Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion,net.religion.christian
Subject: Re: ... talk to God ... (Really apologetics)
Message-ID: <422@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 22:40:29 EST
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.422
Posted: Wed Mar 20 22:40:29 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Mar-85 01:43:17 EST
References: <119@gymble.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: na
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 48
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 is no denying that the Bible is historical.  The question is how much
of its history is true.  I don't care how laboriously McDowell details
confirmations of common knowledge of the time, like where cities were or who
was emperor.  He provides ZERO valid evidence of the extraordinary claims
of miracles.  In a similar manner, I could "prove" to you that "Gone With
The Wind" is a "true" historical text, and that Scarlet and Rhett existed.

> 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.

Some claims in the bible should be given a great deal of credence.  Others,
such as miracles, we have no reason to believe in, because they are
unsupported.  Thus your arguments 1-4 remain unimpressive.

> 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?"

If an argument is purported to explain a great many things, it may be
attacked for ANY where reality contradicts it.  Evolution is a major
contradiction of literal interpretations of genesis.  So is most of modern
day astronomy.

An simple analogy would be a snake oil gaurenteed to cure cancer and
cleanse your soul.  When you take the snake oil, and your cancer kills
you, the relatives go to the salesman.  "It didn't cure him", they yell.
Should they believe his claim that your soul was cleansed?
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh