439 discrepancies - DPChallenge Forums

11/19/2010 01:03:47 PM · #54

Originally posted by Nullix:

I'm not talking about just dying for the faith by beheading, I'm talking about painful death. You think water boarding is bad? Check out some of the ways early Christians died.

If someone chooses death by
being mauled by a lion
scourged and scraped with iron hooks
burned alive
stretched with both feet a night and a day on the rack
bound and suspended on a stake, being exposed as food for wild animals

because of what they believe, I think there's something behind their beliefs.

Oh man I just can't let this one go... haha...

If someone chooses death by
being stabbed by a stranger
beaten and disfigured with wooden bats
dangling from an end of a rope
disowned and abandoned by their families
tied to a barbed wire fence in winter, being exposed as food for wild animals

because of who they love, I think there's something behind their love.

Gosh that was easy.

The lack of self-awareness and sensitivity to irony I see from the faithful is practically comedic at times. Do tell... if you're really going to trot out the argument that just because people face hardship for their beliefs and stick to them anyway proves that their beliefs are sound... why haven't you just lost your fight against equal rights? Shouldn't we homosexuals have given up and been cowed into straightness by now, if we we're so darn wrong?

If someone chooses death by
a bomb strapped around their chest
burning to death in a fire
shot full of holes
isolated deep in enemy territory
on an airplaine full of panicking people who want to tear them apart

because of what they believe, I think there's something behind their beliefs.

I could do this all day, but I think my point is made. This is the logic we're dealing with here, folks.

Message edited by author 2010-11-19 13:05:16.

11/19/2010 01:14:43 PM · #55

Originally posted by Flash:

The context of the sentence concluded with "Regardless of their origin, the FACT remains that these are the words attributed to him and IF one is to study Christianity and specifically the Bible, then understaning the main characters message is a relevant foundation to start." I even used King Arthur and Zeus as further examples of my point - that if one were to study the teachings of King Arthur or Zeus, then including any words attributed as coming directly from them woyld be germain to the study.

Sure, one can study King Arthur, Zeus or the Bible whether or not the texts are false, untrue, made up, ficticious, inaccurate, etc. However, if you believe any of them to be historically accurate events and quotes (as you very clearly do in the latter case), then reality and accuracy are absolute requirements or any conclusions drawn from them are suspect at best and completely incorrect at worst. When you dismiss veracity of your source as irrelevant, AS YOU PLAINLY DID, then any arguments you make are necessarily unsupported apart from your own personal belief. Not only that, but the contradictory and archaic nature of the Bible requires any follower to pick and choose which parts to believe� very few modern Christians cure diseases with bird blood, stone adulterers or avoid mixed materials in their clothing. I stand by my post. By your own words and actions, you don't care if the Bible is a complete fabrication- only that [some parts] agree with what you choose to believe.

1. It is a FACT that the Red Letter Editions of the Bible are based on extant modern bibles, and therefore no more or less reliable than non red letter versions.
2. Yes, the words of a main character are useful for understanding a literary work, but without the original there will always be the possibility of MISunderstanding, the content is no more applicable to modern society than the supposed words of King Arthur, and wide latitude for interpretation renders it as useless for real world guidance as a horoscope.
3. Without the author's original work, we cannot know which words "smell" accurate. The oldest existing New Testament manuscripts are fragments from the 2nd and 3rd century, and we know nothing of the actual authors, their credentials or their motivations. How we know Mark wasn't the equivalent of a Jim Jones or David Kouresh follower, to be copied and embellished by subsequent authors? We don't.

11/19/2010 03:40:21 PM · #56

Originally posted by scalvert:

1. It is a FACT that the Red Letter Editions of the Bible are based on extant modern bibles, and therefore no more or less reliable than non red letter versions.
2. Yes, the words of a main character are useful for understanding a literary work, but without the original there will always be the possibility of MISunderstanding, the content is no more applicable to modern society than the supposed words of King Arthur, and wide latitude for interpretation renders it as useless for real world guidance as a horoscope.
3. Without the author's original work, we cannot know which words "smell" accurate. The oldest existing New Testament manuscripts are fragments from the 2nd and 3rd century, and we know nothing of the actual authors, their credentials or their motivations. How we know Mark wasn't the equivalent of a Jim Jones or David Kouresh follower, to be copied and embellished by subsequent authors? We don't.

There you go again... holding 2,000 year old documents up to modern standards of writing. You just can't do that. No 2,000 year old document will meet 21st century standards of accuracy, and that does not mean that it's inaccurate. Just because something is not accurate according to today's standard does not mean that it is void of accuracy all together. You have to hold 2,000 year old documents up to 2,000 year old standards. Why don't we just say that the Philadelphia Athletics won the 1905 World Series? After all, the 1905 series does not meet todays standards and requirements for professional baseball, and we have no proof that the game was officiated properly. Yea... let's go with that.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Given the circumstances in which it was compiled, it is highly unlikely that the bible records any speech accurately. It should be accorded the same degree of caution as we apply to other texts of the era: it must be read in the context of the intention of its compilers, and should not be treated as a literal or precise source of information.

What circumstances were the books of the Bible compiled in? How do you know it's unlikely that the records are accurate? For almost 2,000 nobody questioned the Bible's accuracy. What basis do you have for questioning its accuracy today? Have you found new evidence that was unavailable 500 or 1,000 years ago supporting these claims?

Message edited by author 2010-11-19 15:40:42.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

11/19/2010 04:31:24 PM · #57

Originally posted by Mousie:

These are all horrible ways of dying no matter what you believe. I don't think these people were given the choice, "Be straight or I'll stab you, beat you with a bat, hang you, ..." (Maybe the disowned though.)

These were also done by individuals, not the government.

Of course, it took Christians 300 years before we were accepted and able to practice in the open.

Only time will tell.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/19/2010 04:38:30 PM · #58

I have inserted my reply in bold...

Originally posted by scalvert:

Sure, one can study King Arthur, Zeus or the Bible whether or not the texts are false, untrue, made up, ficticious, inaccurate, etc. Finally. However, if you believe any of them to be historically accurate events and quotes (as you very clearly do in the latter case) My argument for study contained no such claim as to the historical accuracy of Christ's red letter words, then reality and accuracy are absolute requirements or any conclusions drawn from them are suspect at best and completely incorrect at worst. When you dismiss veracity of your source as irrelevant (the only irreleventcy is your repeated mis characterazation of my position), AS YOU PLAINLY DID (no again wrong), then any arguments you make are necessarily unsupported (support is not required to understand the basic premise that to study a teacher one must consider their words) apart from your own personal belief (belief has nothing to do my my premise). Not only that, but the contradictory and archaic nature of the Bible requires any follower to pick and choose which parts to believe (again - to understand a teacher one must find compatibility with their teachings) � very few modern Christians cure diseases with bird blood, stone adulterers or avoid mixed materials in their clothing (what does this have to do with the premise that in order to understand the nature of a religion called CHRISTIANITY, one must first understand the teacher?) Nothing. I stand by my post. By your own words and actions, you don't care if the Bible is a complete fabrication (the accuracy of the Bible has nothing to do with my argument that in order to understand the teacher one must consider their ascribed words)- only that [some parts] agree with what you choose to believe (the only belief I have put forth in this thread is that of using the red letter words ascribed to Christ as the core of his teaching and IF one was to believe in the teachings of the Bible and IF one was faced with an intrepretation, THEN they should use the red letters asa litmus for the intrepretation.)

