translated from the Greek?

Religions > Bible > translated from the Greek?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 11 of 12

Topic:	Religions > Bible
User:	"Yuri Kuchinsky"
Date:	27 Oct 2003 03:41:56 PM
Object:	translated from the Greek?

"Translated from the Greek?"
Or, Some tall tales about the Aramaic gospels...
Greetings, all,
Professional NT scholars have told us many interesting stories about the
gospels' origins. Here is one such tale that explains why the ancient
Aramaic manuscripts should be ignored, and only the Greek gospels should
be studied. So this story explains quite well why 99% of our modern New
Testament scholars study the Greek gospels only...
THE BORDERLINE TRANSLATION SERVICE!
As we all know, Jesus came from Galilee, which is right next door to
Syria. While, in his time, in Syria they did speak the dialects of Aramaic
very similar to that of Galilee, yet it is completely impossible that
anything of the original teachings of Jesus might have seeped north across
that border!
It is true, of course, that the ancient Syriac Church always prided itself
on having received its tradition directly from Israel. But, you see, they
could never have received their tradition of Jesus' teachings from Israel
in Aramaic... because of the special Borderline Translation Service! Yes,
Mr. Greek Translator had to always stand there at the border with Galilee
to direct traffic!
So let's suppose that an early group of Aramaic-speaking missionaries of
Jesus is on its way into Syria to spread the gospel (for some such early
preaching in Damascus, see Acts 9:19). Or maybe they are fleeing to Syria
to escape the Roman legions. So Mr. Greek Translator would always welcome
them at the border, and he says, "OK, so let me now translate into Greek
the message that you're spreading... We'll write it down here for you in
Greek and, when you get to your Aramaic cousins in Damascus, some other
Greek Translator guy will translate it for you back into Aramaic."
And they would reply to him, "Sure 'nuf! Our Aramaic-speaking cousins in
Damascus can, of course, understand us just fine in any case, but since
the scholars of the 20th century have decided to put you up here, in your
guard post, then you might as well just do your thing... Who's paying your
salary, anyways? Is it the Society of Biblical Literature?"
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku -=O=- Toronto
But scientists, who ought to know
Assure us that it must be so.
Oh, let us never, never doubt
What nobody is sure about.
-- Hilaire Belloc
.

User: "Libertarius"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT --Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	14 Dec 2003 05:31:04 PM

David Christainsen wrote:
Excuse me for jumping in, but Thiering's conclusions are not tenuous and not

based on slim manuscript evidence.

The proof lies in the technicalities of the Essene solar calendar.

===>That IS the "slim evidence".
The ONLY connection between that calendar and
the NT characters is in the mind of B. Thiering. -- L.
.

User: "David Christainsen"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	15 Dec 2003 10:29:48 AM

Libertarius <Libertarius@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net> wrote in message news:<3FDCF2B8.735B9608@Nothing_But_The_Truth.net>...

David Christainsen wrote:
Excuse me for jumping in, but Thiering's conclusions are not tenuous and not

based on slim manuscript evidence.

The proof lies in the technicalities of the Essene solar calendar.

===>That IS the "slim evidence".
The ONLY connection between that calendar and
the NT characters is in the mind of B. Thiering. -- L.

===>You don't know that until you examine fairly the evidence.
===>The only way I know to get that evidence is to check my
yahoo forum Archives under KEYWORD "calendar" and read Dr. Thiering
on the subject.
===>Yes, it's a lot of work to go thru it, but the challenge remains
for anyone on the Internet Newsgroups to do it in an objective way
and then share the results with the rest of us.
Best regards,
David Christainsen - Moderator
P.S.
Astounding Scholastic Oversight re: Essene Solar Calendar
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qumran_origin/message/2371
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	15 Dec 2003 02:11:34 PM

"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<rPnCb.767$Pg1.96@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

To intrude . . . . Frankly, after a few years of study, I have not answered
the question to myself of how much of the New Testament, as well as the Dead
Sea Scrolls and non-canon Christian writing, is prophecy historicized and
how much is history remembered and recorded. Frankly, I cannot bring myself
to call any first and second century documents -- to include the DSS,
Josephus, Philo, and Christian writings from all sources, and even some
Greco-Roman narrative -- as reliable historical narrative. But that is not
state or even imply that they do not contain accurate nuggets of history and
even some accurate narrative.

I would agree that no first century source can be considered a history
in the modern sense. I think this, of course, because I don't believe
the canons of composition of our day were present to their minds.
They wrote within the canons of their own day, which allowed things we
would not (e.g. the composition of speeches by the author, referred to
and criticised in Justin's epitome of Pompeius Trogus).
You know, of course, my view that all the testimony in the historical
record must be accepted as a first approach, and the story sifted by
comparison.

A Simon Magus-Paul common identity, I believe, stretches credibilty past the
breaking point for many reasons, but particularly because of the lack of
reliable sources. I also believe "mortal enemies" is a bit exaggerated as a
summation of the relationship between Peter and Paul. On the other hand,
religious movements tend to split apart, and I think there is a tendency to
do that early in the movement before what Max Weber called the bureaucratic
stage is reached, wherein orthodox standards of belief and conduct become
institutionalized. I also believe a case can be made that orthodox
institutions to rewrite the history of the movement time and again, until
there is finally a depiction of the foundation stage as an idealized golden
era inhabited only by heroic and "good"people. Examples are the Iliad, the
Aeneid, the Arthurian cycle in England, the Song of Roland in France, and
various American histories recording only a glorious foundation by
far-seeing Christian statesmen. Can a similar case be made for the founding
documents of Christianity? Have they been sanitized at some point or points
to reflect a modern orthodox view? If so, what is the evidence?

This last is the key question. Reality cannot be determined by our
imagination, if only because our imagination is conditioned by our
experiences and culture. All sorts of things are possible.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Didymos t"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	15 Dec 2003 02:58:39 PM

"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312151211.169a13ea@posting.google.com...

"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:<rPnCb.767$Pg1.96@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

To intrude . . . . Frankly, after a few years of study, I have not

answered

the question to myself of how much of the New Testament, as well as the

Dead

Sea Scrolls and non-canon Christian writing, is prophecy historicized

and

how much is history remembered and recorded. Frankly, I cannot bring

myself

to call any first and second century documents -- to include the DSS,
Josephus, Philo, and Christian writings from all sources, and even some
Greco-Roman narrative -- as reliable historical narrative. But that is

not

state or even imply that they do not contain accurate nuggets of history

and

even some accurate narrative.

Yes, I agree. But I also believe Herodotus, Xenophone, Thucydides, and most
especially Polybius and Livy were well aware of the limits of historigraphy
and method. And they all felt free to put words in the mouths of their
characters and credit them with rather incredible deeds. For those reasons,
I am always sceptical of ancient sources because their world view was so
different than ours. I think nearly every conclusion about the ancient
world is a tentative hypothesis pending the examination of new evidence,
albeit that new evidence may never surface.

You know, of course, my view that all the testimony in the historical
record must be accepted as a first approach, and the story sifted by
comparison.

I do understand that, but the historical problem is when the sources
disagree or flatly contradict each other. Normally, then and only then does
it matter what is primary and what secondary and what is supported by
archaeological artifacts. If only one source reports an incident or person,
I suppose we are stuck with that account so long as it is plausible. Does
the account fit with what is known must always be asked and answered.

A Simon Magus-Paul common identity, I believe, stretches credibilty past

the

breaking point for many reasons, but particularly because of the lack of
reliable sources. I also believe "mortal enemies" is a bit exaggerated

as a

summation of the relationship between Peter and Paul. On the other

hand,

religious movements tend to split apart, and I think there is a tendency

do that early in the movement before what Max Weber called the

bureaucratic

stage is reached, wherein orthodox standards of belief and conduct

become

institutionalized. I also believe a case can be made that orthodox
institutions to rewrite the history of the movement time and again,

until

there is finally a depiction of the foundation stage as an idealized

golden

era inhabited only by heroic and "good"people. Examples are the Iliad,

the

Aeneid, the Arthurian cycle in England, the Song of Roland in France,

and

various American histories recording only a glorious foundation by
far-seeing Christian statesmen. Can a similar case be made for the

founding

documents of Christianity? Have they been sanitized at some point or

points

to reflect a modern orthodox view? If so, what is the evidence?

This last is the key question. Reality cannot be determined by our
imagination, if only because our imagination is conditioned by our
experiences and culture. All sorts of things are possible.

Exactly, and this may be wildly conservative of me, but I have never read
anything that has convinced me of any specific relationship between any
character in the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Everything and
anything is indeed possible, but many phenomena are wildly implausible. At
some point history must seperate the wheat from the chaff, if for no other
reason just to maintain some semblance of honesty. As for the New
Testament, the more reading I do in the papyrus manuscripts, the more
evidence I find that the canon began early and is remarkably unchanged, and
the differences are not terribly earth shaking but approximate the scale of
differences in other "secular"documents copied and recopied through
antiquity. (I am currently translating the 40 or 50 oldest fragments and
manuscripts . . . a terribly slow process, albeit rewarding.) I cannot help
but conclude that if a word or words is not in the 3 or 4 oldest manuscripts
of a passage dated to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, and suddenly the word
appears in a 4th, 5th, or 6th century manuscript that that word or those
words are a late addition. That type of case is sufficient evidence for my
personal conclusion. I have not come across that many times yet, and I am
not offended when it does. History, because the conclusions are and must be
tentative and especially so for events during antiquity, is a lousy
foundation for faith because the foundations tends to shift. And that is
never good for the edifice constructed atop the foundation.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	16 Dec 2003 03:30:08 AM

"Didymos t" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<3gpDb.5341$0s2.2080@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312151211.169a13ea@posting.google.com...

You know, of course, my view that all the testimony in the historical
record must be accepted as a first approach, and the story sifted by
comparison.

I don't see this as a problem, actually, but an opportunity.
Differing accounts always give us more information than similar ones.
The difficult bits are the bits where we can learn more.
An instance would be the disagreement between the descriptions of the
council of Nicaea in most writers, and that in Eusebius of Caesarea.
The former indicate that the council was to deal with the Arians, and
also did some harmonisation of dates of Easter. Eusebius however
tells us that it was mainly about Easter, and glosses over the rest.
From this, we learn that more than one point of view was possible on
the council, and the bit that seemed important to many writers was
possible to ignore by some of those present. So we gain some depth on
the subject.
Flat contradictions likewise tell us something -- often that something
has dropped out of the historical record -- or something about the
politics of the time.
I'm not saying anything you don't know, I'm sure -- but then I don't
see this as a problem, but rather as opportunities for historians.

This last is the key question. Reality cannot be determined by our
imagination, if only because our imagination is conditioned by our
experiences and culture. All sorts of things are possible.

I have seen nothing that requires such a link, I must say.

History, because the conclusions are and must be
tentative and especially so for events during antiquity, is a lousy
foundation for faith because the foundations tends to shift. And that is
never good for the edifice constructed atop the foundation.

The same applies to politics, of course. Does this not amount to the
view that we can make no use of history for any purpose than academic
noodling? Surely not?!?
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Didymos"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	16 Dec 2003 06:23:20 PM

"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312160130.34e6e9f8@posting.google.com...

"Didymos t" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:<3gpDb.5341$0s2.2080@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312151211.169a13ea@posting.google.com...

You know, of course, my view that all the testimony in the historical
record must be accepted as a first approach, and the story sifted by
comparison.

I do understand that, but the historical problem is when the sources
disagree or flatly contradict each other. Normally, then and only then

does

it matter what is primary and what secondary and what is supported by
archaeological artifacts. If only one source reports an incident or

person,

I suppose we are stuck with that account so long as it is plausible.

Does

the account fit with what is known must always be asked and answered.

I don't see this as a problem, actually, but an opportunity.
Differing accounts always give us more information than similar ones.
The difficult bits are the bits where we can learn more.

I am reading J. D. Crossan's "Who Killed Jesus?" just now, and he has some
fascinating words on the nature of knowledge and historical theory dealing
with the New Testament generally and the passion narratives and the Old
Testament prophecies, both canon and non-canon accounts, most specifically.
His chief point, thus far (I am not done with the book yet) seems to be that
certainty is neither required nor possible considering the paucity and
unreliability of the historical data of the passion accounts (my paraphrase
of his words). Therefore, the current "truth" is merely a more plausible
historical theory than the last, and that better accounts for all of the
available evidence. That is very much the point of the French "Annales"
historians, i.e., the best theory must account for all of the evidence from
all sources analyzed by all disciplines. I highly recommend this book, not
necessarily for its conclusions, but for Crossan's method -- and he readily
admits the weaknesses of his case, but thus far has demonstrated its
superiority to other theories.
On the other hand, I believe historians must at some point judge the
veracity of an account of events, be it ancient or modern. And by
"historian" I mean someone trained to the crafts of that discipline although
I am not overly enamored by letters such as Ph.D.. Those only indicate that
certain requirements have been met. Some very outstanding historians do
not have doctorates. Barbara Tuchmann comes to mind, as does Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn . . . And some with doctorates produce only bilge, to put it
politely.

An instance would be the disagreement between the descriptions of the
council of Nicaea in most writers, and that in Eusebius of Caesarea.
The former indicate that the council was to deal with the Arians, and
also did some harmonisation of dates of Easter. Eusebius however
tells us that it was mainly about Easter, and glosses over the rest.
From this, we learn that more than one point of view was possible on
the council, and the bit that seemed important to many writers was
possible to ignore by some of those present. So we gain some depth on
the subject.

Yes, emphasis is endlessly fascinating. And that is another reason I
believe that history can never recreate the past, but merely partially
reconstruct it. The timing of Easter was a topic of heated debate for
centuries. Even Bede wrote about it at some length.

Flat contradictions likewise tell us something -- often that something
has dropped out of the historical record -- or something about the
politics of the time.

Or sometimes that something was concocted and added later to make account
more palatable to the then curent power structure.

I'm not saying anything you don't know, I'm sure -- but then I don't
see this as a problem, but rather as opportunities for historians.

Perhaps problem had negative connotations the way I used it. I meant and
mean it now in more of the sense that the "problems" are puzzles to be
solved and events to be recreated to the extent that is possible. Indeed as
opportunities.

This last is the key question. Reality cannot be determined by our
imagination, if only because our imagination is conditioned by our
experiences and culture. All sorts of things are possible.

Exactly, and this may be wildly conservative of me, but I have never

read

anything that has convinced me of any specific relationship between any
character in the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I have seen nothing that requires such a link, I must say.

I am somewhat relieved by your concurrance.

History, because the conclusions are and must be
tentative and especially so for events during antiquity, is a lousy
foundation for faith because the foundations tends to shift. And that

never good for the edifice constructed atop the foundation.

The same applies to politics, of course. Does this not amount to the
view that we can make no use of history for any purpose than academic
noodling? Surely not?!?

No, that is not my intended conclusion. The past informs and constructs the
present, and there is an obligation to build on as solid a foundation as
possible, i.e., there is an obligation to get it right within the bounds of
human capability. While we really do not know much about the ancient world
and perhaps can never truly understand the people who lived then, there are
known and I think unimpeachable broad outlines and certain details. My
caveat is simply that new discoveries are inevitable in the future, and
these may offer stronger evidence for or against my favorite interpretation
of ancient events. And it is disingenuous of me personally to assert that
the circumstances and personalities of such and such event are forever
unchanging. I realize that collides with certain theological
interpretations, but having given this considerable thought, I cannot
honestly conclude otherwise at this point.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	19 Dec 2003 01:12:30 PM

"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<YlNDb.7543$0s2.6490@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

Therefore, the current "truth" is merely a more plausible
historical theory than the last, and that better accounts for all of the
available evidence.

Isn't this open to the objection that it is profoundly elitist -- that
no-one can do or use history except the salaried few? I think the
common sense of mankind revolts against this. (In detail it will be
true, of course).

That is very much the point of the French "Annales"
historians, i.e., the best theory must account for all of the evidence from
all sources analyzed by all disciplines.

That I do agree with.

On the other hand, I believe historians must at some point judge the
veracity of an account of events, be it ancient or modern.

Certainly. We need to use these documents, after all, unless the past
is just a hobby.

Flat contradictions likewise tell us something -- often that something
has dropped out of the historical record -- or something about the
politics of the time.

Or sometimes that something was concocted and added later to make account
more palatable to the then curent power structure.

I agree. Although the 'interpolation' argument can be too easy a way
to ignore inconvenient evidence, so I would want some very positive
evidence that a passage was so added.

History, because the conclusions are and must be
tentative and especially so for events during antiquity, is a lousy
foundation for faith because the foundations tends to shift. And that

never good for the edifice constructed atop the foundation.

The same applies to politics, of course. Does this not amount to the
view that we can make no use of history for any purpose than academic
noodling? Surely not?!?

I agree with all of this. However, I think that (hope that!)
additional data cannot be that much of a problem, so long as we work
from what is known to what is not. It is when we assert from silence
that we are liable to come unstuck, perhaps.

And it is disingenuous of me personally to assert that
the circumstances and personalities of such and such event are forever
unchanging. I realize that collides with certain theological
interpretations, but having given this considerable thought, I cannot
honestly conclude otherwise at this point.

Fair enough.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: " Didymos"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	20 Dec 2003 02:13:19 PM

"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312191112.4ba8526@posting.google.com...

"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:<YlNDb.7543$0s2.6490@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

Therefore, the current "truth" is merely a more plausible
historical theory than the last, and that better accounts for all of the
available evidence.

Yes, I think it is open to that criticism, and the criticism may have
substance. Nonetheless, historical paradigms do change as new sources are
discovered and old ones reinterpreted in the light of new evidence. Often,
I think, the public lags far behind the professional and capable non-Ph.D.
historians. Often the analysis involves subtle and nuanced data that does
require years of training to understand. History, I believe, is at a
disadvantage compared to other disciplines. No one is surprised that
concepts of physics or mathematics or linguistics or geology are beyond the
ken of nonspecialists; yet there seems to me a general perception that
anyone can practice history whith little or no training. I submit that it
takes some education, training, and experience to even observe the
multifaceted phenomena of a particular era and even more skill to analyze
the event and place it within the wider and deeper interplay of events
through time. And as you are aware, totally and utterly concocted events
make their way into popular history and become embedded. And when
historians atempt to correct the record they often meet with hostile public
backlash. And the closer these corrections come to embedded political and
religious beliefs, the more hostile is the reception. One example is the
widely held notion in the USA that the "Founding Fathers" were a singularly
capable, wise, holy, prescient, and deliberate body of farmer-philosphers.
When one examines the contemporary documents, a quite different picture
emerges. And instead of a group of wise men, you have a group of bickering,
spiteful, unholy, greedy, and nasty politicians who protected what they
viewed as their own self-interests and concoted a form of government that
works most of the time. Just about like most politicians of every era, eh?
George Washington became one of the, if not the, wealthiest man in America
following the Revolution. Why? Did his tobacco garner a much better price
in London than everyone else's? Was he more frugal? Of course not . . . .
he made his fortune buying the land warrants his troops were paid off with
because the Continental Congress had no money. And since Washington had
surveyed much of the land west of the Allegheny Mountains, he knew exactly
which land to hold and which to sell. And he paid with cash for these land
warrants for one to ten cents on the dollar. Not exactly a flattering
picture of the "Father" of my country. But true nonetheless. And I just
committed heresy or ideological treason with those words according to the
lights of some. But every professional historian of the American Revolution
and Early Republic knows my utterances above are most difficult to falsify.

That is very much the point of the French "Annales"
historians, i.e., the best theory must account for all of the evidence

from

all sources analyzed by all disciplines.

That I do agree with.

I knew you would . . . . perhaps "knew" is a might strong, but I was highly
confident.

On the other hand, I believe historians must at some point judge the
veracity of an account of events, be it ancient or modern.

Certainly. We need to use these documents, after all, unless the past
is just a hobby.

Yes, I agree.

Flat contradictions likewise tell us something -- often that something
has dropped out of the historical record -- or something about the
politics of the time.

Or sometimes that something was concocted and added later to make

account

more palatable to the then curent power structure.

I agree. Although the 'interpolation' argument can be too easy a way
to ignore inconvenient evidence, so I would want some very positive
evidence that a passage was so added.

Perhaps. If a few sentences are not in the earliest extant manuscripts for
3 or 4 or 5 centuries, and then the words suddenly appear, I think a prima
facie case exists for "interpolation." That is not the final and forever
true answer, but I think it the best choice among the competing theories
based upon the known evidence.

History, because the conclusions are and must be
tentative and especially so for events during antiquity, is a lousy
foundation for faith because the foundations tends to shift. And

that

never good for the edifice constructed atop the foundation.

The same applies to politics, of course. Does this not amount to the
view that we can make no use of history for any purpose than academic
noodling? Surely not?!?

No, that is not my intended conclusion. The past informs and constructs

the

present, and there is an obligation to build on as solid a foundation as
possible, i.e., there is an obligation to get it right within the bounds

human capability. While we really do not know much about the ancient

world

and perhaps can never truly understand the people who lived then, there

are

known and I think unimpeachable broad outlines and certain details. My
caveat is simply that new discoveries are inevitable in the future, and
these may offer stronger evidence for or against my favorite

interpretation

of ancient events.

Yes, assertions from silence are always tenuous at best. But ultimately,
every assertion from silence is merely a guess, and can never be more that a
mere guess.

Fair enough.

Perhaps it is my own perversity or oddness, but I do not have difficulty
living with conundrums and the knowledge that I will probably never be able
to resolve them. Theology and history are not happy bedfellows, so I try to
keep them separate.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

User: "Hector"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	15 Dec 2003 05:07:38 PM

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:39 GMT, "Didymos t" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312151211.169a13ea@posting.google.com...

"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:<rPnCb.767$Pg1.96@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

To intrude . . . . Frankly, after a few years of study, I have not

answered

the question to myself of how much of the New Testament, as well as the

Dead

Sea Scrolls and non-canon Christian writing, is prophecy historicized

and

how much is history remembered and recorded. Frankly, I cannot bring

myself

not

state or even imply that they do not contain accurate nuggets of history

and

even some accurate narrative.

You know, of course, my view that all the testimony in the historical
record must be accepted as a first approach, and the story sifted by
comparison.

A Simon Magus-Paul common identity, I believe, stretches credibilty past

the

breaking point for many reasons, but particularly because of the lack of
reliable sources. I also believe "mortal enemies" is a bit exaggerated

as a

summation of the relationship between Peter and Paul. On the other

hand,

religious movements tend to split apart, and I think there is a tendency

do that early in the movement before what Max Weber called the

bureaucratic

stage is reached, wherein orthodox standards of belief and conduct

become

institutionalized. I also believe a case can be made that orthodox
institutions to rewrite the history of the movement time and again,

until

there is finally a depiction of the foundation stage as an idealized

golden

era inhabited only by heroic and "good"people. Examples are the Iliad,

the

Aeneid, the Arthurian cycle in England, the Song of Roland in France,

and

various American histories recording only a glorious foundation by
far-seeing Christian statesmen. Can a similar case be made for the

founding

documents of Christianity? Have they been sanitized at some point or

points

to reflect a modern orthodox view? If so, what is the evidence?

This last is the key question. Reality cannot be determined by our
imagination, if only because our imagination is conditioned by our
experiences and culture. All sorts of things are possible.

If you don't mind the interruption, may I ask if you are
translating from orginal mss or are you transcribing from modern
facsimile of early documents?
Respectfully,
Hector
.

User: "Didymos t"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	15 Dec 2003 06:00:59 PM

"Hector" <Melitus@Dithyrambic.com> wrote in message
news:8testv46km4l95repa69dqgo19sefe7nvd@4ax.com...

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:39 GMT, "Didymos t" <me@privacy.net> wrote:

"Roger Pearse" <roger_pearse@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3a88eeea.0312151211.169a13ea@posting.google.com...

"Didymos" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

news:<rPnCb.767$Pg1.96@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...

To intrude . . . . Frankly, after a few years of study, I have not

answered

the question to myself of how much of the New Testament, as well as

the

Dead

Sea Scrolls and non-canon Christian writing, is prophecy

historicized

and

how much is history remembered and recorded. Frankly, I cannot bring

myself

to call any first and second century documents -- to include the

DSS,

Josephus, Philo, and Christian writings from all sources, and even

some

Greco-Roman narrative -- as reliable historical narrative. But that

not

state or even imply that they do not contain accurate nuggets of

history

and

even some accurate narrative.

Yes, I agree. But I also believe Herodotus, Xenophone, Thucydides, and

most

especially Polybius and Livy were well aware of the limits of

historigraphy

and method. And they all felt free to put words in the mouths of their
characters and credit them with rather incredible deeds. For those

reasons,

I am always sceptical of ancient sources because their world view was so
different than ours. I think nearly every conclusion about the ancient
world is a tentative hypothesis pending the examination of new evidence,
albeit that new evidence may never surface.

You know, of course, my view that all the testimony in the historical
record must be accepted as a first approach, and the story sifted by
comparison.

I do understand that, but the historical problem is when the sources
disagree or flatly contradict each other. Normally, then and only then

does

it matter what is primary and what secondary and what is supported by
archaeological artifacts. If only one source reports an incident or

person,

I suppose we are stuck with that account so long as it is plausible.

Does

the account fit with what is known must always be asked and answered.

A Simon Magus-Paul common identity, I believe, stretches credibilty

past

the

breaking point for many reasons, but particularly because of the lack

reliable sources. I also believe "mortal enemies" is a bit

exaggerated

as a

summation of the relationship between Peter and Paul. On the other

hand,

religious movements tend to split apart, and I think there is a

tendency

do that early in the movement before what Max Weber called the

bureaucratic

stage is reached, wherein orthodox standards of belief and conduct

become

institutionalized. I also believe a case can be made that orthodox
institutions to rewrite the history of the movement time and again,

until

there is finally a depiction of the foundation stage as an idealized

golden

era inhabited only by heroic and "good"people. Examples are the

Iliad,

the

Aeneid, the Arthurian cycle in England, the Song of Roland in France,

and

various American histories recording only a glorious foundation by
far-seeing Christian statesmen. Can a similar case be made for the

founding

documents of Christianity? Have they been sanitized at some point or

points

to reflect a modern orthodox view? If so, what is the evidence?

This last is the key question. Reality cannot be determined by our
imagination, if only because our imagination is conditioned by our
experiences and culture. All sorts of things are possible.

some point history must seperate the wheat from the chaff, if for no

other

reason just to maintain some semblance of honesty. As for the New
Testament, the more reading I do in the papyrus manuscripts, the more
evidence I find that the canon began early and is remarkably unchanged,

and

the differences are not terribly earth shaking but approximate the scale

differences in other "secular"documents copied and recopied through
antiquity. (I am currently translating the 40 or 50 oldest fragments and
manuscripts . . . a terribly slow process, albeit rewarding.)

If you don't mind the interruption, may I ask if you are
translating from orginal mss or are you transcribing from modern
facsimile of early documents?

Respectfully,
Hector

Obviously not from the original manuscripts as most are located in England,
Germany, France, Switzerland, Spain, and Italy, although some are in
Michigan, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.. I have a published copy of many
in Comfort's and Barrett's "The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek
Manuscripts," Wheaton: 2001, but I have found facsimile copies of several
and compared them, and I try to translate the uncials whenever I can find
them. There are some online sources for some of the better known fragments
and manuscripts. If you know of anywhere on or off line that has facsimile
copies of any unicals earlier than Aleph or B, please let me know.
I recommend Comfort and Barrett because their reconstructions are well
marked and I have never found a difference between their printed Greek
miniscules and the relatively few uncials I have been able to use for
comparison. Yes, I would love to own and use a facsimile copy of all, but
those that do exist are prohibitively expensive. For example, codex
Vaticanus is available in facsimile, but $6,000 is a bit beyond the range of
my meager military pension. Way beyond, actually. Comfort and Barrett do
not provide a translation of the Greek, but merely offer in Greek all of the
New Testament fragments and manuscripts dated from the 2nd through the 4th
century in printed form up through P-115 plus a few early unical
manuscripts.
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	16 Dec 2003 06:19:44 AM

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 20:58:39 GMT, "Didymos t"
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
Notice folks, just as I predicted, he has changed his
handle slightly once again. Then he'll proceed to
claim that those who kill filed him never actually did
and that they lied about it.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
Read an amzing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.
Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k
Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q
.

User: "Didymos t"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	16 Dec 2003 04:06:57 PM

"Pastor Dave" <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message
news:70uttvob87e0tvcu7pp92k020i88bkl0ru@4ax.com...

First, paster dave, you are not a pastor. Never were . . never will be.
Second, see my posts of 11 and 12 Dec 2003 in this and other threads. I
said in them I would change my nomen as I saw fit. If you disapprove . . .
tough. Is someone standing behind you with a gun at you head forcing you to
respond to my posts? Do you have some strange and unfathomable compulsion
to read what I post? Even I don't think I am so interesting that people who
hate me should take the time to read and respond to my idle musings.
Please, feel free not to reply . . . . do exercise your right under the 5th
Amendment to the Consititution of the United States and remain silent,
please?

