You're all over the map on this one. "The Bible" is rather vague, as we have
been talking about the specific genre of gospel history. "Full of" is a
subjective term that tells us nothing. "Contradiction" is a loaded term that
is usually misplaced when harmonization is possible.
So we only have an opinion here rendered, which is thus far unsubstantiated.
Now, do the Gospel accounts differ in certain respects? Of course, primarily
in the selection of details to report. But what does this show us? First, that
there was no grand conspiracy of deceit. Second, agreement on the essential
details.
As Greenleaf put it: "Though they wrote at different periods and without
mutual concert, they all alike refer incidentally to the same state of
affairs, and to the same contemporary and collateral circumstances. Their
testimony, in this view, stands on the same ground with that of four
witnesses, separately examined before different commissioners, upon the same
interrogatories, and all adverting incidentally to the same circumstances as
surrounding and accompanying the principal transaction, to which alone their
attention is directed."
But, of course, for you four witnesses in agreement is not enough. Back in the
real world, however...
JB <<Please document this. Give us an example of one "political revision" that
corrupts the ancient extant manuscripts.
RS <<I'll have to get back to you on that.>>
But you made the claim. You threw it out there as a fact to support your
argument. Now you're saying that this factual statement is without basis. You
do not know it to be true.
When someone in debate makes a claim of fact that is unfounded because he
wishes to make a point, he is summarily disqualified. That you made up a
factoid that is unsupportable only reflects the weakness of your case. The
audience must draw this conclusion. For your statement is baseless. It is not
true. It is demonstrably false. Yet you stated it anyway. Why? Because you
have you have no reliable evidence to back that part of your argument.
I'll happily withdraw the above if you "get back to me" on this, with FACT.
JB >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?
RS >>No, because the sources could be reliably confirmed. No self-respecting
historian will put all of his or her faith in a handful of eyewitness reports.
And so if the Gospel reports in their historical details, e.g., about Roman
govt.,local customs, etc., have proven to be reliable, self-respecting
historians can be confident in the accuracy of other parts of the testimony.
Good point, RS.
Jim