tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11995604.post114992085580762000..comments2023-04-30T17:12:27.488+08:00Comments on Bad News on the Doorstep: The Great Da Vinci Code Tragedy.Sleepless in Singaporehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13927516918590494932noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11995604.post-1152930678091162982006-07-15T10:31:00.000+08:002006-07-15T10:31:00.000+08:00Dear Anonymous. Thank you for your comments.“Pre-c...Dear Anonymous. Thank you for your comments.<BR/><BR/>“Pre-conditioning” – I think not fair of you to presume that. Yes I am a bit of a simpleton. I believe there is an almighty God who wants to reveal Himself to us through His word. So surely, He is able to put together one that is reliable and inerrant even if He chooses to use unregenerate men to play a part in it. And surely, He is able to preserve it despite attempts by kings and popes and philosophers etc to destroy it. Which makes it different from your man-made dictionary and encyclopaedia. I doubt very much the Oxford or Britannica can survive 1 or maybe 2 centuries. The Bible has been around for millennia.<BR/><BR/>In fact, I was not born into a Christian family. I was once an unbeliever and a sceptic. But, gradually, over the past 20 years, as I studied the bible and marvel at its accuracy and reliability and consistency, I became convinced.<BR/><BR/>As for the canonicity, meaning which books are included and which are left out, there are many books written by learned and talented scholars - and certainly no simpletons - to defend it. So no need for me to go into that. And one of those scholars, H. L. Willmington wrote on pg 803 of his Guide to the Bible, that Luke was written in AD59, Matthew and Mark in AD63, and John in AD 90-95. But you say, they are written more than 100 years after Christ. Sorry, I think I have more faith in himSleepless in Singaporehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13927516918590494932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11995604.post-1152874927927879752006-07-14T19:02:00.000+08:002006-07-14T19:02:00.000+08:00Your argument about the bible being the true word ...Your argument about the bible being the true word of god and dismissing the non-canonical Gospels (one of which being Gospel according to Judas), is cyclical and therefore holds no water.<BR/><BR/>The 2 citations you drew do not explicitly state so but come across as simply xenophobic: ruling out other gospels with the usual divine punishments.<BR/><BR/>It's like someone compiling a story book and then deciding to add a final passage or testimony that this is a real story.<BR/><BR/>Without a cross-reference, it's hard to buy your argument.<BR/><BR/>Besides, did you know that most of the Canonical Gospels have been written 100+ years after Christ? And that the bible went through a compilation process approved by a Gentile, who subsequently became a x'tian at his deathbed.<BR/><BR/>This is not a Britannica or an Oxford that has gone through rigorous validation. It is, if you can put away your pre-conditioning, just a compilation of gospels written 100+ years after Christ.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com