"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16

Nope, paster dave is still not a pastor. Every claim he makes that he is a
pastor is the sin of bearing false witness. And that translation of
Jeremiah . . .geez . . .

Read an amzing book! it's called; "The Evolution
of a Creationist", by Jobe Martin.

Buy it at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7k

Or read it online at: http://tinyurl.com/hq7q

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	15 Dec 2003 02:15:32 PM

On 15 Dec 2003 12:11:34 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) wrote:

I would agree that no first century source can be considered a history
in the modern sense.

Why not? Looking back 2,000 years from now, people
will say the same thing that you just did. What's
different?
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
www.icr.org
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	16 Dec 2003 03:35:29 AM

Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<gg5stvspr3urcjjgilr0bb1oe82pqtu0j4@4ax.com>...

On 15 Dec 2003 12:11:34 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) wrote:

I would agree that no first century source can be considered a history
in the modern sense.

Why not?

I think you may have misunderstood the point I'm making. I am NOT
rubbishing these documents. These are the raw data, the basic account
by those who were there.
However they did not write as if they expected to have their thesis
proof-read according to the publishing canons of Oxford University
Press, etc. (This imposes a modern uniformity of approach and method,
forcing the exclusion of various things). This is because such
conformity did not exist.

Looking back 2,000 years from now, people
will say the same thing that you just did. What's
different?

Good point. None whatever. I am not a great fan of modern histories,
I must say -- I prefer to read all the material written by those there
at the time, and then work out for myself what it says. As you say,
in 20 centuries our own texts will be subjected to the criticism that
they were not written 'according to modern standards.'
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	16 Dec 2003 02:33:26 PM

On 16 Dec 2003 01:35:29 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) spake thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<gg5stvspr3urcjjgilr0bb1oe82pqtu0j4@4ax.com>...

On 15 Dec 2003 12:11:34 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) wrote:

I would agree that no first century source can be considered a history
in the modern sense.

Why not?

I think you may have misunderstood the point I'm making. I am NOT
rubbishing these documents. These are the raw data, the basic account
by those who were there.

However they did not write as if they expected to have their thesis
proof-read according to the publishing canons of Oxford University
Press, etc. (This imposes a modern uniformity of approach and method,
forcing the exclusion of various things). This is because such
conformity did not exist.

I understand your statement about Oxford, but has it
occurred to you, that maybe they wrote them with even
higher standards in mind, knowing that they were
writing Scripture? There is support for that thought.
Paul said to read his letters in other churches and
that would happen right along with the Old Testament
readings. Peter considered Paul's writings to be
Scripture (2 Peter 3:16... note the use of the term,
"also the other Scriptures" and not just, also the
Scriptures", when referencing Paul's writings).
Certainly believing that you're writing for God,
especially in those days, would place a very high
expected standard in the mind of the writer, don't you
agree?

Looking back 2,000 years from now, people
will say the same thing that you just did. What's
different?

Yea, we always think we're so much better and smarter
than those before us, because we have more toys. :)
The reality is, man has not changed. Technology has.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
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.
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	19 Dec 2003 10:45:06 AM

Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<6pqutv00ramo317mb72tdip296ov9v26rn@4ax.com>...

On 16 Dec 2003 01:35:29 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) spake thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<gg5stvspr3urcjjgilr0bb1oe82pqtu0j4@4ax.com>...

On 15 Dec 2003 12:11:34 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) wrote:

I would agree that no first century source can be considered a history
in the modern sense.

Why not?

I think you may have misunderstood the point I'm making. I am NOT
rubbishing these documents. These are the raw data, the basic account
by those who were there.

However they did not write as if they expected to have their thesis
proof-read according to the publishing canons of Oxford University
Press, etc. (This imposes a modern uniformity of approach and method,
forcing the exclusion of various things). This is because such
conformity did not exist.

I agree with you, although I'm not sure that Paul knew he was writing
scripture when he did it. But 'higher standards' as regards ensuring
that nothing against God was said is not the same as concern for
matters of interest to an academic system not to be invented for 18
centuries. May I give an analogy which may explain?
I once rented a house, and found out on day 2 that there was a serious
plumbing problem. The letting agent was useless, so I got in a
plumber who removed a kitchen unit to get at the problem. The agent
came around a few days later to 'sort me out'.
When she arrived, she asked point blank, "Did you remove that?" I
said "yes". Had I said, "No, but a plumber I employed did it" I think
she would have asked me if I was trying to be funny. The issue was
liability, not which physical human being did it.
Now imagine that two different accounts existed of this transaction.
One would say that my plumber did it, and not give my exact words.
The other would be vaguer, but record precisely what I said. Would
there be a contradiction? Was I lying when I said, "I did it"?
Our culture understands that in fact the two are one, and my statement
was fine. But how would it look in 20 centuries, when everyone has
three heads? (I'm sure we both know how some of the dumber atheists
would jump on such a 'contradiction', which shows the perils of their
approach).
I have no doubt that similar cultural issues affect the use of
language in biblical times. After all, these points are not germane
to the purpose of scripture, which is to facilitate the salvation of
men by God. So I am never certain that we aren't asking the wrong
questions, if we expect biblical texts to be written as if written by
a professor of physics, or a modern newspaper reporter.
Don't take this as a statement of faith: I believe as the church
believes. I'm merely nervous that we are being taken for a ride: the
demand is made of us that scripture must read as if written by a
committee of modern scientists in order to give a complete handbook of
physics,biology, history, in order to satisfy the remotest curiosity.
The fathers did not think this, and while scripture is true, are we
committed to the proposition above? Where in scripture does it say
so? Inspiration does not necessarily mean that every word of
scripture can be used for any purpose whatever, regardless of the
original author, the context or the intended function.
I am aware that this is open to the abuse of liberalism. I am not a
liberal. No-one ever went to hell for imagining that God the father
had a beard. There are cages-full of theologians in hell who put the
clever reasonings of their own imagination ahead of the teaching of
Christ as told to his apostles, recorded in the scripture and
transmitted to us by the church. I do not intend to join them. I
merely intend to avoid what looks to me like a trap.

Looking back 2,000 years from now, people
will say the same thing that you just did. What's
different?

Yea, we always think we're so much better and smarter
than those before us, because we have more toys. :)
The reality is, man has not changed. Technology has.

Few realise this. Worse still, the cultural collapse going on is
masked from the imagination of most people by the fact that more and
more advanced toys are produced. But 'progress', in the old sense,
has ceased. The society we live in is in decline. We live, in fact,
in a very second century world.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	19 Dec 2003 11:54:20 AM

On 19 Dec 2003 08:45:06 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) spake thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<6pqutv00ramo317mb72tdip296ov9v26rn@4ax.com>...

On 16 Dec 2003 01:35:29 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) spake thusly:

Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<gg5stvspr3urcjjgilr0bb1oe82pqtu0j4@4ax.com>...

On 15 Dec 2003 12:11:34 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) wrote:

I would agree that no first century source can be considered a history
in the modern sense.

Why not?

I think you may have misunderstood the point I'm making. I am NOT
rubbishing these documents. These are the raw data, the basic account
by those who were there.

However they did not write as if they expected to have their thesis
proof-read according to the publishing canons of Oxford University
Press, etc. (This imposes a modern uniformity of approach and method,
forcing the exclusion of various things). This is because such
conformity did not exist.

This is the same thing that is to be applied to the
account of Judas and who bought the field. When a
field was bought in someone's name, in those times, it
was looked at as if he bought it, so both accounts are
true, just as yours above is true. Thank you for the
excellent analogy. If you don't mind, I may use it in
the future. :)

Our culture understands that in fact the two are one, and my statement
was fine. But how would it look in 20 centuries, when everyone has
three heads? (I'm sure we both know how some of the dumber atheists
would jump on such a 'contradiction', which shows the perils of their
approach).

I agree.

I have no doubt that similar cultural issues affect the use of
language in biblical times. After all, these points are not germane
to the purpose of scripture, which is to facilitate the salvation of
men by God. So I am never certain that we aren't asking the wrong
questions, if we expect biblical texts to be written as if written by
a professor of physics, or a modern newspaper reporter.

I understand what you're saying.

Don't take this as a statement of faith: I believe as the church
believes. I'm merely nervous that we are being taken for a ride: the
demand is made of us that scripture must read as if written by a
committee of modern scientists in order to give a complete handbook of
physics,biology, history, in order to satisfy the remotest curiosity.
The fathers did not think this, and while scripture is true, are we
committed to the proposition above? Where in scripture does it say
so? Inspiration does not necessarily mean that every word of
scripture can be used for any purpose whatever, regardless of the
original author, the context or the intended function.

I believe the intended function is as you said, but I
also believe that the intended function is to be
accurate. If it is not, then I believe we must throw
it out. An inaccurate book is not the work of the
Supreme God described within.

I am aware that this is open to the abuse of liberalism. I am not a
liberal. No-one ever went to hell for imagining that God the father
had a beard. There are cages-full of theologians in hell who put the
clever reasonings of their own imagination ahead of the teaching of
Christ as told to his apostles, recorded in the scripture and
transmitted to us by the church. I do not intend to join them. I
merely intend to avoid what looks to me like a trap.

Please explain further.

Looking back 2,000 years from now, people
will say the same thing that you just did. What's
different?

Yea, we always think we're so much better and smarter
than those before us, because we have more toys. :)
The reality is, man has not changed. Technology has.

You have a point indeed. :)
Thanks for your lucid comments.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
The Bible says that death came by sin and sin came
by Adam (Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 15:21-22).
Evolution says lots of things lived and died before
Adam and Eve got here and therefore attempts to rule
out what the Bible says.
One or the other is right, but they can't both
be right.
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	20 Dec 2003 07:12:47 PM

Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<age6uv0qcr71uq0n6cjdop1o2scj0m8hr8@4ax.com>...

On 19 Dec 2003 08:45:06 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) spake thusly:

[anecdote]

Now imagine that two different accounts existed of this transaction.
One would say that my plumber did it, and not give my exact words.
The other would be vaguer, but record precisely what I said. Would
there be a contradiction? Was I lying when I said, "I did it"?

I'm sure that something of the kind is the case. You're welcome to
use my anecdote, and by all means mention my name as the person
concerned if you wish.

I merely intend to avoid what looks to me like a trap.

Please explain further.

Not sure I can, as I'm groping around here, and don't want to fall
into heresy. Here are some thoughts, but they may all be rubbish, or
worse, 'questions about the bible that only heretics make and that
make heretics' (Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum).
We all know that heathens demand that the bible must contain no
statement which is or may be supposed to be erroneous on any topic
whatsoever; indeed must reflect the state of scientific knowledge of
our time, but no later. Now I agree that God could satisfy this
demand. I merely wonder why we should suppose he did. And why us,
rather than the Victorians, or our remote grandchildren?
Also, imagine you were God, and you had a bunch of Israelites sat at
the bottom of the mountain, half-savage, half-pagan,
half-goat-thieves. You want to tell them how the world was made. You
want to get them travelling on the right road.
Do you sit them down and teach them quantum theory?
Imagine you did. You spend two weeks telling Moses about positrons
and the like. And then there is a pause; and a small proto-Jewish
voice says, "Um. Pardon? What was that bit about quadratic
equationite stuff? Is that something you meet riding on a camel after
a few beers?"
I think most of us would be pretty tempted in that situation to use a
parable. Which, after all, is what Jesus did.
After all, teaching them quantum mechanics isn't the point. The point
is to get the wretched descendants of Adam off this decaying world
before it implodes. What they need to know is that God made the
world, and that it is screwed up, and how and why. So can't we give
them a schematic they can understand and remember? Without being
accused of telling lies by reductionist atheists? (Actually nothing
will stop an atheist screaming 'liar! liar!' anyway). Parables aren't
lies. But they aren't history either.
I'm just trying to think things through here, really. I wish someone
who was entirely orthodox and good at theology would work all this
stuff out for us in a coherent way -- or explain what is wrong with
it. It does relate, in a way, to the allegorical approach to the OT
adopted by the Alexandrian school of exegesis (Origen etc).
But ... people who start doubting that bits of the bible are really
true have a tendency to put themselves in the bible's place. That
last is the risk. I am reluctant to do or say anything that makes
people think this. I suppose I'm just doing some theological
speculating. The bible is given to us by God -- we know that, because
we see what it does to people, experientially, and because Jesus said
so, and those he appointed did the same for the NT. It isn't really
possible to be a Christian unless you live under the authority of the
bible. But are we being led to adopt a strawman position on how it
works? I keep wondering.

Thanks for your lucid comments.

Thank you for your interesting and kind replies.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	21 Dec 2003 08:22:02 AM

On 20 Dec 2003 17:12:47 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) spake thusly:

I merely intend to avoid what looks to me like a trap.

Please explain further.

I disagree with your assessment of who they were.
While there was definitely paganism going on, I see no
reason to call them "goat thieves", nor is there any
indication that they were, "half savage".

Do you sit them down and teach them quantum theory?

Imagine you did. You spend two weeks telling Moses about positrons
and the like. And then there is a pause; and a small proto-Jewish
voice says, "Um. Pardon? What was that bit about quadratic
equationite stuff? Is that something you meet riding on a camel after
a few beers?"

I think most of us would be pretty tempted in that situation to use a
parable. Which, after all, is what Jesus did.

After all, teaching them quantum mechanics isn't the point. The point
is to get the wretched descendants of Adam off this decaying world
before it implodes. What they need to know is that God made the
world, and that it is screwed up, and how and why. So can't we give
them a schematic they can understand and remember? Without being
accused of telling lies by reductionist atheists? (Actually nothing
will stop an atheist screaming 'liar! liar!' anyway). Parables aren't
lies. But they aren't history either.

I'm just trying to think things through here, really. I wish someone
who was entirely orthodox and good at theology would work all this
stuff out for us in a coherent way -- or explain what is wrong with
it. It does relate, in a way, to the allegorical approach to the OT
adopted by the Alexandrian school of exegesis (Origen etc).

But ... people who start doubting that bits of the bible are really
true have a tendency to put themselves in the bible's place. That
last is the risk. I am reluctant to do or say anything that makes
people think this. I suppose I'm just doing some theological
speculating. The bible is given to us by God -- we know that, because
we see what it does to people, experientially, and because Jesus said
so, and those he appointed did the same for the NT. It isn't really
possible to be a Christian unless you live under the authority of the
bible. But are we being led to adopt a strawman position on how it
works? I keep wondering.

If you're going where I think you're going, which is
that the Creation, for example, is an allegory, I would
disagree. While it may be true that it would make no
sense to teach Moses quantum mechanics, it does not
take much to tell man that he came from ape. Nor would
it take much to tell people that things develop into
something else. Either story would have sounded
fantastic, so why not go with the truth? Would God
lie? Can we not trust what He says? "God is not a
man, that he should lie" - Numbers 23:19. While a
parables and allegories are not lies, God did not
present the Creation as such. He presented a six day
Creation and confirmed it in Exodus 20:11 and Jesus
confirmed the Creation (Mat 19:4-6).
Of course, maybe that's not what you're talking about
and that's just where my mind went, given the debates
in about this in Christian newsgroups. :)

Thanks for your lucid comments.

Thank you for your interesting and kind replies.

My pleasure.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
"As for me, I have not hastened from being a pastor
to follow thee: neither have I desired the woeful day;
thou knowest: that which came out of my lips was right
before thee." - Jeremiah 17:16
"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)
.

User: "Roger Pearse"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	22 Dec 2003 04:57:42 AM

Pastor Dave <nospam-draymond@minister.com> wrote in message news:<gt9buvom3pejnk8n34nrubjap7kejf4vol@4ax.com>...

On 20 Dec 2003 17:12:47 -0800,

(Roger Pearse) spake thusly:

I merely intend to avoid what looks to me like a trap.

Please explain further.

I disagree with your assessment of who they were.
While there was definitely paganism going on, I see no
reason to call them "goat thieves", nor is there any
indication that they were, "half savage".

Purely a personal view, of course.

If you're going where I think you're going, which is
that the Creation, for example, is an allegory, I would
disagree. While it may be true that it would make no
sense to teach Moses quantum mechanics, it does not
take much to tell man that he came from ape. Nor would
it take much to tell people that things develop into
something else. Either story would have sounded
fantastic, so why not go with the truth? Would God
lie? Can we not trust what He says? "God is not a
man, that he should lie" - Numbers 23:19. While a
parables and allegories are not lies, God did not
present the Creation as such. He presented a six day
Creation and confirmed it in Exodus 20:11 and Jesus
confirmed the Creation (Mat 19:4-6).

Of course, maybe that's not what you're talking about
and that's just where my mind went, given the debates
in about this in Christian newsgroups. :)

Well, these are all good points, and I have no answer to them. The
question with all of this is where it takes us, and this is why I am
being cautious. Apologetics is a dangerous business, because in the
process you can end up abandoning the position you started with,
without realising it.
Sorry if that sounds evasive. I simply do not know how all this
should fit together, and I don't want any speculations of mine to lead
people in the wrong direction.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
.

User: "Pastor Dave"
Title: Re: translated from the Greek? EVOLUTION OF THE NT -- Saul/Paul=Simon Magus	22 Dec 2003 09:55:09 AM

On 22 D