Validity of differing eyewitness accounts in religious texts

But they are not Christian stories Faith, they are Jewish stories. And the Muslims did not displace the Christians. Christians, Jews and Muslims have lived in the middle East together all along. Christians and Jews helped Muhammad establish Islam.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So lets get this straight. I point out that the Pentateuch is NOT interested in establishing that the author was a witness to the events, nor even that it was based on the direct testimony of witnesses. But somehow you think that we should assume otherwise because of the number of times the word "witness" appears in the Bible ? Well maybe someone is inventing rules, but it isn't me.As for your "internal" evidence (added an hour after Sidelined replied to the message !), lets have a look at it.Exodus 17:14 The book is not identified. There is no reason to even assume that it refers to any work that is still extant.

quote:

---

80 verses in Numbers starting "The LORD spoke unto Moses;

---

i.e. 80 verses that do NOT identify Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.Having exhausted the Pentateuch without finding verses which establish Moses as the author we have the rest2 chronicles 33:8 Another failure - we KNOW that the law is supposed to have been revealed to Moses, that does not mean that Moses actually wrote the books of the Pentateuch.35:6 meets the same objection.Ezra 6:18 refers to "the Book of Moses" - which only indicates that that terminology had come into use at the time of Ezra and could refer to a book ABOUT Moses. Just as the Books of Job and Jonah are ABOUT Job and Jonah.Mark 12:26 another reference to the Book of MosesLuke 16:29-31 doesn't refer to Moses writing a book either - only to the belief that Moses words were known - not how they had been transmitted.Luke 24:44 another reference to the "Law of Moses"John 1:17 another reference to the law being revealed to Moses - nothing about him writing a word of the actual books of the Pentateuch.1 Corinthians 9:9 yet another reference to the "Law of Moses"So only 1 out of 89 verses mentions Moses writing ANYTHING. And that is an identified book. So much for the claim that there were specific references in the Pentateuch to Moses as author - even if I generously granted that the unnamed work in Exodus 17:14 was in fact Exodus itself (which it almost certainly is not) you would still only have one with the others being "the Lord spoke to Moses" which by no stretch of the imagination means "Moses wrote this book".So what EVIDENCE do you have that Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch ? Are we to conclude that the most we can say is that a few short sections of the Pentateuch might (or might not) have ultimately been derived from Moses writing - and then only because the Pentateuch describes Moses as writing those particular things and nothing else ?And if Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch then any claims that it has authority derived from his supposed status as a witness are null and void.

quote:

---

From where would they be plagiarized? Islam began 600 years after Christianity was established, and in fact displaced the Christians in the Middle East.

---

Poor Faith, our crybaby: Playing victim by disregarding historical facts. We will talk about this, some other time. I owe you one (a juicy one). Let us talk about plagiarization in the NT, and exmaine few examples below:
Mark
015:034
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Copied from Psalms 22:1)

​

Matthew
027:046
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? (Copied from Psalms 22:1)

​

Copied From!

​

Psalms
022:001
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

​

Cf

​

Luke
023:046
And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. (Copied from Psalms 31.5)

​

Copied From!

​

Psalms
031:005
Into thine hand I commit my spirit: thou hast redeemed me, O LORD God of truth.

​

John
019:028
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst. (Copied from Psalms 69:21)

​

019:029
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.

​

019:030
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost. (Echoes Job 19:25-27)

​

Copied From!

​

Psalms
069:021
They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

​

Job

​

019:025
For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:

​

019:026
And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

​

019:027
Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.All the alleged words attributed to Jesus before his alleged death are COPIED from Old Testament, mainly the Psalms 22:1, by the way it is part of same Psalms from which the theme of dividing Jesus’ clothes (as mentioned in all crucifixion accounts) comes from i.e. Psalms 22:18!022:018
They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.Checkmate This message has been edited by Admin, 04-25-2005 09:07 PM

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

The recent (and not so recent?) activity seems to be largely the exchange of "one-liners". In my judgement, we are piling up a bunch of micro-thoughts, when we should be having fewer but better thought out messages.Going to give this one a short term closure to let things cool down. I will be around my computer for a couple of hours. If the topic is left closed after that, I request that another admin consider reopening it.Adminnemooseus

Now how about a few good messages, rather than a bunch of poor ones?Adminnemooseus

---

But they are not Christian stories Faith, they are Jewish stories.
=========Christians regard the whole Bible as Christian. We are "grafted into" Israel. However, the Koran has done the same with both OT and NT texts.=======And the Muslims did not displace the Christians. Christians, Jews and Muslims have lived in the middle East together all along. Christians and Jews helped Muhammad establish Islam.==========
Yeah, by being slaughtered for the purpose, paying tax for the right to go on living, and being treated like dogs they sure did help Muhammed establish Islam. This is off topic so don't expect *evidence" from me. There's plenty to be had without my help.

