Deathscyth Hell

Read it, it has some good points.

But many of the points are easily refutable (I learned this the hard way)

It is a good way to start getting a feel for apologetics, but I wouldn't recommend running around debating atheists and agnostics with the bible in one hand and this book in the other. You will get cremed (unless the person you are debating is dumber than you are, then you might manage to pull out on top if he doesn't know very much.)

That is not to say that McDowell doesn't raise some valid questions, he does. He just doesn't answer them very well, or, in many cases, completely.

He does make one very good point though (I think he was the one who made it.) The time between when Jesus lived and died, and when the Gospels were actually written is much less than many other books out of history. Yet the NT Gospels are under much stricter scepticism than any other book out of that time period.

I think that if we judged every other book out of history by the same standards as we judge the bible, then we would know so little about history that it would be frightening.

Ah well, at least I know the bible is true

lds

deathscythe, you should study up on the book of mormon some more, I know it is true. I know thousands, nay, millions who know it is true. Please read this book.

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by lds:
<STRONG>deathscythe, you should study up on the book of mormon some more, I know it is true. I know thousands, nay, millions who know it is true. Please read this book.</STRONG>

After that, read the Holy Qu'ran, because there are thousands, nay, millions who know it is true. Then study up on the Bhagavad Gita, because there are thousands, nay, millions who know it is true, and if you still have some spare time, you should look at Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, because there are thousands... you get the picture.

Edited to add : lds says he knows these millions of people. lds is either a liar or a lunatic, take your pick.

[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: QueenofSwords ]

Vorkosigan

He does make one very good point though (I think he was the one who made it.) The time between when Jesus lived and died, and when the Gospels were actually written is much less than many other books out of history. Yet the NT Gospels are under much stricter scepticism than any other book out of that time period.

I think that if we judged every other book out of history by the same standards as we judge the bible, then we would know so little about history that it would be frightening.


I think that if we took every fairy tale at face value, we would know so little about history that it would be frightening.

Actually, if we judged it by the same standards we use for other books of the period, there would be no discussion of the resurrection as anything other than an invention of the authors, and everyone would recognize the stories of the Birth, ascension and so on for the fairy tales they are. So the NT actually gets some slack. Do you think scholars of Chinese records actually sit around arguing over whether the Prince of Huai-nan really ascended bodily into heaven with all his retinue, and his livestock as well? ROTFLMAO.

Lots and lots of works around that time are much closer to their subject's lives than the NT, which was written 40-100 years later than the alleged events it describes.

I suggest you look into the rich and diverse material from China, for example, or the story of Agricola, written by his son, Tacitus, or the stories by Xenophon of his life, or Caesar of his campaigns, or....

...but there are too many to list. One thing you should realize is that with McDowell, it's nearly always either a lie or an error.

Michael

Pantera

Or... maybe he's God!

Family Man

Or maybe he was making a sarcastic point.

Pantera

Unfortunately, judging from his posts elsewhere on the board, I'd say he's pretty serious.

Deathscyth Hell

Could you give me some examples of books around that time that were written within 40-100 years after the events happened? Books that have, of course been proven false.

Vorkosigan

Certainly.

Let's see. There are the official court histories that credit a certain official named Cai with the invention of paper, written by men who knew Cai and were at court with him. Those date from late 1st century-- early second, but we know from earlier references to paper, and actual archaeological discoveries, that paper predates Cai by 250 years or so.

Is one enough, or do you want more? Are you counting "natural histories" that record "facts" we know are not true?

In any case, your question begs the point of whether and which of the fifty or so gospels should be regarded as "history" in some sense. There are lots of novels from the period, you know, known to be fiction. Why should I regard the gospels any differently?

And if you take the gospels to be truthful witnesses to their miracles, how do you handle the numerous miracle stories from other cultures? On what grounds do you dismiss them?

Michael

Isabeau

I doubt very much that any book could ever really prove that the Bible is completely credible - that's where 'faith' steps in to fill in 'gaps' in human history AND of course, that's when you start getting weird hypotheses of the way things are and should be.

Maybe you could just borrow it from the local library instead - at least you won't have to pay for it.