Re: Skeptics being wrong about the Bible. The Bible skeptics errancy list

LOLI love sarcasm.

May I ask (a) the value of such a list, and (b) your reason for avoiding those textual issues, raised by skeptics, to which inerrantists offer nothing but the most absurd and convoluted responses?[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 03-01-2004]

Well only one "example" has been brought up so far. Brian asked for, and has yet to recieve, evidence that this was indeed a skeptic questioned contradiction. I don't think Ken's list will go far anyway. Why not let him knock himself out. It keeps him busy and out of the real threads.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

I think such a list would show two things:1. That the Bible shows itself to be true in the long term as new evidence becomes available. I think archeology and the skeptics has many examples of the skeptics being shown to be errant (writing at the time of Moses, Botta's discovery concerning Sargon, etc etc. As I said in the Hittite string only a very small fraction of the evidence from archeology has been uncovered.2. That many times the critics of the Bible do not have the requisite knowledge to critique the Bible since it often is a multidisciplinary endeavor that requires specialized knowledge.I have thought about such a list and it seems like their is not much interest from the Christian side. I haven't heard any criticism of such a list from Christians but there just seems to be no interest. I believe there is so much evidence for Christianity that Christians would prefer studying and promoting that evidence rather than spend time showing where the skeptics were wrong. I am beginning to agree. In fact, I have agreed.

We'll see. But it doesn't show that at all. By constructing a thread that admits only those challenges which can be answered, no matter how few, you do nothing but demonstrate a cowardly refusal to engage those issues which you so openly seek to avoid. Since this cowardness cannot be attributed to the bible, an exclusive list says nothing about scripture whatsoever. But who would argue such a claim. Unfortunately, that some critics do not have requisite knowledge is no more an indictment of the remaining critics than is cowardly avoidance an indictment of all Christians.I do acknowledge that such a post demonstrates a good deal about your methodology, but I rather doubt that you should find that to your advantage.[This message has been edited by ConsequentAtheist, 03-01-2004]

Ken, this might be seen by some ungenerous souls as you running away from substantive debate on the thread which you have initiated. You did start the ball rolling by giving the case of Gallio. However, you have not addressed the questions raised by Brian in message #2. Until you provide the necessary supporting evidence, you have only made a bald assertion.What is necessary for you to give substance to this and any other claims of the like is:the original statement in the bible;
citation of an historian / archaeologist claiming the statement to be false;
the current evidence which supports the bible's statement and debunks the skeptical historian / archaeologist.That shouldn't be so hard.

TO WI:I will lesson the scope of the search for Brian if he is interested in finding the culprit:"Some historians, for example, said they could prove that Luke was wrong when he named Lysanias as tetrarch in Abilene in about AD 27 (Lk. 3:1) and in referring to city officials as politarchs (Gk.) in Acts 17:6. Archaeological evidence, however, was uncovered that showed Luke was right."BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.: RbcIt appears to have been a historian.To: ConsequentAtheistThis parting post to the string is for you:1. Skeptics denied the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah. We know know they did exist. http://expositoryfiles.homestead.com/Arch.html and
Is there any evidence for the Biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction by fire and brimstone (sulfur)? - ChristianAnswers.Net2. Skeptics said Belshazzar never existed. We now know he did. Belshazzar's Feast and the Fall of BabylonI guess if some skeptics want to assert that the skeptical community believed in Sodom and Gomorrah and Belshazzar all along they are welcome to.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

We should be so lucky. Name them. Name them. Name them.I wonder if there is a forum rule concerning repeated unsubstantiated assertions.

We seem to have gotten our post crossed. I removed the Pool of Bethesda which was #3. Now if you want to assert the skeptical community believed in Sodom and Gomorrah all along, you are welcome to assert that but I find it highly implausible. I would say the same regarding Belshazzar.Sincerely,Ken[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

Does it? Who? When? In what publication? What exactly did he say?You seem to have completely missed the point of my earlier post. Without the factual details, a lie is as believable as the truth. I suggest you do more homework than blindly following someone else's bald assertions.PS, it's WJ not WI.

Ken, you continue to do this. Do not keep editing posts and removing data without documentation. If you wanted others to disregard your original point 3, than just make a new post explaining this. Conversely, you could edit your post to explain why you want point 3 disregarded without removing the data.In my opinion, other than spelling errors or code errors, nothing should be removed from a post on the chance that others have already read it. If you want to be careful, please utilize the preview button or better yet, compose your post in a word processing program where you can make sure it is how you want it before posting.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Hi Ken,Well here we go on the Demeyer merry-go-round again.In post number one you claimed:"Luke in Acts 18:12, calls Gallio Proconsul, this was questioned by critical scholars but Luke was proven correct. When the Delphi inscription was found it verified some very specific history which before had been questioned. On the inscription it read: As Lucius Junius Gallio, my friend, and the Proconsul of Achaia[1]Can I ask you once again to name one scholar who questioned Luke's words?You seem to be having difficulty in supporting anything at all that you post at these forums.In post 22, you attempt to narrow down the search for me (even though it is you who makes the claim) by saying IT was a historian. This is contradictory Ken, first you say 'critical scholars' (plural) questioned Luke's statement, then you say IT (singular) was a historian, so was it one historian or various critical scholars?I found the reply' it appears to be a historian' absolutely hilarious Ken, you should be on the stage.You claim to have taught at a university Ken, do you consider 'it appears to have been a historian' as an adequate answer?You then procede to give us another totally different example in your quest to help me find the culprit! What is that all about?To make matters worse, the new example you give is utterly wrong as well, it is as bare an assertion as your opening one! You do it again! SOME historians, for example....Who are these historians Ken, name one for heaven's sake.What archaeological evidence showed Luke was right?People only have so much patience Ken, mine is running out, I think I have been very fair with you and have even tried to help you improve your essay skills, although you don't agree that you need help.But the sort of things that you are making basic errors with, for example continually saying 'some people' without saying who any of the 'some people' are, is really something that you should not need reminding of.I think it would be a good idea to go to a university website and download their first year students handbook and read through the section on essay writing so you can earn how to construct an argument. Everything you have posted at EvC shows that you really have quite a lot of work to do before you are ready to debate with anyone.Brian.

I see no evidence that Ken has even been taught at a university.

Hi WJHe didnt say he was taught at a Uni, he said the he was a tutor at a uni.This is the evidence: 8. Brian should have asked if I wanted his editorializing. I was a writing tutor for about a couple of years at a university so I could have gotten my material ready for publishing without his help. This is from HERE I would find it very surprising to believe that Ken had done two years tutoring at a university, however what can we do except take his word for it?Brian.[This message has been edited by Brian, 03-02-2004]

Brian, the practice which I am familiar with is that university tutors are postgraduates in the field making ends meet whilst pursuing higher qualifications. Therfore I assumed that Ken had at least a university degree of some kind. But this would be inconsistent with the manner in which Ken has presented his arguments sans supporting evidence.Shall we continue to twiddle our thumbs waiting for Ken to provide his supporting evidence for any of the assertions he has made on this thread so far?