1. It is a FACT that the Red Letter Editions of the Bible are based on extant modern bibles, and therefore no more or less reliable than non red letter versions. (reliability has nothing to do with my argument to use the red letters for purposes of a "Clause" as Matthew posted)
2. Yes, the words of a main character are useful for understanding a literary work (Exactly), but without the original there will always be the possibility of MISunderstanding (so what - it doesn't change the need to use what is ascribed), the content is no more applicable to modern society than the supposed words of King Arthur, and wide latitude for interpretation renders it as useless for real world guidance as a horoscope (this is your view).
3. Without the author's original work, we cannot know which words "smell" accurate (it doesn't matter for my argument to stand). The oldest existing New Testament manuscripts are fragments from the 2nd and 3rd century, and we know nothing of the actual authors, their credentials or their motivations. How we know Mark wasn't the equivalent of a Jim Jones or David Kouresh follower (it doesn't matter - even if he was - we would still need to use the words attributed to him to assist in any "interpretation), to be copied and embellished by subsequent authors? We don't.

At this point you are simply being bull headed. Disengenious and intentionally inaccurate. You are trying to morph my position into one which I did not state and that sir is a lie.

Flash

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

11/19/2010 04:52:12 PM · #59

my reply in bold...

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Despite your insistence of various facts, therein lies the problem......words that are much more accurate are ascribed, attributed, purported, because the FACT is.....we simply do not know (how is that germain to my simple point that if one was to study a teacher then they should include the words ascribed to them?). Biblical scholars disagree, the faithful disagree, believers choose what they will, or won't accept, so you have to understand that those of us, outside your little world, with a healthy dose of rational skepticism (your skepticism in clouding your reading of my posts) simply don't have much to go on. You can get as mad as you want, jump up and down and call us names, but you simply cannot present a cohesive argument that what you want us to believe is true. (I don't want you to believe anything. I want you to understand that IF one decided to study a religion based upon the teachings of a Christ, THEN it is prudent to include any words attributed to that Christ in the study. And IF an intrepretation was required then one should use the words ascribed to the teacher as a litmus.)

This is very simple.

Mousie

11/19/2010 05:02:12 PM · #60

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by Mousie:

Oh man I just can't let this one go... haha...

If someone chooses death by
being stabbed by a stranger
beaten and disfigured with wooden bats
dangling from an end of a rope
disowned and abandoned by their families
tied to a barbed wire fence in winter, being exposed as food for wild animals

because of who they love, I think there's something behind their love.

Gosh that was easy.

These are all horrible ways of dying no matter what you believe. I don't think these people were given the choice, "Be straight or I'll stab you, beat you with a bat, hang you, ..." (Maybe the disowned though.)

These were also done by individuals, not the government.

Of course, it took Christians 300 years before we were accepted and able to practice in the open.

Only time will tell.

Nice dodge of my question. Why did you reply again? To present yourself as hopelessly persecuted? You poor things!

Same sex partners have been around longer than your religion.

Given that, and the fact that we're still doing our thing today... doesn't that mean religion is wrong about homosexuality? We gays have precedent, and we've been enduring your violence for millennia... that must mean you are simply wrong on the issue of gay rights, based on your own logic. Gays endure, we must be right.

Okay, let's take that off the table a moment, and back up. You're simply wrong here, logic or no logic. That is, unless you don't consider a policeman's billy-club to be a wooden bat. I'll give you that one. Yet you pointedly ignore that FACT that governments are killing gays EVERY DAY around the globe... but that doesn't really count as government, right?

You get to speak globally... even historically... when discussing persecutions like being fed to lions and such, but I'm only allowed to talk about the government of the good old US of A, right? I mean, it can't possibly be that you're so blinded by your convictions that you ignore the reality around you when it doesn't support your position. I'm sure you're just unfairly reframing the debate about gay rights as a local issue because... uh...

Why is that again?

P.S. Even in the US police regularly raid gay bars and assault the patrons. That would be government oppression, no?

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/19/2010 05:18:04 PM · #61

This might be the first rant thread that doesn't go off topic...

