Originally posted by Tim Routall scripture is inspired by chuck norris get it right
The Bible claims to be a great deal more than a mere guide book. 2 Timothy 3:16 says:"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God's way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do." [NLT]
Originally posted by Tim Rout
The Bible claims to be a great deal more than a mere guide book. 2 Timothy 3:16 says:"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God's way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do." [NLT]
I have a book which states that pink elephants can fly, but it does not follow from this:
[list=1][*]There are such things as pink elephants.
[*]That if there is such a thing as pink elephants, that they can indeed fly.[/list]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have a book which states that pink elephants can fly, but it does not follow from this:[list=1][*]There are such things as pink elephants.
[*]That if there is such a thing as pink elephants, that they can indeed fly.[/list]
I have already presented a fairly extensive case in support of the Bible's authority. The rules do not permit me to repost it.
Originally posted by Rim Tout
The Bible claims to be a great deal more than a mere guide book. 2 Timothy 3:16 says:"All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God's way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do." [NLT]
Hey, i did not belittle it. were did you get the mere from? Guide books are not mere but useful to its users and consultants.
It is a Guide book nonetheless.
Originally posted by GCG
Hey, i did not belittle it. were did you get the mere from? Guide books are not mere but useful to its users and consultants.It is a Guide book nonetheless.
My apologies. Certainly the Bible is a guide book. Was your initial post intended to suggest that it is also something more?
Originally posted by Tim RoutSo if I had a collection of written accounts of people that have been abducted by UFO's then in your view this would make it legit and valid proof that UFO's do exist? You look at the world today and people that make outlandish claims of seeing UFO’s, monster and so on and I can guarantee that you will find a book with a collection of their accounts on the subject. You may say they are crazy and can discount them but they run the gambit of education, careers and accountability. You are only looking at one source for your “proof” a book that is written by people of the same mind set and goal, a “pro god” stance if you want to call it something, that source will and is bias to say the least.
I have already presented a fairly extensive case in support of the Bible's authority. The rules do not permit me to repost it.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
I have already presented a fairly extensive case in support of the Bible's authority. The rules do not permit me to repost it.
But all you gave was scripture. The bible cannot give its self authority.
The Koran says it's the word of god also. So, if a book can give it's own authority to its self then the Koran is also the word of god.
The Book of Mormon says it's the word of god also. So, if a book can give it's own authority to its self then the Book of Mormon is also the word of god.
and so on...
Originally posted by ShakyamunisonThe book of Pittman...
But all you gave was scripture. The bible cannot give its self authority.The Koran says it's the word of god also. So, if a book can give it's own authority to its self then the Koran is also the word of god.
The Book of Mormon says it's the word of god also. So, if a book can give it's own authority to its self then the Book of Mormon is also the word of god.
and so on...
😛 Sorry couldn't resit
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But all you gave was scripture. The bible cannot give its self authority.
Again Shaky...if it helps you to think of it this way, ignore the fact that Matthew through Revelation form a collection called the New Testament. If we look at the literature as twenty-seven unique documents written by at least eight independent contemporaneous authors, speaking on one subject and based on eyewitness testimony, then it is valid to use them for cross-corroboration. That's how systematic documentary studies work.
The other books (gnostic gospels) that were excluded at Nicaea (and in fact were never taken seriously by the bulk of church fathers), are not contemporaneous and are therefore automatically invalid for purposes of historical comparison. There are no first century pseudoepigraphal documents available for antithetical consideration.
If you can get around the fact that the books of the New Testament are traditionally gathered into a neat little religious collection, and just view them as 27 separate pieces of ancient literature, you might be able to see the logic in my approach. My argument would only be circular if I had used one part of a given document to prove another part of that same document, and I didn't.
Originally posted by Tim Rout❌
Again Shaky...if it helps you to think of it this way, ignore the fact that Matthew through Revelation form a collection called the New Testament. If we look at the literature as twenty-seven unique documents written by at least eight independent contemporaneous authors, speaking on one subject and based on eyewitness testimony, then it is valid to use them for cross-corroboration. That's how systematic documentary studies work.The other books (gnostic gospels) that were excluded at Nicaea (and in fact were never taken seriously by the bulk of church fathers), are not contemporaneous and are therefore automatically invalid for purposes of historical comparison. There are no first century pseudoepigraphal documents available for antithetical consideration.
If you can get around the fact that the books of the New Testament are traditionally gathered into a neat little religious collection, and just view them as 27 separate pieces of ancient literature, you might be able to see the logic in my approach. My argument would only be circular if I had used one part of a given document to prove another part of that same document, and I didn't.
Originally posted by Da Pittman
So if I had a collection of written accounts of people that have been abducted by UFO's then in your view this would make it legit and valid proof that UFO's do exist? You look at the world today and people that make outlandish claims of seeing UFO’s, monster and so on and I can guarantee that you will find a book with a collection of their accounts on the subject. You may say they are crazy and can discount them but they run the gambit of education, careers and accountability. You are only looking at one source for your “proof” a book that is written by people of the same mind set and goal, a “pro god” stance if you want to call it something, that source will and is bias to say the least.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But all you gave was scripture. The bible cannot give its self authority.The Koran says it's the word of god also. So, if a book can give it's own authority to its self then the Koran is also the word of god.
The Book of Mormon says it's the word of god also. So, if a book can give it's own authority to its self then the Book of Mormon is also the word of god.
and so on...
Interestingly, your reference to the Koran is most apt. Here we have a collection of documents (surahs) that Muslims believe were written by only one man -- Mohammad. One man, one source. Thus no basis for critical analysis. The New Testament, on the other hand, contains 27 unique documents with no fewer than eight independent contemporaneous sources -- more than enough to permit validation.
Originally posted by Tim Rout❌
Interestingly, your reference to the Koran is most apt. Here we have a collection of documents (surahs) that Muslims believe were written by only one man -- Mohammad. One man, one source. Thus no basis for critical analysis. The New Testament, on the other hand, contains 27 unique documents with no fewer than eight independent contemporaneous sources -- more than enough to permit validation.
If you really want to break it down then the Bible also only has one source, is it not the inspired word of God?
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Again Shaky...if it helps you to think of it this way, ignore the fact that Matthew through Revelation form a collection called the New Testament. If we look at the literature as twenty-seven unique documents written by at least eight independent contemporaneous authors, speaking on one subject and based on eyewitness testimony, then it is valid to use them for cross-corroboration. That's how systematic documentary studies work.
We do not have the original documents. Therefore your assertion is incorrect. We cannot verify the authors or consult their souses, like the “Q” Gospel.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
The other books (gnostic gospels) that were excluded at Nicaea (and in fact were never taken seriously by the bulk of church fathers), are not contemporaneous and are therefore automatically invalid for purposes of historical comparison. There are no first century pseudoepigraphal documents available for antithetical consideration.
Again we do not have any originals. For all we know all the gospel including the Gnostic Gospels were written at the same time.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
If you can get around the fact that the books of the New Testament are traditionally gathered into a neat little religious collection, and just view them as 27 separate pieces of ancient literature, you might be able to see the logic in my approach. My argument would only be circular if I had used one part of a given document to prove another part of that same document, and I didn't.
That would only be true if we have the originals, and we do not.
Originally posted by Tim Rout
Interestingly, your reference to the Koran is most apt. Here we have a collection of documents (surahs) that Muslims believe were written by only one man -- Mohammad. One man, one source. Thus no basis for critical analysis. The New Testament, on the other hand, contains 27 unique documents with no fewer than eight independent contemporaneous sources -- more than enough to permit validation.
For all we know the NT could have been written by one man also.
Originally posted by Da Pittman So if I had a collection of written accounts of people that have been abducted by UFO's then in your view this would make it legit and valid proof that UFO's do exist?
❌
YES! That's exactly right. Provided these hypothetical UFO documents were put to the same rigorous tests as the New Testament literature.
Do the various accounts agree, at least in principle? Is there evidence of falsification or nefarious collaboration between sources? Are there any external witnesses to the alleged abductions who can verify or refute our sources? Is there physical (archaeological) evidence that sheds light on the allegations or offers alternative hypotheses? Is there physiological evidence that the "victims" have indeed seen the inside of an alien laboratory? And finally, are the sources categorically nuts?
Perhaps you know something I don't, but to my knowledge there are no credible sources for the existence of UFOs based on the above criteria.
But what about the New Testament?
Do the various accounts of Jesus' life agree, at least in principle? Absolutely! While there are obvious differences in the details of the four Gospels and other NT material, the general flow of the story is symmetrical.
Is there evidence that the New Testament authors falsified their testimonies or perpetrated a hoax? Absolutely not! Each of Jesus' twelve Apostles (minus Judas, plus Paul) faced terrible persecution for claiming that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. All of them, with the possible exception of John, were actually killed for making this assertion. It is highly improbable that over all those years and after all that barbarity, one of them wouldn't speak up and save himself -- if it were all a lie.
Are there any external witnesses that shed light on the claims of the NT authors? There most certainly are. The two most commonly referenced are Tacitus (a Roman historian) and Josephus (a Jewish historian), both of whom mention Jesus (Tacitus calls Him Christus -- latin for Christ) and neither of whom have any affiliation with the Christian church. Their independent testimonies confirm both the existence of Jesus in Judea during the first half of the first century, and the disciples' uniform belief that He rose from the dead.
Is there any archaeological evidence supporting the accounts of the New Testament authors? Yes. TONS! For example, it is clear that Matthew and John both spent a significant amount of time in the Jerusalem Temple, since their descriptions are exceedingly detailed and in complete agreement with known history. This is particularly important given that the Temple was obliterated by Titus in 70AD, meaning the Apostles' experiences had to have predated this event. Could they have just made up their stories from the descriptions of actual Temple attendees? The details of their accounts suggest not. In fact, all archaeological evidence supports the NT and none -- and I mean NONE -- negates it.
Is there any physiological data in the historical record that suggests the NT is reliable? YES. A missing body. One of the most interesting things in the extracanonical record is the fact that no one -- not even Jesus' enemies -- challenged the empty grave. While there are plenty of antagonists who insisted the body was stolen, no contemporaneous sources postulated that Jesus' body was still in the grave. The tomb was empty, and that's a necessary component of the resurrection accounts.
And lastly, is there any evidence that the NT authors were loonie toons? None whatsoever. In fact, while they were accused of all sorts of heresies against Judaism and crimes against Rome, none of their worst critics ever said the Apostles were crazy.
So you see, there really IS good reason to think the New Testament documents might actually be reliable.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We do not have the original documents. Therefore your assertion is incorrect. We cannot verify the authors or consult their souses, like the “Q” Gospel.Again we do not have any originals. For all we know all the gospel including the Gnostic Gospels were written at the same time.
That would only be true if we have the originals, and we do not.
For all we know the NT could have been written by one man also.
"Q" is purely hypothetical and unprovable. It is more likely the gospel message remained oral until Mark wrote his work around 50AD.
While it would be nice to have the NT autographs, the mathematical probability of transmission error has been reduced to infinitesimal levels thanks to textual criticism and the abundance of ancient Greek manuscripts.
And if the NT was indeed written by a single person, then he was a literary genius, given the extraordinary diversity of the Greek text. No one in the field of New Testament studies would be crazy enough to suggest single source authorship.
Originally posted by Tim RoutYou use a lot of “suggest” and “might” in this post. Most of this post and what you use to back up your statements and be said about UFO claims, in fact there is the same if not more testing done of the actual people that made the claim and not some accounts that happened hundreds of years ago. They didn’t have the ability to verify the information as accurately or as thoroughly as we do now, information to weeks or years to pass on to others, documents destroyed and information confused over time. While I do agree there is much and maybe a lot or true historical documentation in the Bible but it is hardly a creditable source by itself, even now we understand the ease and unreliable any “eye witness” testimony is and how easily it is skewed or misinterpreted. You can have 50 people witness an event and you will get 50 different versions of the same thing.
YES! That's exactly right. Provided these hypothetical UFO documents were put to the same rigorous tests as the New Testament literature.Do the various accounts agree, at least in principle? Is there evidence of falsification or nefarious collaboration between sources? Are there any external witnesses to the alleged abductions who can verify or refute our sources? Is there physical (archaeological) evidence that sheds light on the allegations or offers alternative hypotheses? Is there physiological evidence that the "victims" have indeed seen the inside of an alien laboratory? And finally, are the sources categorically nuts?
Perhaps you know something I don't, but to my knowledge there are no credible sources for the existence of UFOs based on the above criteria.
But what about the New Testament?
Do the various accounts of Jesus' life agree, at least in principle? Absolutely! While there are obvious differences in the details of the four Gospels and other NT material, the general flow of the story is symmetrical.
Is there evidence that the New Testament authors falsified their testimonies or perpetrated a hoax? Absolutely not! Each of Jesus' twelve Apostles (minus Judas, plus Paul) faced terrible persecution for claiming that they had seen Jesus risen from the dead. All of them, with the possible exception of John, were actually killed for making this assertion. It is highly improbable that over all those years and after all that barbarity, one of them wouldn't speak up and save himself -- if it were all a lie.
Are there any external witnesses that shed light on the claims of the NT authors? There most certainly are. The two most commonly referenced are Tacitus (a Roman historian) and Josephus (a Jewish historian), both of whom mention Jesus (Tacitus calls Him Christus -- latin for Christ) and neither of whom have any affiliation with the Christian church. Their independent testimonies confirm both the existence of Jesus in Judea during the first half of the first century, and the disciples' uniform belief that He rose from the dead.
Is there any archaeological evidence supporting the accounts of the New Testament authors? Yes. TONS! For example, it is clear that Matthew and John both spent a significant amount of time in the Jerusalem Temple, since their descriptions are exceedingly detailed and in complete agreement with known history. This is particularly important given that the Temple was obliterated by Titus in 70AD, meaning the Apostles' experiences had to have predated this event. Could they have just made up their stories from the descriptions of actual Temple attendees? The details of their accounts suggest not. In fact, all archaeological evidence supports the NT and none -- and I mean NONE -- negates it.
Is there any physiological data in the historical record that suggests the NT is reliable? YES. A missing body. One of the most interesting things in the extracanonical record is the fact that no one -- not even Jesus' enemies -- challenged the empty grave. While there are plenty of antagonists who insisted the body was stolen, no contemporaneous sources postulated that Jesus' body was still in the grave. The tomb was empty, and that's a necessary component of the resurrection accounts.
And lastly, is there any evidence that the NT authors were loonie toons? None whatsoever. In fact, while they were accused of all sorts of heresies against Judaism and crimes against Rome, none of their worst critics ever said the Apostles were crazy.
So you see, there really IS good reason to think the New Testament documents might actually be reliable.