My book report pt1

[Drich]

Erich I would like to point out a flaw in your argument. What you and I read is a English translation.

What you mean 'we' white man?
I check the Koine as well.
Blueletterbible.org

What this man is basing his argument s on is a reading of the originals in koine Greek, and I promise you they both read much differently in the original language because it is very different from English.

The difference in is the syntax sport, not the chronology of said events.

In essence Bart ehrmen probably knows more about your argument then you do.

This is an appeal to education, which is a Red herring.
Look at the facts as they are presented and weigh what is being said, do not dimiss one and hold to another because of where the arguements orginated.

Learn to honestly think for yourself do not default to thinking like someone else simply because he has been 'instutitionalized' for a longer period of time than you have.

His argument made in several debates, that the gospels were the recordings of oral traditions makes much more sense then yours does.

What page are you reffering exactly? I did not see these debates.

Think for a moment okay? Your in complex mess trying to explain why that discrepancy is there when in his argument that makes perfect sense.

There is nothing complex about anything I said. if anything it was over simplified. Again I say John's account is not a chronological one. To assume it was is to assume that a 2000 year old middle eastern culture prizes an accurate chronoligacial account as much as this western soceity does. That somehow there is an absolute unwritten standard in this soceity to only retell or tell of a series of events in their correct order of happening...
BTW have you seen any of the following movies.
Memento, Pulp fiction, Kill Bill, Muholand drive, usual suspects? and about a dozen or so more?? Care to guess what they have in common with the Gospel of John?

In a oral transmission being recorded in a another country several decades later this is exactly what you expect.

If this were the case then why wasn't the 'error' corrected when the preist who compiled the bible around the same time? Why didn't they 'fix' the error then if it were indeed an error? Do you honestly think that you are bart are the only two people to have noticed the sequencing issue brought up here?

Heres some more to think about. Why would john, a poorly educated fishermen write in Greek instead of his mother tongue of Aramaic, the language him and jesus would have conversed in?

Maybe your question should be how was an illiterate fisherman able to write in the standard or base language for that reigon?

Maybe, just Maybe a man like John (Who had estasblished several congergations) at the end of his life had a scribe pen everything down like all of the other Apstoles did. Kinda like Peter and The Godpel writter Mark, Paul and Timothy and serveral others. (oh, and he was literate and did write himself on occasion, but as secular history underscores Scribes did 95% of all writting back then, because writting material was far to valuable of a commodity to have unpracticed people scribbling down chicken scratch. Scribes were also tasked with the perservation of written material which was a full time job in of itself.)

So again John like everyone else had a scribe record the content of His message.