Validity of Written Documents

You are right on all counts. We've got our work cut out for us here

I've already dealt with the Census issue. There was no decree from Augustus covering the entire Empire, but there was a Census in Judaea, under Quirinius when it was taken under direct Roman control.I don't know what Crossan has to do with this, nor claims that Acts was written in the 2nd Century since no refernece to either has been made in this thread.However we do NOT know that Acts was written prior to 70 AD - indeed Luke's rewrite of the Oliver Discourse indicates that Luke's Gospel was written after the fall of Jerusalem - and thus Acts was probably written later still.

Well!!! Obviously if one critic of the Gospel accounts makes an unfounded assumption, and is found to be wrong, then ALL the critiques by ALL Bible scholars, who don't agree with the literal interpretation, MUST ALSO JUST BE UNFOUNDED AND BIASED ASSUMPTIONS.Regardless, it seems that all this talk on the accounts of Jesus' birth is a little off topic. The topic deals with the means by which we can determine the validity of a written document from the writing itself. It seems that the writing must have some support from historical context which matches the timeline of the document. As we can see, the Bible gets a "benefit of the doubt" that is not extended to other documents (Hurcules, King Arthur...etc). I am trying to find out if there is more than just faith guiding this decision by literalists for this biased interpretation.

No...you don't...at least not in this thread.I know that I am steering the conversation, but could you respond to Message 55? I am under the impression that you believe that the accounts of King Arthur, Hurcules, and the Kent Family are all literal history.

Its hard to read your mind as whatever written above is groundless assertions void of any logic.The total silence of Acts mentioning the fall of Jerusalem dates the account prior to 70 AD. This is logical.It is of no surprise that you being a militant atheist think any book written after 70 AD. Scholars have long since established all of the New Testament was written before 70 AD with the possible exception of Revelation.Failure to embrace the truth is only indicative of your worldview and its needs.RM

Can't imagine where you got such a silly impression.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-25-2005 05:33 PM

Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse is quite different form that in Mark and Matthew (which are only slightly different).That Luke's version was changed (since he knew Mark, Matthew or both) to better fit events is a rational explanation of the differences.And unless you can give a reaon why Acts SHOULD mention the siege of Jerusalemn if it were not written earlier it is NOT logical that the failure ot mention it indicates the date of writing.And for your information John is usually dated even later - usually after 90 AD and the Pseudo-Pauline epistles later still.Oh and I have to correct your statement - it is TELLING the truth rather than embracing the falsehoods put forward by you, that indicates MY worldview.

Do tell. Sure the hell doesn't make it false. I'm afraid you didn't supply enough information for me to know what you are talking about here. Who said what? What was the context? I'm sorry, I've forgotten. Sorry, don't know what point you are trying to make. I believe I said THE writers, did I not? THE writers of the Bible? "The" is not a reference to "ALL" writers. As for the Kent Chronicles my point was simple: I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the author without further information -- Could be a piece of "honestly imagined fiction." You DO know what the word "fiction" means, right? I mean I just answered your silly post about how you believe I must believe it's all true and now I see your "reasoning." Good grief. They are all considered to be fiction. The criteria for determining fiction is hard to spell out but it's obvious to any sane intelligent human being who reads a lot what has the marks of reality and what has the marks of fiction. You are making up nonsense here based on nothing I've said. THe point about the Kent Chronicles is that there is such a thing as historical fiction that aims to be true to the actual historical facts while imagining plausible character interactions. I'd think the extremely simple idea would be recognizable even if you've never heard the term before. I have no idea if the Kent Chronicles qualifies, having never read it or even read about it until now. It's easy to ask questions isn't it? Keep up a steady barrage of trivial hostile questions. Great technique. Sure takes the heat off the interlocutor. The answer is I don't know. I've answered the qeustion about Isaiah many times already. Sorry if you missed it. I see. Well thank you for the information. Now I know how YOU arrive at YOUR conclusions.Your motive is obviously obfuscation. You don't care how you misrepresent me, and I don't care any more about this conversation.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-25-2005 05:58 PM

The more rational explanation is that his report was based on other reports of the discourse or he felt no need to report the whole thing exactly the same way. It's always a more rational position to assume honesty on the part of the author than that he manipulated facts when you have no knowledge to the contrary but your own jaundiced imagination. Because it was the BIGGEST EVENT OF THE TIME FOR THE JEWS?? Why would anyone writing about the events in Judea of the day leave something that huge out of the account? At least a passing mention of it. It makes no sense not to mention it if it's happened. Only by modernist revisionist scholars. Other scholars of better reputation place them all much earlier. I'm with Ray.

Having investigated the differences I can say that your assertion is not plausible. At the leat it rejects the version given by mMatthew and Mark. More likely it deliberately changes the text. We cannot assuem that the authot would not do that when the evidence clearly suggests otherwise.As for the fall of Jerusalem it did not occur in the period covered by Acts. That in itself is a reaon not to mention it. Even if Luke did not intend to continue his story in futher volumes - as some scholars suggest - it is not obvious that it must reference an event that occurred outside its scope.As for the rest of the post I am afraid your prejudices and arrogance are showing. Again.

Faith,Certainly my questioning style is a bit pushy. I ask a lot of questions because I am the one without information that you claim to have. How else am I supposed to understand the reasoning behind the claims you make about the Bible?You make the claim that you assume integrity on the part of the Bible authors. That brings up at least these questions.1. By what means do you assume that the Bible authors are being truthful? I understand that you may be using many pieces of evidence to determine the integrity of particular Biblical authors but you have not really answered this question and it has been brought up by more people than me.2. Does their sincerity and integrity in any way actually make what they say accurate or valid? Couldn't they be sincere and yet still wrong. They could have impeccable integrity and still only be stating what they believe to be true. I would say that many of the suicide bombers are sincere in their beliefs and would state those beliefs with no hint that they were lying. You would have to say that their sincerity does not really speak to the truth of their beliefs. Otherwise you would have to embrace their beliefs as true.3. Do we know the authors well enough to even determine their integrity? Frankly there it some major contention on who wrote the books of the Bible and when they were written. I realize that you don't believe that "modern revisionist scholars" know what the hell they are talking about. However, the same techniques that they use to speculate on the validity of Biblical inerrantist's claims are used to question the validity of other documents (King Arthur, Kent, Hindu texts et al). You agree with their conclusions on those legends and stories yet don't agree with their methods when it comes to your sacred text. I have to ask for your reasoning for throwing out their methods in this one case yet accepting it for other cases. What does this mean? Do you assume complete validity of a document because there are some verified parts in it? It is statements like that which lead me to conclude that you have no reason to disbelieve the Trojan War epics, the tales of King Arthur and many others. Sure, my statement is over-the-top but it is so to shine light on the fact that you have not explained how you can conclude that the Bible is entirely true in all aspects yet these stories are not.Yes you have made statements as to some of your methods for deciding your conclusions about the Bible. If I apply those same methods to the other legends, that you say are false, I must conclude that those legends are also true. Perhaps you are not being clear on what you use to make that split between them. Let's just say that I learned a lot by watching the debating style of most creationists.Why do you consider my questions hostile? Maybe if you could explain better why you throw out the conclusions of people who have spent most of their lives in researching particular fields of study, I wouldn't have to ask all these questions.You seem to consider me rude and I just feel I am being direct. Is it because I indicate that I don't think you are correct? Or is it my style? I am willing to change my style in regards to discussions with you. How would you like me to change and still get the clarity I need to determine if your conclusions and statements are valid?

So, what evidence do you have that Jews were required to return home from whenever there was a census? And you have external evidence of this census taking in Bethlehem? Excellent, if it is a fact then you will have no problem producing the evidence that supports this fact. Oh,and posting Bible verses to support other Bible verses is not evidence.Brian.