Nomad

Alright, thanks for the clarification, but at the same time, we know of only four accounts of what happened after Jesus died (five if we count Paul, but he does not talk about where Jesus appeared to the others, so it is not really relevant here), those of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. If Luke is trying to harmonize his account with these others, then he does not appear to do that either in Luke or Acts. He alone does not mention any appearances in Galilee. What he does do, is tell us in Acts that Jesus remained for 40 days, while in Luke he does not say how long Jesus was here. Thus, there is no contradiction between Luke and Acts, and the tension between Luke and the other Gospels remains, regardless of which translation is being used. This is why I think you have used a bad argument to reach your (possibly correct) conclusion. The NIV may be a bad translation, but it is not bad here. It says the same thing as does any other translation.

I am not sure you understand what an argument from silence happens to be. Luke does not say if Jesus’ instructions to the disciples comes before or after they go to Galilee, because Luke does not mention Galilee at all. In your earlier posts you thought that a trip to Galilee was unlikely because it would take too long, but given that they had 40 days to do this, I see no reason to reject the possibility that they went to Galilee prior to having the meal with Jesus in Luke 24:42-46.

So, one last time: Luke does not talk about Galilee. Mark and Matthew do not talk about appearances in Jerusalem, nor the Ascension. From this you see a contradiction, but really it is merely a silence on the part of the three evangelists. John has appearances in both Jerusalem and Galilee, so his account could be said to reconcile these silences. That you refuse to entertain this possibility merely betrays your own unwillingness to consider it, not that it did not happen.

Actually, your analogy fails completely. Luke does not tell us in Luke that Jesus appeared in one place, and then in Acts another. He tells us in Acts that Jesus was with the disciples 40 days, while in Luke he does not say how long they were together. Acts expands on Luke, just as my second statement expands on my first. Your analogy would require Luke to have Jesus appear in Jerusalem in one account, and in Galilee (or somewhere else) in his second account.

I do believe that you are guilty of some very muddled thinking here Guy. That is why I have been questioning you as to your reasoning.

You have no idea why I am rejecting your arguments, and it is not helpful to speculate on such matters, as you cannot know, unless I tell you. It is better to remain focused on the arguments themselves, and here you are simply confused. Worst of all, however, you have been using this argument as a reason to reject the NIV translation, when I have already shown that what you see as a contradiction is found in ALL translations, making your argument specious.
I have already covered off this point by offering the NIV translation in its entirety, yet you have elected to ignore that, and returned to your previously held opinion. Your argument is not with the translation, but with the note from your study Bible. That may give you reason to reject the scholarship of the editor of your Bible, but it does not call into question the worth or accuracy of the translation itself.
But this is simply another specious argument Guy. The authors of virtually all translations maintain a commitment to the infallibility of the Bible. The authors of the KJV certainly did. On this basis you would reject all translations offered by anyone that claimed to believe in the infallibility of the Bible. This may be a legitimate reason to reject a translation, but it is not a good reason to single out the NIV. Since this thread is about why you reject the NIV, I have yet to see why you have singled it out as being an especially bad translation. It may be, but you have not made that case here.
One may always draw a correct conclusion from a bad argument, but a bad argument is still a bad argument. Your problem is with what you see as a contradiction between Luke and the other accounts of the Resurrection (including the one found in Acts!), but that contradiction as you have described it is found in all translations. If you have a good reason for rejecting the NIV as a bad translation, then I would welcome it, but as of now, you have not made your case.

Nomad

The Guy

Yes, we aren’t sure of what other legends might have been, but the early church obviously put much more stock in oral tradition, which was attested to by many early church leaders, enough of their writings were passed down for us to know that what is in the gospel accounts don’t cover the wide range of events that some believed happened after the resurrection. But we don’t have to know every detail of other traditions in order to know that they existed. Luke adding a great deal of time from the resurrection to the ascension was just a move on his part to make room for those legends. That was my point; it isn’t necessary for me to tell you what those legends are. However, since Luke starts his gospel with this line: “Many have attempted to write about what had taken place among us…”, it makes me think that Luke we aware of much more than Mark - or do you think I am wrong again?

Luke and Acts do contradict. The account of Luke follows Jesus from the morning of the resurrection until his ascension that evening. An honest reading of the text makes that clear, any other interpretation merely employs an eisegetical approach to bible study.

Look, you are twisting the rules of logic so badly that I can’t believe you typed that with a straight face. The resurrection to ascension takes place within a single day! An argument from silence would be if I were trying to establish that Mark and Acts contradicted, since Mark doesn’t have Jesus mentioning Jerusalem. But what I have done is compared Luke to Acts – which are not harmonious, and can’t be harmonized without turning Luke into a buffoon.

There is perfect clarity on my part. If you read the book of Luke in its entirety, and note that any time there is a change in scenery or if one speech ends, and another begins at a later time, Luke always notes that within the text. If he didn’t do that in chap 24, then that would be the only time within his gospel that happened. You seem to think that a textbook example of inductive reasoning is ‘muddled’.

This debate on whether or not a contradiction even exists in the text is enough for me to question your ability for rational thought. You initially fought that the contradiction didn’t exist when comparing the gospels, then shifted it to whether there was a contradiction with Acts. You questioned my knowledge on the subject, then, when I demonstrated that scholars do acknowledge a discrepancy, you tried to twist that into saying that the commentary I cited supported your position. You seem to be so caught up in winning, that you don’t care how often you have to change you position to do it. I noted in my last post where you put words into my mouth, and denied it when I confronted you. Again, makes me wonder if your motivation is merely to make me look confused, regardless of the subject.

Although I can clearly see an unwillingness to be objective on your part, I will back off on my profiling of your character.

But you are twisting my argument yet again! My reason for rejecting the NIV is its unusual choice of words when translating controversial material, the fact that the translators thought the bible was divine is merely a reasonable explanation of why they chose to do so. I don’t have a problem with my RSV, whether the translators were Christian or not doesn’t matter, because they seem to translate a bit more honestly, therefore I don’t refuse to use it because of their theological disposition.

I said:
You responded:
So I looked again for your answer and found this:
So that’s your enlightening answer? Or is it something else? Because you posted this answer before I posted that question. I could find absolutely nothing that answers the question of why v44 didn’t begin with an ‘and’ or ‘then’. If v44 started with a ‘then’, then I doubt that my study bible would have placed a footnote before that verse. If they did anyway, or if they had placed it around v45 where you think the break in the action happened, I would have thought that was ridiculous, but I wouldn’t have held the NIV translators culpable.
And if you could demonstrate a legitimate reason for dropping the ‘de’ from the text, then I would drop that as one of my reasons for not using the NIV. But instead of doing that, you started arguing that the passage wasn’t a contradiction and telling me I am ‘making a mountain out of a molehill’. Then you try to tell me in your last post that you already answered that, but I ignored it. An interesting conclusion considering that you haven’t even attempted an answer.

From me:
Your response:
Like I said above, I don’t care what the translators believe, as long as they don’t compromise the translation. I have a short list of scriptures I check immediately when I am introduced to a translation. Since those are fairly controversial scriptures, I can make a quick judgment about a theological disposition of the translation.

I would ask you if you have a problem with a bible from the Watchtower Society? Do you think their theological disposition affects their translation? When you find things in their bible that you can’t find in any others, do you make that connection?

But if you think that suspecting the translators of having an agenda is a reason for rejecting most translations, then it IS a valid reason for rejecting the NIV, especially if someone asks why I reject the NIV in particular, but like I said earlier, I only found their possible 'agenda' as compromising their translation after I saw the problems in the text, not before.

