Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI believe that the Gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke say what they say. That's neutral enough i think when looking at what you are projecting onto them and what you have to ignore in order to do so.
And your lack of belief doesn't exactly place you in a neutral position to judge what has or hasn't been substantiated now does it?
4 edits
Originally posted by FMFActually you don't. Nowhere does Luke say that the penitant thief was mocking Jesus. Your opinion about what Luke is describing is biased whether you want to admit it or not. Yes I have ignored your biased opinion and interpretation of Luke. I am entitled to do so just as you are 'entitled' to ignore what every commentary and scholar have to say about the passage.
I believe that the Gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke say what they say. That's neutral enough i think when looking at what you are projecting onto them and what you have to ignore in order to do so.
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFYes but you don't believe what they say to be true. So you are clearly biased. And you add your own interpretation about what Luke is describing which makes no sense whatsoever. And your interpretation has no explanation as to why one of the thieves was saved. Mine does. And makes sense.
I believe that the Gospels of Mathew Mark and Luke say what they say. That's neutral enough i think when looking at what you are projecting onto them and what you have to ignore in order to do so.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou have to ignore what two Gospels say about it to reach your interpretation.
Actually you don't. Nowhere does Luke say that the penitant thief was mocking Jesus. Your opinion about what Luke is describing is biased whether you want to admit it or not. Yes I have ignored your biased opinion and interpretation of Luke. I am entitled to do so just as you are 'entitled' to ignore what every commentary and scholar have to say about the passage.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkYou have to make an unsubstantiated makes-no-sense assertion about someone's "faith" (based merely on a few words he said), and ignore the fact that Mark and Matthew describe the incident as one of mockery, to arrive at your intepretation.
Yes but you don't believe what they say to be true. So you are clearly biased. And you add your own interpretation about what Luke is describing which makes no sense whatsoever. And your interpretation has no explanation as to why one of the thieves was saved. Mine does. And makes sense.
Originally posted by FMFExcuse me but this has been translated just that way in several other Bible.
EN ARCHE EN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS EN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS
It seems pretty clear that the translation of this was deliberately rendered differently from all other Bibles (and certain Bible scholars were deliberately misquoted and misrepresented to justify it) so as to create the New World Translation version which - it should come as no surpr ...[text shortened]... rganization's ideology.
http://www.letusreason.org/jw38.htm
http://biblehub.com/john/1-1.htm
The NWT used master texts for it's translations.
A master text is accepted by most Bible scholars as the best translation available
according to the latest ancient scrolls available.
What Bible do you use and what does it say at John 1:1? Also, what scrols were used in
that particular translation?
Originally posted by roigamBe clear now. Are you - or are you not - claiming that the NWT translation of "EN ARCHE EN HO LOGOS, KAI HO LOGOS EN PROS TON THEON, KAI THEOS EN HO LOGOS" as 'In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god' is "accepted by most Bible scholars as the best translation available"?
Excuse me but this has been translated just that way in several other Bible.
The NWT used master texts for it's translations.
A master text is accepted by most Bible scholars as the best translation available
according to the latest ancient scrolls available.
What Bible do you use and what does it say at John 1:1? Also, what scrols were used in
that particular translation?
Originally posted by FMFWhen did I ignore them? They describe the initial mocking, Luke describes the penitent thief at the end. Bible scholars agree with my interpretation. That's enough for me. Your jibber jabber doesn't bother me in the slightest.
You have to ignore what two Gospels say about it to reach your interpretation.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhere do Mark and Matthew claim to be describing "the initial mocking"? You're making stuff up again. You are ignoring the fact that those Gospels describe the incident as thieves mocking Jesus. Luke provides the dialogue that demonstrates what Mark and Matthew are referring to. What "faith" are you referring to? What "penitence" are you referring to?
When did I ignore them? They describe the initial mocking, Luke describes the penitent thief at the end. Bible scholars agree with my interpretation. That's enough for me. Your jibber jabber doesn't bother me in the slightest.