Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

[Hokulele]

He does analyze the science (in pages 72-94 of the book mentioned in post #1) including the Big Bang, relativity, Cosmic Rebound Theory, Steven Hawking's Imaginary time, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, etc. He even explains that if the Big Bang Theory was wrong that would not prove the universe was eternal and he gives reasons why.

And his analysis was shown to be wrong in the other thread.

 

[DOC]

And his analysis was shown to be wrong in the other thread.

You must be talking about the "Do Most Atheists Know that Science..." thread. He and his co-author talked about many topics in their 400+ page book. Which topic are you talking about and which post in that thread.

 

[DOC]

I'm still interested in hearing what the other five reasons are...

You're not interested enough to spend around $9 for a used copy of the 447 page book.

 

[six7s]

You're not interested enough to spend around $9 for a used copy of the 447 page book.

Your reputation as a liar is hardly a recommendation to part with cash

If you have evidence to support your absurd claims, present it

Otherwise, please STFU

 

[Fitter]

You're not interested enough to spend around $9 for a used copy of the 447 page book.

This from someone who won't even read a book that was offered for free.

PS: The book in question has 532 pages, including index, because apparently page total matters to you.

 

[Hokulele]

You must be talking about the "Do Most Atheists Know that Science..." thread. He and his co-author talked about many topics in their 400+ page book. Which topic are you talking about and which post in that thread.

This one.

Maybe -- if you look at the one paragraph I brought in and ignore the following one I later brought in (that immediately followed it in the book).

From the book "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist" by Geisler/Turek (Pg. 74):

"By 1922, Russian mathematician A. Friedmann had officially exposed Einstein's fudge factor as an algebraic error. (Incredibly in his quest to avoid a beginning, the great Einstein had divided by zero - something even schoolchildren know is a no-no!) Meanwhile the Dutch astronomer W. de Sitter had found that General Relativity required the universe to be expanding. And in 1927, the expanding of the universe was actually observed by astronomer E. Hubble..."

General Relativity does not require that the universe be expanding. Willem de Sitter came up with one solution, not the only solution. Geisler/Turel are wrong.

 

[FireGarden]

By 1922, Russian mathematician A. Friedmann had officially exposed Einstein's fudge factor as an algebraic error.

As I've stated before...
The error Friedmann pointed out was an error Einstein made while criticising Friedmann's work -- not an error in General Relativity as published by Einstein.

The "fudge factor" (cosmological constant) they refer to as an "algebraic error" is not an algebraic error. In fact it is still used today to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe. Algebraicly, it is perfectly correct. As used by Einstein it was wrong because the universe isn't static. And, actually, it doesn't lead to a static universe anyway because a slight change in the static universe would lead to a dynamic universe. None of that was pointed out by Friedmann.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

 

[DOC]

Your reputation as a liar is hardly a recommendation to part with cash

If you have evidence to support your absurd claims, present it

Otherwise, please STFU

I won't even dignify your first rule breaking statement with a comment, but please list my absurd claims.

 

[This is The End]

I'm reminded of the scene in "Tin Men" where Danny deVito's character secretly drops a five-dollar bill on the floor while he's trying to make a sale to a prospective aluminum siding buyer, then claims no knowledge of it when the customer notices it. Since only an honest man would do such a thing, this is intended to provide evidence to the customer that the salesman is honest. All the examples cited in the OP could potentially be used in exactly the same way by an intelligent con man seeking to provide evidence, internal to his testimony, that his testimony is reliable. The big difference is that most of the measures cited in the OP are five dollars cheaper.

Dave

You don't have to go that far....

These are all reasons to believe the NT authors wrote what they believed was true, but it is not evidence that it was true.

If these are the "TOP" reasons, Christian Apolegetics are sadly still pathetic.
All of these so called reasons are just reasons why the writers "believed" what they wrote was true, NOT a single thing about what being written about is true.

......or even there. All you need is a writer (author) that wants his story (or characters) to be believable by the reader. You don't need to end all fiction stories with "and then so-and-so woke up and it was all a dream." Though it does become a con if you don't file your book in the fiction section.....

 

[joobz]

You're not interested enough to spend around $9 for a used copy of the 447 page book.

What you presented of his book and from what i've seen, I can say that it is absurdly poor. (poor science, Poor logic, poor etymology) My only interest in the other 5 reasons was to see simply how bad they were. I'm definitely not paying money for it.

 

[joobz]

I won't even dignify your first rule breaking statement with a comment, but please list my absurd claims.

There has been multiple solid arguments against the 5 "evidences" that you provided. You have so far failed to explain any of them away.

The two that are most blatant are
1.) Item 1, 2,3 and 9 are easily explained by good story telling. Something that extends back well before the bible, back to the epic of gilgamesh.

2.)Item 10 represents special pleading. You need to explain why dying for Christ is more valid than dying for any other cause. Otherwise, if willingness to die proves christianity, than this also "prove" islam, hinduism, buddism, jim jones, heaven's gate cult....

These are the most pressing arguments and ones that completely destroy the 5 points made by geisler. If you can't answer them, don't feel bad. I'm guessing Geisler couldn't either.

 

[DOC]

General Relativity does not require that the universe be expanding. Willem de Sitter came up with one solution, not the only solution. Geisler/Turel are wrong.

Strawman -- Solution to what?

Geisler/Turek said this on page 74 of the book in post #1:

"Meanwhile the Dutch astronomer W. de Sitter had found that General Relativity required the universe to be expanding. And in 1927, the expanding of the universe was actually observed by astronomer E. Hubble..."

I noticed you didn't bring in a source, but I'll bring one in. From the article "William de Sitter":

"De Sitter, unlike Einstein, maintained that relativity actually implied that the universe was expanding, theoretical results which were later verified observationally and accepted by Einstein."

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Sitter.html

Word Strawman added in edit.

 

[Nogbad]

Soooo

if the Universe is expanding then the writers of the Gospels must have been made out of wood and therefore weigh the same as a duck.....

....or something like that.

 

[FireGarden]

Strawman -- Solution to what?

Geisler/Turek said this on page 74 of the book in post #1:

"Meanwhile the Dutch astronomer W. de Sitter had found that General Relativity required the universe to be expanding. And in 1927, the expanding of the universe was actually observed by astronomer E. Hubble..."

I noticed you didn't bring in a source, but I'll bring one in. From the article "William de Sitter":

"De Sitter, unlike Einstein, maintained that relativity actually implied that the universe was expanding, theoretical results which were later verified observationally and accepted by Einstein."

http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Sitter.html

Word Strawman added in edit.

Notice how the biography says "implied" and Geisler says "required". Static solutions are possible -- mathematically. Such a solution is likely to become dynamic. I don't know who proved that. You can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant


From the de Sitter biography you linked:

In fact Einstein had introduced the cosmological constant in 1917 to solve the problem of the universe which had troubled Newton before him, namely why does the universe not collapse under gravitational attraction. This rather arbitrary constant of integration which Einstein introduced admitting it was not justified by our actual knowledge of gravitation was later said by him to be the greatest blunder of my life.

Which, again, makes the point that the cosmological constant is not an algebraic error. (Or it does, if you know even the basics of calculus).

Would you mind reading the biography of Friedmann:
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Friedmann.html

and deciding if this quote is accurate: "By 1922, Russian mathematician A. Friedmann had officially exposed Einstein's fudge factor as an algebraic error."

Where fudge factor means cosmological constant. The error Friedmann pointed out was in Einstein's critique of Friedmann's own work.

ETA: The Friedmann biog is fairly long, but if you ctrl-F and search the page for "Friedmann sent the article" you will get to the relevant part.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

In the "Do Most Atheists know that Science..." thread I mentioned Norman Geisler and Frank Turek's book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" a few times because of its clear explanations of scientific theories. But, yes, they did talk about more than science.

In chapter 11 of their book they give the top 10 reasons we know the New Testament writers told the truth. I'll mention some of those reasons and maybe expound on them as time permits.

Reason #1

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details About Themselves.

For example some passages portray the disciples as dim-witted, uncaring, and cowards.

Reason #2

The New Testament Writers Included Embarrassing Details and Difficult Sayings of Jesus.

For example in one passage someone call Jesus a drunkard, and in another He was called demon-possessed, another a deceiver.

Reason #3

The NT Writers Left in Very Demanding Sayings of Jesus.

For example: (Matthew 5:28) "I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart".

And (Matt. 5:44-45) "I tell you Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you...

As the book says "They certainly didn't make up a story that made life easier for themselves."

Reason #9

The New Testament Writers Describe Miracles Like Other Historical Events: With Simple, Unembellished Accounts.

If they made them up it would be likely that they would have used grandiose and extravagant images. The book says the gospels talk about the Resurrection in a matter of fact almost bland way.

Reason #10

The New Testament Writers Abandoned Their Long Held Sacred Beliefs and Practices, Adopted New Ones, And Did Not Deny Their Testimony Under Persecution Or Threat Of Death

Okay. I'm gonna start writing a fictional story about a purple groundhog that shoots fire out of its mouth.

In my book, I will:

1) Include embarrassing details about myself

2) Include embarrassing details about the purple groundhog that shoots fire out of its mouth

3) Include very demanding sayings of the purple groundhog that shoots fire out of its mouth

...

(By the way, has anyone noticed so far, that DOC skipped reasons 4 5 6 7 and 8?)

(... anyway)

4) I will include miracles performed by the purple groundhog that shoots fire out of its mouth, in a simple unembellished way

5) I will abandon my long held sacred beliefs and practices, adopt new ones (Whichever resonate with the purple groundhog that shoots fire out of its mouth), and will not deny my testimony under persecution or threat of death.




Will those things automatically make the purple groundhog that shoots fire out of its mouth real?

Take your time to answer that one. I know it might take a while to digest.

 

[DOC]

There has been multiple solid arguments against the 5 "evidences" that you provided. You have so far failed to explain any of them away.

The two that are most blatant are
1.) Item 1, 2,3 and 9 are easily explained by good story telling. Something that extends back well before the bible, back to the epic of gilgamesh.

So its good story telling to make the disciples to look like dim-witted uncaring cowards. I would disagree. There was no need to do this when Christ was raising the dead, healing the sick, turning water into wine etc.

And I would also disagree it's good story telling to make your Messiah look bad. For example example being called a deceiver, and demon-possessed.

Someone also mentioned the the verse where Christ seemed to say the tribulation would be seen by this generation. Although there is at least two explanations for this (eg. generation can be translated "race" to mean the Jewish race would be alive when this happened and that He was talking about the generation that was alive during the time He was talking about) it doesn't make sense for a NT writer to make this up when it could possibly make Jesus look bad.

 

[joobz]

Strawman [snip]
Word Strawman added in edit.

You were better off leaving "strawman" out. That way, you would have only made one error in that post, and not two.

 

[joobz]

So its good story telling to make the disciples to look like dim-witted uncaring cowards. I would disagree. There was no need to do this when Christ was raising the dead, healing the sick, turning water into wine etc.

And I would also disagree it's good story telling to make your Messiah look bad. For example example being called a deceiver, and demon-possessed.

You are simply wrong.

It is good story telling.
It exists in the myths.
It exists in the epic of gilgamesh.
It exists in Harry potter.

Great stories have multi faceted characters. It makes them more real.

 

[Nogbad]

So its good story telling to make the disciples to look like dim-witted uncaring cowards. I would disagree. There was no need to do this when Christ was raising the dead, healing the sick, turning water into wine etc.

And I would also disagree it's good story telling to make your Messiah look bad. For example example being called a deceiver, and demon-possessed.

Someone also mentioned the the verse where Christ seemed to say the tribulation would be seen by this generation. Although there is at least two explanations for this (eg. generation can be translated "race" to mean the Jewish race would be alive when this happened and that He was talking about the generation that was alive during the time He was talking about) it doesn't make sense for a NT writer to make this up when it could possibly make Jesus look bad.

Where in the New Testament do the writers make Jesus look bad? Simply recording that the old order within the Jewish faith accused him of such things serves to remind current Christians (many of whom would also at the time consider themselves Jewish) that the priests never supported Jesus.

As to difficult sayings - all religions have difficult sayings and rules. The Roman Catholic Church added a whole pile more on just for good measure. In fact the more difficult the path the more holy people feel. Thus you get people making pilgrimages barefoot, beating themselves with whips (OK that might be classified under fun too) and fasting.

As someone said, the people who wrote the Gospels believed and wrote accordingly. The first Gospel was written at least 40 years after the events but no doubt oral traditions developed prior to those recoded to paper. These were not news reports the day after the event but developed mythologies (or refined truths if that is the position you believe to be correct). However, the works in themselves do not verify or refute their veracity and certainly do not represent incontrovertible evidence any more than any other religious texts do.

 

[paximperium]

You are simply wrong.

It is good story telling.
It exists in the myths.
It exists in the epic of gilgamesh.
It exists in Harry potter.

Great stories have multi faceted characters. It makes them more real.

Ah hah...here is your error...it wasn't even a very good story.