From: starpath@bard.MIT.EDU (David E. Hollingsworth)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible
Reply-To: starpath@bard.mit.edu
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:07:07 GMT

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

	This all sounds very Josh-McDowellish to me, and can be refuted in  
various different manners, some of which have been addressed by those  
responding to his posts.  Hopefully, Jeff will not simply ignore them in  
his promised post tomorrow.  One facit of his argument that I do not  
understand is that it seems to me to be self-undermining: one simply does  
not trust ancient works to tell the truth in the absence of evidence.
	I would not be at all surprised if there never actually existed a  
woman in Troy named Helen over which a war was fought--a potential fact  
which not only is not religious but is not remotely supernatural at all.   
Moreover, even *IF* I were satisfied that this fact was true, it would not  
convince me that Goddesses caused the problem, or even that an apple was  
involved.
	Moreover, the reason that I would hold Homer suspect is because of  
the descriptions of unlikely events, so if I am to treat the Bible with  
the same academic honesty, I must seriously question the validity of the  
reports held within.  This is not to say that the reports cannot be  
validated, but that it would be dishonest not to try.

	Jeff's argument thus far seems to be that you don't need to try,  
because the book you have in your hands now was taken from pieces copied  
at most 400 years after the original was written.  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'.
	This nonsensical notion not only is disturbing because it implies  
that Jeff somehow feels that the Bible can withstand the Turing Test, but  
as well that he is not satisfied with its role as an inspired work: he  
wants all to deal with it as if it were literally the Living Word.


	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.
	For example:  (Single insets are Jeff, doubles are others.)
> > Note: sometimes I like to deconstruct posts like the following
> > as an intellectual exercise. . .
> 
> And sometimes I like to poke holes in pseudo-intellectual exercises...
..
> > My word!  Look what can happen when one isn't thinking!
>
> Oh, if your post was the result of you not thinking, please forgive
> me for replying.
..
> > Pretty impressive.  At least three major errors in only two
> > sentences.  ;)
>
> "Sez you," to quote a truly staggering Bible critic. :+)
[referring to a statement made by one of Jeff's critics]
..
> > The history of A world, not THE world.  And please spare us your
> > cultural arrogance as regards the importance of Jesus.
>
> Please spare me your scholar-wannabe snobbishness, then.
..
> > (.... oh please, don't let this be a joke ...)
>
> My post wasn't.  Your reply... well...

	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.


	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 fear that Jeff's next step will be to transform statements about  
the close temporal proximity of the current versions to the originals  
('reliable' in a certain sense) to statements about the truth-values of  
the assertions within the Bible.  ('Reliable' in another sense.)  I do not  
wish to call Jeff's character into question on this point, but merely  
relay to him my concern of his accidental use of the nuances of the  
English language, rather than rigorous argumentation.
 

	Perhaps Jeff's post tomorrow will contain additional sources and  
give information in the following manner:

	The University of Blah has a full copy of the New Testament in  
Greek that appears to date (based on linguistic studies) back to 303 AD.   
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 1998, pg 1132)
	A copy of the Torah that carbon-dates to 88 BC was discovered in  
1928 by Marshal Cook when searching for frogs; it is currently being  
studied by ___ ____ in Jerusalem.  (A reference hopefully not by someone  
that one could possibly suspect might have something to do with Mr. Cook  
or Mr. ____.)

	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.

--
David Hollingsworth starpath@bard.mit.edu Send me NeXTMail or kill me
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Stockdale: O.K., I thought this was just an open session, this five-
minute thing, and I didn't have anything to add to his, but I will--
Gore: Well, I'll jump in if--if you don't want it.
Quayle: I thought anyone could jump in whenever they wanted to.
Moderator: O.K., whatever pleases you gentlemen is fine with me,
you're the candidates.
Quayle: But I want Admiral Stockdale's time!