[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Jed S. Baer]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:50:26 -0600
Kevin Cullis wrote:

> Now if we want to discuss the veracity of  
> the writings themselves, bring it on! ;-)

I'm no authority on the authenticy or veracity of accounts of ancient
history, as written, for example, by Herodotus. Nor do I have any basis
for disputing/affirming the historical story of the nation of Israel. But
that isn't really at issue. But when you get to the point of "veracity"
in re. existence of God and means of salvation, or whether such even
matters, I doubt we'll get very far, given the divergence exhibited in
this thread. The veracity of the bible on historical, mundane events
could concievably be ascertained, given sufficient archeological
corroboration. Matters of dogma, however, still rely on faith.

> > I'll quote David: For what it's worth, Mark probably didn't write  
> > verses
> > 9 onward.
> 
> Who's David here?

David Willson, with two els. :)

> Just because Luther stated that Paul was not the author doesn't mean  
> Luther is correct, we've come a long way in Archeology to not let  
> historical comments to always be truthful. By this comment,  
> Copernicus would have been seen and continued to be a heretic even  
> today.

Not sure what you're trying to say there. And, I actually don't know
whether Luther was correct, but if he doubted, and was quite certain of
himself, I give that some credence. However, it's just one datum. The
question still remains, however, as to how one can make statements about
primary sources, if one doesn't even know who the source is.

> > When I think of primary sources, I think of things such as first-hand,
> > eyewitness accounts, e.g. battlefield reports from Gen. Patton.

> Yes, this is correct and what I was trying to say. But to assume that  
> New Testament letters were "hand me downs" of oral tradition while  
> could be true, is poor. The same thing goes for the tnternet, just  
> because it is written somewhere today gives it veracity. BUT, I would  
> have a greater belief in the veracity of Biblical literature because  
> of the cost of writing it down in those days, i.e. it was not cheap  
> of plentiful.

I didn't make such an assertion in re. the NT, though perhaps it's a
valid question to ask what OT source materials were available to NT
writers, when they referenced them.

Didn't the Greeks and Romans record their mythology? By your argument,
then the case for the existence of Apollo is just as valid as that for
Jehovah.

> > The
> > pentatuech is ascribed to Moses, but clearly, he wasn't present at
> > creation. Of course, I've also read that Moses didn't literally  
> > write the
> > pentatuech, but rather that is was oral history for a time before  
> > being
> > commited to clay or parchment or whatever was used. (Sorry, don't  
> > have a
> > source for that, it was probably in a commentary on the Torah or
> > Judaism that I came across at some point.)
> 
> By this comment, we were not around during the Big Bang so therefore  
> we can't possibly know what happened during that time even with all  
> of our scientific knowledge.

Except that we can apply what we know of physics to the question, and
make observations of cosmologic phenomenon, and perform mathematical
analyses. Can we do this with the Biblical creation story?

> The one thing I can say about the Bible is that it tells the truth  
> 100% of the time, but does NOT contain 100% the Truth. Let's take a  
> look at what I mean. In Gen 2:17 God states that "but from the tree  
> of knowledge of  good and evil you shall not eat" while Eve is stated  
> in Gen 3:3 as saying God said "You shall not eat from it or touch it"  
> by adding to what God said. She either lied, misspoke, or was  
> mistaken, but nonetheless, it records  accurately what transpired in  
> this limited amount of material.

Sorry, but you've lost me with this. I think I know where you're trying
to go, but what writer was around at the time to record Eve's statement?

jed