the word in question was "doulos". I have repeatedly asked you what that word meant in 1st century. You continually ignore the question and tell me what somebody chose to translate it as in 17th century.

Try giving a direct and honest answer for a change. You might find it feels good.

 

[AV1611VET]

You dance,

Suit yourself.

I tried, but I can't make a light bulb come on by itself.

 

[VirOptimus]

Suit yourself.

I tried, but I can't make a light bulb come on by itself.

Post 209?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Suit yourself.

I tried, but I can't make a light bulb come on by itself.

Here's an idea - if you want the light bulb to come on you could try giving an honest answer

 

[AV1611VET]

Here's an idea - if you want the light bulb to come on you could try giving an honest answer

Would you recognize one if I gave it?

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why does the King James bible state that Jesus turned water into wine and you state he turned it into grape juice?

Avoiding the question tells us you cant answer it. And I understand why.

 

[AV1611VET]

Avoiding the question tells us you cant answer it. And I understand why.

Because we've discussed it before?