I have already touched on this a few times. The passage from Luke was merely all it took to get me to reject a translation I was already very leery of. I think I had already alluded to the fact (twice) that if that was the only problem I had with it then I would let it go. But the NIV makes many such unexplained additions or subtractions throughout the entire bible.

Yes, the contradiction is in all translations, but the choice of words used in the NIV allows apologists to insert things that weren’t intended by Luke (as the editors of my study bible did).

The reason I used that as my example is because I debated this same contradiction with a friend of mine a long time ago. He made a big deal out of v44 being separated in time from v43, which led me to my examining of the text and realizing that if v44 started with ‘and’ or ‘then’, then my opponents argument would fall apart. But your refusal to acknowledge a problem with the text and insistence that I consider your ludicrous scenarios seriously is a different issue entirely; I have recognized that from the beginning.

However, I haven’t really done anything but re-hash my initial premise to you time after time in this thread. I have thoroughly read and understood your points, but I reject your conclusions, they make little sense to me. As for my bad arguments, I have made them plain, as long as you can differentiate between me arguing about 1) the contradiction and 2) the translation problems, I don’t understand why you have so much problem seeing my point.

As I am new to this bbs, I don’t know if your behavior and style of argumentation is par for the course with you. But you have consistently misstated my position, quibbled with irrelevant facets, and ignored the point of my argument, all while accusing me of muddled thinking, logical fallacies, and ignorance of the subject matter.

To quote from Eusebius:
[ November 03, 2001: Message edited by: The Guy ]

The Guy

Yea, I do like their music now as well, but you should have heard them in the early days...they struggled for a while until they found their 'sound'.

As for their lyrics, well, I always thought that was the hardest part of songwriting. Especially when your desire is to get your point across without going over anyone's head.

Me, I only play anymore when a wave of nostalgia overtakes me. My short time in the band was because Kevin didn't want to play bass, and wasn't very good at the time. I agreed, but I was uncomfortable because I played guitar, and I really didn't enjoy switching instruments. But they were equally frustrated because of my lack of interest.

My personal journey is long and complicated. But I guess to sum it up in 15 words or less; I realized (quite late) what faith really was, and knew it was untenable for me.

[ November 02, 2001: Message edited by: The Guy ]

A Disciple

Polycarp,

First I would like to say that Osama binLaden will not obtain the copyright to KJV, so I cannot answer that question.
Second, I would love to see you try to get copyright to KJV. It's not copyrighted now and never will be!
Also, please don't assume that I haven't studied this issue. In fact I am still studying it now.

I would like to ask you, Polycarp, about Psalm 12:6-7.
You say that no translation is perfect.

This is an important issue and I am praying everyday for God to reveal to me what is the true english version. I have not taken a permanent seat on KJV, NIV, NASB etc. But I feel I have been lead to the KJV. My first Bible was a NIV my second was a NKJV and know I have a KJV. So I will continue to pray, for prayer is more powerful than anything on this earth. It's not hard to be lied to on this earth. Satan is very deceiving....very, and he can make things look real good too. So I will pray for God to reveal His true Word to me (version) and I hope you have too!!!
Please let me know where and what you have studied, (titles of books, etc.) I would truly appreciate it so I may look into it from your perspective.
Do you have one of the 'first' editions of the KJV? Please let me know where I can get a copy.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by A Disciple: Also, please don't assume that I haven't studied this issue. In fact I am still studying it now. I would like to ask you, Polycarp, about Psalm 12:6-7. You say that no translation is perfect. This is an important issue and I am praying everyday for God to reveal to me what is the true english version. I have not taken a permanent seat on KJV, NIV, NASB etc. But I feel I have been lead to the KJV. My first Bible was a NIV my second was a NKJV and know I have a KJV. So I will continue to pray, for prayer is more powerful than anything on this earth. It's not hard to be lied to on this earth. Satan is very deceiving....very, and he can make things look real good too. So I will pray for God to reveal His true Word to me (version) and I hope you have too!!! Please let me know where and what you have studied, (titles of books, etc.) I would truly appreciate it so I may look into it from your perspective. Do you have one of the 'first' editions of the KJV? Please let me know where I can get a copy.

I haven’t assumed you’ve never studied this issue, but I am wondering why you aren’t addressing my main points about how we determine what a translation should include. For example, you said nothing about 1 John 5:7 and why you think it should be included in the Bible.

In regards to Psalm 12:6-7, I understand your concern. However, the differences between translations are minor. No major doctrine hinges on questions of a textual nature. For example, we can still ascertain the doctrine of the Trinity from other passages of the Bible without having to rely on 1 John 5:7. There is nothing wrong with using the KJV. It is a generally accurate version. However, certain terminology in it can be confusing because of the evolution of the English language. For example, in some places they use the word “doctor”, which leads one to think in medical terms. However, the term actually means “teacher”. In the 17th century, doctor frequently was used to mean “professor” or “teacher”, while today this is not a common usage of the term. Unless a person knows the original Greek text, they will be confused by many words in the KJV. In addition, many archaeological discoveries of the last 400 years have allowed us to arrive at a more precise reconstruction of the original words of the Bible.

Or are you saying that the Psalm passage requires the Bible to be available in every language at all times in history? Certainly this isn’t the case, because the 20th century saw the Bible translated into more languages for the first time than any other period in history. Hundreds of languages went 2000 years without a translation. Or let me explain this another way. English was spoken hundreds of years before 1611. In addition, there were several English Bible translations written BEFORE the KJV. Why should the KJV be considered the only valid English translation?

First, I’ll refer you to a KJV-Only website. These people are fervently pro-KJV, going so far as to label those who use other versions as apostates. Even a group as pro-KJV as this one admits to the revisions. In fact, you may be shocked to check out this link at their site: http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvupdt.html

Look under section V – “The So-Called Justification for other revisions” where you’ll see this is what the first sentence says:

“Maybe now you see that the King James Version of 1611 has not been revised but only corrected.”

LOL… I think that’s pretty funny. These people admit the 1611 KJV contained errors. They even are brave enough to list some of the changes.

If you really want to buy a copy of the 1611 version, there are many places on the internet that sell them. Here’s one I found: http://www.commonwealthp.com/1611_kjv.html

For a much more balanced look at ALL of the evidence involved in this issue, I’d recommend two books. The best one is called “The King James Only Controversy” by James White. Another decent one is “The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism” written by D.A. Carson. Both books are written by evangelical Christian scholars, but White’s book is better.

For a good internet site with several articles on this topic, go here: http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/soaptoc.htm

The site is run by Dr. Daniel Wallace, who is a New Testament scholar teaching at Dallas Theological Seminary. Again, he is another evangelical Christian.

I hope this helps. Let me know what you think, or if I haven’t clearly addressed your concerns.

Peace,

Polycarp

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Polycarp ]

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Polycarp ]

Benjamin Franklin

Hi Guy I am not sure whether you find this worth responding to becuase you have already pointed out that Luke always indicate a change of settings
I enclose the following response from this article http://www.bigland.u-net.com/Theist/Topics/easter.html

“His (Dan Baker’s) reasoning is based on his misunderstanding of the Gospel narratives. Because Luke and Matthew cut out bits and jump from one event to another, Barker assumes the events happen immediately. Hence his situation where the disciples see Jesus in Galilee and Jerusalem on the same day (an impossible journey without fast transportation).”

I personally find this explanation untenable because my Chrisian friend, in a long phone conversation with me, when first reading the contradictions pointed out by me, did not even think of possibility that the meeting in Galilee is the first one. It is only a week later, after talking to a pastor, then she came back with an harmonisation attempt

Benjamin Franklin

Sorry I meant made a mistake in previous post. I meant to say that my Christian friend was beginning to doubt whether the resurrection really happened as the idea that the meeting in Galilee is not the first meeting did not occur to her at all intially

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by TJUN KIAT TEO: I personally find this explanation untenable because my Chrisian friend, in a long phone conversation with me, when first reading the contradictions pointed out by me, did not even think of possibility that the meeting in Galilee is the first one. It is only a week later, after talking to a pastor, then she came back with an harmonisation attempt

Wow ! That sounds like some good practice of free thought techniques. If you don't know the answer to a question immediately when it's asked, then it proves any later answer must be wrong. Riiight....

Peace,

Polycarp

Nomad

Hmm… what you call obvious, I consider to be news. Where did you get this bit of information Guy? My own reading of the Early Fathers shows that they placed great stock in the written text of what we now call the New Testament. Where did you get the idea that they placed greater store in oral traditions, as I would like to see the quotes and evidence that proves this to be the case.

But you have not told me what other traditions existed, either written or oral, besides what we find in the Gospels and Paul. If you think that there are other traditions, just making the claim does not make them magically appear. What evidence do you have that they existed, or that Luke would have known about them.

Finally, since Luke made no attempt in Luke or Acts to place Jesus in Galilee, when we know from Mark that Jesus was going to go there, then why did he not bother to reconcile this “contradiction”? After all, we both agree that Luke knew of Mark. If he was not interested in lining up his own account with Mark, then what was his reason for adding 40 days to the time Jesus remained on earth?

I believe Luke used Mark, Q and L material. He may also have known of an earlier Matthew (or this early Matthew may have been a combination of Q and L). At the same time, I find it interesting that Luke only mentions that many have written about Jesus, yet you cling to your belief that the early church put greater stock in what was said orally than what was written. What is your evidence for this again?

Ummm… you are saying that Luke was so dense that he contradicts himself, yet if I show that he does not contradict himself, I am making him to look like a buffoon? Your reasoning powers are quite remarkable Guy, but I still do not see any logic in it. Your confusion appears to be that Luke always tells us when time progresses between events, and by implication is somehow telling us how much time passes. This is simply a false belief on your part, and I will demonstrate that in my reply to your points below.
I am pretty certain from your response that you did not read what I wrote. Luke does not always tell us how much time transpires, nor does he always use transitions within his text. Further, even if he did, a failure to do so once would not be a contradiction, but an omission. I am hoping you understand why you look so confused (without my help BTW).

Now, as for Luke telling us how much time transpires between events:

How much time transpires between Luke 10 and 11 (and please tell me that you know that Luke wrote his book without chapters and verses)?

How about between Luke 12 and 13? How can you tell?

According to Luke, did Jesus’ ministry take a few days, or a year or more? What are the clear indications of how much time had passed in each chapter as Jesus talks? For example, is Luke 11-12 all in one day? How can you be certain? And if it did take a single day, what was the amount of time between his baptism and death?

How much time passes between Luke 18 and 19? How can you tell?

How much time passes between Jesus staying the day with Zacchaeus in Luke 19:5 and His going to the Mount of Olives in Luke 19:29?

How much time passes between Luke 19 and 20?

In Luke 24, do you believe that the only way to read the chapter is to say that the Resurrection and Ascension take place on a single day? If so, you are the one trying to make Luke look like a buffoon, as he then goes on in the very next chapter and says that 40 days transpired between the events. It is not reasonable to try to make a person contradict himself on the basis of silence in one part of a story, and expansion (or clarification) on that silence in the next part of the same story.

As you can see, we can see the change in scenery in some of (but not all of) the above sections, but we do not know how much time has transpired between the described events. Now, from Acts 1:4 we know that Jesus spoke to His disciples at a dinner after His Resurrection. We know from Acts 1:3 that this took place some time during His 40 days prior to His Ascension. What we do not know is when this happened in one of those 40 days. Did they happen on the same day? Of course, I even told you this in a previous post. Any plain reading of Acts 1:4 tells us this. What we do not know is if this took place all on the same day as the Resurrection, and you are merely imposing your reading on the text in order to find a contradiction of your own construction. I see now that this is based on the false premise that Luke always tells us how much time transpires in his Gospel, and in Acts, when obviously he does not. Perhaps you could tell us how you know that Jesus spoke his parables all on the same day in chapters like Luke 11, or 12, or 13. Since you cannot do this, your premise is shown to be false, and your conclusion drawn from that premise is equally false.

