A forum to discuss Bible Translations

"Eye Witness" accounts

Discuss the Renewed Covenant and Paul's writings, or produce your own for discussion!
walt
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:03 pm

"Eye Witness" accounts

Postby walt » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:07 am

Why is Luke considered an eye witness account, when he tells us he got his info from others, that makes it at minimum, 2nd hand?
Why is Mark considered an eye witness account when it can't be verified who wrote it?

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: "Eye Witness" accounts

Postby Swalchy » Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:28 am

That's actually the definition of an eyewitness account. Just because Lucus wrote down stuff people told him doesn't make it any less of an eyewitness account of the life of Yahushua.

Using that logic, we'd have to throw out each and every police statement ever written by someone who wasn't the witness themselves. Or any newspaper or magazine article as well.

We could also level the "can't be verified who wrote it" at pretty much the whole of the Tanakh - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Ezra, Nehemiah, the Torah, Ruth, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles, The Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the 12 Minor Prophets, etc., etc., all of which contain no verification as to whom actually wrote them down.


Really, this is all such a ridiculous slippery slope that people are going down, I wonder whether people will ever find their way back up
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

walt
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: "Eye Witness" accounts

Postby walt » Wed Jul 13, 2011 2:27 pm

No, that's NOT the definition of "eyewitness account"
One who was the actual witness is considered "eyewitness account" - if one witnesses a crime, then the police collect an eyewitness account from them, but the police is NOT considered an "eyewitness". If someone heard about the crime from someone else, they are NOT considered an eyewitness.

Matthew and John DO qualify as eyewitnesses, but Luke and Mark CAN'T.
To say Luke & Mark (whoever he is) are an eyewitnesses is a misrepresentation.
Their "testimonies" wouldn't hold up in a court of law or meet the requirements for historical accuracy as Luke didn't say WHO he got his details from, and we don't know who the writer of Mark is.

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: "Eye Witness" accounts

Postby Swalchy » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:10 pm

Hence why I said police statement, not a policeman. A police statement, which is a written account taken from an eyewitness, is most certainly considered an "eyewitness account" and can definitely be used in a court of law. So Luke writing down what eyewitnesses have told him certainly meets the requirements for historical accuracy, especially when most of what Luke says is also accounted for in Matthew's account. This also applies to Acts as well.

There's a reason they're called the "Synoptics".

And you're still ignoring the fact that pretty much everything you've said can be leveled at Books in the Tanakh - even more so in fact. So why are you just picking on Luke and Mark?
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

walt
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: "Eye Witness" accounts

Postby walt » Wed Jul 13, 2011 3:51 pm

They still don't meet the "eyewitness" standard as Luke didn't say WHO he got the info from, and we have no clue who Mark is - A police report would be meaningless if it didn't say WHO they got the details from.
Luke and Mark CAN'T be "eyewitnesses"
And I'm "picking" on them because they are listed as eyewitness accounts and they don't meet the legal or historical standards.
As I said, Matthew and John WERE eyewitnesses.

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: "Eye Witness" accounts

Postby Swalchy » Wed Jul 13, 2011 7:30 pm

By such logic then (can only be "eyewitnesses" if the person writing was also the person who witnessed what they're writing about, and we have actual evidence that the person who is said to have written the book did indeed write the book), we can also throw out the following books, and chapters from certain books:

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Ruth
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Esther
Job
The Psalms
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Daniel Chapters 1 - 7:2
Hosea
Joel
Jonah
Amos
Obadiah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk Chapters 1, 3
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew (Not once does Matthew's EWA state that Matthew is its author)
John (Same as above)

And I know you don't particularly care about the rest, so I'm not going to bother listing them.

But there you go. Using the criteria outlined in the posts above for what can be classed as either an EWA or "historically reliable", we would have to throw out roughly 92+% of what people class as "Scripture".

None of the above books/chapters state who wrote them, where or whom they got their information from, nor can it be verified whether the person who is said to have written them actually wrote them.

As I said before: a ridiculous slippery slope that people are going down.

Well, that's not entirely accurate, the following is more correct: A ridiculous slippery slope that a person has gone down, which others are merely rolling down afterwards
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

walt
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:03 pm

Re: "Eye Witness" accounts

Postby walt » Thu Jul 14, 2011 1:39 pm

I'll have to look at Matthew & John again then - T P S isn't categorized as "eyewitness accounts" they are categorized as Scripture
So you have no answer other than religious tradition which we are to blindly accept
As I said before: a ridiculous slippery slope that people are going down.

Well, that's not entirely accurate, the following is more correct: A ridiculous slippery slope that a person has gone down, which others are merely rolling down afterwards
SOOO revealing of your mindset, to bad you are so wrong & clueless, but don't be concerned about truth when perceptions are more satisfying.
I'll just leave you alone

User avatar
Swalchy
Site Admin
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:05 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: "Eye Witness" accounts

Postby Swalchy » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:20 pm

Seeing as though no one has yet to provide any good reason to doubt the historicity of Lucus and Marcus, I'm not the one who has to ignore other factors to defend my position.

Lucus tells us at the beginning of his account of Yahushua whom he got his information from (Luke 1:2); whilst he doesn't specify them all by name, neither does anyone else writing history at that time do such a thing. Should we get rid of every bit of historical evidence that doesn't have a name specified?

And yes, please do leave TWTY forum alone from this ridiculousness. If I wanted to argue with Craig Winn, I would do so. I don't particularly need someone else to come and parrot his imaginations at me
TWTY website and forum Administrator.

Please respect everyone, and try to not get too heated when discussing one's point of view :)

Rob
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 6:21 pm

Re: "Eye Witness" accounts

Postby Rob » Thu Jul 14, 2011 2:33 pm

*sigh*

Royce
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun May 15, 2011 4:51 am

Re: "Eye Witness" accounts

Postby Royce » Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:41 am

If I wanted to argue with Craig Winn, I would do so. I don't particularly need someone else to come and parrot his imaginations at me
LOL :lol:


Return to “Renewed Covenant”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron