The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)

by Shining One 94 Replies latest watchtower bible

Shining One

Check some of this out and you may see why there are two sides to the issues that are portrayed as so one sided here. You will immediately smell the B.S. emanating from the Skeptic's Book of Bible Stories!

http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties.htm
Nightmare number one:
Skeptic's Instructions for Reading the Bible:

* Always read it completely literally in isolation and never take into account the social, historical, literary and cultural context in which it was written.
* Have a wrong concept of how God should have done things and then throw the rattle out of the pram when he does things differently - this is otherwise known as setting up a straw man and then knocking him down.
* Assume that God dictated it rather than using men in the social, historical and cultural context of the day.
* If there is a difficult passage never consult a commentary written by someone who understands the social, historical, literary and cultural context.
* Never compare scripture with scripture to find the meaning of difficult texts
* Never use different bible versions, never check out the Greek or Hebrew.
* Always assume that if you cannot understand something then it cannot ever be true.
* Ignore the fact of progressive revelation
* Never try to understand the human-divine nature of Jesus or the Trinity, never consult a theologian who can explain these difficult things.

Here is C Dennis McKinsey's advice to the bible critic "Avoid Christian commentaries. Don't be swayed as to what is being said or what commentators allege is intended. Just read it cold." Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy p. 500.

Nightmare number 2:

Mistakes the critics make by Norman Geisler.

Norman Geisler in 'When Critics Ask' says: The Bible is without mistake, but the critics are not. All their allegations of error in the Bible are based on some error of their own. Their mistakes fall into the following main categories.

1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable
2. Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent
3. Confusing our fallible interpretations with God's infallible revelation
4. Failing to understand the context of the passage.
5. Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones
6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage
7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human characteristics
8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report
9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations
10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones
11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all its records
12. Forgetting that the Bible uses non-technical, everyday language
13. Assuming that round numbers are false
14. Neglecting to note that the bible uses different literary devices
15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of scripture, is without error
16. Confusing general statements with universal ones
17. Forgetting that latter revelation supersedes previous revelation

Nightmare number 3
Links

First, the three largest sites answering bible difficulties

1. Tekton Apologetics Ministries Inc- J P Holding - one of the best and larger sites out there, and the guy has a sense of humour, much needed if you are debating the critics who take themselves so seriously. He also refutes the book 'Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy' (EBE) by C Dennis McKinsey.
2. Christian Thinktank - Glenn Miller (see Tough Questions:) see also Reasons some people give for not approaching Jesus Christ for a personal relationship: . This is a very good site for long answers to tough questions.
3. Bible Contradictions - CARM large number of difficulties answered

An interesting site by an ex-atheist

Nightmare number four: a partial list of books for skeptics to IGNORE. LOL

Rex
Shining One

Oh my, this one is a real treasure....

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

Why give a skeptic the benefit of the doubt?

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html

Comparisons of skeptics, who not to waste time on ( a special one for Alan F.):

http://www.tektonics.org/af/calcon_CC1.html

Hey Runningman, can I nominate you and your 'Skeptic's Bible Stories' here?

http://www.tektonics.org/parody/screwball.html

Another Skeptical argument debunked, the Canon of scripture:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html

These (and a few other links) should keep the skeptics busy for awhile if they are as intellectually honest as they claim to be! BTW fellows, debates can be had here.......

Rex
FreeWilly

Hi Shining one,
"1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable "
It seems that Bible literalists think an explanation is as good as proof. Do you find it odd that defenders of the Book of Mormon also have ready-made "explanations" to combat what might otherwise be a logical conundrum?
Leolaia

* Always read it completely literally in isolation and never take into account the social, historical, literary and cultural context in which it was written.
Critical scholars most definitely "take into account the social, historical, literary and cultural context" of a given text. Read the Hermeneia series or the main journals for many examples.
* Assume that God dictated it rather than using men in the social, historical and cultural context of the day.
Actually the "dictation" view is held by many very conservative fundamentalists, not critical scholars.
* If there is a difficult passage never consult a commentary written by someone who understands the social, historical, literary and cultural context.
This makes no sense....critical scholars author many of these commentaries. Difficult passages are usually interpreted in light of parallel or partly parallel texts in the broader literature.
* Never compare scripture with scripture to find the meaning of difficult texts
This is exactly what Bible critics do.
* Never use different bible versions, never check out the Greek or Hebrew.
This is exactly what Bible critics do.
AllAlongTheWatchtower

Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable: why wasn't it?
Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human characteristics: meaning it has mistakes? Meaning that it isn't ALWAYS right? If it isn't ALWAYS right, WHEN isn't it right? Who is qualified to say which is which?
Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones: So, there are two (or more) tellings of the same basic incident, which are different. They are both (or all) right? Even if when they contradict each other?
Assuming that round numbers are false: So, the bible rounds off? Do you realize the can of worms you open for yourself by saying not all numbers in the bible are exact? Which ones are rounded? Maybe people should be going to church in ten day cycles, after all, the bible says the 7th day, but thats such an inconvenient number...let's round it off!
Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of scripture, is without error: Wow! An admission that the bible contains errors! If the bible is supposed to have been set down by divine inspiration...couldn't an all-powerful god have simply divinely inspired all the copyists through the ages too? Or are the errors simply to test us mere dumb mortals, who can't possibly understand anyway (#3)?
Forgetting that latter revelation supersedes previous revelation: OHHHH! You mean "new light". By the by...when that latter revelation renders the previous one to be incorrect...that makes the incorrect one FALSE, by definition, right? Doesn't the bible say false prophets go to hell? If god inspired the bible, then god must be a false prophet...no wonder he hasn't done any miracles lately, he f_cked up, and is in his own hell!
AlanF

Why am I not surprised, Rex, that you'd come up with a list like this. Having skimmed a couple of the links, I find that it's a complete waste of time to read further. Your man James Patrick Holding writes a better defense than you do, but it's still pretty bad.
One of your favored apologists is Norman Geisler, a prominent theologian. But Geisler sometimes makes the mistake of using the Bible to prove the Bible. I mean, the Bible says that upward of 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus, and therefore we have 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection! Isn't that a fine argument!
An amusing example of this sort of argument comes from the book Science and Creationism, (Ashley Montagu, ed., Oxford University Press, New York, 1984, p. 359) which quoted an article that originally appeared in Harper's Magazine, April, 1982. The article was about the 1981 constitutionality trial in Little Rock, Arkansas, of Act 590, the "Balanced Treatment of Creation-Science and Evolution-Science Act." The state of Arkansas was trying to uphold the constitutionality of the Act:
The state's most coherent witness by far was Dr. Norman Geisler of the Dallas Theological Seminary. . . The most profound part of Geisler's testimony was his attempt to prove that the "Creator" of the universe and life mentioned in Act 590 was not an inherently religious concept. After citing Aristotle, Plato, and one or two other classical philosophers who supposedly believed in a God or gods without worshiping them -- albeit not as creators of the world "from nothing" -- Geisler offered his most thundering proof: the Epistle of James. He cited a line of Scripture to the effect that Satan acknowledges God, but chooses not to worship Him. "The Devil," he said, "believes that there is a God." Whee! If Geisler has not yet squared the circle in his meditations, he has at least, well, circled it. Who would have thought one could prove the Creator a nonreligious idea by means of hearsay evidence from Beelzebub? After unloading that bombshell, Geisler, too, hastened to face the cameras in the courtroom hallway. "We don't rule out stones from a geology class just because some people have worshiped stones, and we don't rule God out of science class because some believe in him." As I listened to Geisler I could not help but recall the words of the Rev. C. O. Magee, a Presbyterian minister who is a member of the Little Rock School Board. "Any time religion gets involved in science," Magee told the Gazette, "religion comes off looking like a bunch of nerds. . . The Book of Genesis told who created the world and why it was created and science tells how it was done." Amen.
I just love that line, "Who would have thought one could prove the Creator a nonreligious idea by means of hearsay evidence from Beelzebub?" It so well epitomizes so much of biblical apology and its practitioners.
Oh yeah, on the subject of the resurrection: A good, relatively modern-day example of outlandish claims is made by the Bahai faith. This religion was begun in Persia (Iran) about 1844 by one Sayyid Ali Muhammad, who called himself The Bab (The Gate to God) and claimed to be the fulfillment of certain prophecies that a prophet would arise. He was executed in 1850, and according to one Bahai member who explained a lot of the religion to me, was almost immediately resurrected. This was supposedly witnessed by hundreds of people. Soon after, about 3,000 of his followers were killed. Thousands of Bahai's have been martyred in the intervening years, mainly by orthodox Muslim clerics who tolerate no rivalry. There are about six million adherents today worldwide.
There's about as much evidence for the resurrection of the Bab as there is for the resurrection of Jesus. So why is one better than the other? Isn't it evident that both claims are spurious?
AlanF
DannyBloem

Hi Rex,
I did not yet read the links that you gave, but will do.
I would like to believe in God, that would be great, comfortable and give a hope in life. As I once, not so long ago, had.
I always feel however that creationinists, never are willing to discuss with you. When giving some questions or you ask something about some articles they never respond.
Just give a link and run. I can give here many links here and tun but will not do it.
Danny
tetrapod.sapien

i suppose that if you already believe in miracles, then you could believe that carm actually does a good job "answering" the difficulties, and not rehashing old, tired, circular arguments.
tetrapod.sapien

* Assume that God dictated it rather than using men in the social, historical and cultural context of the day.

assume that who...??
you could try proving his existence first.
TS
DannyBloem

tetra do you ever sleep?

The Skeptic's Worst Nightmare (S)

Share this