Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mcnc.mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!mcnc!bch
From: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ... talk to God ... (Really apologetics)
Message-ID: <422@mcnc.mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 23:57:47 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.422
Posted: Wed Mar 20 23:57:47 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Mar-85 01:15:58 EST
References: <119@gymble.UUCP>
Reply-To: bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes)
Distribution: na
Organization: North Carolina Educational Computing Service
Lines: 55
Xref: pepe net.religion:1302 net.religion.christian:533
Summary: 

In article <119@gymble.UUCP> bennet@gymble.UUCP (Tom Bennet) writes:
>
>In the case of the first four arguments, that the Bible is true needs to be
>established only to the extent that the Gospels are reliable as historical
>documents.  This can be done in the same manner as with any ancient
>document, through textual criticism, archaeology, etc.  This sort of work is
>discussed at length in Josh McDowell's book _Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_
>(which has certainly been mentioned in this newsgroup before).  His argument
>is basically that the accuracy of the NT historical books (Gospels and Acts)
>are much better established in terms of the number of manuscripts, the age
>of the manuscripts, independent confirmation (Josephus' history for instance),
>than many classical works of similar age, such a Caesar's writings, so
>that to throw out the NT as historical work means to throw out most of
>classical western history.  The book is guaranteed to put you to sleep, but 
>that's because it's so careful.
 
There's a fallacy of argumentation here that has been discussed in this
newsgroup before, but perhaps needs reiterating for the new folks.  That
there are many copies of the New Testament is not in dispute (there are
some significant variations but that's another issue.)  Similar copies,
however, do not prove accuracy but rather reliability.  That is the copies
attest to the fact that the NT said what we think it said, not to the
accuracy of what it said.  To show the fallacy in a more trivial light:
There are probably more copies of "Alice In Wonderland" than there are
early NT documents.  Should future historians believe Alice in Wonderland
is true?

Despite Josephus Histories which are based on Biblical lore we don't have
independant confirmation of any but the barest facts.  (Josephus History
confirms the Biblical Story in the same way that Bullfinch's Mythology
confirms the Greek and Roman legends.)  If anything, extra-Biblical
writings confound some of the finer theological points of the Bible --
which is often the reason they were not included in the Bible.

>The point is that the truth of the Bible (in this context, anyway) is 
>_at_least_ debatable, and may not be simply dismissed.  Arguments 1-4
>then become quite formidable.
 
It is certainly debateable, but Josh MacDowell is a shaky foundation for
such a debate.

>The argument from creation, classically, is a lot more than disputing about
>fossils and dating with radio-isotopes.  (I think Christians waste a lot
>of time on this.)  The real issue deals with harder questions such as
>"Why are there physical laws?" and "If matter has existed for eternity,
>why hasn't everything run down yet?"
 
Cosmologists have spend a great deal of time on precisely this question,
without need for postulating sentient entities.  There are many perfectly
good theories running around that are far more parsimonious that those
of the creationists.
-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch