(November 10, 2013 at 12:17 am)Aractus Wrote: No, once again you're trowing two things together from different places, and claiming they're the same.In what way?
Quote:As for "changed over time", that argument is dead and settled. You can't show me any instances of where a verse has been intentionally removed, can you?I can show you that the entire ending for Mark (after 16:8) was added at a later time. Jesus' famous "cast the first stone" story was a later addition. These are changes that are not in dispute.
Quote:All I'm proposing is a date that is 1 decade and a few years sooner, that's it.And that's what makes you fringy.
Quote:Why? I'm not proposing that Matthew is written first, I'm simply stating that it is possible.How is it possible? Be sure to address the theological fuck-ups of Mark that Matthew corrects and how and why Mark would have ignored these corrections in your answer.
Quote:I already answered the question. It's not the translator's job to "fix" the Bible. They translate the way they feel is best, and they agree that the best way to read that sentence in the original Greek is "after"; however they also agree that "before" also makes sense.No. "before" and "during" are two very different words, just like "yes" and "no" are two different words. At least one of those two translations must be wrong. Otherwise, Koine Greek must have been a useless means of communication.
Quote:Yes the context was, as I've explained many times, that Luke's readers already knew which census he was talking about, so he uses a very brief reference to it and doesn't elaborate.There could have been no earlier census in Judea. That province was under Herodian, not Roman, control. Rome didn't take direct control of that province until 6 CE after Herod Archelaus was deposed.
Quote:If you want an internal argument, consider Acts 5:37, which refers to the census under Quirinius (you can go and check that scholars agree with this), notice the completely different language used to refer to it?Of no consequence since a different author wrote Acts.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
