The Bible

[Giff]

How do you know it was eyewitness accounts, Fr0d0?

[fr0d0]

Because that's the balance of opinion of historical study Gif.

[Giff]

Because that's the balance of opinion of historical study

Evidence of that, show me were it says that is generally being concider to be that.

[chatpilot]

Frodo I disagree with you on that matter entirely.You need to go check your facts,in fact all of the gospels are not considered first hand accounts by those whose names are attributed to them.Nothing was written till at least 50 or 60 years after the alleged death of Christ.Matthew,Mark,Luke or John did not write those books and in fact these are oral accounts of a myth that has been edited and grossly exaggerated by those transmitting the text.Also,none of the original documents are extant (that means in existence) in essence what we have are copies of copies of original documents that have been edited and reinterpreted numerous times.

---

The gospel of Luke, for example, is the record passed down aurally of an eyewitness account. Prove to me that it isn't.

Frodo regrading proving anything to you we both know that this is impossible.Simply because you will just find another way to weasel your way around blatant facts or avoid them altogether.

[fr0d0]

Like Adrian said chatpilot. We're both saying the same thing here. I was giving you room with 70 years. Did you not see I said that?!

You seem to trash heavily the aural tradition which I accept to be very accurate at the time. You stretch credulity suggesting "a myth that has been edited and grossly exaggerated". We both know the tenuousness and extreme nature of your statement.

"you will just find another way to weasel your way around blatant facts or avoid them altogether" - that's incredibly unfair and unworthy of you.

[Edwardo Piet]

The bible has gone through some serious 'Chinese whispers' (or 'telephone') though, hasn't it? If you know what I mean. Has it not?

EvF

[fr0d0]

Not in my opinion EvF. Serious students of the Judaic aural tradition tell me it's really very accurate. Jewish children have to recite the full first 5 books of the Bible word for word from memory. There are several steps then to be accepted as the Rabbi's apprentice, involving more mindblowing memory feats. A hell of a lot of people practice thisstuff, and it passes down over generations. Seriously, there's no room for error. The Judaic system can in no way or by any stretch of the imagination be seriously described as "chinese whispers" in the derogatory sense. That's just baseless propaganda IMO.

[Edwardo Piet]

So you are saying that it's so carefully done that that won't have happened (or happened much)....despite the fact it's been like over 2000 years?

I would think from those times in 2000 years there would have been a lot of changes/mistranslations (if only a handful)...

Since the bible has been going so long and aural traditions (despite that they can be done carefully..) are harder to keep...

Do you deny then that there have really been any mistranslations despite the fact it's been so long, etc?

I'm just asking innocently/ignorantly cos I can't go very far here because I don't have much of a knowledge of the bible. I just know that it isn't evidence basically (and have read 'some bits').

EvF

[Giff]

It's ridicilous to take the bible which are 2000 year old book were everything is myths and written down thru hear say.

Also the new testament about Jesus is written down like hundred years after his suppose death, and there are other stories about persons who have done similar things long before he was even supposed to be have born.

For an example were there a story in ancient egypt about a egyptian god that was born thru a virgin birth and then later "baptised" in a lake. He could also walk on water.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

So you are saying that it's so carefully done that that won't have happened (or happened much)....despite the fact it's been like over 2000 years?

I would think from those times in 2000 years there would have been a lot of changes/mistranslations (if only a handful)...

Since the bible has been going so long and aural traditions (despite that they can be done carefully..) are harder to keep...

Do you deny then that there have really been any mistranslations despite the fact it's been so long, etc?

I'm just asking innocently/ignorantly cos I can't go very far here because I don't have much of a knowledge of the bible. I just know that it isn't evidence basically (and have read 'some bits').

EvF

I recently saw a lecture by a leading biblical scholar about translations errors,additions and contradictions. I'll see if I can dig it up for you.
Translations errors: It's estimated that there are around 200 THOUSAND translation errors,albeit most being minor.

Inconsistencies and contradictions.: To find these,read the gospels in parallel rather than in sequence.The different accounts of say the resurrection are nothing short of staggering.


Additions: One example. The accepted version of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is apparently a C3rd addition.