[[However, analysis of the textual evidence we have frm myriad sources over the centuries (though not the originals) shows many edits, transcription errors, alterations, contradictions, and just plain editorial choices]]
First off there are not many contradictions- not when the issues are examined in context taking into consideration history, culture, phrases of speech particular to the period etc-
Secondly, none of what you describe refutes and earlier writing of the gospel of the apostles- they are simply translation differences after the fact,
[[What was finally included and excluded evolved over a period of time and was finally set in cement by the Council of Nicea]]
What has this got to do with anything? Did what was excluded prove the writers of the 4 gospels wrote what they did after 70AD? If not, why even ring this up? Do later translations mean that the original works could not have been before 70 AD? Of course not- why bring it up? Why bring up copies to cast doubt on when the originals were written?
The only real point you’ve brought up in your argument goes something like:
‘Jesus spoke Aramaic, therefore John and the gospel writers could not have been eyewitnesses’- and then you just keep repeating that ‘highly credentialed scholars’ ‘have a myriad of information’ that refutes the idea that the gospel writers were eyewitnesses (Yet you fail to produce any of this ‘rock solid’ evidence)- You basically just ‘appeal to authority’ as though that’s enough to settle the matter
The only other point you make really is something along the lines of ‘The bible contains errors’ (apparently in an effort to suggest that none of it can be trusted, and insinuating that the gospels were just stories- and not actual eyewitness accounts)
[[I don’t come at it from a perspective of whether it’s theologically valid or not, nor do any scholars I know of.]]
Well sure you do- when In the face of evidence that refutes the claims you choose to accept the claims over the evidence, you come at it with a perspective that it can’t be theologically true- you are in denial if you think that you are being objective.
Every point that is brought up to show that the bible gospels were written after 70 AD has counter points showing why they can’t be true. John’s gospel talks of a pool outside the present Temple- using the word is and not was-
Do you have some other point you’re trying to make? If so I’ve missed it
[[you’re going to draw the conclusion that it’s sacred, completely valid, and 100 percent accurate. You can draw no other conclusion.]]
This isn’t true at all- IF there is evidence that proves otherwise- then it’s a no brainer that the bible is fallible and not trustworthy- Facts are facts, however, In regard to this issue, there is strong evidence the gospels were written before 70 AD contrary to the claims of the few who think otherwise
[[Some scholars have concluded that it’s unlikely he said a number of them.]]
Yep- and some scholars conclude that Jesus wasn’t the Son of God while other scholars do- so what’s your point?
[[And there are differing versions of many key quotes in the different books.]]
Yeah not so much- again, context is your friend
The destruction of the temple was predicted in Mark 13:2, Matthew 24:2, and Luke 21:6
“Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, ‘As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.’â€
But in order to prove the gospels were written after the fall of temple, scholars have to concoct a story that Jesus never said or predicted this event, and claiming that the apostles later claimed Jesus said these things- essentially lying about the event
So TBP when you say Scholars who doubt that the bible is accurate are objective, this is simply not true- when they have to invent a scenario to claim Jesus never said what he said in order to uphold their hypothesis, then clearly they are not objective and are creating facts to make the puzzle pieces of their hypothesis fit