(May 17, 2015 at 7:45 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: abaris-

Have you EVER read the NT? Or a good book on Christian theology? Cause you're awfully ignorant of the facts.

Thanks, Randy, I'm aware of what the bible says about the proceedings. It's only, they are story, not history.

(May 17, 2015 at 10:04 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:You've yet to demonstrate that the buy-bull is historically accurate

For that matter he is yet to even cite a piece of historical information in the buy-bull which could be evaluated for historicity.  

Some parts of the Bible actually do have historical connections to real people, such as the Persians Darius, Cyrus, Xerxes, Artaxaxes.  The Greek Diadochi, who were Alexander the Great's generals, carved up his empire after his death and played a major role in the area and they get some bad reviews in the Bible.  The Selecuid emperors get star billing in some of the Bible stories.  

In fact, Antiochus IV Epihanes in the villian in the Maccabees books and the "anti-christ" in Daniel chapter 11.  He was indeed a nasty character and considered himself to be God.   The rant in Zephaniah is something he might have said.  

The problem with a lot of the stories is that they mix a lot of the characters up and it causes a pile of confusion.  For example, the book of Daniel was supposedly written between 605-516 BC.  Yet we are supposed to believe that he prophesized about Antiochus some 400 years into the future.  That's silly.  The writer simply added that part later on to give the "Daniel" character a star rating for non-existent prophesying ability.   

In all probability the stories are nothing more but biased accounts of life under a series of nuts who considered themselves to be gods like Antiochus claimed to have been.  So is it a Greek or a Jewish or a Persian or an Engyptian fairy tale or a mixture of all of them?  

One thing is for sure:  There's no invisible or visible God of any kind as depicted in various religous fairy tales in this solar system.

@all, fun rant, don't freak out

One thing that amazes me is that people are impressed when the bible gets something right. Wow, someone knew the name of a town that they lived in! Someone knew that Egyptians existed! Someone knew that cutting your head off kills you!

If this is supposed to be divinely inspired, I would expect nothing less than absolute truth throughout. Hitting the odd target now and again like a drunk staggering around in boxing training really isn't impressive. Not even for a normal book that's supposed to be about history, let alone one written with the help of a god.

Yeah, anyone can get stuff right sometimes. Especially stuff you'd expect them to know anyway.

(May 17, 2015 at 9:12 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(May 17, 2015 at 8:49 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: because we're not approaching the Bible  as an inspired text at that point but merely as an historically accurate book.

It's called a spiral argument. 

You've yet to demonstrate that the buy-bull is historically accurate and in fact, your argument has been that the buy-bulls of today are faithful reproductions of the originals (and you haven't even managed to make a good argument for that), not that the originals were anything more than the "Harry Potter" books of the era. You'll have an incredibly tough time selling that collection of faery stories as anything remotely approaching an accurate historical text.

You're right. 

The objectively verifiable accuracy material is yet to come. Surely you can understand why I had to put a few things in place before proceeding.

Thus far, I have posted only three points out of 10 or so that I plan to present. The "why were the gospels written" question addresses directly whether the authors intended to write reliable history or not. This is significant because some skeptics argue that the early Christians were engaged in some sort of conspiracy. If so, it was a conspiracy that was never exposed even when martyrdom was the reward for their silence.

The cumulative effect of the evidence will suggest that the NT is historically reliable and that acceptance of the supernatural claims contained within those historically reliable books is justified.

Now, if you think that my argument in the OP is deficient in any way, by all means, copy it into a new post of your own and present your refutation/argument line by line. We shouldn't proceed any further until you can agree that the text is a faithful reproduction...otherwise, we'll get to some critical point, and you'll use the corrupted text argument as your get out of jail free card.

The historical reliability of the Bible should be tested by the same criteria by which all historical documents are tested. C. Sanders, in Introduction to Research in English Literary History, lists the three basic principles of historiography: 

the bibliographical test, 
the internal evidence test, and 
the external reference test.

 
Bibliographical Test
 
The Bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copies?

As you can see from the OP, the NT manuscripts clearly meet the standard of the Bibliographical Test.

Let's move on to the internal evidence test next and then follow with the external evidence test. 

I have a bit of typing to do to prepare the post, so bear with me. This might take a day or so to complete.

---

(May 17, 2015 at 9:20 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 17, 2015 at 6:54 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In post #131, I simply mentioned that Craig had written an extensive article in response to Hume in the event that robvalue wanted to hear an alternative perspective on the supernatural and on Hume specifically.

I have not used Craig to establish the reliability of the NT.

Therefore, what you think of WLC is irrelevant to this thread.

'Nuff said.

So essentially you just wanted to do some cowardly grandstanding, claiming that nobody could defeat WLC's intellectually dishonest presuppositionalist buffoonery, and then flee the moment anybody actually took you up on that challenge.

Can you please cite the post # in which I made the claim which you assert that I made?

---

(May 17, 2015 at 11:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(May 17, 2015 at 8:49 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: because we're not approaching the Bible  as an inspired text at that point but merely as an historically accurate book.

It's called a spiral argument. 

I don't know, I think that you probably could have stated it better, because that was pretty rough, amigo.  Now, it just seems as though you're deflecting...?  So, let me get this straight, the reason that you know the bible is true..then, is not the reason that you gave before?  When you said:

Quote:The Bible is truth because it is inspired

?

Is there, now, a different reason that you accept that "the bible is truth"?  Care to share?  -and, if you please..this time...start with your actual reasons..so we can avoid all of this in the future?

Rhythm-

Not in this thread...I would be happy to defend the Spiral Argument at another time, but the mob at the gates is demanding more on the OP and I don't like the look of those pitchforks they're carrying. 

(May 18, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: the mob at the gates is demanding more on the OP and I don't like the look of those pitchforks they're carrying. 

Seriously? Who has done anything to you aside from try to point out flaws in your arguments or try to educate you on what skepticism really is, distinguishing it from the apologetic straw constructions you find in apologetic texts? 

This conversation continues at your pleasure. As you present evidence for us to consider, I think it a fair guess that everyone here will consider it. Your frustration, I'll wager, comes at not running into the straw skepticism of Lee Strobel and his ilk. If your visit here has done nothing else, perhaps it has at least helped you see that the reason we don't believe is not because we've filled in the blanks differently but because we apply the same skepticism you do to all claims. 

There is no proof. There are no pitchforks, either. Don't take it personally.

(May 18, 2015 at 11:03 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(May 18, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: the mob at the gates is demanding more on the OP and I don't like the look of those pitchforks they're carrying. 

Seriously? Who has done anything to you aside from try to point out flaws in your arguments or try to educate you on what skepticism really is, distinguishing it from the apologetic straw constructions you find in apologetic texts? 

This conversation continues at your pleasure. As you present evidence for us to consider, I think it a fair guess that everyone here will consider it. Your frustration, I'll wager, comes at not running into the straw skepticism of Lee Strobel and his ilk. If your visit here has done nothing else, perhaps it has at least helped you see that the reason we don't believe is not because we've filled in the blanks differently but because we apply the same skepticism you do to all claims. 

There is no proof. There are no pitchforks, either. Don't take it personally.

C'mon...I was kidding. Sheesh. And don't worry...I'm getting exactly what I came here for. 

As for authors, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, J. Warner Wallace...all good authors of good books.

They're Protestants, of course, but you have to take the good with the bad...like Willilam Lane Craig, for instance. Sharp guy. Tough debater. Knows his stuff.

Gee, I hope I didn't just lose more credibility. 

(May 18, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: As you can see from the OP, the NT manuscripts clearly meet the standard of the Bibliographical Test.

The OP merely asserts that the buy-bull meets the standard. It "clearly shows" nothing.

(May 18, 2015 at 11:20 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: C'mon...I was kidding. Sheesh. And don't worry...I'm getting exactly what I came here for. 

As for authors, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, J. Warner Wallace...all good authors of good books.

They're Protestants, of course, but you have to take the good with the bad...like Willilam Lane Craig, for instance. Sharp guy. Tough debater. Knows his stuff.

Gee, I hope I didn't just lose more credibility. 

Voice inflection is lost in this communication medium. I'm glad to hear you aren't taking this personally. I think we're a friendly bunch. 

Protestants, Catholics, Orthodox, Episcopalians, Mormons, Muslims. I can only tell you guys apart from your costumes, which usually aren't printed on the book covers.

(May 18, 2015 at 9:37 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Can you please cite the post # in which I made the claim which you assert that I made?

Here you go:

Quote: I probably will. Primarily because while you do not like his presuppositions, you have not formally defeated his arguments. And if I asked to be "honest", I don't think that you can.

Post number 178, in regards to whether or not you'll drop WLC as a reference now that he's been shown to be presupposing his conclusions as a matter of course. You say you'll continue to use him as a source because we haven't proved him wrong, and you don't think we can. It's a little bit of grandstanding that, when I later told you to present those claims so as to put your petty chest beating to the test, you waved it off as irrelevant and refused to do so.

So it was all well and good when you got to massage your ego, but the moment falsifiability was brought into the mix you cut and run; evidently the ego thing was more important than the veracity of the claims... really good look, with regard to the sources you chose.

Quote:In fact, Antiochus IV Epihanes in the villian in the Maccabees books and the "anti-christ" in Daniel chapter 11.  He was indeed a nasty character and considered himself to be God.   The rant in Zephaniah is something he might have said. 

An excellent point in that it allows us to date "Daniel" to 167 BC.  Everything prior to 167 happened and everything afterwards did not.  Surest way to spot a fuck up.