http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013...-five-reasons-why-god-exists/?intcmp=features
A Christmas gift for atheists -- five reasons why God exists
A former fundamentalist turned agnostic believes the Bible is "tainted".
Shocking, groundbreaking, impossible!!! The end of days are nigh!!!
Funny how Craig-Lane's arguments are "ridiculous" yet Bart's are regarded as truth.
Cherry picking again, Sandorski?
EDIT: Erhman seems to have some questionable premises that make his opinions suspect. After doing some reading about his reasons, one of his premises is "the authorship of the Bible has to be questioned". To me, that's really saying "the authorship has to be doubted", and then work from there.
Secondly, change in writing style (particularly with Paul's epistles) automatically means he didn't write it, as if a good author cannot adapt his style to fit his audience. An example of this being that my style and words would change when writing to fellow Christians after writing to a group of atheists.
Writers often change their styles depending on the situation, audience, and purpose. His claims are unfounded.
Ehrman speaks from Evidence. WLC speaks from Philosophical musings based upon non-evidentiary assumptions.
He speaks from doubt. You cannot operate from a position of doubt and expect to be objective. His "evidence" of writing style is beyond laughable.
As an author himself, he should be the first to realize that style, tone, language, words, etc.. changes depending on various factors. Hell, speaking style changes depending on the topic and audience.
Before I believe anything any scholar says, I examine their motives, beliefs, and background because those influence his opinions.
FWIW, I don't subscribe to Lane, however, you offered no reason to your objections to him, so I naturally believed you're simply choosing to side with a POV that aligns with yours.
EDIT: He also admits that he isn't a believer, so he doesn't think God exists so God cannot inspire the Bible, and that most scholars carry his view, so he pulls an Argumentum ad populum fallacy.
That's not encouraging people to read the NT for themselves and make up their own minds...it's "look at us, we don't believe it...why should you".
This guy is a train-wreck.
His doubts come directly from the Evidence presented to him. He once was a Believer, until he learned Biblical Scholarship. You completely ignore the Facts presented regarding the errors within the New Testament, why is that?
He said that most scholars share his view, which is saying that there is no reason to question the unreliability of the NT because most scholars share his view.He is not using a fallacy, just pointing out the reality within the realm of academia regarding the subject. Rather than dealing with the Facts, you seem to be grasping for straws in an attempt to avoid the glaring problems here.
What "evidence"? He was a fundamentalist -- those people, while zealous, are literalists in the fullest sense. His doubts likely came from the "6000 year-old earth" belief, which would make the Bible suspect to someone like me as well if I learned that way.
He said that most scholars share his view, which is saying that there is no reason to question the unreliability of the NT because most scholars share his view.
If the NT is indeed what he believes it is, he should (if he hasn't already) encourage his readers to do their own fact-checking and come to their own conclusion, if his conclusion is not in doubt.
He simply wants people to ditch the Bible, and follow his findings.
These guys come a dime a dozen.
Where does he say that? Given the Evidence from the Manuscripts, what is he supposed to say on the matter? He is merely presenting the Facts. If you disagree, you are free to examine them yourself and point out his or the Biblical Scholars errors.
I didn't say he said that...I drew that conclusion on my own based on what I am reading from him.
And you're right, I am examining his errors, like I did above about change of writing style means change of authors -- those are one of his points of "evidence".
Writers can simply choose to change writing style for numerous reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writing_style
Your first link is broken. Your second link refers to Mark 16...not sure what your point is regarding the 1000 years. Please be more specific with your allegation(s).Start here
then end at approx 1 minute
Approx 4 minutes in all. If you want to learn a lot more about Biblical Scholarship, watch all 10 parts of the lecture.
PS: I was wrong, it was actually approx 1000 years. My bad.
Your first link is broken. Your second link refers to Mark 16...not sure what your point is regarding the 1000 years. Please be more specific with your allegation(s).
I asked you previously to specifically express your allegations/concerns so that we can establish a framework for discussion. In lieu of that, I'll just point and let you try to figure what I'm saying as you seem to think this is an acceptable way to express one's thoughts.Crap, try this Starts at 7 minutes in
I asked you previously to specifically express your allegations/concerns so that we can establish a framework for discussion. In lieu of that, I'll just point and let you try to figure what I'm saying as you seem to think this is an acceptable way to express one's thoughts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
http://fpgm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pericope.pdf
And that's why I responded as I did as it explicitly refutes his claim. What else do you want to "discuss"?That's why I linked to the video, it explicity states it.
No, that is nothing like what I said, and it is not even close to citing "evidence virgin births cannot happen", like you either erroneously or dishonestly claimed I did before.Whatever. Your implications were very clear. You basically said "why believe it? It was one single-parent birth, unnatural, with the humans who were there being long dead, unable to be interrogated, and scientifically ignorant".
I make true statements all the time, genius. It is unreasonable to believe that the story of the virgin birth ever happened in reality. That is true, for the reasons I've given ad nauseum.You are carefully avoiding making, what I call, "a statement of truth" because you know you'd be called out on it for some sort of evidence.
No, it is a fact. Any reasonable person would reject that story as an error for any of a hundred reasons. It is unreasonable in the same way it is unreasonable to believe a leprechaun stole your car keys when you can't find them. The only people that believe the story are those that make an exception for it because they want it to be true.Saying its "unreasonable" is only a opinion, and that effectively absolves you of providing evidence to back your claim.
Bull fucking shit. Your argument expressed incredulity at the proposition that the beginning of the universe did not have a creator (presupposing that a beginning exists), then you falsely claimed that you had "counter[ed] with evidence that everything ... had a beginning except the natural universe." You are either too stupid to remember your own statements, or you are lying.??
Not at all. I was countering you.
That doesn't follow at all, and you are an idiot for thinking it does.If its unreasonable for me to accept a virgin birth because it simply didn't have the science behind it, then I can reasonably reject an "ageless" universe because everything in our natural world had a beginning.
Do you know what the first law of thermodynamics says?So matter has always existed?
No, you are literally confused, in so many ways.Ok, I am effectively confused.
There are no values of time where the universe does not exist. The universe has existed for all time.In what way has the universe always existed?
Why do you think the universe has a "form"? What would that even mean?Certainly not in the form it is in now, right?
Then I'm telling you how you can answer it yourself. If you can't find an example of me "labelling something fiction," then what do you suppose the answer to your question is, boy wonder?I didn't accuse you of anything, I asked a question.
Your reasoning and reading comprehension are some of the worst I've ever encountered on the internet, and I've been debating this stuff for decades.I'm trying to understand what you mean by "snopes.com" didn't exist way back when, or video evidence.
You seem to be saying that since we don't have digital proof (totally disregarding the limitations of the time period), we can say those things recorded didn't happen.
No, I don't. The point is that your specious argument that the miraculous stories in the bible can be believed because someone would have "fact-checked" them if they weren't true is flatly preposterous. How do you propose that "fact-checking" would have been conducted, oh master historian?We don't have video evidence fir a TON of things we believe are true...you seem to arbitrarily apply this level of evidence to the Bible.
No, and that is in no way analogous to my argument. PAY ATTENTION.Can I rightfully say that we cannot believe aliens exist because we have no video, photographic evidence?
What the fuck would you know about it?This argument is again, inconsistent.
What origin of the universe?1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
What fine tuning of the universe?2. God provides the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.
What objective moral values and duties?3. God provides the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.
What historical facts?4. God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus life, death, and resurrection.
What god?5. God can be personally known and experienced.
You got an argument you want to make?I keep waiting to get to use my knowledge of thermodynamics and relativity but atheists always give up before I can
That's why I linked to the video, it explicity states it.
Plainly.What origin of the universe?
What fine tuning of the universe?
What objective moral values and duties?
What historical facts?
What god?
If you believe god for any of the reasons above, you're plainly an idiot.
And that's why I responded as I did as it explicitly refutes his claim. What else do you want to "discuss"?
He has a legitimate argument but the counter-argument is also legitimate. I don't think it's very wise for anyone to make any sweeping conclusions based on Ehrman's opinions.Ok, upon further investigation it appears he is incorrect on this. The earliest inclusion is around 400CE. However there is much controversy regarding whether it existed earlier, especially since some earlier manuscripts have that section missing altogether, meaning that something is there and a gap exists in the text.
He has a legitimate argument but the counter-argument is also legitimate. I don't think it's very wise for anyone to make any sweeping conclusions based on Ehrman's opinions.
It definitely existed existed much earlier than 400 CE...read the 2nd link a little more closely and you will see this. This particular story was very controversial in that day and was likely omitted from several manuscripts as a result.
I believe you're referring to this:Some of the discussion around it is the idea that it came from another Gospel. In that Gospel(don't recall the name of it) it was mostly about Mary, Jesus mother, and was an attempt to prove her Virginity. If that were the case, it certainly wouldn't be a Copy/Paste. It's all an interesting subject, there is so much variation within the early Christian movement, so many different books, and theological positions.
I keep waiting to get to use my knowledge of thermodynamics and relativity but atheists always give up before I can