From: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Subject: Re: I'm God.
Reply-To: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:29:27 GMT


In article <69165@hydra.gatech.EDU> rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts) writes:
>Summary of Dr. D. James Kennedy's book "Why I Believe"
>
>[1]Why I Believe the Bible:
>The Bible gives many predictive prophecies.  It tells us of 
>a coming Prophet into whom's mouth God will put his words.  
>It tells not to fear anyone who gives a prophesy that is 
>false.  The Bible even quotes God as saying that there is 
>none like God, himself, declaring the end from the 
>beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not 
>yet done.
>
>Dr. Kennedy says that Budda, Confucius, and Lao-tse's 
>writings DO NOT contain predictive prophesy.  The Koran has 
>one prophesy by Muhammed that says he will return to Mecca.  

I don't think they consider prophecy necessary for religion.
Is it?

>However, the Bible contains prophesies that are 
>substantially in a league of there own - it predicts the 
>death and return from that death for Jesus the Christ.

Written after the fact probably by people who did not witness
the event.

>The Old Testament contains some 2,000 predictive prophecies 
> ... [Richard discusses of the destruction of Tyre, 
> Sidon, Samaria, and Jerusalem]

As I understand it, most of the Old Testament was compiled during the
Babylonian exile.  That is after all of these events happened.  We
suspect that these men were not against editing and adding to the
scriptures.  It is easy to be a prophet after the fact.

Jesus later predicted the (re)destruction of Jerusalem in Matthew.  But
Matthew is based on the earlier Mark which makes no mention of this
prophecy.  Scholars place the writing of Matthew after 70AD.  Again,
it's easy to be a prophet after the fact.

>[2] The Stones Cry Out
>And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if 
>these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately 
>cry out.  Luke 19:40.
>
>[Examples of Biblical critics proven wrong by Archaeology]

Disproving a detractor does not mean you've provided any proof
for your case.

>The Hittites were another favorite muse of the critics, for 
>surely they did not exist, as they were mentioned only in 
>the Bible and only in eight different chapters.  Dr. Hugo 
>Winckler has now discovered forty Hittite cities.  The 
>kingdom was so large that Egypt and Babylonia were like 
>tribes to the Hittites. [R.A. Torrey]

The Hittites existed, but the Bible places them in the wrong time (too
early) and wrong place.  But it is unwise to point to a people
mentioned in the Bible who we have no current knowledge of and say that
our lack of information is evidence that the Bible is wrong!  Any
historian will admit that our knowledge of those periods of history
will always be limited.

I don't think any historian dismisses the value of the Bible as a
historical document and many events in the Bible have been
independently confirmed.  However, these confirmed events have shown
no signs of anything supernatural.

One may wonder why there is no confirmation from other civilizations of
supernatural events such as the Sun stopping in Joshua.

> [Discussion of Egyptian bricks]

Some of the Bible is based on history.  I don't think anyone denies
that.

>Dr. Kennedy continues on with examples about Moses 
>authorship, 

He wrote about his own death and burial!

>the fall of the city of Jericho.  

Yes, the city was conquered, several times in fact (parts of the older
walls had even collapsed).  But nothing supernatural can be concluded.

>The Flood is 
>attested to in almost every civilization.  Findings in 
>Babylonia and Acadia gave the basically the same account as 
>the Biblical account.  Another Babylonian tablet mentions 
>reading the writings of those who lived before the flood.  
>While another tablet parallels the ten generations before 
>the Biblical account of the Flood to that of ten kings of 
>their history and the words "The Deluge came up ..."  Miller 
>Burrows of Yale states that "the archaeologist spade has 
>refuted the views of he modern critics.  The critics 
>excessive skepticism come not from careful evaluation of the 
>data but from the great predisposition against the 
>supernatural." (paraphrased.}  

Certainly archaeology controverts a global flood.  There is evidence of
localized floods.  The area of flooding can even be roughly mapped out
and is probably the result of a tidal surge, likely caused by a
cyclone.  These floods could well have been the basis for legends and
myths.

There is evidence against a global flood since there are archeological
sites from before the "time of the flood" that show no evidence of ever
being submerged (eg. the pyramids).

>Nelson Glueck, the renowned 
>Jewish archaeologist, said, "It may be stated that no 
>archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical 
>reference."

Archaeology has disagreed with the Bible in several places.  On the
other hand, how can Archaeology disprove a supernatural event to
someone with faith?  Probably no amount of Archaeological evidence can
do that!

>[8] Why I believe in Christ
>
>Dr. Kennedy states that the evidence for Christ is 
>overwhelming.  For those who honest seek the truth there is 
>abundant evidence.
>
>Some say Jesus never really existed - he was a myth.  
>Consider this - Historian J. Gilchrist Lawson says: "The 
>legendary, or mythical, theory of Christ's existence is not 
>held by any one worthy of the name scholar.  The evidences 
>of Christ existence are more than for any other event in 
>ancient history."  

This is crap!  J. GilCHRIST Lawson has demonstrated clearly by his
words that he has lost all objectivity and will say anything to support
is foredrawn conclusions.  How can any historian say that there is more
evidence for Christ than any other ancient event!  Is there more
evidence for Christ than for the Caesars?  NO!  How about more evidence
for Christ than the Pharaohs of Egypt?  NO, we even have some of their
bodies!  J. GilCHRIST Lawson's words do not contain truth but do
illustrate an important truth.  There are "historians" like Lawson who
are not above distorting history in order to prove their own beliefs.
This is precisely where most of the "evidence" for the historical Jesus
comes from.

>One reason we know this is that the Bible 
>tells us, but more than that we have support from the 
>following secular historians and writers of antiquity: 
>Tacitus, the Roman historian; Suetonius; Pliny the younger; 
>Epictetus; Lucian; Aristides; Galenus; Lampridius; 
>DioCassius; Hinnerius; Libanius; Ammianus; Marcellinus; 
>Eunapius; Zosimus.  

I wouldn't accept any statement from J. GilCHRIST Lawson without
checking first!  His claim of "support" for the Jesus story may only be
confirmation of historical figures mentioned in the gospels (such as
Herod or Augustus Caesar!).

>Lucian,Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and 
>Julian the Apostate have written whole books against 
>Christianity.  

This you consider more proof?

>Pontius Pilate wrote of his activities with 
>Jesus - "he described Christ's miracles - he tells of Herod 
>delivering Jesus over to him and the crowd making a great 
>uproar to have Christ tried and so he [Pilate] ordered him 
>crucified, but first had him scourged, although he found 
>nothing against him.  Much less he records that that day the 
>sun went dark and the moon turned as if to blood." [The 
>Ante-Nicene Fathers vol 8]  

These letters of Pilate and Herod are traced back only to about the
sixth or seventh century.  They are probably written by early
Christians.  I don't think any real historians take them seriously and
I don't think even the Catholic Church has ever considered them 
genuine.

-- Steve
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc