Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[DeistPaladin]

Well just a second ago you claimed that 1/2 of Paul's epistles are dubious - who's fringy now?

Really? You're going to reply with the tu quoque/red herring combo? You're not going to defend your fringy beliefs that the dates of Gospel authorship can be pushed earlier than 50 CE but reply with "oh yeah, well, so are you on this different topic"?

Fine. We do know these sacred documents changed over time. We do know that interpolation was a problem with sacred documents. We do know that pseudo-epigraphy was a problem and even you admit that with the Pastoral Epistles. Since out debate on that subject is merely about the scale of the problem, I think I'm on solid ground. You, on the other hand, have only flimsy rationalizations to justify your ridiculous early dates of authorship (ala, "Gee, the story says... so it must be..." ).

No, it is not impossible.

When I said "the burden of proof is in your backyard", it's to suggest you need to do better than "nuh-uh-uh".

You have given no clear reason

How about the fact that Matthew cleans up Mark's theological fuck ups? Mark wouldn't have made these theological fuck ups if he'd been copying from Matthew.

and your appeal to my intellect

I'm starting to wonder about that strategy as well.

Almost all of Mark is found within Matthew, yet the same is not true with Luke.

Gee, why would that be? Perhaps it was because Matthew took Mark's Gospel and elaborated on it? And perhaps Luke just didn't copy Mark quite as much? Seems a pretty simple and straightforward explanation to me.

Proponents of the two-source hypothesis claim that Matthew "favoured" Mark and that Luke "favoured" Q.

Q...
is...
a...
hypothetical...
document.

...c. 60 AD and that's too late for Matthew. Matthew ...can not have been written later than c. 45 AD and most probably (if there was no Mark Gospel) you wouldn't date it later than 40 AD.

Well, you just go on believing that, then.

What? Spider-man never...

The point was you can't use the time frame of the story to suggest the story wasn't written later. Can you bring some real evidence to the table to justify your ridiculous and outlandish beliefs about the dates of Gospel publication?

It works to my advantage? LOL!

Yeah, the heterodox Christianities kind of work against the narrative of the "early church" pushed by Christian folklore.

No there really aren't, there just isn't concrete external proof, but there are not "numerous and glaring problems".

Well, we can go into them once you answer my question.

I can show you that most translations (except for instance for the KJV which is why you have KJO nutters) in their prefix make it explicit that no translation is perfect, no translation can exactly convert the Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic texts into another language.

Are you done? OK, can you answer my question now? Can you name for me one (1) professional translation that lists "before" instead of "during" or "when" in the body of Luke 2:2?

In the same way, Greek has - and so does English for that matter - words with dual-meaning that can mean one thing or another in the correct context.

Right. And if the story describes a man on a mount of dirt throwing a ball toward a batter and catcher, a responsible translation from English to another language will use the word "pitch" that refers to the throwing of a ball and not a musical note or the setting up of a tent.

The words "before" and "during" convey two very different meanings. I don't speak Koine Greek but even if there was a word in that language that could have either meaning, there must be a contextual way of distinguishing the two, else the language would not be useful in communication.

Therefore, in translating Luke 2:2, we do not just shrug our shoulders and go with whichever word, "before" or "during", suits us better. "Luke" (or whoever the author was) intended either one or the other. One translation is right and the other is wrong. Our dilemma is determining which.

Now, if ALL of the thousands of scholars, each working independently, have all arrived at the same conclusion that "when" or "during" is the one that goes in the body, even if they footnote the "controversy" (and most don't even do that much), it seems to me like an overwhelming consensus among scholars that Luke intended to refer to the census "during" the administration of Quirinius. Why do you suppose they all arrived at the wrong conclusion on the fairly objective topic of language translation?

In the clear and certain context that Quirinius administered only one census and one only, the reading "first" is clearly nonsensical, and Luke has to be referring to an earlier census.

Interesting. What makes you say so and not that "first" refers to the first direct taxation of Judea, since Rome had only recently acquired direct control of the province and wouldn't have administered such a census while it was a client kingdom ruled by the Herodian family?