Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

Not a single one of these books was written sooner than 5 decades after the events they describe. Moreover, since the books were written anonymously, there's no indication that the writers were in fact eyewitnesses, or that the people they described as "witnesses" actually witnessed, or even existed. In fact the authors don't even make the claim to be eyewitnesses. Considered by who to be inspired? You mean a committee put this book together? Just arbitrarily decided which materials were "scripture" and which were not?And somehow we're supposed to believe that the result of this committee's cherry picking is, coincidently, exactly the book God had in mind?Look, no offense, but if I were God, and I wanted my people to have a book, I'd give it to them. Already bound and everything. A whole crateful of books for them to pass out. This committee stuff, this sorting of competing gospels of varying degrees of "inspiration", rather undermines the claim that the Bible is the Word of God exactly as he intended it, don't you think? No, it detracts from it. It's an indication we're looking at plagerized accounts.

Shall I ask you to prove any of that? It's all typical revisionist guesswork treated as fact, just as the unprovable guesswork of evolutionism is treated as fact. They sit around and destroy the truth. To what purpose I wonder. Oh well. Enjoy your delusion.

Who were the writers? When did they live? When did they do the writing? How do you know any of the answers to these questions?

Well crashfrog doesn't have to prove: as you already admitted this back in #135.

---

*not an actual doctor

quote:

---

The eyewitnesses are the writers of the various books and the people they write about too who also witnessed the events they record.
= = = =
Who were the writers? When did they live? When did they do the writing? How do you know any of the answers to these questions?

---

Huge question. They are who they say they are and who tradition says they are. They lived during the events they say they witnessed, which can be confirmed by comparing the writings with each other and with known history. They wrote in their own lifetimes, soon enough in other words, and from internal evidence the time of the writing of the gospels and other NT books has been pretty well established to within ten years of Jesus' death to the end of the first century. I know these things because tradition and honest scholarship have agreed on it. Many Bible commentators and preachers discuss questions of authorship when preaching on a particular subject, but tracking this down would be hard to do.Each book in my King James version is prefaced by a long discussion of its authorship and dating and other facts about it (my other versions aren't so helpful), but I'm not up to typing it all out or reading through 66 prefaces to select the relevant points.A lot is based on the authorship that has been traditionally accepted for millennia, which is a perfectly reasonable supposition. The authors of some of the books identify themselves in the book. Dating is through internal evidence, comparing statement with statement and book with book, which is the honest way to do it. The way modern critics go about it, by for instance dating the book of Daniel later than the time he claimed to be writing it, simply because they don't believe in prophecy (about the most dishonest thing I can imagine anyone doing) fragments the text and destroys its natural coherence. Internal dating is consistent and preserves the coherence of the whole collection of books, which also contributes to the validity of the message.Here's a website on the subject
Who were the authors of the books of the Bible? | GotQuestions.org: This message has been edited by Faith, 04-01-2005 12:38 AM

quote:

---

Moreover, since the books were written anonymously, there's no indication that the writers were in fact eyewitnesses, or that the people they described as "witnesses" actually witnessed, or even existed. In fact the authors don't even make the claim to be eyewitnesses.

---

Luke and Peter both claim to be eyewitnesses and speak of "we" as eyewitnesses, including the other disciples with themselves. And the gospels are clearly reports of what was witnessed. What does writing without giving your name have to do with whether or not the writer was an eyewitness anyway?

Ah, slow death by website. Don`t know if you have access to a library or not, Faith, but you would be far better off getting back to basics than accepting the bias of a website. Study the scriptures against each other from the sources. Find out that the Septuagint (LXX) doesn`t agree with the Masoretic Text (MT). Then read of the grand discovery of the Qumran Scrolls (DSS)(the oldest extant copies we have of the OT)and the revelation that their scriptures sometimes agree with LXX, sometimes with MT, and often with neither. Then tell me you have the unvarnished truth. Study the decision of the Southern Congregations of the Church of England to revise the KJV because of the errors and contradictions therein, leading to the Westcott-Hort revision that has spawned a variety of modern bibles. The fortunes of the scriptures make a fascinating journey. Try it. You might enjoy it.

I used that website becasue it gives the same dates I've learned over and over and over and over and over from all kinds of sources. It was a handy way to list them. Everybody has biases. Its biases are my biases.I've read up on the whole translations history, contrary to your rude assumptions that I haven't. I have arrived at different conclusions than you have. What you consider to be major differences are minor differences. The Septuagint was apparently the version quoted from by the New Testament. The differences are minor. Why do you use expressions like "unvarnished truth" as someone else used "exact?" The MEANINGS are the same, the HISTORY is not altered, minor terms are different. BIG DEAL.

How about you start by proving your own assertions. If you can show external evidence for the claims you've made, I'll do the same.Oh, wait. We've been here before. I remember - the Bible gets special rules, and so nothing it says has to be supported by anything, just because its the Bible. "Delusion" would be a grown woman who believes in the literal truth of a book that begins with a talking snake.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 04-01-2005 02:44 AM

Then if you have read up on the WHOLE translations, you will know about the classic arguments between W-H and John Burgon?

