From: barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible
Date: 17 Nov 92 20:13:52 GMT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1992Nov17.100707.5348@athena.mit.edu>, starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth) writes:

> 	Jeff has posted many articles on this subject, and promises to add  
> more tomorrow.

  "Many articles"?  No, just a couple.  There *have* been many
replies, though.  And a Pascal project I've got due tomorrow means
it'll be delayed probably until Thursday.

> It appears that he is attempting to construct the  
> following argument:
> 
> 	1) The current version of the Bible is at least as temporally  
> close to the original as other ancient works.
> 	2) These other works are accepted as truth.
> 	3) It would be hypocritical to treat the Bible differently, simply  
> because of lack of belief in its religious implications.

No, this hasn't been my argument at all.  My arguments are:

  1) The current version of the Bible is temporally closer to the
autograph as other ancient works.
  2) They are regarded as accurate copies of the autograph.
  3) It would be hypocritical to treat the Bible differently, simply  
because it has religious implications.
  4) Since we do have an accurate copy of the original, let's then put
it on trial to determine whether or not it is the Word of God.

> He has so far not  
> included, if I remember correctly, quotations that would help establish  
> the existence of particular events, and has instead relied on nearly a  
> dozen rhetorical points all stemming from the ill-founded idea that the  
> Bible is somehow a human being, and therefore can 'testify on [its] own  
> behalf'.

The first step in determining whether or not it is the Word of God is
determining whether it claims to be.  If it makes no claims, that fact
will reflect poorly upon whether or not it is (would any kind of God
inspire men to write it then forget to say it was from Him?).  If it
claims not to be, to be merely the teachings of men and not divinely
inspired (Book of Mormon), you can forget it.
 
> 	Unfortunately, this is not all.  It seems as if Jeff files his  
> tongue before nearly every posting, as if this might somehow improve his  
> argument and, presumably, indicate what a 'Real Christian' would act like.

    <examples of my sarcasm deleted>
 
> 	I fear decending too far into ad-hominem, so I will stop at this  
> point, but one surely must wonder about the amount of understanding Jeff  
> has of Christianity, if this is the manner in which he responds to  
> critics.

  Christ called the Pharisees "hypocrites", "vipers", tombs containing
the bones of dead men.  He accused them of "straining a gnat and
swallowing a camel".  Don't confuse Christianity with politically
correctness.   
 
> 	Hopefully, Jeff will also address Burden of Proof, as he  
> apparently has forgotten who is making the general assertion here:

>> > any comptent historian knows that much of the bible's "history" is
>> > suspect - certainly events from the hebrew testament and events from
>> > the greek testament have not been considered "historically" accurate
>> > for some time.

>> Please, do provide specifics and sources.  We can't very well just
>> take your word on it.

> 	Actually, it is the other way around: one MUST suspect events as  
> being inaccurate, if one is to be honest.  While this PARTICULAR claim,  
> that of 'any competent historian' may well require support, the sentiment  
> behind it does not: the person suggesting that the Bible is historically  
> accurate is the one required to provide validation, and should at least  
> attempt to discover what possible arguments might be used against such an  
> assertion!

I asked for specific examples so that I might answer his charges.  Him
making such a claim and not needing any proof for it to be true would
be as stupid as me saying, "Any competent historian knows the Bible to
be totally proven by archaeology" and not require proof to back it up.
Would you have me go through verse by verse through the Bible and
write a paragraph on each verse?
   
> 	Surely, if his assertions of 20,000 pieces and 5,000 full copies  
> are correct, then it should be simple for him to come up with many  
> specific examples that can be verified by looking to secular  
> authentication.

I listed my sources for the 20,000+.  Not I said *total* pieces, not
just Greek, though.

-Jeff