>I might ask you at this point what your reasons are for doubting the
>historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts.
Russell answer:
<<1) The fact that the Bible is a conglomeration of several books, written at
different times by different people.>>
This is actually one of the strongest arguments for the reliability of the
texts. Think about it, and you'll see why.
<<2) The fact that much of it is pure hearsay.>>
Hearsay is all that history has! You are mistaking the legal term, which is
only relevant in a small number of evidentiary issues, and the recordation of
events. EVERY historian records hearsay! And there is nothing wrong with that.
Especially when it is first order hearsay.
Are you telling us that David McCullough's National Award winning biography of
Truman is bogus because the entire book is hearsay? You really want to say
that?
<<3) The fact that it is thousands of years old, and has gone through
countless translations and "revisions", many for political reasons.>>
Please document this. Give us an example of one "political revision" that
corrupts the ancient extant manuscripts.
Please give us an example of a translation that corrupts the ancient extant
manuscripts.
Unless you can do both of these for us, your #3 must be considered nothing
more than your imagination.
The question naturally arises, why would you imagine such a thing? Could it be
that you keep reaching for any straw, no matter how fanciful, in order to
avoid the obvious?
JB >You'll have to spend some time explaining your standard for assessing
testimonial proof, and how you apply it to not just one, but several writers.
RS <<My standard is simple: prove it to me.>>
Then obviously you have no standard. We need to spend a little time on this.
Common law established several tests to determine testimonial authenticity.
Here they are:
1. Veracity (character)
2. Bias (motive to lie)
3. Competence (ability to testify)
4. Conformity (with experience)
5. Coincidence (with outside factors)
6. Correspondence (with other testimony)
Now, if you can demonstrate, with proof (not imagination), that the Gospel
writers fall short in each of these categories, you may have a case.
Care to try?
Jim