|
|
Post by kav on Mar 15, 2023 14:14:15 GMT -8
I dont think you can call it eye witness accounts if it was written 300 years later by ppl who did not eye witness it. I know that would never hold up in court. I'll wait for him to mention "faith". My brother turned to Jesus after years of being an alcoholic, he was a "born again", so I heard all this garbage for years. Him turning to christ didn't help him from blowing two marriages and an engagement, stealing money from our mother, or lying about having cancer for sympathy. But man did he believe. My poor brother became a christian at age 50-it was astonishing to watch him change from a normal happy guy to a guy terrified of going to hell and going to church daily that was always sad that you had to watch what you said around him-even saying damn was enough to really upset him. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Mar 15, 2023 14:24:20 GMT -8
The bible doesn't say it. The English translation you read states is. But the English is a translation of Hebrew. Was it correctly translated from the Hebrew? That is often MIS translated or can be translated or interpreted more than one way. And that's just ONE of the possible variables. There are man concrete examples where I can show you that Hebrew was badly mistranslated and it changed the meaning of everything. If the bible says in hebrew the flood only covered part of the earth then its a goofy incomplete document. Um what about everyone else then? Kav, do you speak a send language. I do. And when you translate between languages you can often do it more than one way. English is a horrid, mongrel language and you can have one word mean many things. And a person's bias, or what they WANT the translation to say colors which words they choose for the final meaning. What do you mean about "everything else"? I have many conversations going on and am not sure what you're referring to. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Mar 15, 2023 14:26:35 GMT -8
If the bible says in hebrew the flood only covered part of the earth then its a goofy incomplete document. Um what about everyone else then? Kav, do you speak a send language. I do. And when you translate between languages you can often do it more than one way. English is a horrid, mongrel language and you can have one word mean many things. And a person's bias, or what they WANT the translation to say colors which words they choose for the final meaning. What do you mean about "everything else"? I have many conversations going on and am not sure what you're referring to. I do speak a send language-when I speak I am sending my thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Mar 15, 2023 14:27:31 GMT -8
And I said everyone else not everything else-as in everyone that didnt get flooded if the flood only covered part of earth.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Mar 15, 2023 14:30:35 GMT -8
Well to be fair tho socrates sounds more possible because he didnt have magic powers. You know how I know man didn't land on the moon? The movie Capricorn One. That makes as much sense as "historically-credible" writing about Jesus. Whatever gets them through the night I guess. If someone writes down what they had witnessed and had then recounted many times, and there are many others doing the same, that's called "credible" accounts of what they witnessed. Maybe what they witnessed was astonishingly "incredible", but it cannot be said that they did NOT witness it simply because the story they tell is astonishingly incredible. While trying to mock the NT writings using the example of Capricorn One, you're actually make a point that opposes your own view. If a biographer wrote about Neal Armstrong's astonishingly incredible feat of going to the moon (just 65 years after the Wright brothers) and what he experienced on the moon, how would the movie Capricorn One contradict or disprove that?? Are you maintaining that the oldest written accounts of Jesus are made up? And that even the non-Christian writings of Roman/Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who also referred to (in early 90s AD) Jesus' teachings, his being crucified, and even referring to John the Baptist, are also "fairy tales"? Or do you concede that Jesus was indeed a real person, a historical figure, who said what is attributed to him in writing by his followers, but you just disbelieve in the "miracles" part? |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Mar 15, 2023 14:33:42 GMT -8
You know how I know man didn't land on the moon? The movie Capricorn One. That makes as much sense as "historically-credible" writing about Jesus. Whatever gets them through the night I guess. If someone writes down what they had witnessed and had then recounted many times, and there are many others doing the same, that's called "credible" accounts of what they witnessed. This didnt happen. None of the people who wrote the new testament were witnesses. They wrote it 300 years later, after many many retellings. Everyone has played the telephone game and knows what happens when people tell someone something and then that person tells someone else. Now imagine a game of telephone that took place over 300 years. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Mar 15, 2023 14:35:52 GMT -8
Well to be fair tho socrates sounds more possible because he didnt have magic powers. That makes as much sense as "historically-credible" writing about Jesus. You again have no idea what you're talking about. What jcjames stated about their being more historical record for Jesus than those other accepted historical personalities he mentioned is a fact and accepted by most scholars. The Bible, even if you choose not to accept the religion, is one of the most historically relevant books in existence. Scholars use it to study history. It's preservation also extremely well represented and substantiated as well. If you were to study the evidence for how the bible came to be, it's representing by literally 10,000's of pieces of manuscripts spread out all over Europe and Asia. Where people veer of course is when they let their biases and emotions control their logic, like you always do. You discredit it because you don't like the religion that was pushed on you. But that doesn't necessarily discredit the book. Just the religion. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Mar 15, 2023 14:36:52 GMT -8
That makes as much sense as "historically-credible" writing about Jesus. You again have no idea what you're talking about. What jcjames stated about their being more historical record for Jesus than those other accepted historical personalities he mentioned is a fact and accepted by most scholars. The Bible, even if you choose not to accept the religion, is one of the most historically relevant books in existence. Scholars use it to study history. It's preservation also extremely well represented and substantiated as well. If you were to study the evidence for how the bible came to be, it's representing by literally 10,000's of pieces of manuscripts spread out all over Europe and Asia. Where people veer of course is when they let their biases and emotions control their logic, like you always do. You discredit it because you don't like the religion that was pushed on you. But that doesn't necessarily discredit the book. Just the religion. No book that was written 300 years later can be historically accurate. This is impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Mar 15, 2023 14:42:23 GMT -8
Kav, do you speak a send language. I do. And when you translate between languages you can often do it more than one way. English is a horrid, mongrel language and you can have one word mean many things. And a person's bias, or what they WANT the translation to say colors which words they choose for the final meaning. What do you mean about "everything else"? I have many conversations going on and am not sure what you're referring to. I do speak a send language-when I speak I am sending my thoughts. Sorry. Spellcheck. I obviously meant SECOND LANGUAGE. And I said everyone else not everything else-as in everyone that didnt get flooded if the flood only covered part of earth. That depends on WHEN the flood happened (and how many people there were alive at that time), WHERE the flood happened (could it have been localized to an area?), and what the land looked like when that l flood happened (like what if it happened during Pangaea)? Like I said. Lots of variables and like in politics, everyone is pushing an angle as their truth. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Mar 15, 2023 14:45:59 GMT -8
I do speak a send language-when I speak I am sending my thoughts. Sorry. Spellcheck. I obviously meant SECOND LANGUAGE. And I said everyone else not everything else-as in everyone that didnt get flooded if the flood only covered part of earth. That depends on WHEN the flood happened (and how many people there were alive at that time), WHERE the flood happened (could it have been localized to an area?), and what the land looked like when that l flood happened (like what if it happened during Pangaea)? Like I said. Lots of variables and like in politics, everyone is pushing an angle as their truth. But the point is-what about the people on the rest of the earth? why arent they mentioned in the bible? God didnt notice them? If they didnt get flooded then they must have been exemplary-why no mention of these fine folks? It just makes the story sound fake, like someone testifying in court who leaves out large important details. I do speak a second language. |
|
|
|
Post by vintagecomics on Mar 15, 2023 14:49:20 GMT -8
If someone writes down what they had witnessed and had then recounted many times, and there are many others doing the same, that's called "credible" accounts of what they witnessed. This didnt happen. None of the people who wrote the new testament were witnesses. They wrote it 300 years later, after many many retellings. Everyone has played the telephone game and knows what happens when people tell someone something and then that person tells someone else. Now imagine a game of telephone that took place over 300 years. You again have no idea what you're talking about. What jcjames stated about their being more historical record for Jesus than those other accepted historical personalities he mentioned is a fact and accepted by most scholars. No book that was written 300 years later can be historically accurate. This is impossible. Kav, your argument is flawed. You're saying that they STARTED writing accounts around 300 years after Jesus died but that's flawed because historically, Ancient Hebrews wrote everything down all the time. The Talmud, the old Testament was written by scholars / scribes. Meaning it was written by people whose ENTIRE LIVES were devoting to writing down accounts and copying them with a high degree of accuracy. Why? Because we didn't have the printing press until the middle ages so to preserve their books they had to copy them by hand. And how they did it was incredible. They would have ways to double check and edit, like counting characters across pages, down pages or diagonally and there was a miscount between the new page and the old page, they'd throw out the old page and start again. They were notoriously accurate and terrified of making a mistake because their writing were considered sacred. They believed they were literally copying the Word of God. So when Jesus came, do you think they just stopped writing things down and stuck to word of mouth?  Of course not. Someone was writing these down at 30AD from first hand accounts, and those accounts were repeated and copies to what we are able to find today. The accuracy which which Hebrews and scholars copied their records is one of the reasons the records we've found are so reliable and so accurate among each other, meaning you can find records from different areas of the world and they mostly agree with each other with few deviations. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Mar 15, 2023 14:51:49 GMT -8
This didnt happen. None of the people who wrote the new testament were witnesses. They wrote it 300 years later, after many many retellings. Everyone has played the telephone game and knows what happens when people tell someone something and then that person tells someone else. Now imagine a game of telephone that took place over 300 years. No book that was written 300 years later can be historically accurate. This is impossible. Kav, your argument is flawed. You're saying that they STARTED writing accounts around 300 years after Jesus died but that's flawed because historically, Ancient Hebrews wrote everything down all the time. The Talmud, the old Testament was written by scholars / scribes. Meaning it was written by people whose ENTIRE LIVES were devoting to writing down accounts and copying them with a high degree of accuracy. Why? Because we didn't have the printing press until the middle ages so to preserve their books they had to copy them by hand. And how they did it was incredible. They would have ways to double check and edit, like counting characters across pages, down pages or diagonally and there was a miscount between the new page and the old page, they'd throw out the old page and start again. They were notoriously accurate and terrified of making a mistake because their writing were considered sacred. They believed they were literally copying the Word of God. So when Jesus came, do you think they just stopped writing things down and stuck to word of mouth? Of course not. Someone was writing these down at 30AD from first hand accounts, and those accounts were repeated and copies to what we are able to find today. The accuracy which which Hebrews and scholars copied their records is one of the reasons the records we've found are so reliable and so accurate among each other, meaning you can find records from different areas of the world and they mostly agree with each other with few deviations. Do some research. The first written accounts of the new testament occurred 300 years after the death of christ. If you've stumbled across some earlier dead sea scrolls or something put them on ebay for god sake. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Mar 15, 2023 14:57:21 GMT -8
If 'hebrew scribes' wrote earlier abt the new testament, where are these writings? They dont exist. You cant just make stuff up man.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcjames on Mar 15, 2023 14:58:16 GMT -8
I understand that response. The first issue though is the credibility of the written documented evidence including the eye-witness testimony itself. Once one sees that the historical written accounts of Jesus by the witnesses who then wrote (or narrated to disciple-writers) those accounts are indeed actual historical written accounts and not made up centuries later, then one can proceed to the next step. It's pretty well laid out that way in Strobel's book. The eye witness accounts were written 300 years later tho. Plato wrote his stuff right away. That doesn't make sense. The earliest letters of the New Testament (1 Thessalonians, Galations & 1 Corinthians written by Paul) were written less than 20 years after the crucifixion. The earliest of the four Gospels (Mark) was written 30-40 years after the crucifixion. And the last Gospel (John) also written no later than around 100AD around the time of John's death. By that time, the eye-witness Apostles had already begun spreading far and wide across the Mediterranean and Asia minor with oral-preaching of these same accounts for the first few decades after the crucifixion. If one suggest that these accounts "were written 300 years later" because that's the oldest surviving papyrus available, then that is absurd - akin to thinking that Plato's writings can only date back to about the 900ADs because that's the oldest document of his writings we have - written 1300 years after Plato lived. That's not the way historical writings are dated. By the late 90ADs to the early 100ADs the Apostolic teachings were already well established, both orally and in writing. The writings of Ignatius & Polycarp (disciples of John the Apostle) and Clement and the Didachye, all written just as the original Apostles were being killed, were not written based on stories made up in 300AD. |
|
|
|
Post by kav on Mar 15, 2023 15:01:40 GMT -8
The eye witness accounts were written 300 years later tho. Plato wrote his stuff right away. That doesn't make sense. The earliest letters of the New Testament (1 Thessalonians, Galations & 1 Corinthians written by Paul) were written less than 20 years after the crucifixion. The earliest of the four Gospels (Mark) was written 30-40 years after the crucifixion. And the last Gospel (John) also written no later than around 100AD around the time of John's death. By that time, the eye-witness Apostles had already begun spreading far and wide across the Mediterranean and Asia minor with oral-preaching of these same accounts for the first few decades after the crucifixion. If one suggest that these accounts "were written 300 years later" because that's the oldest surviving papyrus available, then that is absurd - akin to thinking that Plato's writings can only date back to about the 900ADs because that's the oldest document of his writings we have - written 1300 years after Plato lived. That's not the way historical writings are dated. By the late 90ADs to the early 100ADs the Apostolic teachings were already well established, both orally and in writing. The writings of Ignatius & Polycarp (disciples of John the Apostle) and Clement and the Didachye, all written just as the original Apostles were being killed, were not written based on stories made up in 300AD. The last time I researched this I found the 300 year figure. Now this is what pops up: The New Testament has 27 books, written between about 50 and 100 AD. Not 20 or 30 years. Anyway I've dealt with people-someone telling a story that happened even 5 years ago bears no resemblance to the truth. |
|
