Posted: Wed Oct 25, 2006 6:05 am
And how do you defend that my opinion would need extra arguments? Pah!
To humour you, I have a few links, though I feel thoroughly underestimated.
(It's a male thing.)
Dim Bulb Accessories: A Memo to a Wacko in Waco
Oral Arguments: On the Reliability of Oral Tradition
And from Debating the Impossible Faith:
To humour you, I have a few links, though I feel thoroughly underestimated.
(It's a male thing.)
Dim Bulb Accessories: A Memo to a Wacko in Waco
Oral Arguments: On the Reliability of Oral Tradition
And from Debating the Impossible Faith:
JP Holding wrote:As a side matter of interest I am reading now Samuel Byrskog's Story as History, History as Story which argues that ancient historical writers had a notable preference for reporting detailed accounts only if they were backed by eyewitnesses, and this suggests an extra level of care in reportage. In any event Kyle, though expressing the expected skepticism of some events :brow:, first allows that the disciples would be called out, but that:
…after a couple of decades, memories can get fuzzy. And memory is a malleable agent, prone to suggestion to start with. Those inclined to believe might actually start "remembering" the earthquake and the darkness
Here I have to disagree strongly. One point Kyle may not be aware of (which is also confirmed by Byrskog) is that ancient memories did NOT tend to fuzziness at all. Keeping in mind that the population was 90-95% illiterate, a trained memory was something these people needed to make their way in life. As for malleability, I would ask: Isn't this a problem when someone is inclined favorably to believe? And isn't that the opposite of what was happening for Christianity, as the entire premise of TIF has been? Kyle's last idea may be his best option — the evangelists tied in actual events with their own illicitly. (To answer his question, quakes are known to occur in Judaea.)