11/19/2010 05:19:29 PM · #62

Originally posted by yanko:

This might be the first rant thread that doesn't go off topic...

lol!

11/19/2010 05:39:05 PM · #63

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

No 2,000 year old document will meet 21st century standards of accuracy, and that does not mean that it's inaccurate.

Veracity is not a 21st century standard. There are ancient works we do consider credible accounts of actual events... because the original manuscripts have survived, we know who wrote them, what his sources were and/or have corroborating evidence of the accounts from known independent sources. The Bible doesn't meet ANY of those standards.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

For almost 2,000 nobody questioned the Bible's accuracy.

You couldn't be more wrong! The bible hasn't even EXISTED for 2,000 years, and both its content and interpretation have been subject to criticism from the outset. The canonical composition of the Old Testament has always been a source of dispute between Christian groups: Protestants hold only the books of the Hebrew Bible to be canonical; Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox additionally consider the deuterocanonical books, a group of Jewish books, to be canonical. The first gospels were interpreted by anonymous authors from oral tradition decades after Jesus (a huge accuracy problem in itself), and the New Testament was not established until AD 393 by a group of church officials who literally decided which accounts to keep and which to throw out. A definitive list of canonical texts did not come from an Ecumenical Council until the Council of Trent (1545�63), and even then various group continued to disagree over which texts to use.

11/19/2010 06:08:28 PM · #64

Originally posted by scalvert:

Veracity is not a 21st century standard.

I'm not arguing that veracity is only a 21st century standard. I'm arguing that the standards for proving veracity have changed.

Originally posted by scalvert:

There are ancient works we do consider credible accounts of actual events... because the original manuscripts have survived, we know who wrote them, what his sources were and/or have corroborating evidence of the accounts from known independent sources. The Bible doesn't meet ANY of those standards.

I would appreciate an example if you can think of one off the top of your head.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

For almost 2,000 nobody questioned the Bible's accuracy.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson. What you're arguing is that the truthfulness of the Bible has been questioned over the past 2,000 years. I never said anything about truthfulness. I'm talking about accuracy. As far as I know the accuracy of the biblical texts were not challenged until the enlightenment. You can't change my argument at will and then tell me I'm wrong. So... you're wrong.

Message edited by author 2010-11-19 18:09:56.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

11/19/2010 06:28:24 PM · #65

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Matthew:
My original point (which you challenged) was that people are forced to come up with their own rules of interpretation.

No. Your position was that the Bible did not contain any "Clause" language and I replied that for me it does - the red letters -

"In any long contract one includes a clause that explains in the event of inconsistency which sections are to be read with priority (acknowledging that in any long set of governing rules under multiple authorship there will be inconsistencies). The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - "

Erm this is rather bizarre - you appear to have criticised me, then rather selectively (mis)quoted my post in order to justify your criticsm - perhaps forgetting that my original post is still there for anyone to see?

Originally posted by Matthew:

In any long contract one includes a clause that explains in the event of inconsistency which sections are to be read with priority (acknowledging that in any long set of governing rules under multiple authorship there will be inconsistencies). The bible doesn't come with a clause like that - and it means that people make up their own.

In an argument where I alleged that the spoken word is open to being re-interpreted for a political agenda before being written down, it is rather ironic that you are re-interpreting even my written word to suit your political agenda.

Your other points are downright bizarre. On the one hand you stress the importance of the red words, and on the other hand you state the irrelevance of their accuracy. If the precise words are irrelevant, then presumably the whole religion is just a vague sensibility? In which case, how can any specific position ever be justified?

If there was ever a conversation to prove that religions are interpreted by the individual then this is it.

Message edited by author 2010-11-19 18:28:49.

11/19/2010 06:32:51 PM · #66

Originally posted by Flash:

Without the author's original work, we cannot know which words "smell" accurate (it doesn't matter for my argument to stand). ...How do we know Mark wasn't the equivalent of a Jim Jones or David Kouresh follower (it doesn't matter - even if he was - we would still need to use the words attributed to him to assist in any "interpretation).

You've just declared that the words of Jesus should be studied carefully even if they're not his words, AND that it doesn't even matter if they're his words. That's only true in the total absence of reason or credibility. We could study, "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine," as words attributed to Thomas Jefferson. However since he never actually said that, any conclusions we might draw from the study would be completely irrelevant as insight into his "teachings." Attributed words hold no more value even within the study of the work than trying to interpret the meaning of a later restorer's brushstroke in a Van Gogh. There is not one parable, not a single phrase, that we know for sure was actually uttered by Jesus. Thus, even if we were naive enough to believe you're only interested in studying the literary work rather than its application to real world situations, your premise still fails.

11/19/2010 06:47:22 PM · #67

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I'm not arguing that veracity is only a 21st century standard. I'm arguing that the standards for proving veracity have changed.

Then you'll have to prove that. I seriously doubt you could make any claim you wanted to even in Roman times without having to back it up with evidence.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I would appreciate an example if you can think of one off the top of your head.

Tacitus meets several of those criteria. He even mentions Jesus in passing as the leader of the Christians (akin to mentioning Kouresh as the leader of the Branch Davidians).

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

What you're arguing is that the truthfulness of the Bible has been questioned over the past 2,000 years. I never said anything about truthfulness. I'm talking about accuracy. As far as I know the accuracy of the biblical texts were not challenged until the enlightenment.

When it takes the church hundreds of years to decide which texts were inspired by God, and they still don't agree, then accuracy is very much in doubt. When even the original versions of those texts, including complex stories and direct quotes, are in turn derived from decades of oral tradition rather than firsthand knowledge, inaccuracy is guaranteed. As for agreement within the church, if the accuracy had not been questioned, then there wouldn't have been competing versions of the Bible even before the Enlightenment.

Message edited by author 2010-11-19 18:51:44.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

11/19/2010 06:51:43 PM · #68

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scalvert:

There are ancient works we do consider credible accounts of actual events... because the original manuscripts have survived, we know who wrote them, what his sources were and/or have corroborating evidence of the accounts from known independent sources. The Bible doesn't meet ANY of those standards.

I would appreciate an example if you can think of one off the top of your head.

Pliny the Younger's account of the eruption of Vesuvius in Pompeii.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Everyone else is talking about whether the words written in the bible (which you read incredibly specific word by word nuance into) are an accurate report of Jesus's words. Given that they were written decades after the events by third parties in translation from the original Aramaic, and (as you say) the standards of accuracy were vastly different then from now - they almost certainly contain no precisely accurate quotes.

11/19/2010 07:46:27 PM · #69

Originally posted by scalvert:

Pliny the Younger's account of the eruption of Vesuvius in Pompeii.

That's fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by scalvert:

How do you know that Jesus' words in the Bible are translations from Aramaic to Greek? Last I heard that was just a poorly supported theory. Also, how do you know that Jesus words were written decades after they were spoken? How do you know that Jesus' followers didn't keep a record of his teachings as they were learning from him, and then merely copied those sayings into the gospels when they were written?

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

11/19/2010 08:46:59 PM · #70

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

I understood that Jesus spoke Aramaic and that the earliest gospels used for modern translations are in Greek so I guess I'm presuming that there was an element of translation. If you're telling me that Jesus spoke Greek, then I'd be interested to know more.

As for timings, I'm afraid I have to rely on the research of others

Originally posted by wikipedia:

Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [31]) view as follows:

* Mark: c. 68�73,[32] c 65-70[3]
* Matthew: c. 70�100.[32] c 80-85.[3] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80�100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[32] c 80-85[3]
* John: c 90-100,[3] c. 90�110,[33] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

On the likelihood that a contemporaneous record of Jesus' words was made - well it seems unlikely given the attitude to accuracy (as you say) and if it was, then the gospels show scant evidence of it. (eg no reference to the thirteenth apostle, George the documentary maker...)

11/19/2010 09:01:03 PM · #71

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

The earliest gospel was written at least three decades after the events they portray took place, and Jesus didn't speak Greek or write anything down.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

How do you know that Jesus' followers didn't keep a record of his teachings as they were learning from him, and then merely copied those sayings into the gospels when they were written?

90% of the population was completely illiterate at the time. Reading and writing was the exclusive domain of the upper class, not poor fishermen and shepherds, and most of the apostles would have been dead years before the first gospel was written. Any witnesses still alive would be elderly and extremely unlikely to recall exact quotes and complex details decades later.

It's worth noting that the early church likely depended upon general illiteracy to keep people from questioning their authority. Indeed, the Oxford Constitutions of 1408, promoted by Thomas Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, prohibited the translation of the Bible into English as "dangerous to the faith." Few people today are even aware that "the text of our New Testament is a hypothetical reconstruction that is identical to no single manuscript extant in the first few centuries of Christianity. Our canon could have been made of many combinations and include books we don�t consider part of �biblical studies.�"

Message edited by author 2010-11-19 21:36:14.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

11/19/2010 09:12:24 PM · #72

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Thanks for the unnecessary history lesson. What you're arguing is that the truthfulness of the Bible has been questioned over the past 2,000 years. I never said anything about truthfulness. I'm talking about accuracy. As far as I know the accuracy of the biblical texts were not challenged until the enlightenment. You can't change my argument at will and then tell me I'm wrong. So... you're wrong.

Okay... let me see if I understand you correctly. Truthfulness is not your primary issue of concern, you are more interested in accuracy. So, it could be a blatant lie that was duly recorded, and if this lie can be traced back to its origin, you are okay with that...

Okay, now I do understand your stance.

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-11-19 21:13:39.

11/19/2010 10:22:43 PM · #73

Originally posted by Matthew:

Jesus did speak Aramaic. He (and his disciples) almost certainly spoke Greek as well. The Greek language was the common language of the Roman Empire during the first century, and since Palestine was part of the Roman Empire there is little reason to doubt that Jesus was bilingual. Koine = "common" in Greek.

Originally posted by Matthew:

As for timings, I'm afraid I have to rely on the research of others

Originally posted by wikipedia:
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs. Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus [31]) view as follows:

* Mark: c. 68�73,[32] c 65-70[3]
* Matthew: c. 70�100.[32] c 80-85.[3] Some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
* Luke: c. 80�100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85,[32] c 80-85[3]
* John: c 90-100,[3] c. 90�110,[33] The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

On the likelihood that a contemporaneous record of Jesus' words was made - well it seems unlikely given the attitude to accuracy (as you say) and if it was, then the gospels show scant evidence of it. (eg no reference to the thirteenth apostle, George the documentary maker...)

Once again, my arguments are being misconstrued. I did not argue that first century attitudes toward accuracy were poor (as you claim I did). I was arguing that modern day attitudes toward first century standards of accuracy are poor. There is a huge difference. I do believe that the disciples were very careful to record the words and teachings of Jesus. They were literate (as is evidenced by the fact that they wrote the books of the New Testament) and they regarded Jesus as an important teacher. In fact, they thought he was so important that they left their homes, families, and jobs and dedicated their lives to following him. If you gave up your life to follow someone and regarded them as an important teacher, wouldn't you take notes?

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
How do you know that Jesus' words in the Bible are translations from Aramaic to Greek? Last I heard that was just a poorly supported theory. Also, how do you know that Jesus words were written decades after they were spoken?

The earliest gospel was written at least three decades after the events they portray took place, and Jesus didn't speak Greek or write anything down.

Oh, I see. You believe that when the gospels were written that was the very first time Jesus' words were ever written down? That's a pretty lame argument. Even secular Bible scholars who support your late date ("three decades after") believe that there were documents containing Jesus' sayings in existence before the gospels were written. I thought you could do better than that scalvert...

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

How do you know that Jesus' followers didn't keep a record of his teachings as they were learning from him, and then merely copied those sayings into the gospels when they were written?

90% of the population was completely illiterate at the time. Reading and writing was the exclusive domain of the upper class, not poor fishermen and shepherds, and most of the apostles would have been dead years before the first gospel was written. Any witnesses still alive would be elderly and extremely unlikely to recall exact quotes and complex details decades later.[/quote]
Another lame argument. If Jesus' followers wrote the books of the New Testament then they clearly weren't illiterate. Further, not all of Jesus' followers were poor fisherman and shepherds. Peter owned a house (Matt. 8:14) and a boat (Luke 5:3), so he obviously had some wealth. Matthew was a tax collector, and most certainly had to write in order to keep records of the taxes he collected and Luke was a physician (clearly upper class).

Originally posted by scalvert:

It's worth noting that the early church likely depended upon general illiteracy to keep people from questioning their authority. Indeed, the Oxford Constitutions of 1408, promoted by Thomas Arundel, the Archbishop of Canterbury, prohibited the translation of the Bible into English as "dangerous to the faith." Few people today are even aware that "the text of our New Testament is a hypothetical reconstruction that is identical to no single manuscript extant in the first few centuries of Christianity. Our canon could have been made of many combinations and include books we don�t consider part of �biblical studies.�"

Hate to bust your bubble, but 1408 was way later than the early church. Further, literacy rates were actually lower during the middle ages than they were in the Roman Empire.

Originally posted by RayEthier:

How do you come up with this stuff? Just because I was arguing for accuracy does not mean that I was arguing against truthfulness. I might be more interested in accuracy for the sake of this argument, but that does not mean I am uninterested in the truthfulness of the text. They are different arguments. I can call CNN news and tell them some ridiculous made up story and while they might quote me accurately, they can't make my story magically become true. Whether or not the Bible is accurate is a different issue than whether or not it is true.

11/19/2010 11:57:23 PM · #74

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

You believe that when the gospels were written that was the very first time Jesus' words were ever written down?

The earliest works which came to be part of the New Testament are the letters of the Apostle Paul, which are dated to no earlier than AD 51 (still many years after the death of Jesus) and do not mention most of the key stories attributed to him.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

If Jesus' followers wrote the books of the New Testament then they clearly weren't illiterate.

That's a very big IF. Strictly speaking, each gospel (and Acts) is anonymous. The Epistle of James was written in the late 1st or 2nd century (after he died). Many biblical scholars have concluded that Peter was not the author of the first or second Epistles of Peter. The debate has continued over whether the Epistle of Jude was written by the apostle, the brother of Jesus, both, or neither. Etc.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Peter owned a house (Matt. 8:14) and a boat (Luke 5:3), so he obviously had some wealth. Matthew was a tax collector, and most certainly had to write in order to keep records of the taxes he collected and Luke was a physician (clearly upper class).

A 90% illiterate population would include homeowners and physicians since literacy was generally the exclusive domain of the ruling elite and scribes. As a tax collector, Matthew may have been literate in Aramaic (but probably not Greek or Latin). However, we don't even know that the apostles actually wrote the texts attributed to them. Most critical scholarship agrees that Matthew did NOT write the Gospel which bears his name. According to the majority view, the evidence against Luke actually being the author of the Gospel of Luke is strong enough that the author is unknown. See above for Peter.

Originally posted by scalvert:

1408 was way later than the early church. Further, literacy rates were actually lower during the middle ages than they were in the Roman Empire.

So? The 1408 example only shows that priests were still trying to avoid public investigation and research over a thousand years later.

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Just because I was arguing for accuracy does not mean that I was arguing against truthfulness.

It doesn't really matter. The Bible cannot be entirely true OR accurate (see the OP). The only question is degree of wrongness.