Reply to Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Did Christian homophobia come from a mistranslation of the Bible?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed in 1st century Judea.

Two events subject to universal assent from the life of Jesus are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Those two events being acknowledged as true are remarkable, as the person (Jesus) was a peasant and not a ruler or military leader.

Among scholars, a growing majority considers the Gospels to be in the genre of Ancient Greco-Roman biographies, the same genre as Plutarch's Life of Alexander and Life of Caesar. Typically, ancient biographies written shortly after the death of the subject include substantial history.

Scholars consider Luke's works (Luke-Acts) to be "pure" history. Luke is considered the greatest historian in the genre of history.

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay was a British archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor, and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.

At the time first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in the Book of Acts were without defined location. Later in life he stated, "Further study… showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement",[9]: p.85  also stating that one "may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's".[9]: p.89

Specifically, Ramsay's studies in Asia Minor led him to accept the trustworthiness of Luke's account in the Book of Acts. He wrote:
"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now attempt to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not lie then in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely but more recently I found myself often brought in contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne in upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvellous truth."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

The Bible has proved remarkably accurate. By scholars and historians, people who love to find inconsistencies and errors. [/quote]

It is remarkable that Luke is considered pure history.

The historical trustworthiness of Luke has indeed been acknowledged by many biblical critics.

No archeological finding has disproved the New Testament, and Luke’s gospel has proven especially accurate, with references to geographical and cultural landmarks later confirmed by archaeological digs in the Middle East.

This trend of archaeology corroborating Biblical accounts continued so consistently that in 1959 Rabbi Dr. Nelson Glueck declared "no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference."[/quote]

Nor has any archaeological discovery has ever controverted The Book of Mormon.  Or Harry Potter. Does that mean they are true?

Loads of scientific evidence has controverted the bible.  Here's the link again for easy reference!  Citations within!

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_scientific_errors

[/quote]

Your link does not provide an author.

None of your links do. You don’t even know who you are citing. You are taking anonymous webpages as truth without even knowing the identity of the person or people who wrote the information.

Let’s pretend every single point in your  sources are factual- the author has committed plagiarism by not citing the work of the people who they are quoting.

That might not be applicable to your sources (maybe? possibly? spin the wheel!) because it seems the information is written by a (we are guessing but no one knows, could be chat gpt or a bot) single author, who is anonymous and doesn’t cite sources so he or she can claim authorship. (yet they do not put their name to their “work”)

However, since they remain anonymous, anonymous “facts” are unverifiable and not accepted by any reputable person or organization or institution.

You like them though. Good for you. You live your life on the edge- no sources or authors, just raw, unverified data and anonymous ramblings. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics