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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I interpret the Sherwin-White quote the same way you do, but I have wondered how DOC interprets it. His statement, "Oxford scholar Sherwin-White and Roman historians thought highly of Gospel writer Luke as an historian," seems rather ambiguous. And though it's been mentioned before, I think it bears repeating that apologists quote-mine Sherwin-White and take his words out of contexts: http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/apologists-abuse-of-sherwin-white.html

Hokulele said:
Wow. After poking around the blog Lucian linked, things get even worse for DOC and his blatant quote-mine of Sherwin-White. Read this later post from the same blog.

http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/further-abuse-of-oxford-professor.html

It appears that what DOC quoted isn't quite correct. The real quote from Sherwin-White's book is as follows:

Sherwin-White said:
For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. (RLRSNT p. 189)


DOC left out an entire sentence, one that calls Acts a "propaganda narrative" and subject to distortions. Talk about dishonesty!



It is not as DOC had never seen this before. To quote one of my own posts from July 2009:
Lord Emsworth said:
For the New Testament of Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.

A. N. Sherwin-White
Classical Roman Historian

It appears that this is a quote-mine:
http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/further-abuse-of-oxford-professor.html
For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity, even in matters of detail, must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted. (RLRSNT p. 189)​


Somewhat related:
http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/search/label/A.N. Sherwin-White
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4949774#post4949774

Talk about things getting worse.
 
When one places belief over honesty, why would you expect anything else?

DOC has made better strides at discrediting Christianity than providing any evidence.


Absolutely. Until this thread came along I was on the verge of becoming a Christian.*



* Objects in posts may appear to be more true than they actually are. Some objects may in fact be complete fabrications.
 
I think that DOC has made - and keeps making - a huge, fundamental mistake.

He keeps forgetting that we will, and do, check things.....



He's been advised of this before. Every time he's brought forth an old argument or a discredited source or a website with motives he doesn't want to associate with. I suspect he doesn't even think about it. He sees something that looks supportive, and jumps to the conclusion that it is a strong, valid source because it supports what he holds to be true. Time-and-again this has caused problems for him, yet he either cannot learn, or does not want to take the effort to learn.

We keep telling him not to use morons like Geisler and Turek and their ilk, because it makes him look moronic by association. But he doesn't learn. All he cares about is if what they say appears, at a quick glance, to support his convictions. And that is his fundamental problem, and the reason this thread is such a farce. He does not actually understand what "evidence" means, when applied to religion. He may well understand it perfectly in day-to-day life, but his certainty that the bible is true blinds him utterly to what does and does not constitute evidence. It is why he keeps trotting out the same garbage over and over again. He simply does not understand that it is garbage. It's why he lies so frequently. Whether that lack of understanding is accomplished through ignorance or force of will is up for debate. It is also the reason I haven't given up on this thread yet. A lack of understanding can be cured. I keep hoping that one day, a sliver of reason will wriggle its way past his ideological barricades, and on that day he will gain a little self-awareness.

Until then, the best way to make him adjust his claims to is counter them often, and in big, bold, colourful letters. It worked for his claims about the historian.
 
Last edited:
He's been advised of this before. Every time he's brought forth an old argument or a discredited source or a website with motives he doesn't want to associate with. I suspect he doesn't even think about it. He sees something that looks supportive, and jumps to the conclusion that it is a strong, valid source because it supports what he holds to be true. Time-and-again this has caused problems for him, yet he either cannot learn, or does not want to take the effort to learn.
I think it is worse than that.

He also links to things which appear supportive of Christianity even where it doesn’t support what he holds to be true.

I recall him linking to an article which accepted the big bang but claimed that that our understanding of the big bang matches the description in Genesis.

DOC doesn’t believe in the big bang but is happy to post anything which makes the bible account appear to be true even though he does not believe it himself.

This is outright dishonesty in my book.
 
I think it is worse than that.

He also links to things which appear supportive of Christianity even where it doesn’t support what he holds to be true.

I recall him linking to an article which accepted the big bang but claimed that that our understanding of the big bang matches the description in Genesis.

DOC doesn’t believe in the big bang but is happy to post anything which makes the bible account appear to be true even though he does not believe it himself.

This is outright dishonesty in my book.

DOC has absolutely no shame about who he quote mines.
 
I think it is worse than that.

He also links to things which appear supportive of Christianity even where it doesn’t support what he holds to be true.

I recall him linking to an article which accepted the big bang but claimed that that our understanding of the big bang matches the description in Genesis.

DOC doesn’t believe in the big bang but is happy to post anything which makes the bible account appear to be true even though he does not believe it himself.

This is outright dishonesty in my book.

I think I know the post that you're referring to there Lothian. It was one of my absolute favourite DOCisms. Is it this:

Why don't you give the post where there was alleged semantic quibbling, you posted another one but left out the most important part, which is this:

Step 1 (Genesis 1: 1,2) In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

It is important to recognizes the presence of the “spirit of God" at the “surface of the waters”. This frame of reference will be important in considering the remaining steps of Genesis. Science says” There was a beginning of time, space, and matter according to general relativity which was first proposed by Albert Einstein...

Step 2 (Genesis 1:3) And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

Because the spirit of God was hovering over the “surface of the waters”, this reference indicates that light became visible from the vantage point of God – in other words, at the surface of the ocean. Science says : Light throughout the universe would have been available long before Earth developed . However, when considering the language of the Bible, science would agree to the point of Genesis 1:3 – that the next development step, from the vantage point of the surface of the earth, would be that dense gases would become translucent - allowing a small amount of light to reach the earth. This step is vital for photosynthesis, necessary for plant life.

Step 3 (Genesis 1:6) And God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water.”So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so."

Science says: the next step in development was that heated water would evaporate into clouds. This would set up the hydrological cycle, which is necessary for life.

Step 4 (Genesis 1:9-10) "And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good."

Science says: The next phase of planetary development would be heavy seismic and volcanic activity, which would have caused creation of the continents and other land masses in a proportion of 30 percent land -– ideal for life.

Step 5 (Genesis 1:11) Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. And it was so."

Science says: Of all the life forms mentioned in the creation account of the Bible, vegetation would be the next step. Light, water, and the large amounts of carbon dioxide that were all present on the early earth would have set the stage for plant life.

Muncaster goes on to describe 5 more steps which I might bring in later as time permits. He then says on page 81

“the ten steps of creation in Genesis agree with the listing of the order of those same events as defined by science. The odds of randomly “guessing” this order would be about 1 chance in 4 million, similar to the odds of winning a state lottery with a single ticket.”

I especially like this part:

the most important part, which is this

He then proceeds to post a skip load of ***** and shinola, which he thinks will be an epiphany to all that read it. :wow2:

DOC
 
I think I know the post that you're referring to there Lothian.
No, I am thinking of an older one. Here
Originally Posted by DOC
Here's a site that claims the Bible taught the Big Bang first?

Go to Big Bang - The Bible taught it first (Spanish Edition)

http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff...aught_it_first

Not sure if the link is Doc's post is still working but I recall it was not just the orders match but rather the big bang is true and explained in the bible (obviously dumbed down in the language a thick shepherd could understand).

I think it might have been based on Isiaiah 51:13 And forgettest the LORD thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens.

Basically this stretching forth the heavens is the bibles way of explaining the big bang.

Doc obviously does not buy the big bang theory but was nevertheless eager to report that “The Bible taught it first”

He never got round to addressing my response
lothian said:
Weird. I am sure that I have read some where that there exists some Christians who claim the big bang never happened and that God popped the world into existence out of nothing in a 6 day magic fest.

It is obviously an obscure Christian cult if the bible clearly details the full events of the big bang and the subsequent expansion of the universe and the creation of solar systems and the like.

So Doc. Do you know anyone in this ignorant cult? Why are they incapable of reading the bible properly?

Is it because they don’t study it properly and instead flit in and out like bats and other birds?
 
Last edited:
When one places belief over honesty, why would you expect anything else?

DOC has made better strides at discrediting Christianity than providing any evidence.
I'm still voting for muslim in disguise.
I think it is worse than that.

He also links to things which appear supportive of Christianity even where it doesn’t support what he holds to be true.

<snipped>

This is outright dishonesty in my book.
No, I'd personally chuck that out of pure ignorance and laziness.
It's the same as when he tried to post the "evidence" of where Jesus's tomb was located when the actual link he gave clearly stated there was no evidence what so ever.

He simply doesn't bother reading anything at all once the lightbulb is hit.
 
Tomb??? Lightbulb???

AtenLightBulb.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom