Quote:
Originally Posted by zeek
Yes well as Einstein said everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler.
|
Einstein also said, in his God Letter :
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.”
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zeek
What about the possibility that Luke knew more than he was saying in some places and less than he was saying in others?
|
Of course ... way more ... and way less.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by zeek
I've shown evidence that the purpose of the book known as The Acts of the Apostles is not to recount the stories of the Apostles. Nor is it to tell us how the churches were founded.
Whatever Luke's purpose was, if the facts didn't support his thesis he may have suppressed them. A critical reader should be alert for evidence in the text of that possibility.
The narrator recounts the stories from the omniscient point of view. The author may also make assertions that go beyond knowledge or even the possibility of knowledge.
In any case, it seems to me, before we apply Occam's razor, we need to ascertain what the author's purpose is in this book. Do we not?
|
We may have to hold that razor til the cows come home. We might never arrive at such knowledge as Lukes' (or whoevers') purpose.