Kosh

Oh yeah! The uh, the "chariot wheel" he found yeah, yeah that's it! THe one that looked just like ships wheel. Yeah, yeah, that one. yeah, the one that he uh, lost track of. yeah, he found it, but uh, uh, nobody knows where it is now. Yeah, that's the ticket!

Poor Ron seemed to have been very confused. Chariots work on land (not the water), and Big big big boats work on the water (not the mountains)!

Amaleq13

Setting aside the unsubstantiated and extremely late dating you attributed to the anonymous scholars, it is my understanding that the prior dating of John's Gospel primarily relied upon the evidence of known references to the text (ie mid 2nd century) as well as internal evidence of authorship later than the other three.

New evidence was discovered and new conclusions formed as a result.

Your desire to paint everyone with the same brush of operating by "faith" is simply without merit. That is might be true of your approach does not make it true of those who refuse to accept your claims.

Javaman

In Drange's The Argument from the Bible, about halfway down is a table of contradictions in the resurrection narratives. I can't code it right to post in a legible way but the opening description is:and the rest follows suit. It's plainly obvious that there are wildly different accounts.

Avatar

Not the Ron Wyatt stuff again. Didn't we go through this with Lys?

HH32

Gee Thanks for all your comments guys, a great topic. I figure I might as well post Part Three of my blogging saga on this documentary and share it with you guys.

Roger Pearse

But did not the data, such as it was, always require John to be dated to the last quarter of the 1st century? There never was any data that supported so late a dating. That's really the point; that a consensus was established among scholars which was not in reality based on fact. Creating a non-scholarly consensus among academics might be called a conspiracy against the public. The facts did not change; merely that a piece of data emerged that crushingly reinforced what the data had always said. What did change, in a unobtrusive way, was the consensus of scholarship.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

But is it not nevertheless the unanimous testimony of all the ancient writers who discuss the subject? It is rather hard to imagine what other evidence there can be. We're all familiar with the antics of source criticism, etc; the lack of objectivity inherent in the methods renders them less than adequate sources to debunk the data in the historical record, IMHO.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

John A. Broussard

Ron Wyatt also found some chariots on Mars, right next to that sculpture of Elvis.

See the next issue of The World tabloid at your local supermarket checkout stand.

Amaleq13

As I thought I had made it clear that I was not accepting the unsupported date range he provided but referring to earlier datings that extended into the early 2nd century. I have no idea who, if anyone, was supporting the very late range he offered. It seems like a straw man to me. IIUC, those who thought John might date into the early 2nd century moved back subsequent to the dating of the scrap.

I agree but we've yet to see this late dating supported by any named scholars despite the fact that they were requested earlier in the thread. I will continue to consider it a straw man exaggeration until specific individuals are named.

RUmike

Did the speaker in this movie even have a script? He says 'uh' way too much.