Back up Guy. I still do not see a contradiction between the Gospels. I see silences you wish to read as contradictions, but that is not the same thing. I am trying to help you understand why a silence is not a contradiction, though I admit my success in this matter does appear to be limited. Sadly, I cannot force a person to understand basic logic. As for Luke contradicting himself from Luke to Acts, this is merely a demonstration of your inability to grasp what an argument from silence happens to be. Once again, Luke is silent on the amount of time that transpires from the Resurrection to the Ascension, Acts tells us that it is 40 days.

Excuse me? I told you your commentary was correct, and the person who wrote the note you objected to in the first place did not know what he was talking about. At the same time, I showed you that the NIV says the same thing as do all other translations, so using this particular passage to reject the NIV is fallacious reasoning. For the record, here is what your commentaries said again:

Note on Luke 24:50 from The Interpreters Bible:
One difficulty is created by the statement in Acts 1:3 that Christ’s resurrection appearances continued for a period of forty days, whereas the implication of the gospel story is that the risen Lord parted once and for all from his disciples on Easter Sunday. Probably Luke was not interested in matters of chronology when he wrote his first version of the incident.
Note on Acts 1:3 from The Interpreters Bible:
In Luke’s gospel there is nothing to indicate that the ascension did not take place on the same day as the resurrection - a view perhaps shared by Paul who seems to regard the two as synonymous. The acceptance of the longer period by church tradition was probably due to the desire to make room for the imparting of secret instruction to the inner circle of his disciples by the risen Jesus…

I highlighted in bold exactly what I have said myself. This is why I said your commentary says what I said. After all, it IS what I said.

From my post of Oct 26 4:34PM

If we look only at chapter 24 of Luke, then we would have no idea that the time line between Jesus' Resurrection and Assension is 40 days. We only know this by reading Acts 1. There is no break between verses 46 and 50 to indicate how much time had passed, yet in continuing on to Acts 1 we see that a total of 40 days had passed between these two events.

My point all along has been that Luke and Acts are a unit, and should be read as such. You appear to disagree, even as you accept that Luke wrote both. Your only recourse has been to suggest that Luke wrote Acts later to reconcile his account with some unknown other accounts of the Resurrection and Ascension. Yet Luke does not do this by sending Jesus to Galilee (thus lining it up with Mark or Matthew), so who or what is he reconciling his account with? According to you, some unknowable oral account (for which you have no evidence), something Luke shows no interest in based on his introduction in Luke 1:1-4. Now, what legendary account is Luke trying to reconcile with, if not Mark and Matthew? Further, since the problem (as you see it) exists in ALL translations, AND the original Greek, why have you singled out the NIV as being especially bad here? You still make no sense at all.

I assure you that I am not trying to make you look confused. You have done that for yourself. I am trying to help you clear up your confusion, or better yet, to find out what your actual objection to the NIV happens to be. I still do not know, nor, apparently, do you. Will you at least admit that the problem you see with Luke and Acts is present in all translations of the Bible?

I gave you the NIV translation, without the note, and you have yet to tell us why you reject it as unduly biased. Here it is again, with another illustration to help make the point.

Luke 24:43-44 and he took it and ate it in their presence. He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."

This is identical to the transitions found in verses 16-17, 24-25, 37-38, and in each case no change in time is indicated. We can read each set of verses and safely assume that they are all taking place at the same time. Further, the NIV does not change Acts 1:3 that TELLS us plainly that the events in Luke 24:42-44 take place at the same time, and on the same day. After all of the time, all we really have is your objection to a note put in your study Bible that incorrectly tries to impose a passage of time between the verses that is unwarranted. We both agree on this point, yet you continue to blame the NIV for the editor’s error, when he could just as easily have made the same comment with any other translation.

Consider the following example:

“We ate lunch. Then I said to my friend….”

How much time transpires between these two sentences? Are we still at lunch, but have finished the actual meal? Is there any way to tell without more information? And if I wrote instead:

“We ate lunch. I said to my friend…”

What has changed? Nothing. Now apply the same unblinkered reading to Luke 24, and you will hopefully see your error.

See above, then explain why it makes any difference. The context comes from Acts 1:3 where we learn that verses 42 to 44 take place on the same day. The NIV, like all other translations, says the same thing, and the presence or absence of an “and” or “then” in verse 44 is a red herring.

Just out of curiousity, why do you say this? “I did X, then I did Y” does not tell us how much time transpired between the two events on its own. I cannot fathom why you do not see this.

Of course this is another red herring, as the additions and omissions from the New World Translation when compared against all other translations is enormous. The latter not only omit minor words like “and” or “then”, but create whole passages out of whole cloth, and remove others that are found in the original Greek.

Once again I am going to ask you to stick with your own arguments Guy, and please avoid trying to change the subject. Put any two sentences together that you like. In one set use “and”, and in the next set of the same sentences remove it. Then tell me how dramatically the text has actually been changed. In the vast majority of cases (if not all of them) the change will be insignificant. I want to get to the heart of your real objections to the NIV, and I hope that they are not all this superficial and inconsequential.

I do wish you would give us at least one or two other problematic texts in the NIV to look at. Thus far you appear to have based your entire reasoning on this one fallacious reading on your part, and that is not a good sign of serious critical thinking.

I am going to chalk this particular quote up to ignorance on your part. Do you even know where you got this misquote of Eusebius (hint, did it come from Gibbons by chance, or worse, Wheless or Acharya, and if so, did you cross check the actual citation?)? And then, do you know what he ACTUALLY said? Perhaps start by quoting your source for this specific quote, then we can look it up together to see what he really said.

You have not strengthened your case Guy, and insulting me will not change anything. At the same time, if I may, what was the purpose of regurgitating this manufactured misquote of Eusubius in this particular thread? I would hope that you are not trying to imply something about me, especially as the irony of the point would be quite rich once we see what Eusebius really said.

Nomad

P.S. Yes, if you do not have or know the source, I will provide it for you, as well as what Eusebius actually said. However, as I have heard this lie spread a good many times before, I am curious to see the amount of time and effort you, as a sceptic, cared to spend verifying its veracity. In any event, as you are the second sceptic in a matter of weeks to repeat it here on the SecWeb, I suspect that this is worth its own thread, and I will begin it if you do not happen to have the quotation handy.

[ November 15, 2001: Message edited by: Nomad ]

Benjamin Franklin

Quote from PolyCrap
Wow ! That sounds like some good practice of free thought techniques. If you don't know the answer to a question immediately when it's asked, then it proves any later answer must be wrong. Riiight...

I apologise if I was not clear enough in what I was trying to communicate. I don't mean to say the later answer is wrong. What I was trying to say if you read the context of Matthew clearly, the meeting in Galiliee is meant to be the first one after resurrection. The flow of the passage indicates that. The message from the angel in both Matthew and and Mark reinforces the idea. If you read Matthew on it's own, the idea that the meeting in Gailiee is not the first one would never occur to you unless you are trying to reconcile it with other resurrection accounts. That's why my friend in a seven hour conversation with me, gave every possible explanation except that one i.e. it is not the first meeting. The answer is very contrived unless you suppose Matthew is not an eyewitness nor divinely inspired and merely reporting hearsay. But the would destroy the crediblity of the Bible as the world of God and severely weaken the resurrection accounts as evidence of the resurrection of Jesus