how many times did the cock crow? Mark -vs- 3 other Gospels
9 Lives
Matthew 26:34 - Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this
night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
LOGICALLY SPEAKING - - that rooster would not crow at all, until Peter had
denied him three times. No crow. It doesn't matter how many times it crowed
after Peter denied him 3 times. Why? Because Mark contradicts, saying that
Peter denied and the cock crew. Peter denied again, and the cock crew.
In Mark, Peter had not denied Jesus 3 times, but the rooster was already
crowing on the first denial.
It contradicts the other 3 gospels.
"before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice".
If that rooster crowed, even so much as one time, before Jesus was denied
thrice... it was and is still, a contradiction.
--
Matthew 26:75 - And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him,
Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept
bitterly.
That rooster was NOT suppose to crow at all until Peter denies him THREE
times.
Mark 14:68 - But he denied, saying, I know not, neither understand I what
thou sayest. And he went out into the porch and the COCK CREW. (Peter had
not yet denied Jesus 3 times... but only once.)
Verse 69: - a maid accuses Peter. Peter denies Jesus a second time (but the
cock has already crowed.)
Verse 70: - the people nearby Peter accuse him of Jesus, and a third time he
denies, and the cock crows a second time.
It is then Peter (only in the book of Mark) calls to mind, the saying
"Before the cock crows twice, thou shalt deny me thrice."
That is in complete contradiction with the other 3 Gospels.
Rick
and John, that Jesus told Peter (in Luke he is refered to as Simon), that it
is before the rooster crows that the 3 denials occurs. The gospel of Mark
says that it is twice, with the study note stating 'some earlier manuscripts
do not have twice'. It should be noted that all four gospels were written
after Jesus acended to heaven and that over time the human mind can
unconsiously delete unnecessary points such as the number of times something
happend but keeps the recollection that something significant happened, in
this case it was the number of times the rooster crowed. Another thing to
consider is that the writer of Mark's gospel may have implied that there
were two roosters that crowed with the second one (rooster) being the one
Jesus was refering to.
Matthew 26:31-35 & 69-75
Mark14:27-31 & 66-72
Luke 22:31-38 & 54-62
John 13:31-38, 17:15-18 & 25-27
"9 Lives" <nos...@9lives.com> wrote in message
news:3ef3f2f5$1...@news.athenanews.com...
j.w.
>
> Matthew 26:34 - Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this
> night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
>
> LOGICALLY SPEAKING - - that rooster would not crow at all, until Peter had
> denied him three times. No crow. It doesn't matter how many times it
crowed
> after Peter denied him 3 times. Why? Because Mark contradicts, saying that
> Peter denied and the cock crew. Peter denied again, and the cock crew.
> In Mark, Peter had not denied Jesus 3 times, but the rooster was already
> crowing on the first denial.
> It contradicts the other 3 gospels.
> "before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice".
> If that rooster crowed, even so much as one time, before Jesus was denied
> thrice... it was and is still, a contradiction.
-----------------------------------------------
If you study the passages closely, you will notice that there is no
contradiction.
In sum, Jesus predicted that Peter would deny him six times...not merely
three!
Jesus told Peter at the Last Supper that he would deny the Lord three times
before the rooster crowed. (Luke 22:31-34; John 13:38). In John's Gospel,
the literal greek language says "the rooster will not crow "at all" until
you deny me three times." Then, afterwards, they left for the Mount of
Olives. While they were here, again Jesus predicted that they would scatter
because of His arrest. Peter again replied that he would die for the Lord,
to which Jesus then said "before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me
three times." (Mark's gospel).
The four gospels, when harmonized, show that this is what exactly occurred:
The first denial: as Peter first entered the courtyard of the high priest at
Jesus' arrest, the servant girl attending the gate asked him if he was
Jesus' disciples. Peter denied it.
(John's Gospel).
The second denial: Peter was at the fire in the courtyard warming himself
with a group of people who asked him if he was Jesus' disciple. Peter denied
it (second denial) (John's gospel)
The third denial: one of the high priest's servant girls saw Peter at the
fire, "looked at him intently" and accused him of being with Jesus.
Peter denied this before "all of them." This makes three denials. The
bible then says that, at this point, Peter left the fire and went out onto
the porch (or fore-court) at which point the rooster crowed the first time.
The fourth denial: after he had gone out into the fore-court, "a little
later," "...another woman saw him and said to those nearby" that Peter was
with Jesus. It also says that "a man" saw him and accused him of being a
disciple to which Peter replied: "Man, I am not, I do not know the man."
The fifth denial: this occurred afterwards when the servant girl saw him
again, after he left the courtyard, and said to nearby bystanders "This man
is one of them," to which Peter denied.
The sixth denial: occurred "after about an hour," by "another man" who
recognized that Peter was a Galilean, and declared with an oath that Peter
was with Jesus. This was immediately accompanied by a servant of the high
priest, who was a relative of the one who had his ear cut off by Peter when
Jesus was arrested. This servant said to Peter that he saw him in the Garden
Gethsemene when Jesus was arrested. However, Peter denied these
accusations. The bible says that "while he was speaking, the rooster crowed
the second time (Luke) and the Lord turned and looked at Peter, and Peter
remembered the Lord's prediction and then went out and wept bitterly.
Therefore there is no contradiction. Jesus predicted Peter would deny him
three times before the "rooster crowed at all," and would deny Him another
three times before the rooster crowed a second time.
bam
unforgiveable inconsistency.
BAM
"9 Lives" <nos...@9lives.com> wrote in message
news:3ef3f2f5$1...@news.athenanews.com...
Heather Thompson
<snip>
> contradiction.
>
> In sum, Jesus predicted that Peter would deny him six times...not merely
> three!
>
> Jesus told Peter at the Last Supper that he would deny the Lord three times
> before the rooster crowed. (Luke 22:31-34; John 13:38). In John's Gospel,
> the literal greek language says "the rooster will not crow "at all" until
> you deny me three times." Then, afterwards, they left for the Mount of
> Olives. While they were here, again Jesus predicted that they would scatter
> because of His arrest. Peter again replied that he would die for the Lord,
> to which Jesus then said "before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me
> three times." (Mark's gospel).
>
> The four gospels, when harmonized, show that this is what exactly occurred:
Hi j.w...is your handle a play on the words "Jehovah Witnesses?" I'm
not poking fun, I was just wondering, as I have seen few Jehovah
Witnesses ever discuss anything on these bible newsgroups. If you are
a "JW" I want to welcome you to this discussion.
Regarding your statements, I do not have much confidence in
"harmonizations". Error can be harmonized. So can truth. How can error
be harmonized? Suppose someone says only three shots were fired at
President Kennedy. Someone else says five shots were fired. Still
another says he heard six shots. Among the eye-witnesses in Dallas
that dreadful November there were various, conflicting accounts of how
many shots were actually fired. However, for the harmonist, there is
no difficulty. He simply takes the highest number (six) and says that
is the correct one. Then, he adds if there were six shots, then there
were certainly five and three as well. Discrepancy solved. Wasn't that
easy?
Remember in University Journalism classes the staged "robbery" on the
campus quad (or the cafeteria or some other campus location) and the
subsequent interviews with the "eye-witnesses"? Some said the robber
was a young man, in his early 20's, others say he was in his
mid-thirties, and while some claimed he was tall, still others said he
was not, he was under six foot. A few said his hair was dark, still
others said it was light. One even claimed he wore glasses while no
one else mentioned that detail. This whole "robbery" was filmed from
atop a nearby building and was used to compare details with the
accounts given us by the "eye-witnesses."
Though the accounts could not be reconciled with each other in
reality, they could still be "harmonized" by someone willing to do so.
Just claim that there was not really one robber, but at least two
robbers. Each eye-witness just chose to mention one, the one they felt
was the most significant. They focused on the details of that one
robber, but by adding all accounts together, you will see there are at
least two robbers, one wore glasses, the other didn't, one was
light-haired, the other dark-haired, etc.
I am not impressed by "harmonizations" because they prove nothing.
Since so many "harmonizations" can be created out of most discrepant
accounts by ignoring the fact that some of the details may be wrong,
they carry very little convincing power. I am not saying all
harmonizations are wrong, only that a harmonization is intrinsically
not an accurate account of what actually happened.
One case in point is the four different accounts of what was written
by Pilate and hung on the cross. Not two are identical. So the
harmonizer, totally ignoring the possibility one or more of the
writers may not have been 100% accurate in relaying the details,
simply combines them together to get what he calls "the accurate
reading". This may indeed be the case, but then again it may not. It
is possible that all we have now is not a solution to the "difficulty"
but yet another reading different from the original four. In other
words, we now have five different readings. I have noticed
harmonizations always rule out error a priori. There can be no error,
the harmonizer reasons, therefore, I will combine the accounts and
create a whole new reading that has all the details, adding another
character if necessary. Whenever there is X people or X-1 involved,
always assume inerrancy and choose the higher number.
Well, that's all for now,
Heather
Mark Johnson
>One case in point is the four different accounts of what was written
>by Pilate and hung on the cross. Not two are identical. So the
>harmonizer, totally ignoring the possibility one or more of the
>writers may not have been 100% accurate in relaying the details,
>simply combines them together to get what he calls "the accurate
>reading". This may indeed be the case, but then again it may not.
Why not?
Written in three languages, John says He was called by Name, Jesus of
Nazareth, and Matthew, only Jesus. Luke and Mark say not by name. But
all four agree - King of the Jews. Thus 'Judaism' assassinated its own
King, a Jew, Who was mourned by all the Jews who confessed Him.
Why the discrepancy, you ask? Why two Gospels by Name, and two not?
Here's a suggestion:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-t001.html
>is possible that all we have now is not a solution to the "difficulty"
>but yet another reading different from the original four. In other
>words, we now have five different readings. I have noticed
>harmonizations always rule out error a priori. There can be no error,
>the harmonizer reasons, therefore, I will combine the accounts and
>create a whole new reading that has all the details, adding another
>character if necessary. Whenever there is X people or X-1 involved,
>always assume inerrancy and choose the higher number.
Person 1 reports : there was a red balloon in the stands
Person 2: there was a red balloon in bleachers
Person 3: there was a red balloon on the warning track
Person 4: there was a balloon in the outfield
Person 5: the center fielder tripped and fell over a balloon
Person 6: play stopped, momentarily, for a red balloon
Person 7: there was a red balloon that came from the outfield
Who's right?
Peace.
---------------------------------------
One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
[Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Pastor Dave
<nos...@9lives.com> wrote:
>http://www.skeptical-christian.net/exchange/cock-crew.html
>
> Matthew 26:34 - Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this
>night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
>
>LOGICALLY SPEAKING - - that rooster would not crow at all, until Peter had
>denied him three times. No crow. It doesn't matter how many times it crowed
>after Peter denied him 3 times. Why? Because Mark contradicts, saying that
>Peter denied and the cock crew. Peter denied again, and the cock crew.
>
>In Mark, Peter had not denied Jesus 3 times, but the rooster was already
>crowing on the first denial.
>
>It contradicts the other 3 gospels.
>"before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice".
>
>If that rooster crowed, even so much as one time, before Jesus was denied
>thrice... it was and is still, a contradiction.
No, it isn't. Try researching, instead of thinking
that copy & paste from web pages by people who did no
more research than you, is actual research.
A rooster crows twice in the morning. People get up on
the second crow. Talk to a farmer. One Gospel lists
both, the other lists the important one. I.e., someone
might say to you, "We get up when the rooster crows".
Literally, it is the second crowing of the rooster.
So, if another farmer said, "We get up when the rooster
crows twice", is that a contradiction? Not at all. In
both places, you'd be getting up on the second crow of
the rooster.
Dave Raymond
___
http://www.douknow.net/ev_evolution_test.htm
http://www.creationists.org/ervin.html
When Christianity becomes religion,
it leaves the heart hungry.
In the beginning, God created...
Don't tell me you believe the end,
if you don't believe the beginning.
"There are only two possibilities as to how life
arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to
evolution; the other is a supernatural creative
act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproved
120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That
leaves us with the only possible conclusion that
life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I
do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose
to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution." - (Wald, George, "Innovation and
Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199,
Sept. 1958, p. 100)
Paul Duca
Mark Johnson wrote:
The traditional Catholic, who else?
Paul
j.w.
"Heather Thompson" <heathert...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5ac6588e.03062...@posting.google.com...
> not poking fun, I was just wondering, as I have seen few Jehovah
> Witnesses ever discuss anything on these bible newsgroups. If you are
> a "JW" I want to welcome you to this discussion.
No. those initials have nothing to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses.
It is my understanding that when testimony in court by multiple witnesses is
totally identical, then the testimony is suspect because it appears as if
the witnesses collaborated together to rehearse their information. Mutiple
witnesses will invaribly furnish some information that others do not. One of
the major tasks is to identify what everybody does agree upon. For example:
in your illustration about Kennedy, there is harmony among the following
information: that there was the sound of gunfire, that there was at least
three known shots, and that someone sustained a gunshot wound to the head at
the same time the shots were heard. The same with the campus robber: there
is harmony in the accounts that this was a man, and that he appeared to be a
younger adult male (he was not distinctly an elderly man), and that he
robbed someone.
The problem with using this analogy to disagree with the harmonizations of
the gospels is that it is not an apples to apples comparison. The Kennedy
assasination is an extremely complex case involving a planned conspiracy
among numerous individuals, and information that was probably never made
public, regardless of who you believed pulled the trigger. Some people might
have heard more than three shots by virture of the fact that they could have
heard an echo, or other natural interference to sound transmission and how
quickly the shots were fired in succession.
In the campus robbery scenario, trying to estimate someone's age as "early
20's or "early 30's" is a subjective approach based on someone's perception
of what a man in his 20's or 30's would look like. The same is true with
saying he had dark or light hair - what does that mean? Darker than blonde,
or lighter than black? And simply because one claimed he wore glasses while
no one else did does not mean that he did not wear glasses.
The above scenarios are hard to apply to the gospel accounts of Peter's
denial of Christ, whether it happened three or six times, because the nature
of the offense is different, the evidence is entirely of a different nature,
it occurred in different surroundings, circumstances, and enviornment. There
is a big difference between trying to determine how many times Peter denied
Christ back in Jersualem in A.D. 33 and trying to describe how many gunshots
were heard on a busy highway in Dallas in 1962, or estimating someone's age
without knowing whether or not they attempted to disguise themself due to
the nature of the event.
In Peter's denials: let's take a look at what we do know:
All four gospel writers agree that Peter denied Christ more than once. All
four gospel writers agree that the rooster crowed in conjunction with his
denials. All four gospel writers agree that Peter denied Christ while
warming himself in front of a fire inside the courtyard, all four gospel
writers agree that Peter made a denial to at least one female servant girl.
So, in absence of any contradictory information, we know that Peter denied
Christ under these circumstances.
In addition, John writes that, as Peter entered the courtyard, he made a
denial to the servant girl who attended to the gate (John 18:16-17). This is
one denial. Matthew writes that, while Peter warmed himself at the fire, he
denied Christ in response to a servant-girl's direct accusation who
approached him while he was still at the fire. That is a second denial.
Matthew also records that he then went out of the courtyard and encountered
another servant girl who "said to those who were near" that Peter was with
Jesus. He denied this accusation too. Matthew records that after this, "a
little while later, bystanders came up to him and accused him of being "one
of them for your talk gives you away." - to which Peter denied.
Therefore, Peter made a denial to the gatekeeper as he entered the
courtyard, made another denial to a servant girl who approached him and
accused him directly while he was at the fire, made a third denial after he
left the courtyard when "another" servant girl accused him to "those who
were near," and then "a little while later," made a fourth denial to another
group of bystanders accusations. Hence, we have four seperate and distinct
denials separated by different locations, scenarios, and notable time
intervals.
In addition, Luke records: "and a little later, another saw him" and accused
him of being Christ's disciple to which Peter responded: "Man, I am not."
Then Luke writes "after about an hour passed, another man began to insist,
saying 'certainly this man also was with him for he is a Galilean too" to
which Peter "Man, I do not know what you are talking about."
So, While Matthew, Mark, and John write that Peter denied Christ in response
to accusations by servant-girls and groups of bystanders, Luke writes that
he also made denials to two separate accusations that were made by men, and
in which Peter responded to them individually calling them "men." These
additional two denials, in addition to the above four = six denials.
These accounts are quite different then the Kennedy account or the campus
robber. In those situations, various individuals are trying to describe the
circumstances surrounding an isolated event, while many are taking cover and
hitting the dirt to avoid being shot themselves. The Kennedy assassination
and the campus robbery occurred as isolated instances in a moment of time,
with numerous individuals trying to describe the circumstances that
surrounded the same events, circumstances that occurred within seconds and
not observed before they occurred. The Kennedy assassination occurred on a
busy street in a major city while probably thousands of people were gathered
and all were focusing on the passing by of the President of the United
States - a sufficient distraction to any other peripheral events that might
be occurring. Whereas, the circumstances surrounding Peter's denials were
each sufficiently separate and distinct from the others, and occurred over
the course of hours.
There is nothing in the gospels to indicate that Peter's denials had to
happen within rapid succession to each other, unlike what is depicted in
movie films and plays. The gospel writers wrote that when Jesus was taken
into custody, that Peter followed from a distance. John wrote that one
apostle accompanied Jesus into the courtyard and that Peter waited outside
until this other apostle came and escorted him into the courtyard. John
wrote that as he entered, Peter denied Christ to the gatekeeper, most likely
in the presence of this other apostle - who most scholars agree is John
himself. While Peter warmed himself by the fire where he made another
denial, Jesus was undergoing his trial before the High Priest. Luke records
that when Peter denied Chirst to the second man, that "the Lord turned and
looked at Peter," and that Peter then went out and wept bitterly. It is
obvious by this information that this denial occurred after Jesus' trial
concluded, at least one of them. I doubt that Peter would have wept
bitterly and then returned to deny Christ a few more times. Hence, I think
it is safe to conclude that Peter's denials occurred over the course of
several hours throughout the night.
>
> One case in point is the four different accounts of what was written
> by Pilate and hung on the cross. Not two are identical.
But there is not enough of a variation to accuse them of being contradictory
either:
Matthew wrote: "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
Mark wrote: "THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Luke wrote: "THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS."
John wrote: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
All four agree on the following: the phrase "King of the Jews" appears on
the sign. Matthew and Mark indicate that the inscription specifically
represented the criminal charges against Jesus. That was the purpose of the
sign. It was a matter of legal practice to publicly post the charges that
were against the condemned so that the public could see why they were
executed. The official charge against Jesus was that He claimed to be King
of the Jews, which was an act of insurrection against the Roman Empire back
then, which controlled Isreal. Perhaps Mark concentrated only on telling
what the charges were, with the idea that people reading his gospel would
understand the identity of the person was. The apostle John also offers a
posssible helpful suggestion. John wrote in his gospel that Pilate wrote the
sign in three different languages, Aramaic, Greek and Latin. It is
conceivable that as Pilate wrote the inscription in each language that he
adjusted the wording in each language, and that the gospel writers were
reading from the different languages. While this is a suggestion, it is not
an impossibility. However, the lack of any explanation does not cast doubt
on the reliability of the biblical writers.
Pastor Dave
<no-spam...@paonline.com> wrote:
>In Peter's denials: let's take a look at what we do know:
Good post. As for Peter, a rooster crows twice in the
David Lee
>by Pilate and hung on the cross. Not two are identical. So the
>harmonizer, totally ignoring the possibility one or more of the
>writers may not have been 100% accurate in relaying the details,
>simply combines them together to get what he calls "the accurate
>reading". This may indeed be the case, but then again it may not.
Why not?
---------------------------------------------------------
David Lee writes:
Why not? You mean there is NO POSSIBILITY that the account may be
in error? She admits it may be right, but again, it may not. That sounds
reasonable to me. You though cannot comprehend why it cannot possibly be in
error.
Sure it can be an error. Then again, it may not. Heather has the right idea,
whereas you
cannot even see the possibility an error exists. That's why not. Just try to
imagine the
possibility an error may exist. I'm not asking you to admit one does, just
the
possibility, as Heather was gracious enough to do, admitting both
possibilities.
------------------------------------------------------------
Written in three languages, John says He was called by Name, Jesus of
Nazareth, and Matthew, only Jesus. Luke and Mark say not by name. But
all four agree - King of the Jews. Thus 'Judaism' assassinated its own
King, a Jew, Who was mourned by all the Jews who confessed Him.
Why the discrepancy, you ask? Why two Gospels by Name, and two not?
Here's a suggestion:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-t001.html
>is possible that all we have now is not a solution to the "difficulty"
>but yet another reading different from the original four. In other
>words, we now have five different readings. I have noticed
>harmonizations always rule out error a priori. There can be no error,
>the harmonizer reasons, therefore, I will combine the accounts and
>create a whole new reading that has all the details, adding another
>character if necessary. Whenever there is X people or X-1 involved,
>always assume inerrancy and choose the higher number.
Person 1 reports : there was a red balloon in the stands
Person 2: there was a red balloon in bleachers
Person 3: there was a red balloon on the warning track
Person 4: there was a balloon in the outfield
Person 5: the center fielder tripped and fell over a balloon
Person 6: play stopped, momentarily, for a red balloon
Person 7: there was a red balloon that came from the outfield
Who's right?
Well, if the baloon never made it to the outfield, then we know Persons
3,4,5,6,7 are wrong. It's that simple. And since you weren't there, and
neither was I, we'll never know. We can "harmonize" them so all the details
fit smooth as a glove, but that doesn't mean persons 3-7 in your analogy
were correct. Remember, I can grant the possibility of error AND
harmonization. Your mind cannot fathom an error in the Bible. All must be
true. None can be false. In fact, you may argue it is IMPOSSIBLE for any of
the gospel accounts to be contradictory. Harmonization is the only answer
for you, no matter what the costs.
Why did I say "you weren't there" in the scenario above? Because for the
analogy to fit the Gospels, it has to be a case where we do not have a
living eye-witness to clear the matter up for us. We have seven different
accounts. They may all be true, but then again, they may all be false, but a
balloon in the stadium is a little silly comparison to written texts
thousands of years ago that purport to convey accurate history yet have
conflicts with one another.
Person 1 says the balloon had written on it: "Go Astros!"
Person 2 says the balloon had written on it "Go to hell Astros!"
Person 3 says the balloon had written on it "Go to hell!"
Person 4 says the balloon had written on it "Astros!"
Person 5 says the balloon had written on it: "Houston Astros!"
Person 6 says the balloon had written on it: "Go to hell Houston!"
Person 7 says the balloon had written on it: "Go Houston!"
Now, tell me which one was right, or if more than one was right and WHY you
reached that conclusion and HOW you reached that conclusion. I am sure we
will all be edified. I want to see the mind of an inerrantist at work on how
he decides which of the above texts are correct. None of the seven people
are living to interview. There are no survivors for interviews who may be
able to clarify the issue. There is at least one that got it right. I will
publish the answer in another group that is not available on a Google Search
engine, so don't give your answer right away, as I want to post the answer
first. Then, I will let you decide and show us how you determine the correct
reading of what was on the balloon, telling us your reasoning behind each
conclusion. I am really interested in your reasons. Fair enough?
Heather Thompson
> > Hi j.w...is your handle a play on the words "Jehovah Witnesses?" I'm
> > not poking fun, I was just wondering, as I have seen few Jehovah
> > Witnesses ever discuss anything on these bible newsgroups. If you are
> > a "JW" I want to welcome you to this discussion.
>
> No. those initials have nothing to do with the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Hi j.w. and thanks for answering my post. I appreciate your input. I
am trying to gather as many ideas as posssible on certain issues
regarding biblical inerrancy. I enjoy reading all posts, pro and con,
as long as they don't stoop to ad hominems and subtle put-downs. I
think you have done well but I will share a little more with you...
>
>
> It is my understanding that when testimony in court by multiple witnesses is
> totally identical, then the testimony is suspect because it appears as if
> the witnesses collaborated together to rehearse their information. Mutiple
> witnesses will invaribly furnish some information that others do not.
I agree with this. It certainly arouses suspicions. There are scholars
who doubt the Synoptic accounts because in some cases they are
virtually identical, and in other cases verbatim. I was a witness at a
trial once and I was not allowed in the court room while the other
witnesses testified. After I gave my testimony, I was allowed to sit
in the room and listen to further testimonies. The prosecutor in her
closing harped on the discrepancies among the witnesses but it didn't
sway the jury because they sided with the defense in this case.
While I agree a little bit of dissimilarity may be a boost it could
also be error. And that is what we must guard against. The
inerrantists rule out a priori error of any kind. For them
harmonization is the only acceptable answer.
One of
> the major tasks is to identify what everybody does agree upon. For example:
> in your illustration about Kennedy, there is harmony among the following
> information: that there was the sound of gunfire, that there was at least
> three known shots, and that someone sustained a gunshot wound to the head at
> the same time the shots were heard. The same with the campus robber: there
> is harmony in the accounts that this was a man, and that he appeared to be a
> younger adult male (he was not distinctly an elderly man), and that he
> robbed someone.
Yes, focusing on what everyone agrees on carries much weight with
police investigations and historical research. That isn't 100%
guarantee it is correct but it certainly raises the odds that it
really happened. My complaint is more with the attitude of
inerrantists when confronted with "discrepancies". They often
"harmonize" the details by stating the details are ALL correct and no
way can any of them be in error. This is not the way police work and
it isn't the way historians work. There is always a possibility of
error whenever there are dissimilarities. All I wanted to do was point
out the possibility of error. Inerrantists are committed a priori to
inerrancy.
>
> The problem with using this analogy to disagree with the harmonizations of
> the gospels is that it is not an apples to apples comparison. The Kennedy
> assasination is an extremely complex case involving a planned conspiracy
> among numerous individuals, and information that was probably never made
> public, regardless of who you believed pulled the trigger. Some people might
> have heard more than three shots by virture of the fact that they could have
> heard an echo, or other natural interference to sound transmission and how
> quickly the shots were fired in succession.
I agree, but a harmonizer will simply go with the highest number, say
there were six shots and if there were six, then there were five,
etc., or if someone reported a man holding a rifle behind the grassy
hill then it must be true so it would have to be considered as
absolute truth and be included in the harmonization, even though the
eye-witness may have been mistaken. I have been to that spot in Dallas
and stood on the exact spot where the Zapruder film was made and the
spot where the alleged gunman was supposed to be standing is only
about 30 feet from where Zapruder was standing. I think he would have
been seen by more than a couple people if in fact he had been there.
The sound of gunfire from there would have been unmistakable in my
opinion. The harmonizer does not allow for the possibility of error,
and would work all details in a story together.
> In the campus robbery scenario, trying to estimate someone's age as "early
> 20's or "early 30's" is a subjective approach based on someone's perception
> of what a man in his 20's or 30's would look like. The same is true with
> saying he had dark or light hair - what does that mean? Darker than blonde,
> or lighter than black? And simply because one claimed he wore glasses while
> no one else did does not mean that he did not wear glasses.
Yes, exactly. But the harmonizer refuses to consider the possibility
of error. He has his mind made up that all details are true and must
fit together, somehow. The above example aside, even in modern
law-enforcement, they know that not all eye-witnesses will give
accurate reports of what happened. Police must sift through reports
and eliminate some details because some witnesses see what they want
to see. It isn't an easy task. But if our police forces took the
harmonist approach, they would include all details and a priori refuse
to admit the possibility any of the witnesses were in error. This
could lead to disaster.
>
> The above scenarios are hard to apply to the gospel accounts of Peter's
> denial of Christ, whether it happened three or six times, because the nature
> of the offense is different, the evidence is entirely of a different nature,
> it occurred in different surroundings, circumstances, and enviornment. There
> is a big difference between trying to determine how many times Peter denied
> Christ back in Jersualem in A.D. 33 and trying to describe how many gunshots
> were heard on a busy highway in Dallas in 1962, or estimating someone's age
> without knowing whether or not they attempted to disguise themself due to
> the nature of the event.
Again, I agree. All I wanted to emphasize is the difference in the
historical approach and the harmonist approach. The harmonizer assumes
all details are accurate so he must weave them into his tale. He
refuses to concede even the possibility of error. The harmony may be
right, but it may also be wrong. The methodology of the harmonist is,
in my opinion, faulty. If he gets it right, good for him. But when he
has to harmonize so many tales the odds of him getting it wrong
increases. Experience teaches us that witnesses often get their
testimonies wrong. Perspective, prejudices, disposition, attention to
detail, and the desire for attention all play a role in the way an
eye-witness sees things.
Again, this is harmonization and I am not sure the harmonization is
correct. You have added all the details together and woven them
together very well I must say. But this methodology overlooks the
possibility that one or more of the writers got his details wrong. I
can harmonize too, but I am more interested in knowing the truth, even
if it means jettisoning some details from one or more writers. Your
harmonization may be right, but it may be wrong, and when I hold your
harmonization aside each account as given in the gospels it looks
weak. Try holding it next to Matthew's account and see the way Matthew
writes his account and ask yourself if your harmonization is the way
it happened would the way Matthew write his make any sense? Then, Mark
and Luke, like Matthew,leave out three of the denials and John does
the same. What are the odds of all four mentioning only three denials
when there were six? J.w., please try to understand what I am doing
here. I am not trying to cause problems, I just want to better
understand the "harmonization" method of historical methodology.
>
> These accounts are quite different then the Kennedy account or the campus
> robber. In those situations, various individuals are trying to describe the
> circumstances surrounding an isolated event, while many are taking cover and
> hitting the dirt to avoid being shot themselves. The Kennedy assassination
> and the campus robbery occurred as isolated instances in a moment of time,
> with numerous individuals trying to describe the circumstances that
> surrounded the same events, circumstances that occurred within seconds and
> not observed before they occurred. The Kennedy assassination occurred on a
> busy street in a major city while probably thousands of people were gathered
> and all were focusing on the passing by of the President of the United
> States - a sufficient distraction to any other peripheral events that might
> be occurring. Whereas, the circumstances surrounding Peter's denials were
> each sufficiently separate and distinct from the others, and occurred over
> the course of hours.
That is true of course, but I am still wondering why inerrantists rule
out error a priori and refuse to even allow that possibility in
reconstructing an event that happened 2000 years ago. Historians do
not rule out error a priori when trying to piece together events that
happend years ago. I read a book in 1991 "Son of the Morning Star", an
account of Custer's Last Stand. The historians have pieced together a
likely scenario how the battle unfolded based on the disposition of
the bodies, the accounts of the companies from Custer's regiment that
survived the battle (only Custer and the six companies that followed
him were massacred; there were about eight companies that survived in
another battle that took place on another side of the Indian
encampment). There were also accounts from Indians that participated
in the battle, accounts which were copied down into english as these
warriors returned to the reservations that same summer. The accounts
were very disimilar although they all agreed "yellow hair" died
gallantly and was one of the last to fall (but not the last, as in
Hollywood versions). Some of the accounts of the soldiers of the
surviving companies were dismissed as too unlikely, produced by
overheated imaginations.
I know that is still quite different from the account of the campfire,
but my point is the historian doesn't assume a priori all written
accounts are 100% true. If there are dissimlarities, he considers the
possibility error may exist.
>
> There is nothing in the gospels to indicate that Peter's denials had to
> happen within rapid succession to each other, unlike what is depicted in
> movie films and plays. The gospel writers wrote that when Jesus was taken
> into custody, that Peter followed from a distance. John wrote that one
> apostle accompanied Jesus into the courtyard and that Peter waited outside
> until this other apostle came and escorted him into the courtyard. John
> wrote that as he entered, Peter denied Christ to the gatekeeper, most likely
> in the presence of this other apostle - who most scholars agree is John
> himself. While Peter warmed himself by the fire where he made another
> denial, Jesus was undergoing his trial before the High Priest. Luke records
> that when Peter denied Chirst to the second man, that "the Lord turned and
> looked at Peter," and that Peter then went out and wept bitterly. It is
> obvious by this information that this denial occurred after Jesus' trial
> concluded, at least one of them. I doubt that Peter would have wept
> bitterly and then returned to deny Christ a few more times. Hence, I think
> it is safe to conclude that Peter's denials occurred over the course of
> several hours throughout the night.
I think there is always a possibility that some of the details may not
be accurate and I would be leery of constructing a harmony that
included all the accounts. Again, print out your best harmonization,
with all six denials, hold them alongside the accounts given in the
gospels, and wonder how likely all four gospel writers would have made
no mention of six denials while all four do mention three. I tend to
believe some of the details are suspicious. I wouldn't try to
harmonize them, because you have already done so and it doesn't
convince me. That is not meant in any way to be a slur on you, by the
way. We just think diffrently.
Yes, these possibilities do exist, but they are just
that-possibilities. There is also a possibility that one or more may
be wrong. For example, let's say, for sake of argument that Mark's
version was correct in all the details. There was no other correct
version except Mark's. But the harmonizer has ruled out error as a
possibility so he must "combine" all accounts into one and use all the
words in a order that makes sense and preserves inerrancy. But his
methodology is biased against errors of any kind so I would be a
little hesitant to accept his harmony as authoritaitve. The lack of
explanation for this alone would probably not cause many to lose any
sleep over the inerrancy issue but I think the inerrancy issue goes
much deeper than the accounts of the campfire and the words that were
hung over Jesus' head.
Thanks for answering,
Heather
Carl
> On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:08:52 GMT, "j.w."
> <no-spam...@paonline.com> wrote:
>
>
>>In Peter's denials: let's take a look at what we do know:
>
>
> Good post. As for Peter, a rooster crows twice in the
> morning. People get up on the second crow. Talk to a
> farmer.
As a former country boy I have to ask where you got those daft ideas from?
[snip]
Mark Johnson
>>create a whole new reading that has all the details, adding another
>>character if necessary. Whenever there is X people or X-1 involved,
>>always assume inerrancy and choose the higher number.
>Person 1 reports : there was a red balloon in the stands
>Person 2: there was a red balloon in bleachers
>Person 3: there was a red balloon on the warning track
>Person 4: there was a balloon in the outfield
>Person 5: the center fielder tripped and fell over a balloon
>Person 6: play stopped, momentarily, for a red balloon
>Person 7: there was a red balloon that came from the outfield
>Who's right?
>Well, if the baloon never made it to the outfield
No, same moment. Different witnesses. You _could_ suggest,
hypothetically, that there was more than one red ball . . . ? Just
because no one mentioned that fact, it might just be that no one
asked, and no one volunteered.
>then we know Persons 3,4,5,6,7 are wrong. It's that simple.
You'd have to say they were lying. As the example to Scriptures, many
people say exactly that; that Scriptures is one lie, after another.
You can believe that, if you want. I certainly can't stop you.
>neither was I, we'll never know. We can "harmonize" them so all the details
>fit smooth as a glove, but that doesn't mean persons 3-7 in your analogy
>were correct.
But I suspect you'd question it even if Person 3-7 WAS . . the center
fielder, or an umpire - whatever.
Think about that.
Seriously.
>Remember, I can grant the possibility of error AND
>harmonization. Your mind cannot fathom an error in the Bible.
There are errors in The Bible. But that's not what you mean.
>true. None can be false. In fact, you may argue it is IMPOSSIBLE for any of
>the gospel accounts to be contradictory. Harmonization is the only answer
>for you, no matter what the costs.
But if there's no contradiction - then need I remind you - there's no
contradiction? A host of these supposed 'Bible contradictions' are
based in ignorance or willful misrepresentation.
Person 2: there was a red balloon in bleachers
Person 3: there was a red balloon on the warning track
You see that as a necessary contradiction. Those are different
statements. Let's say they are both sworn affadavits. Not only how
could one reconcile the two, but you would say - why would you want
to?
Well, it's possible, and seems reasonable in the given time frame,
that whether or not person 2 and 3 were different people, that the red
ball bounced or was thrown from the center field bleachers onto the
field. Given other witness testimony, it seems likely, and that it led
to a brief suspension of play, while the center fielder, somewhat
clumsily, returned it to the stands.
>Why did I say "you weren't there" in the scenario above? Because for the
>analogy to fit the Gospels, it has to be a case where we do not have a
>living eye-witness to clear the matter up for us.
But they were living, at the time. And affadavits might survive one's
death. Think of the Gospels as sworn testimony.
>We have seven different
>accounts. They may all be true, but then again, they may all be false, but a
>balloon in the stadium is a little silly comparison to written texts
>thousands of years ago that purport to convey accurate history yet have
>conflicts with one another.
You're talking about logic, here, is all. That's your complaint.
You make a good point, without realizing it. A balloon. Maybe it
wasn't a balloon. Maybe it was red. But maybe it wasn't what we
typically think of as a balloon. Maybe it was just a particularly
large beach ball. Maybe all the witnesses alike used the same
language, but which might not be clearly understood by all?
>Person 1 says the balloon had written on it: "Go Astros!"
>Person 2 says the balloon had written on it "Go to hell Astros!"
>Person 3 says the balloon had written on it "Go to hell!"
>Person 4 says the balloon had written on it "Astros!"
>Person 5 says the balloon had written on it: "Houston Astros!"
>Person 6 says the balloon had written on it: "Go to hell Houston!"
>Person 7 says the balloon had written on it: "Go Houston!"
Why stop there:
Person 1 says a blue balloon exploded behind the left fielder's back
and he slouched in the outfield.
Person 2 says the left fielder and center fielder ran into each other
trying to field a big beach ball in the outfield.
Person 3 says a large black helicopter drop a crate in center field,
parachute and all.
Person 4 says he wasn't even at the game, but heard that a lion had
escaped onto the field and ate the shortstop - mostly.
And so on.
>Now, tell me which one was right
I think you misunderstand the difference between describing the
elephant while you're blindfolded, and practicing the methods of NY
Times reporters.
>or if more than one was right and WHY you
>reached that conclusion and HOW you reached that conclusion. I am sure we
>will all be edified. I want to see the mind of an inerrantist at work on how
>he decides which of the above texts are correct. None of the seven people
>are living to interview.
That's why we must have . . Faith. That's the bottom line. You COULD
just dismiss Scriptures as a lie. 'Revisionists' do. Debunkers do. And
that's what they do.
>There are no survivors for interviews who may be
>able to clarify the issue. There is at least one that got it right. I will
>publish the answer in another group that is not available on a Google Search
Got what "answer" right?
But if you don't want to say, it is only Usenet. You can keep mum, if
you prefer. I understand.
Heather Thompson
> "David Lee" <ro...@atmc.net> wrote:
>
> >>create a whole new reading that has all the details, adding another
> >>character if necessary. Whenever there is X people or X-1 involved,
> >>always assume inerrancy and choose the higher number.
>
> >Person 1 reports : there was a red balloon in the stands
> >Person 2: there was a red balloon in bleachers
> >Person 3: there was a red balloon on the warning track
> >Person 4: there was a balloon in the outfield
> >Person 5: the center fielder tripped and fell over a balloon
> >Person 6: play stopped, momentarily, for a red balloon
> >Person 7: there was a red balloon that came from the outfield
>
> >Who's right?
>
> >Well, if the baloon never made it to the outfield
>
> No, same moment. Different witnesses.
Hi Mark,
I think you are missing the point. We don't know if it was the same
moment or not. It could have been something else entirely, a person's
memory can become fuzzy over such petty things as the years go by so
we cannot say these accounts were written at the same time. You can
claim that of course but it works only for your example because the
example is your creation and you can make it happen any way you want
it to happen. David can do the same thing if he wants. No examples
such as yours or David's prove the case for the inerrancy of the Bible
because they are an entirely different account and none of us were
there. Human nature being what it is,some of the witnesses may even
have made it up so they could tell their grandchildren, "Yea, I was
there when the major was gunned down in the press box. I remember
distinctly a balloon blowing across the field and...." when he fact he
was not only there he was vaguely remembering something about a
balloon in the newspaper account he had read. You can say it was the
same moment for the witnesses for the baloon but that is entirely your
creation and your example. David, I am sure, could create an example
that could be harmonized but it would rely on speculation and then be
later discovered to be in error. We have to have a criterion to
determine if all seven happened as recorded, or some of them, or none
of them, and then decide if it's even important. We do NOT asssume
that all seven events happened as recorded just because "someone said
so." That is not how history is done. It MAY have happened with all
seven details included but it may NOT have happened with all seven
details included. I think that is David's and my, point. You seem
unwilling to admit the possibility of error.
You _could_ suggest,
> hypothetically, that there was more than one red ball . . . ? Just
> because no one mentioned that fact, it might just be that no one
> asked, and no one volunteered.
>
> >then we know Persons 3,4,5,6,7 are wrong. It's that simple.
>
> You'd have to say they were lying. As the example to Scriptures, many
> people say exactly that; that Scriptures is one lie, after another.
> You can believe that, if you want. I certainly can't stop you.
Well, I don't believ every thing in the Bible is a lie Mark. I think
there are some things in it that are not factual, but that is far from
calling the writer a liar. I think the christians tend to exaggerate
the attacks on the bible because I have seen very very few critics of
the bible claim that it is one lie, one right after the other. The
majority are far more reserved in their criticisms of the Bible. Most
critics in these newsgroups are not a represenative example of all
critics of the bible in the scholarly world. Most true scholars use
the word "liar" sparingly, prefering terms like "they are deceived",
"he is misled by his sources", "he is mistaken", etc.
>
> >neither was I, we'll never know. We can "harmonize" them so all the details
> >fit smooth as a glove, but that doesn't mean persons 3-7 in your analogy
> >were correct.
>
> But I suspect you'd question it even if Person 3-7 WAS . . the center
> fielder, or an umpire - whatever.
>
> Think about that.
>
I have thought about it too. Can all the details of the seven be
correct? Yes. Can any of them be mistaken? Yes. How do we tell if it
is vital we do so? In other words, if our life depended on us getting
the correct answer, how do we determine which of the seven accounts,
if any, are correct? Do we just blindly say "All seven are right,
there is no way any of them can be wrong..." or do we approach it
carefully and try to reason about probabilities and such. Truth has
nothing to lose in such an investigation, wouldn't you agree Mark?
>
> Seriously.
>
>
> >Remember, I can grant the possibility of error AND
> >harmonization. Your mind cannot fathom an error in the Bible.
>
> There are errors in The Bible. But that's not what you mean.
Yes, there are errors in the Bible Mark. I can't speak for David, but
I believe you are speaking of scribal errors and errors of others that
are accurately recorded by the Bible writers. Am I mistaken?
>
>
> >true. None can be false. In fact, you may argue it is IMPOSSIBLE for any of
> >the gospel accounts to be contradictory. Harmonization is the only answer
> >for you, no matter what the costs.
>
> But if there's no contradiction - then need I remind you - there's no
> contradiction? A host of these supposed 'Bible contradictions' are
> based in ignorance or willful misrepresentation.
Exactly, if there are no errors, then there are no errors....that is
so self-evident it is sort of redundant to even write it. What about
if I wrote... "But if they are in error - then need I remind you -
they are in error? Would you think that was a convincing statement?
>
>
> Person 2: there was a red balloon in bleachers
> Person 3: there was a red balloon on the warning track
>
> You see that as a necessary contradiction. Those are different
> statements. Let's say they are both sworn affadavits. Not only how
> could one reconcile the two, but you would say - why would you want
> to?
The gospel writings were not sworn affadavits Mark. They were written
in the vernacular of their day and like many of the gospels written in
the first 150 years of the fledging church, they had stories that were
incredibly hard to believe. That doesn't make them false, but it does
give one the right to paise and wonder, and even question whether or
not these fabulous stories have any basis in fact. It isn't very wise
to just "blindly" accept them as true because they CANNOT be mistaken.
>
> Well, it's possible, and seems reasonable in the given time frame,
> that whether or not person 2 and 3 were different people, that the red
> ball bounced or was thrown from the center field bleachers onto the
> field. Given other witness testimony, it seems likely, and that it led
> to a brief suspension of play, while the center fielder, somewhat
> clumsily, returned it to the stands.
>
>
> >Why did I say "you weren't there" in the scenario above? Because for the
> >analogy to fit the Gospels, it has to be a case where we do not have a
> >living eye-witness to clear the matter up for us.
>
> But they were living, at the time. And affadavits might survive one's
> death. Think of the Gospels as sworn testimony.
The gospels were not affadavits. When the writers penned these
writings there is no evidence they were in danger of being tossed in
jail for exaggerating, manipulating facts, or for just repeating what
someone else had said. An affadavit is usually signed by an
eye-witness. The only known eyewitnesses (of the church) to the cock
crowing incident was Peter and John. The only known eyewitnesses of
the words above the cross was John and the women who followed Jesus
from Galilee. None of the gospels indicated who they were written by
and it is only church tradition that gives them their names. Papias is
often called upon as a witness to the authorship of Matthew and Mark
but his comments about the death of Judas reveals the book he thought
was written by Matthew was not the Matthew we have.
Exactly. I think you made David's point beautifully. It is so easy to
create seemingly discrepant statements that can still be harmonized
but the harmonization doesn't prove it really happened that way. The
human imagination can harmonize almost anything, true or not, and if I
wanted to bad enough, I could harmonize the statements from persons
1-4 above. But that would not prove it to be accurate, or more
importantly, an actual event in history.
>
> I think you misunderstand the difference between describing the
> elephant while you're blindfolded, and practicing the methods of NY
> Times reporters.
>
> No, Mark, I think it is you who is practicing the methods of the NY
Times reporters. You have a unique gift of putting "spin" on a
disharmonious account and justifying it and obstinately refusing to
acknowledge that your harmonization may be in error. To me, that seems
more like a NY Times reporter. David, I, and many others try to weigh
both sides of the issue (unlike the NY Times reporters), but you
accept only harmonization and refuse any hint that one or more of the
biblical writers may have got his details wrong. Isn't that what the
editor of the Times did when confronted with the possibility that one
of his reporters may have embellished or exaggerated events, maybe
even making them uo as he went? That is what you do when confronted
with possible errors from your "reporters" the gospel writers. You
don't even allow the possibility they may have erred into your mind.
No, I think you are a better example of the NY Times at work than
David or other critics.
> >or if more than one was right and WHY you
> >reached that conclusion and HOW you reached that conclusion. I am sure we
> >will all be edified. I want to see the mind of an inerrantist at work on how
> >he decides which of the above texts are correct. None of the seven people
> >are living to interview.
>
> That's why we must have . . Faith. That's the bottom line. You COULD
> just dismiss Scriptures as a lie. 'Revisionists' do. Debunkers do. And
> that's what they do.
Who are these people that think the Scriptures are a lie? There is a
difference from a writer being mistaken and one deliberately setting
out to deceive, although that is a possibility we must be on guard
for. I think too much time in newsgroups has exposed you to a
unrepresenative sample of critics and they have clouded your view of
critics of the bible in general.
>
>
> >There are no survivors for interviews who may be
> >able to clarify the issue. There is at least one that got it right. I will
> >publish the answer in another group that is not available on a Google Search
>
> Got what "answer" right?
>
David wanted you to take the seven details he gave you and asked you
(politely) to tell you which one is right, explaining your reasons for
arriving at the conclusion you would arrive at if you had bothered to
read what he wrote. It wasn't a unreasinable request and it was a fair
challenge.
> But if you don't want to say, it is only Usenet. You can keep mum, if
> you prefer. I understand.
>
I cannot speak for David, but I think I know what he meant. He wants
to post the answer to his challenge before you arrive at your
conclusion and commit to it on the newsgroup. But he cannot post it on
a Google-accessed newsgroup because then you or someone else could
find the answer and pass it on to you. You would then get the answe
right. He, I think, wants you to commit, post your answer, then he
will provide the link to one of these off-Google newsgroups that shows
his answer and the date he posted it. David, am I right? Mark, if you
had not snipped David's message above, you could read again what he
wrote, in context, and see that he in no way implied he was going to
hide from you. You cut that part away and then gave your readers the
impression that he wanted to hide from you or avoid a discussion with
you. I will be charitable, ...this is wrong. It is not the thing a
person with integrity will do. I am quite positive my opinion is
correct. When you provide an answer to his challenge, he will come
back on with a URL and everyone can see his answer.
Actually, I think that was a honest move. Otherwise, if you had picked
the right answer, he could have said you were mistaken and said X was
the right one all along. So to guard against accusations of changing
the answer he probably posted it somewhere else that is known only to
him and will post the answer AFTER you figure out his challenge.
> Peace.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
> discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
> to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
>
> [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
Isn't this the truth? And doesn't it fit the inerrantist mindset
perfectly?
An inerrantist is so blinded by his devotion he cannot discern truth
from falsehood in the bible. The inerrantists don't even bother to try
and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear, i.e., there
is a beautiful utopian paradise after this life, they will live
forever and never suffer pain, those that escape justice in this life
will face it in the next, their loved ones who have passed on they
will see again, etc.,...their ears itch for this kind of stuff and
they eat it up at church services around the globe.
Later,
Heather
------------------------------------------
"By the time the average fundamentalist (or inerrantist?-HT) has
reached 40, he has attended about 2,000 Sunday morning worship
services, 1,000 mid-week services, 1,000 Sunday afternoon services,
200 revival services, as well as the occasional church barbecue and
concert service." Gallup 1989
This comes to a total of about 4200 brain-washing sessions by the time
the average fundamentalist reaches middle-age. Secularists have no
such record for brain-washing sessions, even though some on the
newsgroups may act like it.
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:<847dfvkp3faua8197...@4ax.com>...
>> "David Lee" <ro...@atmc.net> wrote:
>> >>create a whole new reading that has all the details, adding another
>> >>character if necessary. Whenever there is X people or X-1 involved,
>> >>always assume inerrancy and choose the higher number.
>> >Person 1 reports : there was a red balloon in the stands
>> >Person 2: there was a red balloon in bleachers
>> >Person 3: there was a red balloon on the warning track
>> >Person 4: there was a balloon in the outfield
>> >Person 5: the center fielder tripped and fell over a balloon
>> >Person 6: play stopped, momentarily, for a red balloon
>> >Person 7: there was a red balloon that came from the outfield
>> >Who's right?
>> >Well, if the baloon never made it to the outfield
>> No, same moment. Different witnesses.
>I think you are missing the point. We don't know if it was the same
>moment or not.
I'm saying it was.
But in the analogy to Scriptures, you might have a point. Who wrote
what - when? based even on which sources, oral and/or written?
>It could have been something else entirely, a person's
>memory can become fuzzy over such petty things as the years go by so
>we cannot say these accounts were written at the same time.
The Gospels? They were not written at the same time.
>claim that of course but it works only for your example because the
>example is your creation and you can make it happen any way you want
>it to happen. David can do the same thing if he wants. No examples
>such as yours or David's prove the case for the inerrancy of the Bible
>because they are an entirely different account and none of us were
>there.
But that's the point. It takes an act of Faith, because we no longer
live in the Apostolic Age. To a lesser degree, you take much of what
you are taught, on faith, as it were, because you have no reason to
disagree. Did Homer really write this, in the Iliad, for example? Was
this or that ancient battle really fought . . here - or there? There
can be a lot of mistakes, which come out much later. There could have
been a lot of PC BS thrown in, to suit one sect, one school, or
another, in the intervening years. And that might come out, later, as
suits a subsequent school, or sect.
Scriptures, are inspired. Holy Scriptures are the Word of God. It
takes an act of Faith, even to confess that much. And Scriptures are
part of Divine Revelation, which The Roman Catholic Church, alone,
preserves, and teaches by The Magisterium.
>Human nature being what it is,some of the witnesses may even
>have made it up so they could tell their grandchildren, "Yea, I was
>there when the major was gunned down in the press box. I remember
>distinctly a balloon blowing across the field and...."
And the pressbox is way on the other side of the field. Maybe it was a
signal to the assassin? That's a strange bit for you to add, I might .
. . add.
>was not only there he was vaguely remembering something about a
>balloon in the newspaper account he had read.
Thinking that it was read, er . . red, when it really was pinstripe
blue? I guess the mind can really play tricks. Might lead people to
even question what is . . . . . . . is.
>creation and your example. David, I am sure, could create an example
>that could be harmonized but it would rely on speculation and then be
>later discovered to be in error. We have to have a criterion to
>determine if all seven happened as recorded, or some of them, or none
>of them, and then decide if it's even important. We do NOT asssume
>that all seven events happened as recorded just because "someone said
>so." That is not how history is done. It MAY have happened with all
>seven details included but it may NOT have happened with all seven
>details included. I think that is David's and my, point. You seem
>unwilling to admit the possibility of error.
But you're just asserting that, a priori. There was a mistaken
recollection, or fraud. You're just asserting that. And therefore, we
have to 'allow for the possibility' of such. But you've already
concluded it, from the start. Now you might argue, that I am asserting
the event not by the witness accounts, but by asserting the event,
itself. So, beyond this example, you'd need more context.
Let's take the trivial example, again:
>> >Person 1 reports : there was a red balloon in the stands
>> >Person 2: there was a red balloon in bleachers
>> >Person 3: there was a red balloon on the warning track
>> >Person 4: there was a balloon in the outfield
>> >Person 5: the center fielder tripped and fell over a balloon
>> >Person 6: play stopped, momentarily, for a red balloon
>> >Person 7: there was a red balloon that came from the outfield
Five agree that it was a balloon, and that it was red. They all used
the word, balloon (and the word, red). Now you don't know if these are
different people, or sometimes the same person represented as more
than one. Maybe all five were just one person, explaining the
consistent use of terminology. All seven use that same word, balloon.
If that's seven different people, then whatever it was, must have
appeared as a balloon, to them.
Now, none of the statements are necessarily inconsistent, which was
the original complaint, here, with regard to the sign on The Cross.
Without ignoring anything, without changing their stories, it can
easily be seen that these are partial descriptions of the very same
event.
Now you would introduce the idea that someone is mistaken, or even
lying. There's an inconsistency, you say. Even worse, there's no
inconsistency. But somebody could have lied, even unintentionally.
Right? Maybe it was all part of a conspiracy. Maybe all seven were
skipping work, that day. And maybe they were all staffers for the
ballclub. When caught at the beach, they quickly began to concoct
details of the day's game, and elaborated and exaggerated, so that, in
the moment, and without reflection, their stories might seem
internally consistent. They might even be reluctant to elaborate, for
fear their stories would begin to contradict.
That is, if you carry that fraud far enough, inevitably, the people
will begin to contradict each other. Details will appear that are
inconsistent. The above, as presented, in not inconsistent.
And in the case of the sign on The Cross, neither are the Gospels.
>> You'd have to say they were lying. As the example to Scriptures, many
>> people say exactly that; that Scriptures is one lie, after another.
>> You can believe that, if you want. I certainly can't stop you.
>Well, I don't believ every thing in the Bible is a lie Mark. I think
>there are some things in it that are not factual, but that is far from
>calling the writer a liar.
Well, did St. Thomas really touch the Resurrected Christ? Was that . .
. "not factual"?
>critics in these newsgroups are not a represenative example of all
>critics of the bible in the scholarly world.
The techie groups tend to be much better. Knowledgeable people (every
now and then). Some of these 'pure opinion' groups, which is to what
the trolls reduce the religious ngs, tend to attract those with
opinions, and no background, or desire for such, on the subject.
>Most true scholars use
>the word "liar" sparingly, prefering terms like "they are deceived",
>"he is misled by his sources", "he is mistaken", etc.
Well, but if that's just courtesy, cowardice, even PC, and if they
mean something else, they should not be dishonest and 'polite', but
honest and true to scholarship. If that's the case, I'm saying.
>I have thought about it too. Can all the details of the seven be
>correct? Yes. Can any of them be mistaken? Yes. How do we tell if it
>is vital we do so? In other words, if our life depended on us getting
>the correct answer, how do we determine which of the seven accounts,
>if any, are correct? Do we just blindly say "All seven are right,
>there is no way any of them can be wrong..."
You do kind of keep moving around this. The question is - based on
what? Why?
In this example - why would you think they were? Their stories are
consistent with one another, if you simply allow that they didn't tell
the whole story, but only parts that seemed important to them, and to
their audience?
>> >Remember, I can grant the possibility of error AND
>> >harmonization. Your mind cannot fathom an error in the Bible.
>> There are errors in The Bible. But that's not what you mean.
>Yes, there are errors in the Bible Mark. I can't speak for David, but
>I believe you are speaking of scribal errors and errors of others that
>are accurately recorded by the Bible writers. Am I mistaken?
Even if accurately copied. But it's one thing to quarrel on certain
lineages, and another to insist that the Evangelists were factually
wrong in describing The Passion, particularly based on an illogical
complaint that the accounts contradict - when they don't.
>> But if there's no contradiction - then need I remind you - there's no
>> contradiction? A host of these supposed 'Bible contradictions' are
>> based in ignorance or willful misrepresentation.
>Exactly, if there are no errors, then there are no errors....that is
>so self-evident it is sort of redundant to even write it.
No - tautologies are particularly useful, on Usenet, in politics, and
in the academy. People need to be reminded of the obvious - all the
time.
>if I wrote... "But if they are in error - then need I remind you -
>they are in error? Would you think that was a convincing statement?
You mean, would I agree that it's true? Let me ask you if you agree
with: But if there's no contradiction - then need I remind you -
there's no contradiction?
Answer your question?
While tautologies are useful, I have to question, what's the use of
asking: Would you think that was a convincing statement?
mmmmmm?
>> Person 2: there was a red balloon in bleachers
>> Person 3: there was a red balloon on the warning track
>> You see that as a necessary contradiction. Those are different
>> statements. Let's say they are both sworn affadavits. Not only how
>> could one reconcile the two, but you would say - why would you want
>> to?
>The gospel writings were not sworn affadavits Mark.
Yes, they are. There may be errors in the OT, factual errors. But the
reason we have the OT, the reason The Church compiled the OT, was
because The Church wishes to preserve the NT. Now again, it's a matter
of Faith. I keep saying that. It's a matter of Faith. You can just
assert the Evangelists all lied. It doesn't make sense, upon
reflection. But people say that, nonetheless - lying to themselves, I
would say. So you have your liars. But they aren't the Evangelists.
Why can't you . . . accept that . . . possibility? speaking of which.
>not these fabulous stories have any basis in fact. It isn't very wise
>to just "blindly" accept them as true because they CANNOT be mistaken.
Without Faith, you can't confess The Church, much less Holy
Scriptures. It takes an act of Faith. We weren't there . . in the
Apostolic Age. AND this is sacred writing, Revelation. The 'scales'
fall over the eyes automatically for those who won't believe. Unlike
the works of Homer, you must confess The Church on Faith, and then
consider Scriptures - not before then. Those who try, inevitably fail.
The great Doctors, Saints, Popes, Fathers and theologians prayed . . .
when considering Scriptures. They confessed The Church. And so they
could begin to understand The Bible.
>> But they were living, at the time. And affadavits might survive one's
>> death. Think of the Gospels as sworn testimony.
>The gospels were not affadavits. When the writers penned these
>writings there is no evidence they were in danger of being tossed in
>jail for exaggerating
Hell.
>manipulating facts, or for just repeating what
>someone else had said. An affadavit is usually signed by an
>eye-witness. The only known eyewitnesses (of the church) to the cock
>crowing incident was Peter and John.
So you find some inconsistency in their affadavits, as it were?
>The only known eyewitnesses of
>the words above the cross was John and the women who followed Jesus
>from Galilee. None of the gospels indicated who they were written by
You mean the sign? You mention John. Haven't you read his Gospel -
yet?
You should take a look at it. It might answer some of your questions
on all this - instead of taking your testimony second-hand from
debunkers, or whoever.
>and it is only church tradition that gives them their names.
You mean the names of the Evangelists?
>Papias is
>often called upon as a witness to the authorship of Matthew and Mark
>but his comments about the death of Judas reveals the book he thought
>was written by Matthew was not the Matthew we have.
Papias?
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-43.htm
>> >Person 1 says the balloon had written on it: "Go Astros!"
>> >Person 2 says the balloon had written on it "Go to hell Astros!"
>> >Person 3 says the balloon had written on it "Go to hell!"
>> >Person 4 says the balloon had written on it "Astros!"
>> >Person 5 says the balloon had written on it: "Houston Astros!"
>> >Person 6 says the balloon had written on it: "Go to hell Houston!"
>> >Person 7 says the balloon had written on it: "Go Houston!"
>> Why stop there:
>> Person 1 says a blue balloon exploded behind the left fielder's back
>> and he slouched in the outfield.
>> Person 2 says the left fielder and center fielder ran into each other
>> trying to field a big beach ball in the outfield.
>> Person 3 says a large black helicopter drop a crate in center field,
>> parachute and all.
>> Person 4 says he wasn't even at the game, but heard that a lion had
>> escaped onto the field and ate the shortstop - mostly.
>> And so on.
>> >Now, tell me which one was right
>Exactly. I think you made David's point beautifully. It is so easy to
>create seemingly discrepant statements that can still be harmonized
>but the harmonization doesn't prove it really happened that way. The
>human imagination can harmonize almost anything, true or not
No, at least not reasonably and honestly. Those who are . . .
dishonest, can believe anything, at least publicly. They can ignore
whatever uncomfortable reports they like. The PC always do. That's the
nature of . . PC. I mean, they could argue that the create contained a
man eating lion, that it was the lion which punctured a much
overinflated ball which exploded as the gas was released, and that the
fielders were not trying to field the large ball, but merely trying to
escape the lion. But, of course, the explosion occurred as the fielder
stood slouching in position, unafraid one would think of any rampaging
lion. If there were a wild lion running around in the outfield, the
fielders would be trying to climb the fences to escape, not standing
around. Plus, there's the helicopter - unless someone lied - or unless
there was no lion, and so on. You can't 'harmonize' these witness
reports.
>wanted to bad enough, I could harmonize the statements from persons
>1-4 above.
No - you simply couldn't.
>accept only harmonization and refuse any hint that one or more of the
>biblical writers may have got his details wrong.
Again - you simply couldn't. The Evangelists don't contradict. The
stuff you want to 'harmonize' . . does.
>editor of the Times did when confronted with the possibility that one
>of his reporters may have embellished or exaggerated events, maybe
>even making them uo as he went? That is what you do when confronted
>with possible errors from your "reporters" the gospel writers.
But based on what? What makes you think they lied?
I mean, people always SAY that . . about Scriptures. But it's because
they want it to be the case that they lied, when they didn't. That
sort of invention, that kind of wishful thinking, is what is behind
much of the NY Times dishonesty, from the editorial page, to 'above
the fold'.
>> >There are no survivors for interviews who may be
>> >able to clarify the issue. There is at least one that got it right. I will
>> >publish the answer in another group that is not available on a Google Search
>> Got what "answer" right?
>David wanted you to take the seven details he gave you and asked you
>(politely) to tell you which one is right, explaining your reasons for
>arriving at the conclusion
Well, I think I "got it right", above. If you disagree . . please be
specific (I tend to say that).
>I cannot speak for David, but I think I know what he meant.
You could always ask.
>> One mark of a deteriorating society is when its people cannot
>> discern truth from lies. Another is when they don't even bother
>> to try and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear.
>> [Cal Thomas, 4 SEP 2000]
>Isn't this the truth? And doesn't it fit the inerrantist mindset
>perfectly?
Or that of the critics?
>An inerrantist
Or debunker . . .
>is so blinded by his devotion he cannot discern truth
>from falsehood in the bible. The inerrantists don't even bother to try
>and will believe whatever their itching ears want to hear, i.e., there
>is a beautiful utopian paradise after this life, they will live
>forever and never suffer pain, those that escape justice in this life
>will face it in the next
That's a bad thing?
>their loved ones who have passed on they
>will see again
But no telling where.
>etc.,...their ears itch for this kind of stuff and
>they eat it up at church services around the globe.
People will corrupt the Truth, because it suits them. It's certainly
true of debunkers. The bottom line, it's true of Prots, incl. the vast
majority that call themselves, Roman Catholic, today (who have adopted
a sort of Lutheran/Episcopalean/Pagan mish-mash of heterodoxy that
makes even some 'mainstream' Prot denominations seem orthodox, by
comparison).
Pastor Dave
A rooster. In addition to what I posted, there was one
next door to me, when I was a kid. Roosters often crow
late at night and then in the early morning.
Pastor Dave Raymond
___
In the beginning, God created...
The fact is, if you can't believe the beginning,
you can't believe the end and shouldn't claim to.
To disbelieve the beginning, is to doubt many things
that Jesus said. After all, He made it clear that
He believed it. If you believe in the Trinity, how
can you believe that God wouldn't know how it all
started? If you can't believe the beginning, then
get off the pulpit.
Atheism is folly, and atheists are the greatest
fools in nature; for they see there is a world
that could not make itself, and yet they will not
own there is a God that made it. - Matthew Henry
Carl
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:53:05 -0700, Carl
> <no_...@all.fu> wrote:
>
>
>>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:08:52 GMT, "j.w."
>>><no-spam...@paonline.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In Peter's denials: let's take a look at what we do know:
>>>
>>>
>>>Good post. As for Peter, a rooster crows twice in the
>>>morning. People get up on the second crow. Talk to a
>>>farmer.
>>
>>As a former country boy I have to ask where you got those daft ideas from?
>
>
> A rooster.
A rooster told you?
> In addition to what I posted, there was one
> next door to me, when I was a kid. Roosters often crow
> late at night and then in the early morning.
And from that one observation you made the conclusion that roosters crow
twice in the morning and farmers wait for the second crow? Me thinks
you fell for someone's joke about farmers wanting a "snooze" button on
their roosters.
Pastor Dave
<no_...@all.fu> wrote:
>Pastor Dave wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 14:53:05 -0700, Carl
>> <no_...@all.fu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Pastor Dave wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 18:08:52 GMT, "j.w."
>>>><no-spam...@paonline.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In Peter's denials: let's take a look at what we do know:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good post. As for Peter, a rooster crows twice in the
>>>>morning. People get up on the second crow. Talk to a
>>>>farmer.
>>>
>>>As a former country boy I have to ask where you got those daft ideas from?
>>
>>
>> A rooster.
>
>A rooster told you?
Yes, when he crowed.
>> In addition to what I posted, there was one
>> next door to me, when I was a kid. Roosters often crow
>> late at night and then in the early morning.
>
>And from that one observation you made the conclusion that roosters crow
>twice in the morning and farmers wait for the second crow? Me thinks
>you fell for someone's joke about farmers wanting a "snooze" button on
>their roosters.
If a rooster crows twice and it doesn't crow after
they're up, logic dictates that it's the second crow.
You see, you don't realize how much time typically
elapses between the two crows. Hours. Reread what I
wrote.
Jason Gastrich
Yes, there was indeed something called the time of the "cockcrowing."
I've written a brief essay on the biblical cockcrowing accounts. Here
it is:
* These phrases, "before the cock crows" and "before the cock crows
twice" are simply indicators of the same cock that crows before
morning. Cocks crow right before daybreak. Jesus was simply telling
Peter that before morning, he would deny Him three times. This was
fulfilled, too.
* Before alarm clocks, "the cockcrowing" was a time that everyone
knew. It was right before daybreak. If any employer told his
employee to be at work before "the cockcrowing", he would know that
this meant to be there before daybreak.
* The cocks generally crowed between Midnight and 1am, too, but this
wasn't considered "the cockcrowing". Matthew, Luke and John knew that
people recognized "the cockcrowing" as the one right before daybreak.
Mark simply mentioned the first and second cockcrowing.
* It is likely that Jesus made both statements to Peter. Jesus said,
"The cock will not crow before you deny Me three times". Peter
promised he would never deny Jesus and He replied, "Even this night,
before the cock crows two times, you will deny Me three times."
This was from my book: "The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and
Explained." You can see it here: http://sab.jcsm.org
God bless,
Jason Gastrich
Paul Duca
Mark Johnson wrote:
I consider it "wishful thinking" to believe some Catholic God will do ANYTHING for me, in this life
OR the next.
Paul
Carl
City slicker!
Pastor Dave
<no_...@all.fu> wrote:
<laugh> :)
Pastor Dave
Gastrich) wrote:
By George, I think he's got it! :)
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
There were seven balloons :-)
j.w.
I read your reply to me a few times to make sure I got the gist of what you
are saying. In essence, you seem to repeat that inerrantists refuse to
allow for errors, and that they attempt to justify discrepancies by
harmonization. In essence, you charge the inerrantists of deliberately
overlooking the facts that the gospels may be unreliable, while the
inerrantists charge back that harmonizations can resolve any alleged
discrepancies. Which group is wrong?
Did you present any errors from Scripture that cannot be reconciled at all?
I think harmonization is a good way to get the whole picture. Contradictory
information won't harmonize. And I think that you have to make a distinction
between the gospel writers telling different facts as opposed to them
contradicting each other on the same issue. One writer is not going to give
us all the information we need to know about the entire life of Christ. Even
John wrote that if they would have written down everything that Jesus did
while he was here on earth, the whole world would not be able to contain all
the books (John 21:25).
In the case of Peter's denials, I don't think that there are discrepancies
in the sense that errors exist. When I presented my harmonization of the
account of Peter's denial, I had already done exactly what you suggested in
your reply, I compared the accounts of all four gospels and pieced together
everything that the biblical writers entered into the record. It is by this
harmonization method that, for me personally, the alleged discrepancies
about Peter's denials actually disappeared, and my faith in the reliability
of the Gospels was actually deepened.
I don't believe that error exists simply because one writer included details
that another does not. For example: Peter's denial of Christ to the servant
girl attending the gate as he entered the courtyard following Jesus' arrest.
John is the only apostle who records that event. Does that make it an error
because Matthew, Mark and Luke omit that? No it doesn't. Now, if John
wrote that Peter denied Christ to her and Matthew wrote that he never spoke
to her, then we would have a potential error that needs further
investigation.
Another example: the account of the two thieves crucified on each side of
Jesus. Matthew & Mark write that the two thieves hurled insults at Jesus.
Luke records that one insulted him and one repented and believed on him.
John does not even mention the two thieves at all except to say that they
were still alive after Jesus died, and that they had their legs broke to
hasten death before the Sabbath.
Now, since we have variant accounts, which Gospel writer is not telling the
truth? Did Matthew and Mark collude with each other to write a false
account? Did Luke want to discredit Matthew and Mark and insert something
is not true? Was John trying to cover something up by not mentioning the
incident at all?
Or, did both thieves start out by insulting early on into the crucifixion
with one of them repenting later on in the day while John chose not to
include the account for whatever reason? You can charge the Gospel writers
with fraud, or the inerrantist with failing to consider any errors. But,
that means you are charging them, and that puts the burden of proof on you
to put forth solid proof that cannot be easily explained or refuted. There
is a difference between recording contradictory information and information
that someone else did not mention that is not contradictory.
The same would be true regarding the circumstances surrounding the birth of
Christ. Matthew and Luke each record information about Mary's pregnancy and
Jesus' birth. Both writers include information that harmonizes with the
other, and includes details that the other does not.
Harmonization is not wrong. The thing to remember is that the Gospel writers
are writing the facts as they were revealed to them. After all, what would
be the point in having four gospels if they are all going to be word for
word identical? Each Gospel agrees on the essential facts of the story of
Jesus, with some divergence on incidental issues. Yet, as a whole, they put
together a picture of the story and circumstances of Jesus' life.
While I am not an expert on textual criticism of ancient manuscripts, I have
read extensively on the subject throughout the years. The reason why
"inerrantists" try to reconstruct events that happened two thousand years
ago is because the biblical manuscripts have been studied by scholars for
many years and the conclusion was that they are the most reliable pieces of
ancient literature that we have. How they arrived at that conclusion is
based on the science of textual criticism, which is something I don't have
any training in myself. I do know that the attestation of the reliability of
the biblical manuscripts comes from scholars who are not Christians as well
as those who are.
The gospel accounts were all written by those who were apostles of Jesus or
associates of an apostle. This means that they were written at a time when
there were still more than sufficient eyewitnesses to contradict the message
of the apostles. Christianity originated in Isreal. A Jew who confessed
their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Messiah was excommunicated
from the synagogue and social Jewish life known at that time. Hence, if the
gospel writers accounts contained enough error and discrepanices to raise
sufficient doubt about their reliability, there were plenty of hostile
witnesses to come forward and effectively refute such. The early Christian
Church could not have taken root and flourished right there in Jersualem if
it had been circulating oral and written teachings about Jesus that his own
contemporaries could have exposed as being exaggerated or false. The Gospel
writers had nothing to gain by fabricating the events. They all suffered a
martyrs death for their cause, which would have been unlikely if they did
not believe in what they were writing.
"Heather Thompson" <heathert...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5ac6588e.0306...@posting.google.com...
>
> Hi j.w. and thanks for answering my post. I appreciate your input. I
> am trying to gather as many ideas as posssible on certain issues
> regarding biblical inerrancy. I enjoy reading all posts, pro and con,
> as long as they don't stoop to ad hominems and subtle put-downs. I
> think you have done well but I will share a little more with you...
> >
No problem. Sorry that I am delayed in getting back to you for this one.
> I agree with this. It certainly arouses suspicions. There are scholars
> who doubt the Synoptic accounts because in some cases they are
> virtually identical, and in other cases verbatim. I was a witness at a
> trial once and I was not allowed in the court room while the other
> witnesses testified. After I gave my testimony, I was allowed to sit
> in the room and listen to further testimonies. The prosecutor in her
> closing harped on the discrepancies among the witnesses but it didn't
> sway the jury because they sided with the defense in this case.
>
> While I agree a little bit of dissimilarity may be a boost it could
> also be error. And that is what we must guard against. The
> inerrantists rule out a priori error of any kind. For them
> harmonization is the only acceptable answer.
>
> Yes, focusing on what everyone agrees on carries much weight with
> police investigations and historical research. That isn't 100%
> guarantee it is correct but it certainly raises the odds that it
> really happened. My complaint is more with the attitude of
> inerrantists when confronted with "discrepancies". They often
> "harmonize" the details by stating the details are ALL correct and no
> way can any of them be in error. This is not the way police work and
> it isn't the way historians work. There is always a possibility of
> error whenever there are dissimilarities. All I wanted to do was point
> out the possibility of error. Inerrantists are committed a priori to
> inerrancy.
>
> I agree, but a harmonizer will simply go with the highest number, say
> there were six shots and if there were six, then there were five,
> etc., or if someone reported a man holding a rifle behind the grassy
> hill then it must be true so it would have to be considered as
> absolute truth and be included in the harmonization, even though the
> eye-witness may have been mistaken. I have been to that spot in Dallas
> and stood on the exact spot where the Zapruder film was made and the
> spot where the alleged gunman was supposed to be standing is only
> about 30 feet from where Zapruder was standing. I think he would have
> been seen by more than a couple people if in fact he had been there.
> The sound of gunfire from there would have been unmistakable in my
> opinion. The harmonizer does not allow for the possibility of error,
> and would work all details in a story together.
>
> Yes, exactly. But the harmonizer refuses to consider the possibility
> of error. He has his mind made up that all details are true and must
> fit together, somehow. The above example aside, even in modern
> law-enforcement, they know that not all eye-witnesses will give
> accurate reports of what happened. Police must sift through reports
> and eliminate some details because some witnesses see what they want
> to see. It isn't an easy task. But if our police forces took the
> harmonist approach, they would include all details and a priori refuse
> to admit the possibility any of the witnesses were in error. This
> could lead to disaster.
>
> Again, I agree. All I wanted to emphasize is the difference in the
> historical approach and the harmonist approach. The harmonizer assumes
> all details are accurate so he must weave them into his tale. He
> refuses to concede even the possibility of error. The harmony may be
> right, but it may also be wrong. The methodology of the harmonist is,
> in my opinion, faulty. If he gets it right, good for him. But when he
> has to harmonize so many tales the odds of him getting it wrong
> increases. Experience teaches us that witnesses often get their
> testimonies wrong. Perspective, prejudices, disposition, attention to
> detail, and the desire for attention all play a role in the way an
> eye-witness sees things.
>
> Again, this is harmonization and I am not sure the harmonization is
> correct. You have added all the details together and woven them
> together very well I must say. But this methodology overlooks the
> possibility that one or more of the writers got his details wrong. I
> can harmonize too, but I am more interested in knowing the truth, even
> if it means jettisoning some details from one or more writers. Your
> harmonization may be right, but it may be wrong, and when I hold your
> harmonization aside each account as given in the gospels it looks
> weak. Try holding it next to Matthew's account and see the way Matthew
> writes his account and ask yourself if your harmonization is the way
> it happened would the way Matthew write his make any sense? Then, Mark
> and Luke, like Matthew,leave out three of the denials and John does
> the same. What are the odds of all four mentioning only three denials
> when there were six? J.w., please try to understand what I am doing
> here. I am not trying to cause problems, I just want to better
> understand the "harmonization" method of historical methodology.
>
> That is true of course, but I am still wondering why inerrantists rule
> out error a priori and refuse to even allow that possibility in
> reconstructing an event that happened 2000 years ago. Historians do
> not rule out error a priori when trying to piece together events that
> happend years ago. I read a book in 1991 "Son of the Morning Star", an
> account of Custer's Last Stand. The historians have pieced together a
> likely scenario how the battle unfolded based on the disposition of
> the bodies, the accounts of the companies from Custer's regiment that
> survived the battle (only Custer and the six companies that followed
> him were massacred; there were about eight companies that survived in
> another battle that took place on another side of the Indian
> encampment). There were also accounts from Indians that participated
> in the battle, accounts which were copied down into english as these
> warriors returned to the reservations that same summer. The accounts
> were very disimilar although they all agreed "yellow hair" died
> gallantly and was one of the last to fall (but not the last, as in
> Hollywood versions). Some of the accounts of the soldiers of the
> surviving companies were dismissed as too unlikely, produced by
> overheated imaginations.
>
> I know that is still quite different from the account of the campfire,
> but my point is the historian doesn't assume a priori all written
> accounts are 100% true. If there are dissimlarities, he considers the
> possibility error may exist.
> I think there is always a possibility that some of the details may not
> be accurate and I would be leery of constructing a harmony that
> included all the accounts. Again, print out your best harmonization,
> with all six denials, hold them alongside the accounts given in the
> gospels, and wonder how likely all four gospel writers would have made
> no mention of six denials while all four do mention three. I tend to
> believe some of the details are suspicious. I wouldn't try to
> harmonize them, because you have already done so and it doesn't
> convince me. That is not meant in any way to be a slur on you, by the
> way. We just think diffrently.
> > understand the identity of the person was. The apostle John also offers
a
>
j.w.
I would like to continue where I left off yesterday:
"Heather Thompson" <heathert...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5ac6588e.0306...@posting.google.com...
> Yes, focusing on what everyone agrees on carries much weight with
> police investigations and historical research. That isn't 100%
> guarantee it is correct but it certainly raises the odds that it
> really happened. My complaint is more with the attitude of
> inerrantists when confronted with "discrepancies". They often
> "harmonize" the details by stating the details are ALL correct and no
> way can any of them be in error. This is not the way police work and
> it isn't the way historians work. There is always a possibility of
> error whenever there are dissimilarities. All I wanted to do was point
> out the possibility of error. Inerrantists are committed a priori to
> inerrancy.
First, I would like to state this: Harmonization is not making all the
information fit regardless of how inconsistent it might be. Harmonization is
combining all the information to see how well it does fit together, to
investigate inconsistencies, to find out if those inconsistencies really
change any facts or beliefs, and to create a picture of the whole event
based on agreeable info. or info that has not been ruled out by other facts.
When you say that "this is not the way the police work..." we must consider
that, whether we like it or not, harmonization is used every day that Court
is in session, at least in the civilized societies. The judge and jury may
listen to a multiplicity of witnesses. Each one may tell a version that
varies slightly from the other. As long as those accounts do not directly
contradict other information about the same issue (e.g. the getaway car was
a red chevy - vs - the getaway car was a blue ford), then the judge and jury
must take the various testimonies and fit them together in a consistent,
coherent picture of the entire episode.
There are many great lawyers and legal authorities of the past who have
applied the rules of evidence to the gospel accounts and found them to be
extremely reliable. Simon Greenleaf was the famous Professor of Law at
Harvard Univeristy in the 19th century. Greenleaf produced his famous work
called "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence," which is considered one of the
best, if not the best authority on the evidence of legal procedure and
literature. In 1846, Greenleaf applied the rules of evidence and cross
examination to the gospels. The results of his undertaking was his work
called "An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules
of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice." Greenleaf, in essence,
summed up his work by stating that the gospels are very reliable. Greenleaf
had to harmonize the accounts to get the full picture and came to this
conclusion.
> I agree, but a harmonizer will simply go with the highest number, say
> there were six shots and if there were six, then there were five,
> etc., or if someone reported a man holding a rifle behind the grassy
> hill then it must be true so it would have to be considered as
> absolute truth and be included in the harmonization, even though the
> eye-witness may have been mistaken. I have been to that spot in Dallas
> and stood on the exact spot where the Zapruder film was made and the
> spot where the alleged gunman was supposed to be standing is only
> about 30 feet from where Zapruder was standing. I think he would have
> been seen by more than a couple people if in fact he had been there.
> The sound of gunfire from there would have been unmistakable in my
> opinion. The harmonizer does not allow for the possibility of error,
> and would work all details in a story together.
In essence, a harmonize will, or should, examine all the evidence set forth,
piece it together, and come to a conclusion based upon what is presented.
Again, using the Kennedy assassisnation as an example is not an apples to
apples comparison because the situation is so complex. In addition, if the
conspiracy theorists are correct, then we will never know the full story
behind it.
> Yes, exactly. But the harmonizer refuses to consider the possibility
> of error. He has his mind made up that all details are true and must
> fit together, somehow. The above example aside, even in modern
> law-enforcement, they know that not all eye-witnesses will give
> accurate reports of what happened. Police must sift through reports
> and eliminate some details because some witnesses see what they want
> to see. It isn't an easy task. But if our police forces took the
> harmonist approach, they would include all details and a priori refuse
> to admit the possibility any of the witnesses were in error. This
> could lead to disaster.
A true harmonizer will let the evidence speak for itself and arrive at a
conclusion based on the evidence. They are using the harmonization method to
determine if errors exist. To "harmonize" with regards to examining
literature and evidence simply means to combine all the information
available, try to fit them into a cohesive whole, look for contradictions,
and try to put together a picture of the events.
In your example, when the police sift through their reports and eliminate
some details, they are harmonizing their information. The police know that
not all witnesses will give accurate reports. But they need to combine all
the info together in order to determine which witness is reliable and which
one is not. If they disgard a witnesses info. it must be based upon the fact
that the remainder of the info. they gathered sufficiently discredits what
they want to discard. In order to do that, they must harmonize what they
have to see if it all fits together and does not contradict. In addition, if
I am not mistaken, if contradictory information is considered
"exculpatory" - i.e. information that may exonerate the defendant, then they
are required to turn that info over to the defense. I think the miscarriage
of justice would be not to harmonize everything and consider only that which
seems favorable to my investigation.
> Again, I agree. All I wanted to emphasize is the difference in the
> historical approach and the harmonist approach. The harmonizer assumes
> all details are accurate so he must weave them into his tale. He
> refuses to concede even the possibility of error. The harmony may be
> right, but it may also be wrong. The methodology of the harmonist is,
> in my opinion, faulty. If he gets it right, good for him. But when he
> has to harmonize so many tales the odds of him getting it wrong
> increases. Experience teaches us that witnesses often get their
> testimonies wrong. Perspective, prejudices, disposition, attention to
> detail, and the desire for attention all play a role in the way an
> eye-witness sees things.
The problem I have with this is that you presuppose the following:
1). That, the harmonist is always biased, and will bend the truth in order
to support his convictions
2). That, harmonists always refuse to concede the possibility of error.
3). That, simply because the harmony may be wrong, that the methodology
itself is unreliable or that it automatically assumes that the accounts
being harmonized contain error. Nothing is mentioned regarding a simple
human mistake the harmonist may have done, or a fact that was overlooked.
4). That, the more issue that have to be harmonized, the less reliable the
method becomes, as if harmonization of the facts is limited to a certain
amt. of data.
> Again, this is harmonization and I am not sure the harmonization is
> correct. You have added all the details together and woven them
> together very well I must say. But this methodology overlooks the
> possibility that one or more of the writers got his details wrong.
If one writer got his details wrong, then the person who is going to bring
that charge must produce solid evidence to support that. In the case of
Peter's denials, we do not have any solid written accounts to disprove what
is written, either within the scriptures themselves, or through
extra-biblical history, or archaeology.
> I can harmonize too, but I am more interested in knowing the truth, even
> if it means jettisoning some details from one or more writers.
You harmonize information every day. If you're driving your car and you
approach a line of traffic that has stopped in front of you, you can safely
conclude that something has obstructed the flow of traffic. Until you can
gather more information, you cannot know for sure what stopped the traffic.
If two people drive by from the opposite direction and say that someone had
a wreck, then you have more evidence as to what the cause was. If you later
see on the evening news that a tree was in the roadway, and it is backed up
by pictures, then you can throw out the earlier reports that a wreck
occurred. However, if later on in the story it is reported that a car
wrecked into the tree, then you can see where both accounts are accurate, it
is just that the information came to you in various ways and was initially
fragmented but it was all true.
>Your
> harmonization may be right, but it may be wrong, and when I hold your
> harmonization aside each account as given in the gospels it looks
> weak. Try holding it next to Matthew's account and see the way Matthew
> writes his account and ask yourself if your harmonization is the way
> it happened would the way Matthew write his make any sense? Then, Mark
> and Luke, like Matthew,leave out three of the denials and John does
> the same. What are the odds of all four mentioning only three denials
> when there were six?
First of all, I am willing to bet that most people who believe that Peter
denied Christ three times do so because it is what they have been told, not
because they did a careful analysis of the scriptures. How I arrived at six
denials is the fact that the gospels contain some information that the
others do not.
If the premise is that Peter denied Christ only three times, then the
following evidence disproves that:
1. All four gospel writers agree that Peter was inside the courtyard.
2. Matthew and Mark record that Peter, after he was inside the courtyard and
by the fire, made at least two seperate denials in response to the
accusation of two seperate female servants.
3. John states that Peter denied Christ to the female servant who attended
the gate as they entered the courtyard (before he arrived at the fire).
4. Luke mentions that Peter made denials to two men an hour apart from each
other, something that the other three gospel writers did not mention.
Hence, if the premise is that Peter denied Christ only three times and no
more, and even if we disregard my "six denial" proposition, and since there
is no written eyewitness testimony to contradict what the biblical writers
wrote, then the above info. shows that Peter denied Christ more than three
times, regardless if someone wants to hold to six denials or not; and a
commonly held traditional belief is false. A careful observation reveals
Peter's denials at various times, locations, circumstances and people, and
enough time elapsing so that the events are not too close together to be
confused with each other.
J.w., please try to understand what I am doing
> here. I am not trying to cause problems, I just want to better
> understand the "harmonization" method of historical methodology.
I don't think you are causing problems.
>
> That is true of course, but I am still wondering why inerrantists rule
> out error a priori and refuse to even allow that possibility in
> reconstructing an event that happened 2000 years ago. Historians do
> not rule out error a priori when trying to piece together events that
> happend years ago. I read a book in 1991 "Son of the Morning Star", an
> account of Custer's Last Stand. The historians have pieced together a
> likely scenario how the battle unfolded based on the disposition of
> the bodies, the accounts of the companies from Custer's regiment that
> survived the battle (only Custer and the six companies that followed
> him were massacred; there were about eight companies that survived in
> another battle that took place on another side of the Indian
> encampment). There were also accounts from Indians that participated
> in the battle, accounts which were copied down into english as these
> warriors returned to the reservations that same summer. The accounts
> were very disimilar although they all agreed "yellow hair" died
> gallantly and was one of the last to fall (but not the last, as in
> Hollywood versions). Some of the accounts of the soldiers of the
> surviving companies were dismissed as too unlikely, produced by
> overheated imaginations.
Some people believe the bible to be inerrant because they are convinced that
it is the Word of God. They made a choice to put their faith in Jesus
Christ as their Lord and Savior. Thus, they came to the conclusion that the
Bible is the Word of God to them. If they concede to the possibility of
error, then God is either not trustworthy, or He has not revealed Himself in
the Bible. Notwithstanding the fact that some would shudder at the mere
thought of calling God a liar, the other issue is this: Since their faith
in Jesus Christ as their Savior and their eternal destiny is based upon the
Bible, their faith and eternal destiny now hangs in doubt. If they can find
errors in the bible, then how can they be sure that God has forgiven them of
their sins and given them eternal life? Everybody must die someday. With
the exception of atheists, I would imagine that everybody hopes for a better
life after death. However, if the bible contains errors that are sufficient
enough to cast doubt upon its reliability, then how do I prepare myself for
death and the life hereafter. Everybody who believes in life after death
has a certain belief about what lies beyond. The problem is that if we have
no reliable source of revelation that from God, how do we know how to
prepare for that afterlife?
I know that this in itself may constitute a glorified circular reasoning in
defense of the Christian faith and the Bible's inerrancy. However, a lot of
Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scriptures but do not know fully how
to articulate the reasons why they do. I initially believed in the
inerrancy of Scripture based upon the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. For
some people, like Frank Morison, an attorney who used the rules of evidence
and cross examination to the resurrection account, and who wrote a book "Who
moved the Stone?" it was the ability of the bible to stand up to the
scruitny of these techniques and present itself as a reliable text.
Regarding your example of Custer's Last Stand, it sounds like the authors
used harmonization to determine what was reliable data from that which was
unreliable. How they determined which data was unreliable is not mentioned.
But they used harmonization to help make that determination.
> I think there is always a possibility that some of the details may not
> be accurate and I would be leery of constructing a harmony that
> included all the accounts.
>
> Yes, these possibilities do exist, but they are just
> that-possibilities. There is also a possibility that one or more may
> be wrong
The only way you will confirm that possibility is to bring together all the
information about the issue and examine it. But, if you want to assume that
someone is wrong, then you have prove it with evidence that is more valid
than what you have, and that can stand up to cross-examination to make sure
that it is reliable.
. For example, let's say, for sake of argument that Mark's
> version was correct in all the details. There was no other correct
> version except Mark's. But the harmonizer has ruled out error as a
> possibility so he must "combine" all accounts into one and use all the
> words in a order that makes sense and preserves inerrancy.
That all depends upon what the premise is to begin with. All 4 gospel
writers agree that the sign that was posted above Jesus on the cross
indicated that he was the King of the Jews. If someone is going to say that
the sign never mentioned that fact, then there is irrefutable evidence to
the contrary. If the premise is that the gospels are questionable because
all four gospel writers did not record the wording of the sign in word for
word identical detail in their gospel narratives, then this would be a weak
argument. All four gospel writers wrote that the sign indicated that Jesus
was the King of the Jews, in which there is agreement. And, the fact that
Pilate wrote it in three different languages could explain why each gospel
writer worded it slightly differently. If you were sitting on a jury, and
you were to decide whether or not Jesus' sign said he was King of the Jews,
and all you had was the testimony of the four gospel writers, then what
would your conclusion be? Yes it did, or no it did not?
>