Evidence for Design (2)

[Split Rock]

Does that make evolution theory less reliable than the bible then?

How about matching up 44 different eyewitness accounts from different time periods, people and professions? If they match up then are they reliable? I'd think yes.

You are ignoring the fact that the books were chosen (in part) because they did agree with each other (for the most part) and those that gave different accounts were ultimately rejected and not given cannon status.

 

[bhsmte]

You are ignoring the fact that the books were chosen (in part) because they did agree with each other (for the most part) and those that gave different accounts were ultimately rejected and not given cannon status.

Correct.

The gospels pretty much tell a similar story, but they do have significant differences that are hard to reconcile and solidify the fact they were not eyewitness accounts, especially since they were written 50-70 years after Jesus died and were written in Greek, when Jesus' followers spoke Aramaic.

The attached is long, but it is a good debate between a liberal scholar (Bart Ehrman) and a conservative scholar (Craig Evans) in which Ehrman (whose credentials as a NT scholar and historian are second to none) states evidence as to why the NT is not all that reliable. Notice, Craig doesn't ever really state the evidence that Ehrman states is wrong, he just disagrees with his interpretation of the evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7gmgdk9qG8

 

[ThinkForYourself]

They are two different things. The Bible is many eyewitness accounts so it has been directly observed. It's a historical record.

Does evolution have that? No. Only assumptions on paper.

Actually I think biblical scholars almost unanimously agree that there are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually I think biblical scholars almost unanimously agree that there are no eye-witness accounts of Jesus.

Usually, conservative evangelical scholars will attest the NT has eye witness accounts. Of course, they have to scramble to explain away the wide acceptance of when the gospels were written (50-70 years after Jesus died), but they can get pretty creative when they have a need to.

Also remember, many of the conservative scholars, work for theological institutions and doubting the veracity of the NT is not a good thing for future employment.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Usually, conservative evangelical scholars will attest the NT has eye witness accounts. Of course, they have to scramble to explain away the wide acceptance of when the gospels were written (50-70 years after Jesus died), but they can get pretty creative when they have a need to.

Also remember, many of the conservative scholars, work for theological institutions and doubting the veracity of the NT is not a good thing for future employment.

Ah, OK. Thanks for the info. I've only read biblical scholars who say there are no eye-witness accounts.

I guess it's no surprise. There are Kent Hovinds and Ray Comforts in every field.

 

[bhsmte]

Ah, OK. Thanks for the info. I've only read biblical scholars who say there are no eye-witness accounts.

I guess it's no surprise. There are Kent Hovinds and Ray Comforts in every field.

You always have extremes on both ends. Just as you have scholars/historians that claim Jesus never existed. This is not the consensus amongst the majority of scholars, but some do make this claim.

I have read a lot on this topic, including the most liberal, the most conservative and those in the middle. Most scholars don't claim the NT has legit eye witness accounts. Most scholars agree the NT is not historically credible and only pieces of it are likely to be accurate. Most scholars agree the gospels were written 50-70 years after Jesus died. They also agree the gospels contain many errors, deletions and additions that have accumulated over time. Most scholars agree that is is questionable whether Jesus ever claimed to be God, since John is the only gospel that makes this claim and John is considered the least reliable of the four gospels for a variety of reason.

 

[EternalDragon]

You are ignoring the fact that the books were chosen (in part) because they did agree with each other (for the most part) and those that gave different accounts were ultimately rejected and not given cannon status.

It was a bit more complicated than that but so what?

 

[EternalDragon]

Ah, OK. Thanks for the info. I've only read biblical scholars who say there are no eye-witness accounts.

I guess it's no surprise. There are Kent Hovinds and Ray Comforts in every field.

You can listen to anyone you want to. I have a book and they are right there in that book. Eyewitness accounts in black and white.

But don't just go by others. Think for yourself. Give me the evidence that they are not accurate, correct accounts of what really happened.

 

[bhsmte]

You can listen to anyone you want to. I have a book and they are right there in that book. Eyewitness accounts in black and white.

But don't just go by others. Think for yourself. Give me the evidence that they are not accurate, correct accounts of what really happened.

Please provide those eye witnesses.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

You can listen to anyone you want to. I have a book and they are right there in that book. Eyewitness accounts in black and white.

But don't just go by others. Think for yourself. Give me the evidence that they are not accurate, correct accounts of what really happened.

I have a book too, with an eyewitness account of Santa. Google "I saw Mommy kissing Santa Claus".

Can you give me evidence that this isn't an accurate, correct account of what really happened?

 

[EternalDragon]

Please provide those eye witnesses.

John, Luke, Mark, Paul, etc. The New testament, you know?

 

[bhsmte]

This dude from Harvard, pretty much sums up the majority view of eye witness accounts in the NT.

Allen D. Callahan:
Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
GOSPELS ARE NOT EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS
If you take the gospels as a factual account of the life of Jesus, they're not all in sync...

Well, there are what we might identify as contradictions in the account. Some of this has to do with our methodology. If we want to read the gospels as eye witness accounts, historical records and so on, then not only are we in for some tough going, I think there's evidence within the material itself that it's not intended to be read that way. I mean that there are certain concerns that are being addressed in this literature. And we become theologically and even historically tone deaf to those concerns, if we don't give them due consideration. It's now consensus in the New Testament scholarship to some extent [that]... in the gospels we're dealing with theologians, people who are reflecting theologically on Jesus already. And there's all indication that what we now refer to as theological reflection was there at the very beginning of things....

Are you saying that the gospels are of little value as eye witness accounts of his life?

Well, they don't claim to be eye witness accounts of his life. I don't think that the people who are responsible for those documents were staying up at night worried about those kinds of things. They're making certain arguments and they have concerns..., and they are articulating those arguments and they're forwarding those concerns based on what they know and what other people know about what Jesus said and did.

 

[bhsmte]

John, Luke, Mark, Paul, etc. The New testament, you know?

First of all, the authors of matthew, mark, luke and john were anonymous the title of those four names were attached to their writings a long time after they were written.

Secondly, the gospels were written in Greek and Jesus' followers spoke aramaic and were illiterate. Also consider, the gospels were written 50-70 years after Jesus died. The gospels themselves don't even claim to be eye witness accounts and when you add up all of these facts, it doesn't look real good for eye witness accounts.

 

[EternalDragon]

First of all, the authors of matthew, mark, luke and john were anonymous the title of those four names were attached to their writings a long time after they were written.

Secondly, the gospels were written in Greek and Jesus' followers spoke aramaic and were illiterate. Also consider, the gospels were written 50-70 years after Jesus died. The gospels themselves don't even claim to be eye witness accounts and when you add up all of these facts, it doesn't look real good for eye witness accounts.

Jewish people were highly educated. Where are you getting this information? Even if no names are attached it is still an eyewitness account.

You are deciding to take one side in favor and ignoring what other scholars are saying. That's fine but either side is far from proven.

Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993.

Also, many Jews could speak Greek and write in Greek. Jesus was able to speak with the Roman Centurion. The NT gospels also contain hints of Hebrew in them.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/jesus_hebrew.html

 

[bhsmte]

Jewish people were highly educated. Where are you getting this information? Even if no names are attached it is still an eyewitness account.

You are deciding to take one side in favor and ignoring what other scholars are saying. That's fine but either side is far from proven.

Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993.

Also, many Jews could speak Greek and write in Greek. Jesus was able to speak with the Roman Centurion. The NT gospels also contain hints of Hebrew in them.

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Jesus_Hebrew/jesus_hebrew.html

Again, who were the eye witnesses that were available and wrote the gospels 50 years after jesus died.

 

[EternalDragon]

Again, who were the eye witnesses that were available and wrote the gospels 50 years after jesus died.

The writers of the New testament books, of course. Who else?

 

[bhsmte]

The writers of the New testament books, of course. Who else?

Sure why not. lets forget that the four gospels were not written by the names assigned to them, were written 50-70 years after jesus died and dont even claim to be eye witness accounts.

Thats a lot of forgetting, but is certainly required to convince ones self.

 

[EternalDragon]

Sure why not. lets forget that the four gospels were not written by the names assigned to them, were written 50-70 years after jesus died and dont even claim to be eye witness accounts.

Thats a lot of forgetting, but is certainly required to convince ones self.

I think you are either in denial or grossly ignorant of what the NT says. I opened it up and within seconds found a few verses contrary to what you claim. Perhaps you need to revise your false statement?

Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word."

John 1:34 "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."

1st John 1:3 "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, ..."

12 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I think you are either in denial or grossly ignorant of what the NT says. I opened it up and within seconds found a few verses contrary to what you claim. Perhaps you need to revise your false statement?

Luke 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word."

John 1:34 "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God."

1st John 1:3 "That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, ..."

12 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

As I've demonstrated, I can make the same claim about eyewitnesses for Santa: "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus". Run that song through a couple of translators, people who want to believe and make changes to make the story more believable, and voila, we have a believable story.

I'm sure you don't believe in Santa, yet you expect us to believe in your mythical favourite. What evidence do you have other than what is written in an old book? In other words, do you have any real evidence?

Surely some other scholars who lived during Jesus' time would have noticed him doing miracles and recorded them.

 

[EternalDragon]

As I've demonstrated, I can make the same claim about eyewitnesses for Santa: "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus". Run that song through a couple of translators, people who want to believe and make changes to make the story more believable, and voila, we have a believable story.

I'm sure you don't believe in Santa, yet you expect us to believe in your mythical favourite. What evidence do you have other than what is written in an old book? In other words, do you have any real evidence?

Surely some other scholars who lived during Jesus' time would have noticed him doing miracles and recorded them.

There are dozens and probably were thousands but the most important and vital ones survived. The gospels.

Josephus, Tacticus, Pliny, and Talmud wrote about Jesus.