Sermon on the Mount. Yes, as you say, "we have the Bible to tell us it happened and that's it." If you don't find it credible, I'm tired of trying to prove it. I find it credible as is. No amount of argument has accomplished anything here and obviously none is going to. I'm just an arrogant ignorant hard cold bigoted intolerant stupid YEC. Yup, the Bible is IT. Take it or leave it.

If you mean Jewish writings, I expect that for heaven's sake. Jesus was Jewish, in the best Jewish traditions. And if you mean the OT, Moses was educated in all the Egyptian lore. Why shouldn't there be some overlap? That doesn't prove plagiarism. But the Koran is obviously a self-serving rewrite.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-25-2005 08:22 PM

Normally, but Jesus' birth was a miracle. With God all things are possible.

Hi admin,I'm really chuffed that my muslim friends turned up for this debate. I'm learning a lot. Can we try to keep it open as long as decorum will permit? Although the tone is slightly agressive, I think the content of lots of these posts are very interesting.CheersMick

First do you recognize that the Koran rewrites are obvious ripoffs or not?Then I'll say similarities between the Bible and other cultural productions do not have any of the marks of a ripoff, merely shared cultural knowledge.

You forgot to dot six i's and cross 9 t's. Therefore your post is a failure.

The Old Testament prophesied Jesus' would experience being forsaken by God for those who believe on Him, and He fulfilled the prophecies. But of course the Koran has no prophecies besides having no witnesses to anything including the claims of its author, so I understand why you have to make up lies to pretend they never happened in the Bible. Same as Higher Critics do who redate Old Testament books because their prophecies were actually fulfilled. You only fool yourself.

I think you probably want to avoid making assessments of the relative authenticity of the Koran and Bible. We're just trying to establish some common criteria for judging the authenticity of eyewitness accounts in religious texts.Okay, so now let's take your criteria and get a bit more rigorous. I ask the Moslems here to also assess your criteria, but I'll examine them now myself one by one:

1. Authentic accounts appear in historical frameworks.
   ​
   How does this apply to the story of Moses in either the Bible or the Koran? I can understand referring to the Bible as having a narrative framework, but not a historical one. There is nothing about the story of Moses that has been confirmed from a historical perspective, including whether he ever even existed.
   ​
2. The accounts should not appear in hither and yon random fashion.
   ​
   This doesn't seem a valid criteria, but is merely the way the Bible happens to be structured in much of it. Just because the Bible threads eye witnessed events into a narrative does not mean that's the only way they can appear. Is there something about a narrative structure that can be interpreted as evidence of authenticity? For example, the Epic of Gilgamesh also possesses a strong narrative structure. Why should we consider that evidence of authenticity? In fact, since fiction has a much stronger narrative structure than does history, a strong narrative structure would seem to be evidence against authenticity rather than for.
   ​
3. Older accounts are more likely authentic than newer versions.
   ​
   I agree with this criteria. It is true in many cases. The legend of King Author grew more detailed with time, as did the legend of William Tell, but accuracy diminished and most of the details were fabricated.
   But by this criteria we must judge the earlier mentioned Epic of Gilgamesh more authentic than the story of Noah from the Bible.
   ​
4. Authentic accounts teach about the character of God and his relation to humanity.
   ​
   I have to disagree with this criteria. I can't see how teaching this lesson is related to authenticity. Perhaps you can explain more.

In summary, the only criteria you provided that I can agree with is that older accounts are more likely to be authentic than newer ones. Notice I didn't say the older account is the authentic one. It is possible, even likely in many cases, that neither account is authentic.--Percy

Faith, are we having a serious discussion here or not? If you're feeling unable, for whatever reason, to hold up your end of a serious discussion then take a break, but please do not waste people's time with non-answers. It seems like you bounce back and forth between serious discussion and venting frustration. Occasionally venting frustration is fine, we're all human, but one shouldn't make it a daily habit.Now let's reset. We're trying to establish by what criteria we should assess the validity of eyewitness accounts in the Bible. In my Message 115, the one that you replied to here, I noted the contrast between ancient events in the Bible for which there is corroborating evidence (the Sennacherib campaign again King Hezekiah) and those for which there is no corroborating evidence (Jesus's Sermon on the Mount).I also noted that the amount of evidence required depends upon the degree of certainty required. In any area of study there will always be some things we can establish better than others, and there will also be some things we can never establish at all. There can't be equal certainty of everything. There can be no doubt that there is far more evidence for the Sennacherib campaign than for the Sermon on the Mount, and the criteria we establish in this discussion should enable us to place eyewitnessed events into a hierarchy of certainty. I discussed the criteria you offered earlier in my previous post.--Percy