From: lester@naomi.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: Christian Bashing
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 14:33:56 GMT

Nik Simpson writes:
|> I wrote:
|> >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.

I can see your point here, and I'll have to admit that it is a possiblity.
But a Christian _should not_ (and should is a key word) try to manipulate
the audience into believing something.  Part of my Christianity is honesty
and straight-forwardness.  He/She should just state the facts and present
conclusions.

|> >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

Haven't researched this, so I can't point to any evidence outside of the
Bible to back this (David and Goliath) up.  But there is a _lot_ of
extra-biblical evidence (archeological and writings) that support much
of what the Bible says.

|> parable,  I also find the method for bringing down the walls of Jericho
|> a little hard to swallow.

My source says that the archeological digings show that the walls fell
down in an unnatural way.  They were knocked down quite flat, so the
city could be easily invaded.

|> 	I dont take it personally I love a good arguement,  and this one
|> is shaping up quite well ;-)

Yes it is.  Wait a minute, what do you mean quite well? :-)  We have
been quite civil here.  And this has forced me to (try to) support my
beliefs.

Oh yeah, you wanted a list of writings which were written much later
than the events.  Well, McDowell gave a list of a dozen or so all of
which were written about 1000 years after the fact.  The only one
I recognized in the list was Aristotle.  I'm sure there are other
writings which are more contemporary with the actual events.  But His
point was that there are many writings that have much less credibility
than the Bible (though that doesn't give any more credibility to the
Bible, it just points out that some people believe things that have
less basis than does the Bible).  After looking at the list, and
reading his discussion of the list, I pretty much have to dismiss it
as supporting evidence.  (I didn't read his sources, which may be
better or worse than his quote).

The fact remains, there are literally thousands of documents that
quote the Bible and from which statements in the Bible can be proved
to have remained unchanged over the years.

I still suggest you (all) read _Evidence that Demands a Verdict_.  It
has lots of references to other material and doesn't beg and plead
(or even ask) you to become a Christian until the very end.  The book
is written in outline form, so you can look at the major sections to
find what you want, and can skip directly to that part.

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

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Dazix, An Intergraph Company	uunet!ingr!b23b!naomi!lester
Newsgroups: hsv.religion