From: nik@nik.b23a.ingr.com (Nik Simpson)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Organization: Intergraph Systems Product Marketing
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:40:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.134015.25029@b11.ingr.com> lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com writes:
>|> I write
>|> > 
>|> > Many scholars accept the Bible as an accurate and trustworthy source of
>|> > history.  The Bible has never been proven wrong when it comes to
>|> > archeological findings (though not every archeological fact in the Bible
>|> > has been proven true, the evidence strongly indicates that it is reliable).
>|> > The book _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_ by Josh McDowell is an excellent
>|> > source for this kind of information.  Mr. (Dr.?) McDowell is a scientist who
>|> > began his work in an attempt to discredit the Bible.  After his research,
>|> > he became convinced that the Bible is in fact the Word of God (note his
>|> > bias) and is completely accurate and reliable.
>|> > There are a number of
>|> > other cases where an individual searching for the truth (with a bias)
>|> > had to change his/her premise because of the overwhelming evidence.
>|> > 
>Nik Simpson writes
>|> 
>|> 	It is common practice to cite other works which agree with a point you
>|> are trying to make,  Von Daniken was one of the finest practitioners of 
>|> picking on and citing those facts which agreed with his premise while ignoring
>|> less convenient ones.
>
>Agreed.  But see my comments above.  Don't you think that someone who
>sets out to disprove something might try to select work to back him/her
>up?  McDowell had a bias (how much I don't know) _against_ the Bible.
>His research to discredit the Bible forced him to change his thesis.
>Now, doesn't that _add_ credibility to his statements?
>
	It is not unheard of for somebody to state a position against something
so that when they "are converted" it has more weight.  Without knowing alot more
about the man I don't necessarily accept that he had pre disposition towards
discrediting the Bible.

>Can you point me to some sources that prove the Bible unreliable?  Are
>these authors biased?  If the Bible were so inaccurate, do you really
>believe that there would still be Christians (and _lots_ of them)
>around after 2000 years?
>
	Depends very much on what you mean by reliable, as a source for that
period of ancient history it is probably quite accurate on the broader
issues,  I would treat the details with a little more scepticism.  For example
David and Goliath,  although there were definitely Wars in that period between
the parties mentioned I doubt the accuracy of the David and Goliath
parable,  I also find the method for bringing down the walls of Jericho
a little hard to swallow.

>My references are at home, so I'll have to respond to your other
>questions when I can get the facts.
>
>Please don't take these statements as a personal attack.  They are
>intended as a friendly rebuttal with the goal of defending my beliefs.
>
	I dont take it personally I love a good arguement,  and this one
is shaping up quite well ;-)
> - Les


-- 
|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Nik Simpson	Mail : nik@ingr.com                |
|  Intergraph Corp.  System Product Marketing	   |
|--------------------------------------------------|