Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (26135)	7/9/1999 3:10:00 PM
From: mark silvers	Respond to of 39621

Dan, I am happy to share my thoughts with you. Just realize that I am not trying to say that you shouldn't take the Bible literally, I am just saying that emile's reasoning that this proves the bible as FACT is silly. I am disputing his reasoning, not the end result (even though you know I don't believe we should take it literally) <<Luke, who was not an eyewitness, tells us that he is using eyewitness sources and that he is seeking to write an orderly and truthful account of the things he records(Luke 1:1-4. John tells us he is an eyewitness, and the other two Gospels, Mark and Matthew, are both written from the perspective of an eyewitnesss, although they don't come out and explicitly claim this: they just assume it. Other sources in the early second century confirm that the authors of the Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.(We are jumping the gun here and discussing external criteria #2)>> First Emile says it must contain first hand accounts(even though people can see things first hand and still misconstrue a situation) Then he shows a situation that is NOT first hand, but purported to be first hand. Then he puts his Opinion that Mark and Matthew are first hand, because it is written from that perspective, even while admitting they never claim to have witnessed things firsthand(if they had, don't you think they would be eager to say that?) Secondly, even if they had been first hand accounts, that doesn't create FACTUAL proof, or even mean they perceived things correctly. Emile's next post claims detail is a sign of factual proof. That is asinine. Every great piece of fiction contains all the detail and illustrative nuance you could ever imagine. To say this is a sign of proof is ridiculous, as most of his rantings are..... Mark