There you go again confusing the word proof with evidence. Remember the the "DOC's Proof" thread.
Ahhhh, unable to refute anything, you fall back to silly semantic games.
If you want to play this game, why don't you actually present some of this evidence?
And yes the bible is good "historical" evidence. If people didn't have a supernatural bias the main events in the very well documented New Testament would undoubtedly be considered "historically" accurate.
No it isn't. It is wrong in many placed, false in many placed, contradicts itself all over the place and makes downright absurd archeological errors.
"Anyway, let me try to reply to the points that he made. The New Testament documents are reliable, he told us again. Well, I don't know exactly what he means by reliable. If he means that they were copied in a reliable way, that is open for debate. I have a reference Bible on my desk; I'd like for you to come up and look at it and notice how many footnotes there are in it that tell us that
some authorities say this,
some ancient manuscripts say this, others say this. The thing is riddled with footnotes. Does he call that accuracy?
But let's just assume that the book is a hundred percent accurate. As I said, that would prove only that is a hundred percent accurate in what it says, but it would not prove that what it says, but it would not prove that what it says necessarily happened. And that's the problem that he's going to have to confront, and he didn't confront it."
-Farrell Till's Second Speech
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/geisler-till/till2.html
This is false, the apostle Mathew, the author of the Book of Mathew, was an eyewitness to the resurrected Christ.
From the Geisler speech cited above:
"the testimony of the early second century writers directly link the Gospels with the eyewitnesses and contemporaries of the events. The Oracles of Papias (125-140) for example, make the significant affirmation that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, that Mark the associate of Peter wrote the Gospel of Mark shortly after the middle of the first century."
"
Well, of course, the gospel accounts were not written by eyewitnesses. Bible scholars know that, and Dr. Geisler has to be familiar with the evidence that indicates that they didn't.
If you think that Matthew, the apostle Matthew, wrote the book of Matthew, if you think that the apostle John wrote the Gospel of John, you have to be living on another planet or else you are not paying attention to the evidence. Uh, there is nothing to indicate that they were eyewitnesses. Luke even in the beginning of his gospel said that he was not an eyewitness to these things but that he had researched the subject. And, uh, to get to this thing that he keeps harping on, I'm going to announce to him something that he doesn't know. I'm not really Farrell Till, Dr. Geisler. I'm Napolean Bonaparte reincarnated, and I want to see you stand here and prove that I'm not. [laughter, then scattered applause as Till walks away]"
-Till Q&A section
And of course the Gospel of John has been attributed to the apostle John for 2000 years. John claims to be an eyewitness in Chapter 21 of his Gospel.
And of course the Gospel of Mary and Gospel of Judas is has been attributed to those individuals therefore Mary and Judas must have written them.
"
Well, uh, I just got through saying that John did not write the gospel that bears that name. Bible scholars know that. I'll quote a Unitarian minister whom I once heard say that there are Bible scholars and there are fundamentalists. And, of course, there are fundamentalists who certainly believe that Mark wrote Mark, that Matthew wrote Matthew, that John wrote John,
but the evidence against this is overwhelming. I just urge you to go to your library, get the information, and study it for yourself, and you'll see that
"John" who wrote the book of John was certainly not an eyewitness to the resurrection. As for the Apostle Paul, he had a vision, and visions don't count. It's that simple. If this hypothetical person that we've been talking about walked into the auditorium tonight and said that he had seen Elvis Presley and that he had seen him in a vision, why, we'd rush him off to some psychiatric ward and get attention for the poor fellow, because we would know that he needed it.
But, of course, the Apostle Paul said almost two thousand years ago that he saw Jesus in a vision, and Dr. Geisler swoons over that, as if that is some great proof. When we have dreams, we know that there's really nothing to it, and when we hear people say that they have visions, we know that this is very, very unreliable evidence. So he's basing much, uh, much of what believes on [time clock beeps] a man who said that he had a vision. That's unreliable. [applause]"
-Till , Q&A
DOC thanks for the link to Till's arguments that has completely demolished your messiah's (Geisler's) arguments.
So what? My chainsaw is the loudest tool in my shed... doesn't mean it's ideally suited to ironing my shirts