It's good to see that you are looking into it sabro, and you did bring up a number of points that are important and correct. There was no punctuation in the Koine Greek and Hebrew, as well as other languages in that sphere. That does not mean, however, that context was indistinguishable, or that one could read a sentence just any ole way they wanted. Grammer was very much intact as was syntax. Spelling was very much intact, as was small and capitol letters (except in Hebrew and other Semitic languages). I hope you are not trying to argue that putting those communications into direct quotation marks by those who have published those works, such as the Bible copy that you yourself use, were wrong in their linguistical, editorial decisions to do so based on a sound understanding of what the language and author's intent called for.
It is a very certain thing that these had been written with the intention to be relaying to the audience, what had been said. For that reason, we find the likes of the opening of Luke and the claim of truthfulness in the Gospel according to John's troupe, isn't it? You are correct in saying that the events are usually similar (in # 6 and #7 they are very much so) but the events alone are not quite as emphasized by Christian teachers as the words. And there is always this 'picking and choosing' thing (a preacher focusing on one account without given notice of its possibly not being true to the word, and the overlooking of the original reading--I mean the real reason for anyone to have written anything down in the first place. That only one or two of the writers of the Gospel of John had been a direct witness to most of the scenes contained in the narratives, is also often left out of the formula.
So when I use the term 'historical error' I am using it, I am firstly using it in the operative mode as highlighted in the second paragraph of my very first post on this thread--as a test of 'superintendence without error'--and then in acknowledgement of working premises #2 and 4. The basis is that if we consider none of the dialogs presented to be exact replicas of a true historical event (and saying something is a historial event) but rather just approximates, the conclusion would, I reason, have to be that there was not any single author for that information. If we were to consider one from among the three or four to be historically accurate--truthful--then those that varied would be inaccurate--untruthful. (Again, it is important to keep in mind that each individual document is exactly claiming that 'this happened; that this person said these words) In such a setting, it would be impossible to state which one reflected true history, and which one didn't, as well.
I can understand the point you are getting at; that simply the human inability to recall the exact details of what happened in every case, or just how somebody said something at a particular time, and to whom, is natural, yet that the general outline of events and actions usually agree. It just reasons out to me, that if we were to take this position, we would have to honestly admit at the same time, that we cannot know all the details so we cannot show that those that we do have are real--only the generalzations. This is not what Christiantiy at large has done. Christianity at large abides by the direct quotation understanding--the man preaching says that Jesus said these words, rather than this writer claims that Jesus had said these words, and it might be true in intent of communication, but not true in actual words spoken.
So, when I say that one scene has a count of historical error, I am saying that because somewhere among all the information there is a duality that the flow of time and nature do not allow. Even if we were to just take the claims, it would be so. If one writer's claim is against another's, one of the two claims cannot be true history, simply because that writer is claiming that it was like this, whereas the other is claiming it was like this (as opposed to that where that refers to the earlier writer's claim) There may be a little more reasoning on this, but now...
I would love to hear, in detail, just how it is that you would not exactly call these different claims to know, historically inaccurate.
Pararousia, I must admit, you do come along with some good jokes and funny lines from time to time--I can appreciate the 'dark' in the humour as well.
I put that there for information; there are likely quite a few who do not know what the real man's name was, and so I transliterated it for them. Of course you know what it means to 'transliterate', right? And yeah, English is bad about that, huh? I mean we say 'France' for 'Frans', 'Go' for 'Goxh', 'Florence' for 'Florencia' and 'Jesus' for 'Y/Jeshua (Jeshua). . .terrible, isn't it. I couldn't understand how you got that title though. But anyway, you highlighted a good thing, the English language messes up a lot of original pronouns.
It is a very certain thing that these had been written with the intention to be relaying to the audience, what had been said. For that reason, we find the likes of the opening of Luke and the claim of truthfulness in the Gospel according to John's troupe, isn't it? You are correct in saying that the events are usually similar (in # 6 and #7 they are very much so) but the events alone are not quite as emphasized by Christian teachers as the words. And there is always this 'picking and choosing' thing (a preacher focusing on one account without given notice of its possibly not being true to the word, and the overlooking of the original reading--I mean the real reason for anyone to have written anything down in the first place. That only one or two of the writers of the Gospel of John had been a direct witness to most of the scenes contained in the narratives, is also often left out of the formula.
So when I use the term 'historical error' I am using it, I am firstly using it in the operative mode as highlighted in the second paragraph of my very first post on this thread--as a test of 'superintendence without error'--and then in acknowledgement of working premises #2 and 4. The basis is that if we consider none of the dialogs presented to be exact replicas of a true historical event (and saying something is a historial event) but rather just approximates, the conclusion would, I reason, have to be that there was not any single author for that information. If we were to consider one from among the three or four to be historically accurate--truthful--then those that varied would be inaccurate--untruthful. (Again, it is important to keep in mind that each individual document is exactly claiming that 'this happened; that this person said these words) In such a setting, it would be impossible to state which one reflected true history, and which one didn't, as well.
I can understand the point you are getting at; that simply the human inability to recall the exact details of what happened in every case, or just how somebody said something at a particular time, and to whom, is natural, yet that the general outline of events and actions usually agree. It just reasons out to me, that if we were to take this position, we would have to honestly admit at the same time, that we cannot know all the details so we cannot show that those that we do have are real--only the generalzations. This is not what Christiantiy at large has done. Christianity at large abides by the direct quotation understanding--the man preaching says that Jesus said these words, rather than this writer claims that Jesus had said these words, and it might be true in intent of communication, but not true in actual words spoken.
So, when I say that one scene has a count of historical error, I am saying that because somewhere among all the information there is a duality that the flow of time and nature do not allow. Even if we were to just take the claims, it would be so. If one writer's claim is against another's, one of the two claims cannot be true history, simply because that writer is claiming that it was like this, whereas the other is claiming it was like this (as opposed to that where that refers to the earlier writer's claim) There may be a little more reasoning on this, but now...
I would love to hear, in detail, just how it is that you would not exactly call these different claims to know, historically inaccurate.
Pararousia, I must admit, you do come along with some good jokes and funny lines from time to time--I can appreciate the 'dark' in the humour as well.
I put that there for information; there are likely quite a few who do not know what the real man's name was, and so I transliterated it for them. Of course you know what it means to 'transliterate', right? And yeah, English is bad about that, huh? I mean we say 'France' for 'Frans', 'Go' for 'Goxh', 'Florence' for 'Florencia' and 'Jesus' for 'Y/Jeshua (Jeshua). . .terrible, isn't it. I couldn't understand how you got that title though. But anyway, you highlighted a good thing, the English language messes up a lot of original pronouns.
