AIA

I apologize for interrupting your conversation, but I would like to reply to the latest post by Sidewinder on page 1 since he made reference directly to me.

Sidewinder, you stated :

“My question was not answered. Do you not understand the question?”

On the contrary your question has been answered sufficiently. Just because you don’t like the answer is no reason to claim that it is an “emotional argument”. This is simply a smoke screen for not dealing with the answers given.

I concurred with you that many passages of the Bible are difficult to understand but this has nothing to do with it being inspired. You asked why God didn’t make a Bible that is easy to understand. The real issue is - did God inspire the Bible that we now possess? Clarity is irrelevant to this issue. By the way, you equivocated on the word “inspire”.

“Look at how many great authors over history have been able to write books which are very inspiring and communicate clearly.”

When conservative Christians say that the Bible is inspired we are not saying that it is inspired in the same way a good book is inspiring. We are saying that it is God breathed (Theopneustos).

You further stated that my arguments have “No substance, no evidence, nothing.” Oh really, when you claimed in your original post that the Bible contains many "clear errors and contradictions"
I answered three alleged discrepancies that critics have raised concerning the events surrounding the birth of Christ with documented archaeological evidence. On the contrary, nobody on this thread has presented a single alleged discrepancy that has not yet been answered.

Well, I have to go for a few weeks. Maybe we can talk more in May. Thanks for your time.

lpetrich

That's an extremely stupid argument. Because it ignores the fact that the proposed resolution can be a less plausible hypothesis than the hypothesis that the contradiction is real. To establish that the Bible has a self-contradiction, one need only establish that this hypothesis is stronger than proposed reconciliations, not that such supposed reconciliations do not exist.

AIA, why don't you treat other sacred books in this fashion, and see what you come up with.

AIA, do you apply this "standard" to documents describing belief systems that you don't agree with? Do you assume that the writings of Homer have established the existence of the deities of Mt. Olympus unless one has good reason to think otherwise? Do you assume that the Koran demonstrates the truth of Islam unless you have good reason to think otherwise?

By this standard, you ought to convert to every religion there ever was, O AIA, including Hellenic paganism and Islam, my two examples here.

AIA

Dear lpetrich, you stated :

“Do you apply this "standard" to documents describing belief systems that you don't agree with?”

Yes, absolutely, the standard is applied to all documents equally but that does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that you draw (i.e. that I should convert to every religion there ever was). If two documents record alleged facts but the facts are in direct contradiction to each other then obviously one of the documents is in error and other standards for determining the truth (in this case divine inspiration) come into play. But in either case Aristotle's Dictum still stands. Sorry I can’t go into more details. I am out of time for now.

Vinnie

First discrepancy:

Obviously the discrepancy here would be between Matt. Mark and John. But look at Mark 16:2 NIV Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb, and they asked....

Why couldn't they have started before it was light according to this passage? As translated by the NIV: It tells us that right after sunrise they were already in progress on their way

That would just leave a contradiction between Matt 28:1 and John 20:1

A comparitive study bible is also helpful. Its interesting to see how each translation words it. I have a KJV/NIV/Amplified/NIV Comparitvie Bible and sometimes contradictions can only be gleaned by how its worded and which version you use.

Example: Matt 28:1

NIV: 1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.

NAS Now after the sabbath as it began to dawn

Amplified: Now after the Sabbath near the dawn of the first day:

KJV: In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn

When it begins to dawn can it reasonably be said to still be dark? The sun is rising but everything is still somewhat dark? The definition of "dawn" from m-w.com seems to fit this:

dawn 1 : to begin to grow light as the sun rises

I think Blomberg is right. I don't really see this discrepancy being that much of a discrepancy but I await some feedback:

Next installment assuming we can get through this will be: Who were the women?

Vinnie

Vinnie

In another site on the resurrection discrepancies I saw (on II I was challenged--double dared actually to go harmonize this chart) they list the first objection I went through, the one I just quoted above and another one relating to the above objection:

Thay had 21 objections i believe whereas Barker lists 17. Herre I think I can pretty much kill both of these birds with one stone.

For starters, the accounts do not say that only two or only three or only 4 or only one person goes to the tomb. Stating Bob and Bill just drove to the store without mentioning Steve who is in the back of the pickup is hardly a contradiction. It would have to say ONLY in order to technically be a contradiction.

Calling this a discrepancy seems to ignore the absolute necessity of conjecture in historical reconstruction. The accounts cannot be read like exact modern day legal documents.

Some would argue that by no means does John 20:1 mean to give the impression that only Mary went to the tomb. Look at John 20:2 :

So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and WE don't know where they have put him!"

Who is this we that she speaks of? To me it indicates there were others with her. John only mentions Mary's name but he seems to be aware others made the journey. From a historical point of view I think conjecture is needed and these accounts seem to warrant it.

We cannot take these as contemporary legal documents that try to record all the details with exactness. The core stories are the same and we are pretty much discussing secondary details but I am chasing rabbits now. I'll get into why I feel the differing details actually strengthen the trustworthy of the story later. Objection 3 next after I get some feedback on number 2.

Vinnie

Vinnie

These are the objections I am covering: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/2476/easter.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/athens/ithaca/2476/easter.html</a>

"How abou a specific complain or example which tickles your fancy?"


Claiming what I know and don't know for starters:

"When you don't know who wrote them, where they were written, who they were written by, for whom they were written or why they were written, how can you treat them as historical documents?"

Your comments tell me, either you can read my mind or during your intense and thourough study of these questions you've come to conclude the answers are unknowable and your conclusion is beyond discussion. Ex cathedra?

Vinnie