Merged Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth - (Part 2)

[welshdean]

So the witnesses to the Great Revelation that launched Christianity among the Gentiles were completly deluded. If the witnesses heard a voice but saw nobody, then for all we know it may have been a passerby - otherwise unnoticed - asking, "Is this the shortest road to Damascus?" - and not the mighty voice of the Divinity revealing Himself unto Paul. How can I be sure? I can't be sure. Maybe indeed your religion is born of such a preposterous misunderstanding!

This is more hilarious even than Luke's otherwise unknown pre-Judas Theudas! It's better than Jesus' two cleansings of the Temple! It's better than Jesus being born twice, once under Herod, and then under Quirinius!

It's not more hilarious than this though:

Matthew 12:40

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

40 for, as Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights.

Didn't quite go to plan there DOC did it?

 

[Mojo]

So the witnesses to the Great Revelation that launched Christianity among the Gentiles were completly deluded. If the witnesses heard a voice but saw nobody, then for all we know it may have been a passerby - otherwise unnoticed - asking, "Is this the shortest road to Damascus?"

And an invisible* passer-by, at that.






*Or possibly with their hands over their eyes.

 

[ddt]

Gosh.
Let's start with Acts.
DOC has decided to use Young's Literal treanslation.
No worries, it's available on the interwebz.

Yes, he's once talked himself into a corner that that translation was somehow superior.

But it gets worse.
DOC abandons Young and uses KJV to explain the discrepancies in Acts!

Nice catch! So Young isn't so superior after all, DOC?
Why don't you use Westcott-Hort instead, DOC? That's the original - or as good (*) as we can get to the original with all the variations that exist.

(*) Nestle-Aland is even better, but not available on the internet AFAIK.

I'll check the Westcott-Hort tonight to join in the fun.

 

[zooterkin]

And an invisible* passer-by, at that.

I know the feeling.

Yes, he's once talked himself into a corner that that translation was somehow superior.


Nice catch! So Young isn't so superior after all, DOC?

 

[joobz]

This question seems to go ignored.
please answer this as it actually helps the rest of the conversation we are having.


Ok, DOC. I shall assume you are telling the truth regarding your A in Philosophy 101. I shall also assume that you performed "A" quality work in the logic segment of the course.

Now, DOC, I ask you to apply the logic that was taught in this course to my following question. I do not ask for your opinion or slant, but rather a cold analytic detachment of what your lessons in logic would conclude, ok?


Do you believe a document that has some verifiable truthful statements is logically sound evidence that other statements in the same document are true?

Please justify your position using the material taught to you in your logic class.

 

[DOC]

...So Young isn't so superior after all, DOC?

I never said it was superior, but it is certainly something to consider when there is a difficult verse.

Speaking of translations, here is a good site that talks of translation problems and the alleged contradiction in Acts 9 and Acts 22. Here is a portion of it:

"In the case of the question you have raised {Acts 9, Acts 22}, the problem is more a matter of translation. Unfortunately the translators of the King James Version did not take into account the fact that the same Greek word meant both “hear” and “understand.” Also, the same Greek word can mean both “sound” and “voice.” The apparent contradiction is correctly solved by the translation of the NET Bible, as well as that of the NASB and the NIV."

http://bible.org/question/i’m-troub...-229-where-it-unclear-whether-men-paul-his-co

And remember Acts 9 appears not to be written by Paul (because it is in the 3rd person), whereas Acts 22 (is written in the 1st person).

 

[TimCallahan]

Divergent accounts are normal with eyewitness. We should be more worried if all the accounts perfectly correlated which would indicate collusion and complete copying. The above proves the accounts (written at a time where information was hard to come by in that era of no paper, no newspapers, and little literacy) were independent.

I've already talked about at least two of the unexplained issues you brought up. As I have said, I have never seen an alleged contradiction in the New Testament that can't be explained.

Some skeptics complain the gospels are too similar, then others complain their too different.

That rationalization is simply pathetic concerning the points I brought up. As to the disagreement of witnesses, that would work if one witness said the man fleeing the scene was wearing a red shirt, while another said his shirt was violet. However, if one witness said it was a red shirt and another said it was green, you really can't rationalize the shirt as being brown. Here, again, are the points I mentioned.

1) Matthew and Luke disagree on almost every particular in the Nativity.

Specifically, Matthew says Joseph and Mary were already living in Bethlehem. Luke says they were living in Nazareth and only went to Bethlehem for the census. Matthew says they fled, eventually, to Nazareth, in Galilee, to avoid persecution. Luke says the returned home to Nazareth. These are direct contradictions, not variants of the same story.

2) John disagrees with the Synoptic gospels as to when Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple.

Since Jesus' disruption of the temple business would seem to be the proximate cause of his arrest by the temple authorities, John's placing the incident early in the ministry of Jesus makes no sense and also is a direct contradictions, again, nothing you can really rationalize.

3) Mark and Luke disagree as to whether both thieves on the cross reviled Jesus, or whether one reviled him while the other adored him.

Again, Luke's good thief is a direct contradiction to both thieves reviling Jesus.

4) There is complete disagreement between all four gospels and 1 Corinthians as to whom Jesus appeared after his resurrection.

Let me just point out one specific of direct contradiction here. In Matthew the disciples are directed to return to Galilee to meet Jesus, which they do. In Luke they are specifically directed NOT to leave Jerusalem. Again, this is a direct contradiction.

Your argument for different witnesses giving different versions of the same general account doesn't hold up in the face of the many direct contradictions. The reason for such great diversity isn't different witnesses giving different versions of the same story. Rather, the reason is that none of these gospel writers were witnesses. Their writings are hear-say.

 

[zooterkin]

I never said it was superior, but it is certainly something to consider when there is a difficult verse.

Speaking of translations. Here is a good site that talks of translation problems and the alleged contradiction in Acts 9 and Acts 22. Here is a portion of it:

"In the case of the question you have raised {Acts 9, Acts 22}, the problem is more a matter of translation. Unfortunately the translators of the King James Version did not take into account the fact that the same Greek word meant both “hear” and “understand.” Also, the same Greek word can mean both “sound” and “voice.” The apparent contradiction is correctly solved by the translation of the NET Bible, as well as that of the NASB and the NIV."

http://bible.org/question/i’m-troub...-229-where-it-unclear-whether-men-paul-his-co

So, the Young's Literal Translation should give the answer to this "difficult" problem? Let's see:

3 And in the going, he came nigh to Damascus, and suddenly there shone round about him a light from the heaven,
4 and having fallen upon the earth, he heard a voice saying to him, `Saul, Saul, why me dost thou persecute?'
5 And he said, `Who art thou, Lord?' and the Lord said, `I am Jesus whom thou dost persecute; hard for thee at the pricks to kick;'
6 trembling also, and astonished, he said, `Lord, what dost thou wish me to do?' and the Lord [said] unto him, `Arise, and enter into the city, and it shall be told thee what it behoveth thee to do.'
7 And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one,
8 and Saul arose from the earth, and his eyes having been opened, he beheld no one, and leading him by the hand they brought him to Damascus,
9 and he was three days without seeing, and he did neither eat nor drink.

6 and it came to pass, in my going on and coming nigh to Damascus, about noon, suddenly out of the heaven there shone a great light round about me,
7 I fell also to the ground, and I heard a voice saying to me, Saul, Saul, why me dost thou persecute?
8 `And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? and he said unto me, I am Jesus the Nazarene whom thou dost persecute --
9 and they who are with me the light did see, and became afraid, and the voice they heard not of him who is speaking to me --
10 and I said, What shall I do, Lord? and the Lord said unto me, Having risen, go on to Damascus, and there it shall be told thee concerning all things that have been appointed for thee to do.

Oops!

 

[Craig B]

... Speaking of translations. Here is a good site that talks of translation problems and the alleged contradiction in Acts 9 and Acts 22. Here is a portion of it: <snip apologetics>

Here's another portion of your site, that makes its level of intellectual integrity clear:

The Bible does contain a number of apparent contradictions. Believing in the inspiration and inerrancy of the Word of God we know that all of these can be reconciled. It may be that a complete explanation will not come until heaven.

If you're a good boy you may go there and find out, DOC. But in the meantime, juggling with obscure words in different translations is quite pointless. Let me tell you why. If the Great Historian was writing Acts for the purpose of informing his readers, he would not have included such a mass of difficult and ambiguous words as there must be in the text to justify the complex prestidigitation indulged in by the apologists.

By the way, what has happened to your invisible "passerby" on the road to Damascus? Does your "believing in the inspiration and inerrancy" site have anything to say about him, or was he a mere creature of your own imagination?

 

[DOC]

So, the Young's Literal Translation should give the answer to this "difficult" problem?!

All the translations should be considered. When someone claims there is a contraction, and there is a translation out there (or other possible explanation) that says there is no contradiction, then the the alleged contradiction is suspect. I have still never seen an alleged contradiction in the NT that can't be reconciled in some way. (I haven't studied the OT deep enough to answer totally for that section of the bible)

 

[joobz]

All the translations should be considered. When someone claims there is a contraction, and there is a translation out there (or other possible explanation) that says there is no contradiction, then the the alleged contradiction is suspect. I have still never seen an alleged contradiction in the NT that can't be reconciled in some way. (I haven't studied the OT deep enough to answer totally for that section of the bible)

I see.
So you pick and choose the version you like best. Not the version that is most accurate.

 

[Helen]

All the translations should be considered. When someone claims there is a contraction, and there is a translation out there

Out where? Out there? I hope it's not out in the rain. Or maybe that's why there is a contraction, it shrunk in the rain!

I hope that's cleared everything up. Just remember not to leave your contradictions out there, in the rain.

 

[Robrob]

All the translations should be considered. When someone claims there is a contraction, and there is a translation out there (or other possible explanation) that says there is no contradiction, then the the alleged contradiction is suspect. I have still never seen an alleged contradiction in the NT that can't be reconciled in some way. (I haven't studied the OT deep enough to answer totally for that section of the bible)

Wow, so the Bible is inherently accurate - as long as you cherry pick each sentence from different translations?

 

[pakeha]

Please.
Tell me I have slipped beyond the Looking Glass.
Or that Maud'Dib^WP knows the true paths of past, present and future.
Anything.

All the translations should be considered. When someone claims there is a contraction, and there is a translation out there (or other possible explanation) that says there is no contradiction, then the the alleged contradiction is suspect. I have still never seen an alleged contradiction in the NT that can't be reconciled in some way. ...

DOC, is it really possible you don't see what you have just written?
The truth depends on the translation?

 

[zooterkin]

Act 9:7 (Young's Literal Translation) says the men heard the voice but didn't see anyone

"And the men who are journeying with him stood speechless, hearing indeed the voice but seeing no one"

That verse although not perfectly clear implies they heard the voice talking to Paul.

All the translations should be considered. When someone claims there is a contraction, and there is a translation out there (or other possible explanation) that says there is no contradiction, then the the alleged contradiction is suspect. I have still never seen an alleged contradiction in the NT that can't be reconciled in some way. (I haven't studied the OT deep enough to answer totally for that section of the bible)

Acts 9:22 (Young's Literal Translation) says the men saw the light but did not hear anyone.

" and they who are with me the light did see, and became afraid, and the voice they heard not of him who is speaking to me --"

That verse clearly says they did NOT hear the voice talking to Paul


Two verses from the same translation. How do you choose which (if any) is right?

 

[Fitter]

Actually they don't contradict unless you make an assumption that isn't there.

Here is what the the verse says in the King James version:

Act 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

You are assuming that the voice they heard was God's, but it could have been Paul's voice. It is not specific which voice they heard.

And Acts Chapter 9 is written in 3rd person, whereas Acts chapter 22 is written in 1st person. Paul's traveling companion, Luke, could of wrote 9 and Paul himself wrote some of 22 which might account for some of the difficulty. But there is still no contradiction in the verse above with the verse in chapter 22 unless you make an assumption.

Did you also get an A in grammar?

 

[ddt]

All the translations should be considered.

No. You should look at the original. Period. Full stop.

When someone claims there is a contraction, and there is a translation out there (or other possible explanation) that says there is no contradiction, then the the alleged contradiction is suspect.

Or that specific translation has skirted the issue. There's a lot of liberal translations out there.

I have still never seen an alleged contradiction in the NT that can't be reconciled in some way. (I haven't studied the OT deep enough to answer totally for that section of the bible)

So, again: how's that with Jesus' birth date as recorded in Matthew and Luke? You still haven't answered that one.

 

[ddt]

I know the feeling.

You mean I overlooked this one?

Wait, why are you using the KJV? Isn't the Young's Literal Translation your preference?

It bears repeating, DOC's weaseling notwithstanding. He has clearly said in the past that Young's was superior because it was literal.

 

[ddt]

It's better than Jesus being born twice, once under Herod, and then under Quirinius!

Jesus was the first born-again Christian!

 

[ddt]

And Acts Chapter 9 is written in 3rd person, whereas Acts chapter 22 is written in 1st person. Paul's traveling companion, Luke, could of wrote 9 and Paul himself wrote some of 22 which might account for some of the difficulty. But there is still no contradiction in the verse above with the verse in chapter 22 unless you make an assumption.

This is utter garbage. Both passages were written by the the same author. When you look at Acts 22, it's just a long quote by the narrator of Paul's words. Acts 21:40 ends with

When they were all silent, he said to them in Aramaic:

and then follows Paul's speech which ends at 22:22:

The crowd listened to Paul until he said this.

When J.K. Rowling writes "and then Harry said:", you don't assume that Harry took over her pen and wrote his words himself? No, it's still Rowling, the all-knowing narrator who writes that. Likewise, it's still Luke who writes Paul's words.

I think you're all overlooking the most simple explanation of this contradiction. Paul lied in Acts 22 about this episode, and Luke faithfully recorded the lie of his boss. Lying is, after all, par for the course for Christian apologists, and why would Paul be an exception?