Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,422 Year: 3,679/9,624 Month: 550/974 Week: 163/276 Day: 3/34 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Re: Skeptics being wrong about the Bible. The Bible skeptics errancy list
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 58 (89273)
02-28-2004 2:54 PM


The recent Oxford Bible Commentary edited by John Barton and John Muddiman declares that they take a "chastened historical criticism" approach to their Bible commentary (Please see Oxford University Press (OUP) - Academic Publishing - Homepage ).
I believe it is fair to say then that the Bible's critics have made at least several errors in their commentary regarding the Bible. Below is an excerpt from a fable of Aesop's called "The Boy Who Cried Wolf":
"There once was a shepherd boy who was bored as he sat on the hillside watching the village sheep. To amuse himself he took a great breath and sang out, "Wolf! Wolf! The Wolf is chasing the sheep!"
The villagers came running up the hill to help the boy drive the wolf away. But when they arrived at the top of the hill, they found no wolf. The boy laughed at the sight of their angry faces.
"Don't cry 'wolf', shepherd boy," said the villagers, "when there's no wolf!" They went grumbling back down the hill."
Now I have learned from experience that there are a lot of bored skeptics crying wolf in regards to the Bible having an error in it. And while I have read of many examples where a skeptic or skeptics made a claim against the Bible that was very poor I have never seen a list of them although I read one article that mentioned 3 or 4 of them.
The purpose of this post is to create what I wish to call a "Bible skeptics errancy list." In short, I am looking for cases where the skeptics made against the Bible or where they made spurious notions of how the Bible came to be but they were later shown to be false through later evidence. I am not looking for instances where a skeptic thinks the Bible is in error, however, and I want to make that clear. I would also ask that if Skeptic Z say there is a problem with John 16:3 in some respect and Skeptic Y says there is a problem with John 16:3 in the same respect that this not be counted twice.
I will be the first contributor to the "Bible skeptics errancy list".
Here is the first example taken from a website:
"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]
taken from: Is the New Testament Historical?
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Brian, posted 02-29-2004 3:26 AM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 3 by Tamara, posted 02-29-2004 11:53 AM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 4 by Coragyps, posted 02-29-2004 12:26 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 37 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-06-2004 8:13 PM kendemyer has replied
 Message 58 by fnord, posted 04-28-2004 2:28 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 58 (89413)
02-29-2004 1:27 PM


skeptics
To the moderator Brian:
I made it quite clear what I wanted discussed and what I did not want discussed in my initial post. I do not know why you are even asking that question. Here is what I said:
"The purpose of this post is to create what I wish to call a "Bible skeptics errancy list." I am not looking for instances where a skeptic thinks the Bible is in error, however, and I want to make that clear."
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by AdminBrian, posted 02-29-2004 1:37 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 58 (89421)
02-29-2004 2:45 PM


skeptics
To the moderator Brian:
While I would have been a little more diplomatic, I would say you are entirely accurate when you say:
"I think Ken wants a list of alleged errors that skeptics held up against the inerrancy of the Bible but evidence discovered later meant that the skeptic had to eat their words."
I also have also updated my initial post to clarify things. I wrote:
"The purpose of this post is to create what I wish to call a "Bible skeptics errancy list." In short, I am looking for cases where the skeptics made against the Bible or where they made spurious notions of how the Bible came to be but they were later shown to be false through later evidence."
I would welcome though statements from experts in various fields who may have made pronouncements that were at variance of the Bible inadvertently but later the Bible was shown to be true with later evidence. I may include some examples myself.
I was searching the internet on Biblical matters and I happened to see your essay that you published on the internet. It was titled "The Bible and the Hittites, Exploding another 'Biblical Archaeology' Myth."
You wrote in your essay:
"How many times have you heard it? I am sure many more than you care to remember. I am talking about the bog standard reply from Bible believers when you mention archaeology and the Bible.
Countless times I have heard ‘well archaeology confirms everything in the Bible, look at the Hittites!’ I swear if I hear about the Hittites and the Bible again I will scream LOL.
I think it is time that that misinformed people stopped spreading this untruth and that this misconception was finally laid to rest."
Well it seems you may be doing some screaming soon because an archaelogical find that is currently in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem plus the information published by Lehman, Tucker, and concerning Forrer's find may help cause this the Hittites to be another example of the skeptics being wrong. I think the data is not yet definitive at this point but I believe your title of the essay was misplaced. I wrote my response to your essay in your string and titled it: "the report of an "archaeology myth...explosion" was greatly exaggerated." I would agree though that the Hittites could be the "sons of Heth" as one of your sources said, however.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 03-01-2004 8:24 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 58 (89426)
02-29-2004 3:36 PM


an example
TO ALL:
Here would be an example of what I am looking for:
The Bible has Jesus stating:
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." - Mark 13:31
A website declares concerning Voltaire:
"Sidney Collett in "All About the Bible" says, "Voltaire, the noted French infidel who died in 1778, said that in one hundred years from his time Christianity would be swept from existence and passed into history. But what has happened? Voltaire has passed into history; while the circulation of the Bible continues to increase in almost all parts of the world, carrying blessing wherever it goes."
Concerning Voltaire, Geisler and Nix point out that "only fifty years after his death, the Geneva Bible Society used his press and house to produce stacks of Bibles" (ref.8, p.123). What an irony of history!"
Uniqueness of the Bible
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 02-29-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Trixie, posted 03-01-2004 4:30 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 58 (89627)
03-01-2004 5:17 PM


I would ask that the moderators step in because Eta Carinae
is off topic.
If Eta Carinae has proof that the Israelites considered the back appendages which cause jumping "legs" or that the whole race of ancient Jews was blind he should open a new thread.
The EVC Forum declares two important things regarding their board:
"Dedicated to helping develop a better understanding of both sides of the issue, the EvC Forum plays host to the ongoing debate."
Discussion Guidelines
These are in effect at at all times:
1. Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.
EVC Forum, says that rule #1 is in effect at ALL times.
I would ask that this be honored if EVC Forum truly wants both sides discussed.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 58 (89637)
03-01-2004 5:40 PM


thank you and...
Dear Brian:
Thank you for keeping the post on topic. EVC Forum clearly states they want both sides discussed and so your help is appreciated I am sure.
By the way, I have studied the Bible for more than a second and every addtional second I study it makes me more convinced of its inerrancy.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-01-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by MrHambre, posted 03-01-2004 6:07 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 58 (89666)
03-01-2004 8:52 PM


re: purpose of list
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 03-01-2004 9:07 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 21 by wj, posted 03-01-2004 9:17 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 58 (89677)
03-01-2004 9:41 PM


To: ConsequentAtheist
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.: Rbc
It appears to have been a historian.
To: ConsequentAtheist
This 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.Net
2. Skeptics said Belshazzar never existed. We now know he did. Belshazzar's Feast and the Fall of Babylon
I 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]

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 03-01-2004 9:56 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 25 by wj, posted 03-01-2004 10:16 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 27 by Brian, posted 03-02-2004 11:41 AM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 58 (89680)
03-01-2004 10:10 PM


To: ConsequentAtheist
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]

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-01-2004 10:35 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 58 (90049)
03-03-2004 1:31 PM


TO: brian
Dear Brian:
You continue to try to use the style over substance logical fallacy. I believe I have already addressed this. Secondly, I would point out that you are being quite hypocritical in this fallacious manner of discourse which is quite obviously shown at: http://EvC Forum: What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is allowed and to what extent? -->EvC Forum: What is EVC Forum's policy on satire and is allowed and to what extent?
I would also say that Brian fails to see my perspective in regards to providing more specificity regarding which particular skeptic made a charge against the Bible that was later overturned. I would ask what incentive is there for me to do so? Considering that I researched the Jonah piece and provided multiple pieces of corroborative evidence and completely refuted your fallacious argumentation and the string was closed before I could do more of the same, I see zero incentive. I would say the moderators in this Bible section of EVC Forum have demonstrated their commitment to intellectual freedom and no words they can offer as an afterthought will cause me to go out of my way to offer more specificity in this string. Until there are changes in this section of EVC Forum I guess Brian and others will have to at suspect that the Oxford Bible Commentary may be justified in taking a "chastened historical criticism" approach in their commentary.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-03-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-03-2004 2:40 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 58 (92968)
03-17-2004 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Mr. Bound
03-06-2004 8:13 PM


TO: ALL and Mr. Bound
TO: All
I have found several specific examples of academics being wrong in regards to the Bible. I found them in "The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict" in their discussion of archaeology. I will be posting these in the next 20 days.
TO: Mr. Bound
I believe that skepticism is self refuting. If skeptics assert that you cannot really know something then how do they know you cannot know?
It is also absurd. Skeptics do not know their legal names? Skeptics who enter post at this forum do not know they entering data into EVC Forum? I think the radical skeptics need to stop posing and come clean.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-17-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-06-2004 8:13 PM Mr. Bound has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Yaro, posted 03-17-2004 5:23 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 40 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-17-2004 5:36 PM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 41 by Dr Jack, posted 03-18-2004 6:29 AM kendemyer has not replied
 Message 42 by Mr. Bound, posted 03-18-2004 4:12 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 58 (93869)
03-22-2004 2:48 PM


An example
I wanted to not leave dangling post strings and thus I wanted to offer a quick example of a specific skpetic being wrong about the Bible. I found some examples in the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict in their discussion of Bible archaeology.
Here is one example that McDowell mentions and it is mentioned at a website:
We saw above that the critics who proposed this hypothesis said that Moses couldn't write. Julius Wellhausen wrote in 1885 that Israel certainly had its laws,
only they were not fixed in writing.[15]
and Hermann Schultz, in 1898 said,
Of the legendary character of the pre-Mosaic narrators (not writers), the time of which they treat is sufficient proof. It was a time prior to all knowledge of writing.[16]
Then in 1902, a French archaeological expedition under the direction of M. Jacques de Morgan found the law code of Hammurabi at the site of ancient Susa, to the east of Mesopotamia. The code, engraved in stone sometime between 1700 B.C. and 2000 B.C., contained 282 sections or paragraphs, and was found to contain many laws similar to the Mosaic law.
Since then, archaeological discoveries have been made which prove that writing existed in Moses day and long before him. Here is a partial list including the fact that inscriptions have even been found at Mt. Sinai.
In 1917 Alan Gardiner, noted British Egyptologist, made the first decipherment of the Proto-Semitic inscriptions found at Mt. Sinai...These inscriptions, written in a pictorial script by Canaanites before the middle of the second millennium (1500) B.C., prove that alphabetic writing existed before the time of Moses.[17]
Starting in 1925, more than 4000 tablets, dating from 1500-1400 B.C., have been found in the town of Nuzi, near ancient Ninevah in Iraq.
In 1929 tablets were found at Ugarit and Ras Shamra on the Syrian north coast. These tablets are from the 14th and 13th centuries B.C., the very age of Moses. The language corresponds closely to the Hebrew poetic language from the Torah-Old Testament, such as the Song of Miriam from Exodus 15:20, and the song of Deborah, found in Judges 5 (12th century B.C.).
In 1933 excavations were started at Mari on the Middle Euphrates in Syria. Three years later thousands of cuneiform tablets were found which dated from 1700 B.C.
In 1964 the ruins of Ebla were discovered in Northern Syria. By 1974, more than 17,000 clay tablets written in 2200 B.C. had been found.
Finally, I myself, sat at the base of an Egyptian obelisk at the place de la Concorde while in Paris in 1961, the sides of which are covered with hieroglyphics from the time of Ramses II.
As early as 1938, without the later finds, W. F. Albright, discussing the various writing systems that existed in the ancient Orient during pre-Mosaic patriarchal times, could write,
In this connection it may be said that writing was well known in Palestine and Syria throughout the Patriarchal Age (Middle Bronze, 2100-1500 B.C.). No fewer than five scripts are known to have been in use: (1) Egyptian hieroglyphs, used for personal and place names by the Canaanites; (2) Accadian Cuneiform; (3) the hieroglyphiform syllabary of Phoenicia; (4) the linear alphabet of Sinai; and (5) the cuneiform alphabet of Ugarit which was discovered in 1929.[18]"
taken from: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Campbell/s3c1.html
Sincerely,
Ken

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Brian, posted 03-22-2004 3:30 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 58 (93902)
03-22-2004 5:13 PM


to: Brian
To: brian
Page 430 of the New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (NETDV) says Schultz denied there was any "knowledge of writing" in the pre-Mosaic period of Israel and that in "civilized countries writing was only beginning to be used for important matters of state" (this is untrue and Albright and Cyrus Gorden explain why on page 432 of NETDV. For example, the excavations at Ugarit show Canaan was a highly cultural area and prose and poetry existed prior to the emergence of the Hebrews). If you want another example in 1862 Sir George Cornwall Lewis denied there was writing in Moses' day as per 433 NETDV. Albright on page 432 of NETDV refers to a "linear aphabet of Sinai" during the Patriarchal age plus other forms of writing in the general area (Canaanites, Phoenicia, etc).
Here is what a Encyclopedia says regarding Lewis:
"Sir George Cornewall Lewis, 2nd Baronet (1806-1863), British statesman and man of letters, was born in London on 21 April 1806. His father, Thomas F. Lewis, of Harpton Court, Radnorshire, after holding subordinate office in various administrations, became a poor-law commissioner, and was made a baronet in 1846.
Lewis was educated at Eton College and at Christ Church, Oxford, where in 1828 he earned a first-class in classics and a second-class in mathematics."
taken from: George Cornewall Lewis - Wikipedia
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-22-2004]

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 58 (93907)
03-22-2004 5:35 PM


To: brian
Dear Brian:
I hope my revised last posting clarifies things. If you want further examples, if memory serves, McDowell's The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict has other examples. The skeptics certainly are not infallible in their pronouncements regarding Christianity and I am sure you could find many other examples via other sources.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-22-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Brian, posted 03-22-2004 7:05 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
kendemyer
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 58 (94262)
03-23-2004 8:39 PM


to: brian
Dear Brian:
I believe there is excellent evidence that Lewis was wrong. I also believe that Schultz was wrong regarding writing being used so sparingly (government) during the period he wrote about.
I am related to General Douglas MacArthur and can appreciate the fact that it appears you are writing from Scotland due to information which is provided by EVC Forum. On the other hand, I am almost 25% Irish too. As a consequence, I want to correct your misspelling of Josh's last name. It is spelled McDowell. I am not using a style over substance logical fallacy. It is just that the fighting Irish in me would like to see McDowell's name spelled correctly.
Sincerely,
Ken
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-23-2004]
[This message has been edited by kendemyer, 03-27-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by AdminAsgara, posted 03-23-2004 8:52 PM kendemyer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024