The author of Luke makes the opposite claim, in fact, in the very first verses, where he says that he's compiling information from other sources to develop his Gospel:

quote:

---

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, 2 just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent The-oph'ilus, 4 that you may know the truth concerning the things of which you have been informed.

---

The earliest that the Gospel of Luke could possibly have been written is usually given to be about 80 AD. That's a generation after the events it describes. They're clearly reports of what was claimed to have been witnessed. How are we to judge the credibility of the writer without any idea of his identity? Oh, my bad, I forgot again. The Bible gets special rules about how we judge its veracity, rules that we would have to be the most gullible idiots to apply to any other source. How could I keep forgetting?

Excuse me, yes, Luke was speaking of receiving reports FROM The eyewitnesses for writing his account. He was a witness to many things about the spread of the gospel in the Book of Acts, however, as he traveled with Paul and the other disciples, but he wasn't a witness of the life of Jesus however. My mistake.Yes, reports of what was claimed to have been witnessed, yes, I guess, although that's a strange way to put it, the reports being reports OF events obviously witnessed. But yes, they claim to be witness reports, they do indeed.The credibility of a writer is judged by his writing. Knowing his name and profession wouldn't add a thing to his credibility. This is true for any writer of any report of any kind, not just the Bible.As for the dating of the writing of the book, my Bible has it dated between 58 and 62 AD, based on Luke's travels with Paul and Paul's imprisonment in Rome which ended in 62.But you project modern expectations on writers of those days. The teachings of Jesus were often spoken to huge crowds. People were accustomed to learning by listening. The gospel writers were also listeners, probably heard the same teachings many times. Up until the printing press knowledge was passed on as much by oral recitation and memorization as writing. Why would there be just one sitting down and writing in any case? The gospels were being passed around and various writers picked them up and copied them and continued passing them on, the more so as the gospel spread and new congregations needed instruction. The point was to get the story out, authorship wasn't of particular importance to them. Many versions of the gospels could have been in circulation from quite an early time. How would anyone know for sure and why would it matter?Your insistence on objective proof simply means if it's true you'll never find out.I'd like to repeat that:Your insistence on objective proof simply means if it's true you'll never find outIf you know the Doubting Thomas incident, then you know that Jesus said "blessed are those who did not see and yet believed." For whatever reason He counts belief in the veracity of His disciples' reports to be of paramount importance, and He treated the kind of proof that Thomas demanded very inferior although He honored it with the proof he wanted.Everything you are saying, your cavilings and objections, your demands for proof, are EXACTLY PRECISELY at odds with what Jesus requires of His followers. You despise the transmission of truth by witnesses. I can only be sorry for you and all material-evidence-worshiping people.

quote:

---

The credibility of a writer is judged by his writing. Knowing his name and profession wouldn't add a thing to his credibility. This is true for any writer of any report of any kind, not just the Bible.

---

Har har. This is why people buy snake-oil.The name and profession ARE relevant becuase they gove us some insoght into what message the wrioter intended to convey. If your author was a known prankster with 50 priors for forged documents on their rap-sheet, don't you think that might slightly undermine their credibility.Taking your argument as it stands, you essentially claim to be able to discern the quality of thought implicit in the text, right? Except, what if it is a deloberately crafted lie? That would look much the same, and yet be totally misleading.You cannot ever accept a text as persuasive merely becuase you subjectively find it so.

quote:

---

But you project modern expectations on writers of those days. The teachings of Jesus were often spoken to huge crowds. People were accustomed to learning by listening.

---

Yes, but then again, no. Writing in an entirely modern sense had been developed at this time, even if practiced only by a minority. But more imporetantly, seals and personal identifications are amongs the earliest craft objects found in the region.

quote:

---

The point was to get the story out, authorship wasn't of particular importance to them.

---

Indeed. I would suggest that "truth" was not particularly import to them either.

quote:

---

Many versions of the gospels could have been in circulation from quite an early time. How would anyone know for sure and why would it matter?

---

Well, is it the inspired word of god, or not? I presume you are saying "No", is that correct?

Interesting. what`s your take on the pesher technique?

C'mon. You can't really believe that? What would the quality of the writing have to do with the credibility of the writer? And your insistance on the opposite means that if it's false, which is considerably more likely given the spectacular claims of the Bible, you'll never know. Which is exactly what I would write in my book if I were trying to start a religion, too. No shit. If I were trying to get people to swallow these ridiculous fabrications that's exactly what I would tell them, too. "If you want to follow me, and trust me, you do, then you have to do so without proof or evidence of any kind, and in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. Don't worry, if you do, you're a better person than all those schmucks who have to have evidence to accept a proposition."I mean, duh. That's the first thing you would tell your followers if you were trying to get them to believe a whole lot of ridiculous lies. I don't despise it; I just know, because its been proven, that eyewitness testitmony is never particularly accurate. Sometimes its hilariously inaccurate.