From: barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible (Long, but filled with information)
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:17:06 GMT
Organization: Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY

In article <1992Nov12.033336.13056@athena.mit.edu>, lking@athena.mit.edu (Loren King) writes:

> 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.

> I hope this isn't a joke-post, or what follows will make me look pretty
> gullible.  Oh well, here goes ...

 Gullible?  No.  Misinformed?  yes.
  
> In article <1992Nov11.131233.3887@wkuvx1.bitnet>, barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
 
 
> |> 2) The unity of the Bible - A unity of facts, purpose, and teaching.  Its
> |>     theme is that of the salvation from sin.  It begins with the creation,
> |>     sin marring it, and God conceiving a great plan to redeem man from his
> |>     sins, and goes from there.
 
> You'll recall a certain medieval conference which ensured this "unity"!

And modern documentary examination bears out the canon of the Bible. 
And the Apocrypha is *not* part of the Bible.  And you don't dispute
the unity of theme.  No conference ever has rewritten the Bible.  We
*do* have a reliable copy of the Bible, as I said in the part of my
post you neither disputed nor recopied.
 
> |> 3) The great moral teachings of the Bible - No other book has ever
> |>     condemned immorality so severely or demanded as high a standard of
> |>     righteousness.  It is virtually unique among religious documents.
 
> Rubbish.  Read the Tao-teh Ching, the Bhagad'vita (sp?) ... and who's
> standard of moral righteousness?  You'll notice that one conspicuous
> question that Christ failed to answer was Pilate's:  "what is truth?"

"Turn the other cheek".  "Love your enemy".  "Do unto others...".  I
reassert, the Bible has no match, especially among religions at its
time.
  And do you think the answer would have mattered to Pilate?  Seems
more like he asked that question more to convince himself Christ
couldn't be right.  

> |> 4) Its Unparallelled Impartiality - "Human books extol the virtues and
> |>     suppress the vices of their heroes.  Not so with the Bible.  It makes
> |>     no attempt to conceal, minimize, or apologize for the weaknesses,
> |>     mistakes, and wrongdoings of even its greatest characters.  It tells of
> |>     the sins of friend and foe alike." (Jimmy Thomas - I could think of no
> |>     better way to phrase it in my own words).
 
> RUBBISH!!  Where are women in the bible?  Where is their dignity and freedom?
> Their interests, their intelligence?

Ever read about Deborah?  Esther?  Ruth and Naomi?  Mary, the mother
of Jesus?  Mary Magdalene?  Priscilla?  
  The Bible sets women in subjection to men.  It does not say women
are inferior to men.  It also tells husbands and wives to be in
subjection to one another.  It tells husbands to love their wives.  I
do not apologize for the Bible in any of this.

>  How about non-European cultures and beliefs?

What does this have to do with its impartiality in depicting its
characters, in showing the faults of men such as David, Demas, Peter,
etc.?

> Face it, the bible is a series of scripts written and extolled by M-E-N.

No.  Prove it.
 
> |> 5) The Brevity of the Bible - So much, virtually a history of the world, is
> |>     packed into so few pages.  It tells the 33-year life of the most
> |>     important man ever to walk the earth in four short books.

> 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.  And since
when has there been more than one earth?
 
> |> 6) The Life of Jesus - That Jesus existed is virtually indisputable.  The
> |>     testimony of those closest to him indicated His sinless perfection.
> |>     Such a perfect person could never have been so perfectly created by any
> |>     man.

I see you do not challenge this.
 
> |> 7) The Fulfillment of Prophecy - Modern self-proclaimed "prophets" usually
> |>     get about 10-20% right; the Bible's all come true in exactly the way
> |>     predicted.  The odds of Jesus fulfilling (whether accidentally and/or
> |>     by design) the prophecies applying to Him are beyond calculation.
 
> Well the virtue of ambiguous, translated texts is that you can read
> pretty much anything into them ... just look at Hegel!

Ambiguous?  He would be born in Bethlehem, to a virgin?  He would die
on a cross?  Don't seem ambiguous to me.
  
> |> 8) The Bible's Scientific Foreknowledge - One of the areas I personally
> |>     find fascinating.  Being pre-scientific, it should attribute the
> |>     workings of nature to colorful myths and be woefully inaccurate - if it
> |>     was written by man. In the 19th century, Herbert Spencer first
> |>     announced the 5 fundamental facts of science; yet the Bible covered all
> |>     5 in the first 2 verses: "In the beginning [time - jdb] God created the
> |>     heavens [space] and the earth [matter].  And the spirit of God moved 
> |>     [force] upon the face of the waters [motion]."
> |>       The Bible said the earth was round (Is 40:22, Prov 8:27, Lk
> |>     17:34-36).  Not too long ago, great minds were convinced the earth was
> |>     held up by Atlas or something like him; read Job 26:7 to hear what the
> |>     Bible claimed.  Moses knew about a plurality of seas, all with one 
> |>     common bed (Gen 1:9-10).  Solomon knew about the rain/evaporation cycle
> |>     (Eccl 1:7), as did Amos and Job (Amos 9:6; Job 36:27-28).  After read-
> |>     ing Psalm 8:8, Matthew F. Henry charted the sea currents which are still
> |>     recognized today.  Until recently, doctors had no idea how that blood
> |>     contained, in essence, the life of man, but the Bible did (Lev 17:11,
> |>     14).  Scientists cannot distinguish between the blood of races of 
> |>     people, just like God said in Acts 17:26.
 
> Rubbish.  see above, on ambiguity and seeing what one wants to see.

Rubbish.  See above, closing one's eyes to what the Bible says.
  
> |> 9) The Bible's Undeniable Influence for Good - When taken in its purity
> |>     (I do not consider the adulterated version pushed by denominations
> |>     to be pure), it has done nothing but good.
>                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Oh yes, the conquest and butchering of indigenous peoples around the world,
> all in the name of the good book ... this is really, undeniably good.

See my other response to another person for my reply to this.  Note I
said "when taken in its purity".

> The 
> sexist practice of keeping women in the home is really, undeniably good.

The Bible gives different roles to men and women.  Not putting one
under another's feet.

> [personal attack on my character and intelligence deleted]
 
> |>   These are the main reasons.  Next letter I'll examine creationism vs.
> |> evolutionism

> Oh good.  Hey, here's a challenge: post this "examination" on talk.origins,
> and see how you do  (nothin like challenging real scientists on their own
> turf).

Might do that, if my server gets talk.origins.  
  
> (.... oh please, don't let this be a joke ...)

My post wasn't.  Your reply... well...

-Jeff