Can 500+ Eyewitnesses Be Wrong? (Jesus, Earth, disciples, Corinthians)

[Fluffy]

Here's the thing, Fluffy. The Bible is a very unique book, it was written:

• over a period of 1500 years
• by 40 men who hardly knew each other
• on three continents
• in three languages
• by a variety of occupations (herdsmen to kings)
• for a variety of reasons
• in a variety of circumstances (on the run, as well as sitting at home

Now look Ill take your word on these things because I honestly don't know enough about the background about the Bible to disagree with you. And, given this, I do agree with you that the Bible is very unique. What it proves beyond that is less clear though.

And yet, there are no contradictions in doctrine, or the way they describe God, or the things that God tells them to do, or anything.

Okay right it is this that I disagree with. First of all, I believe that there are clear contradictions in the Bible. Secondly, the lack of contradictions between 2 pieces of writing is not a basis for its validity. If I write an article on brick work and one on sky diving, there may be no contradictions in either but such is not a reason for their validity.

Agreement between the authors should be a reason for validity not lack of contradictions. I think that agreement between the authors of the Bible does happen but about as regularly as, say, the contradictions. Furthermore, I think agreement is naturally more likely because I believe that the Bible has clearly been changed by people after the original authors in order to bring the texts more in line with each other. Additionally, some of the authors had access to large parts of what is now the Bible and therefore, their writings would have been influenced by this. Therefore, agreement is caused by other things, not divine intervention.

Now that's quite an accomplishment. Try that today and see what happens, even super-simplifying it.

• put just 5 people that do know each other in separate rooms
• tell each one to write a chapter of a murder mystery
• assign the chapters to each individual so they know where they are in the story
• then compare the final product

It would be total gibberish. A chaotic mess with no continuity.

This would be a matter of opinion. People have said the same of the Bible. Why should either their or your opinion be valued more highly?

No other writing in history even comes close!

The Koran.

And that's just ONE point. There are more. Such as mentioning empires that scientists swore didn't exist (to wit, the Hittites and the Medes). Calling a person by name (Josiah in 1 Kings 13:2) 340 years before he was born.

Mentioning empires that would dominate the world, when at the time, the empire was still in its infancy.

And I didn't even touch on the prophecies concerning Jesus.

You have to admit, that's much more than coincidence!

It might be more than coincidence. It really honestly might be. I am certainly not going to rule out that possibility. But I am not not ruling it out because of these arguments. Nor should anybody. Afterall the Bible specificly states that faith should be blind. I ask again, is your faith in God based on these arguments or your personal relationship with God? Which one triggered your conversion to Christianity?

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by AV1611

No thanks --- the Greeks have too high a margin-of-error ratio. I'll take it in English any day. Where the King James Bible differs from the Greek translations, the Greek translations are wrong.

Very very illogical. English version are translated from Greek, and you are saying Greek translations are wrong?

Perhaps your King James is derived from Latin version, but then Latin version is from Greek / Hebrews as well...

AHHH, looks like you are not familiar with the development / canonization of the bible

Please do some homework:
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/NTcanon.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/ingerhb.htm
http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ll/index.shtml
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/canon.php
http://www.christianorigins.com/

[michel]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Afterall the Bible specificly states that faith should be blind. I ask again, is your faith in God based on these arguments or your personal relationship with God? Which one triggered your conversion to Christianity?

An excellent question, Fluffy!

My faith in God is based on my own personal relationship with Him. He sought me out, not vice-versa. At the time I got saved, I knew there was something missing in my life. A void, so to speak, was there that only He could (and did) fill.

This is not a blind faith, Fluffy, as now I can agree with Paul when he said in 2 Timothy 1:12 ---

I KNOW WHOM I HAVE BELIEVED, AND AM PERSUADED THAT HE IS ABLE TO KEEP THAT WHICH I HAVE COMMITED UNTO HIM AGAINST THAT DAY.

I can also agree with what Peter said in 2 Peter 1:16 ---

FOR WE HAVE NOT FOLLOWED CUNNINGLY DEVISED FABLES...

I guess I really don't know what triggered my conversion to Christianity other than the fact that God has embedded in us a desire to "look [up] for something better". An "upward pull" to "Something out there" ... if you know what I'm saying.

It's just a "feeling" that Someone is out there, anxiously awaiting to take our call, and that He has been here before.

I hope this makes sense.

[joeboonda]

Luke, a historian of the highest degree, wrote the book of acts.

[michel]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

Very very illogical. English version are translated from Greek, and you are saying Greek translations are wrong?

Perhaps your King James is derived from Latin version, but then Latin version is from Greek / Hebrews as well...

AHHH, looks like you are not familiar with the development / canonization of the bible

Please do some homework:

I appreciate your wanting to educate me on where my Bible came from, but I already know.

It came from the following "thread":

Autographs --- then became ---
Scripture (2nd-generation autographs) --- then became ---
Koine Greek --- (NOT Classical Greek that the NIV, etc. come from) --- then became
Gothic Scriptures (NOT the Greek junk that the Catholics played around with) --- then became
The Authorized King James Version

In other words, when the kids were playing around with the Greek manuscripts, God made sure the adults had the Byzantine (Gothic) Scriptures.

[michel]

Originally Posted by joeboonda

Luke, a historian of the highest degree, wrote the book of acts.

Hi, Joe!

I totally agree!

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by AV1611

Hi, Joe!

I totally agree!

Right on, the historian that obtained his PhD from Havard, I presumed.

Actually according to the copy of the KJV, the introduction to Acts by the editor(s) is as follow:

The writer is, without doubt, Luke. The book has the same introductory address as his Gospel, and takes up the history where the third Gospel leaves it, giving in greater detail the account of the Ascension, with which that Gospel closes.

[greatcalgarian]

Originally Posted by AV1611

I appreciate your wanting to educate me on where my Bible came from, but I already know.

It came from the following "thread":

Autographs --- then became ---
Scripture (2nd-generation autographs) --- then became ---
Koine Greek --- (NOT Classical Greek that the NIV, etc. come from) --- then became
Gothic Scriptures (NOT the Greek junk that the Catholics played around with) --- then became
The Authorized King James Version

In other words, when the kids were playing around with the Greek manuscripts, God made sure the adults had the Byzantine (Gothic) Scriptures.

Congratulation on your one track mind. I still hope you will read those web link.

[michel]

Originally Posted by greatcalgarian

Right on, the historian that obtained his PhD from Havard, I presumed.

Actually according to the copy of the KJV, the introduction to Acts by the editor(s) is as follow:

The writer is, without doubt, Luke. The book has the same introductory address as his Gospel, and takes up the history where the third Gospel leaves it, giving in greater detail the account of the Ascension, with which that Gospel closes.

You don't need some goofy editor's commentary. Just read the text itself, and it will tell you.

Luke 1:3 = ...TO WRITE UNTO THEE IN ORDER, MOST EXCELLENT THEOPHILUS.

Acts 1:1 = THE FORMER TREATISE HAVE I MADE, O THEOPHILUS...

Commentaries are for kids, the text is for the big boys.

[JerryL]

Luke, a historian of the highest degree, wrote the book of acts.

Can you offer any support at all? What other histories did Luke write? How can we establish the gospel of Luke was written by the same person? How do we establish him to be "an historian of the highest degree".

In short, I think you are asserting somethig for which there is no real support. The Gospels are unsigned, we cannot even be certain who the authors are... and we certainly have no other workd from them establishing their methodology nor reliability.

Luke is widely believed in Christian circles to be written by a deciple of Paul. Paul is cited as referring to it as "my gospel". Since it really cannot offer new insight, I have to presume that the gospel is a political tool; and indeed it falls more in-line with Pauls preaching. It's essentially ghost-written for Paul, who never met Jesus (hence the neccessity of his "Jesus came to me, and 500 unnamed people saw it" claim).