Logic when reading the Bible?

Originally posted by twhitehead
what constitutes and 'explanation'? You have already used 'the witnesses were unreliable' and 'the translator got it wrong' which surely could cover just about anything. I am sure if you add in 'the writer made a mistake' and 'the copyist got it wrong', you could explain away anything. But then of course the Book in front of us has no guarantee of having any validity at all.

Actually, I did not use "the translator got it wrong", must have been somebody else. But yes, that is true if you look at some modern translations.

Here's my bottom line: In its main message - human history from God's point of view, the battle between Light and darkness, man's way of redemption and the final victory of Light - is remarkably consistent over 66 books written over a give-or-take two millenia timespan. Can you quote any other series of literature that has the same record? Just think of how the "commonly accepted" world view had changed during those times in the various cultures!

Yes, there are minor discrepancies - e.g. who got first to the grave, etc. But nowhere do these fundamentally detract from the Key Message.

Also, it is plainly stated that some of the writings are personal opinions! Pauls made a clear distinction between what he felt was "God's Word" and what was his personal opinion, and merely good advice. Also, much of what Solomon wrote (e.g. his despair in Ecclesiates) is not in itself TRUTH, but recorded in the Bible as a (bad) example of how even the cleverest person on earth can lose the way if he turns his back on God and follows his wives' idols.

Originally posted by CalJust
OK, here are a few:
1) When the ink they used had not been invented at the date the text is supposed to have been written
2) When the person who "saw" the events is later proven to have been blind
3) When the writer is known to be a pathological liar.
4)....... Use your imagination, there must be a million more reasons!

What's your point??

Do you ...[text shortened]... event differ? And that this does not detract from the fact that the event actually happened??

I suppose I was just curious if there was a degree of disagreement in the accounts that would shift you back to disbelieving at least one of the accounts.

Edit: And, although I am neither a lawyer nor a historian, I would think that accounts that differ merely on minor details would not necessarily authenticate an event as genuine, but not invalidate it either.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
I suppose I was just curious if there was a degree of disagreement in the accounts that would shift you back to disbelieving at least one of the accounts.

Edit: And, although I am neither a lawyer nor a historian, I would think that accounts that differ merely on minor details would not necessarily authenticate an event as genuine, but not invalidate it either.

Or, maybe the same are telling you something which you've overlooked.

Namely, you see the differences as contradiction (at worst) or proof of unreliability (at best). Such a position assumes that those who compiled the work were somehow oblivious to such differences--- that they were, in some fashion or another, less keen on such details than say, the modern beholder.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
And, although I am neither a lawyer nor a historian, I would think that accounts that differ merely on minor details would not necessarily authenticate an event as genuine, but not invalidate it either.

Hi SG,

Here I agree with you. The authentication of the actual event would have to lie somewhere else.

In this particular instance (the resurrection) authentication of the event can be found in the action of the eye-witneses after the event. From hiding in fear of their lives, they became bold exponents of it, often at the cost of their lives. Makes you think that SOMETHING significant must have happened to them!

See "Who moved the Stone?", which investigates this phenomenon.

Originally posted by CalJust
Actually, I did not use "the translator got it wrong", must have been somebody else.

Let me quote you from the post I was replying to: CalJust:"Here it is clear that we have a translation error"

But yes, that is true if you look at some modern translations.
Do you believe that all old translations have no translation errors? What leads you to this conclusion? I have been told that the King James version has many translation errors, and at least one copy I have seen contains clear admission of such in its preface.

Here's my bottom line: In its main message - human history from God's point of view, the battle between Light and darkness, man's way of redemption and the final victory of Light - is remarkably consistent over 66 books written over a give-or-take two millenia timespan.
I am not particularly surprised. They were carefully selected from a much larger body of work for exactly that reason.

Can you quote any other series of literature that has the same record?
No, I don't think so, but I am sure that I could compile one if I tried hard enough.

Just think of how the "commonly accepted" world view had changed during those times in the various cultures!
Actually, I don't know much about how the "commonly accepted" world view changed, but some change is reflected in the Bible so you prove nothing there.

Yes, there are minor discrepancies - e.g. who got first to the grave, etc. But nowhere do these fundamentally detract from the Key Message.
Quite possible, but you claimed that all such discrepancies can be 'explained' and further that the Bible is "internally consistent and absolutely logical". You appear to be a bit undecided as to what explanations are acceptable, and what level of inconsistency is acceptable.

Also, it is plainly stated that some of the writings are personal opinions! Pauls made a clear distinction between what he felt was "God's Word" and what was his personal opinion, and merely good advice.
That is perfectly fair. But then you quite readily ignore that when you claim that the whole of the Bible is "Gods Word".

Originally posted by CalJust
Hi SG,

Here I agree with you. The authentication of the actual event would have to lie somewhere else.

In this particular instance (the resurrection) authentication of the event can be found in the action of the eye-witneses after the event. From hiding in fear of their lives, they became bold exponents of it, often at the cost of their lives. Makes yo ...[text shortened]... must have happened to them!

See "Who moved the Stone?", which investigates this phenomenon.

SOMETHING indeed, but I can think of other possibilities besides an actual resurrection. Perhaps the apostles, after spending a few days in shock at the death of their leader, realized that they really had nothing else to turn to [they'd quit their 'real' jobs long ago], and so one of them came up with the brilliant idea of continuing the faith by claiming a resurrection. Even though this was a risky course of action, they also gained power and influence over people through the spread of their new religion.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
SOMETHING indeed, but I can think of other possibilities besides an actual resurrection. Perhaps the apostles, after spending a few days in shock at the death of their leader, realized that they really had nothing else to turn to [they'd quit their 'real' jobs long ago], and so one of them came up with the brilliant idea of continuing the faith by claimi ...[text shortened]... n, they also gained power and influence over people through the spread of their new religion.

No the resurrection is the symbol of Faith you see it's ironic that you say the apostles "made up" the resurrection because they are the very ones who didn't Believe at first Thomas for example said "I will not Believe till I stick my fingers into His hands (the holes) and my hand in His side". Then again the Roman soldiers guarding the tomb were PAID by the officials to LIE and tell the people that while they were asleep the apostles took His body another ironic thing 1. Because if they were asleep how would they know, 2. Because if they were sleeping on the job the penalty would be execution.