tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post443731527210764530..comments2024-03-14T14:41:17.663-04:00Comments on Triablogue: If Christ Is Risen, Why Don't They Believe?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19934317950753285422008-03-24T17:08:00.000-04:002008-03-24T17:08:00.000-04:00JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:“Steve, show me one thing said...JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Steve, show me one thing said in the OT that is to be considered a specific prophecy that is fulfilled in the life death and resurrection of Jesus based upon grammatical/historical grounds.”<BR/><BR/>As I’ve explained in the past, I don’t generally regard the fulfillment of messianic prophecy in such punctiliar, atomistic terms.<BR/><BR/>Rather, I view prophetic fulfillment more in terms of messianic motifs. We have a branching series of progressively unfolding theological themes that converge on the Christ-event. This approach has been laid out by Alex Motyer, T. D. Alexander, O.P. Robertson, and John Sailhamer, among others. <BR/><BR/>“It cannot be done.”<BR/><BR/>It’s been done by the aforementioned scholars. For another resource, Cf. G. Beale & D. A. Carson, Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament.<BR/><BR/>“Especially to an outsider.”<BR/><BR/>Ah, yes, your puerile outsider test.<BR/><BR/>“In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that reveals a divine mind behind the human authors that could not have been written by someone living in that day and time. Again, nothing. There is no evidence from what we read in the Bible that a divine foreknowing God inspired the text.”<BR/><BR/>Jason and I have argued otherwise on numerous occasion, including counterarguments to your assertions, or those of your fellow debunkers.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34979668181103442712008-03-24T11:53:00.000-04:002008-03-24T11:53:00.000-04:00Steve, show me one thing said in the OT that is to...Steve, show me one thing said in the OT that is to be considered a specific prophecy that is fulfilled in the life death and resurrection of Jesus based upon grammatical/historical grounds. <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-nt-writers-used-ot.html" REL="nofollow">It cannot be done</A>, especially <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/03/outsider-test-for-faith.html" REL="nofollow">to an outsider</A>. In fact, there is nothing in the Bible that reveals a divine mind behind the human authors that could not have been written by someone living in that day and time. Again, nothing. There is <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-would-convince-me-christianity-is.html" REL="nofollow">no evidence </A>from what we read in the Bible that a divine foreknowing God inspired the text.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for arguing by links, but I've already refuted you a long time ago. ;-) If you don't have the time to read through them, I understand. But the case I present is solid should you want to do so. Beware; your faith might take a hit! ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63934872554053821282008-03-24T11:44:00.000-04:002008-03-24T11:44:00.000-04:00JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:“As I said, there are other wo...JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:<BR/><BR/>“As I said, there are other worldview contenders that begin where you do with a supreme being, like Islam and Judaism. Surely, you'll dispute that they are correct, but in order to do that you must engage their views of history. You cannot legitimately adopt the Christian view of history in order to debunk their views and expect your view to be an objective evaluation of history…The Jews and the Muslims can simply reply that they have their own TAG argument.”<BR/><BR/>TAG is not the only pertinent argument. In the case of Jews, it’s an exegetical question: are messianic prophecies fulfilled in Jesus?<BR/><BR/>You don’t have to introduce TAG into the discussion to adjudicate that debate.<BR/><BR/>In the case of Islam, you’re dealing with a Christian heresy. And, once again, it’s an exegetical question. Muhammad said that his message was in line with the Bible. He told doubters to consult the People of the Book (i.e. Christians and Jews).<BR/><BR/>So we can falsify Islam by holding Muhammad to his own criterion of falsifiability. We don’t have to introduce TAG into the discussion to adjudicate that debate.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-49812811884909380022008-03-24T11:30:00.000-04:002008-03-24T11:30:00.000-04:00Steve, about objective morals, I've written about ...Steve, about objective morals, I've written about this many times but you bring it up every single time I say something here as if it refutes everything I say no matter what the topic is. Can you please just once stick to the issue we're dealing with? <BR/><BR/>Here's my most recent attempt <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/01/nonbelievers-have-no-objective-basis.html" REL="nofollow">at answering you</A>.<BR/><BR/>But of course, you've refuted me already, right? Okay, I guess. But you cannot say I don't address the issue. Be sure to read the comments, okay?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-69851766121711469942008-03-24T10:43:00.000-04:002008-03-24T10:43:00.000-04:00Dusman, my time is limited like yours, but I'll re...Dusman, my time is limited like yours, but I'll respond if I can, to respectful comments like yours. <BR/><BR/>You wrote: <I>Very generally speaking...whatever worldview an unbeliever starts with is usually the same one that they'll finish with.</I><BR/><BR/>This applies to believer and unbeliever equally, I think you admit, and I agree completely. We're on the same page. In the link I provided I justified why I start with a skeptical attitude toward religious claims. <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/12/summary-of-my-case-against-christianity.html" REL="nofollow">Here it is again</A>.<BR/><BR/>But you have problem. The content of that which you believe is known via history. You do not have a Christian worldview unless you first conclude that the history in the Bible is accurate and true. Why would you seek to defend the logic of a Trinitarian God, or the virgin birth of an incarnate God (100% God and 100% man), or a bodily resurrection of Jesus who now lives encapsulated forever in a human body, unless you first conclude that the historical documents of the Bible are true and accurate? These are all historical claims and subject to historical analysis, and disputed by all non-Christian religions, skeptics and many liberals. I see no reason at all for beginning by presuming that these historical claims are all true and then later learn from this that the Christian view of history is justifiably true. <BR/><BR/>Use your TAG argument all you want to. It can at best get you to believe in a supreme being, and that's a far cry from affirming the historical claims in the Bible as an accurate revelation from this supreme being. As I said, there are other worldview contenders that begin where you do with a supreme being, like Islam and Judaism. Surely, you'll dispute that they are correct, but in order to do that you must engage their views of history. You cannot legitimately adopt the Christian view of history in order to debunk their views and expect your view to be an objective evaluation of history.<BR/><BR/>I know you and others will disagree, but I just don’t see how you can do this without an inordinate amount of intellectual gymnastics which involves a plethora of ad hoc hypotheses. Therefore, your view a complex theory, not a simple theory, so it’s not very plausible. The Jews and the Muslims can simply reply that they have their own TAG argument. Since using the same argument leads to different, contradictory conclusions there is something false with the argumentation itself, without my having to spell it out.<BR/><BR/>Steve, thanks for refuting me a long time ago. That hurts! Ouch!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-4908996388327333162008-03-24T10:38:00.000-04:002008-03-24T10:38:00.000-04:00john w. loftus said...“Gene, which is it, are my a...john w. loftus said...<BR/><BR/>“Gene, which is it, are my arguments second rate or third rate? Make up your mind.”<BR/><BR/>Of course, Loftus doesn’t use his own arguments. These are copycat arguments that he’s borrowed from other sources. So Loftus is a third-rate retailer of second-rate arguments.<BR/><BR/>“I guess having James F. Sennett and Norman Geisler saying differently doesn't phase you, eh? Okay, I guess.”<BR/><BR/>Doesn’t phase me. Have you ever noticed that Loftus is like a 5-year-old who longs for parental approval? Here’s a middle-aged man who swells with pride when some official grown-up like Geisler or Sennett gives him a pat on the head. Isn’t the time long overdue to outgrow that childish impulse?<BR/><BR/>“I guess you didn't bother to read that link I provided then, eh? Okay, I guess.”<BR/><BR/>Your link merely recycles the stale arguments you’ve repeated ad nauseum in your book and on your blog. I’ve refuted this stuff time and again.<BR/><BR/>“To take a non-controversial NT example, all scholars know that there was redacting in the gospels which included inauthentic statements placed on the lips of Jesus.”<BR/><BR/>Really? Do “all scholars” include Darrell Block, Craig Blomberg, D.A. Carson, &c.?<BR/><BR/>“I'm sure you would say the same thing about evolution. Since there is debate among evolutionists who cannot agree on many of the particulars that the theory has been debunked long ago, right? We’ve gone over that before, right? But that's simply false and misleading. Evolution is still the theory from which scientists work, even if the details are disagreed about.”<BR/><BR/>I see my argument went right over your head. I don’t need to argue against naturalistic evolution to disprove secularism. Rather, I can use naturalistic evolution to argue against secularism. Evolutionary psychology sabotages rationality.<BR/><BR/>“Would you guys try to be more honest here with the evidence?”<BR/><BR/>You haven’t shown us any “evidence” for your position.<BR/><BR/>“Although, given the manner which you treat me with disrespect, I have a strong suspicion you do that with the evidence too.”<BR/><BR/>And why do you suppose that you, as a robotic survival machine, blindly programmed to preserve your selfish genes (a la Dawkins), are entitled to respect? How does evolutionary ethics underwrite your Emily Postal version of social etiquette? <BR/><BR/>You obviously don’t believe in secularism since you can’t bring yourself to live out the implications of your creed. So why should we take your position seriously when you can’t take it seriously yourself? <BR/><BR/>But that’s your dilemma, John. If secularism were true, it wouldn’t be worth defending. And it can’t be true because it undermines our truth-conditions. <BR/><BR/>All you’ve done is to transfer your religious idealism to irreligion, without making the necessary adjustments in your moral outlook. Apostates act as if they just broke out of a POW camp. That apostasy is liberating.<BR/><BR/>But what they find outside the bamboo fence, is a malarial, snake-infested swamp. Welcome to the crocodilian jungle of secular emancipation!<BR/><BR/>“Sorry if I haven't tried to answer every objection.”<BR/><BR/>Since you’re not up to the challenge, we didn’t expect you to.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45993571037338831242008-03-24T10:12:00.000-04:002008-03-24T10:12:00.000-04:00I guess having James F. Sennett and Norman Geisler...<I>I guess having James F. Sennett and Norman Geisler saying differently doesn't phase you, eh? Okay, I guess.</I><BR/><BR/>John, I can't speak for Geisler or Sennett as I haven't heard or read his comments regarding your material. This is probably also because they run in different apologetic circles than myself.<BR/><BR/>As I've already noted, the reason why people have different interpretations of any historical data/evidence is because the handling and interpretation of said material is always subject to the pre-existing worldview of the interpreter. This includes any subject related to Biblical textual data, evolutionary premises, etc. Very generally speaking and barring a work of the Holy Spirit for the unbeliever, whatever worldview an unbeliever starts with is usually the same one that they'll finish with.<BR/><BR/>Oh and by the way, you are more than welcome to post under my blog articles on Triablogue at any time. However, just understand that due to time limitations, I cannot guarantee that I'll always be able to interact in a timely manner, especially during the weekdays. I'm sure you understand.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50250784347019434062008-03-23T20:59:00.000-04:002008-03-23T20:59:00.000-04:00Gene, which is it, are my arguments second rate or...Gene, which is it, are my arguments second rate or third rate? Make up your mind.<BR/><BR/>Dusman...<I>With all due respect sir, this is one of the reasons why intelligent and well-read Christians don’t take your assertions very seriously.</I><BR/><BR/>I guess having James F. Sennett and Norman Geisler saying differently doesn't phase you, eh? Okay, I guess. <BR/><BR/>Steve said...<I>Loftus keeps reasoning in a vicious circle.</I><BR/><BR/>I guess you didn't bother to read that link I provided then, eh? Okay, I guess.<BR/><BR/>I don't know what you guys are talking about when you so flippantly dismiss the documentary hypothesis. Are you talking about Wellhousen's specific theory in all of it's details? So what? To take a non-controversial NT example, all scholars know that there was redacting in the gospels which included inauthentic statements placed on the lips of Jesus. The debate is about which ones, how many, and why. So also with the documentary hypothesis. All scholars know there was redacting going on. The debate is about how, who, when and why. You cannot say that since scholars reject Wellhousen's particular theory that the theory itself has been debunked. It is very much alive. I'm sure you would say the same thing about evolution. Since there is debate among evolutionists who cannot agree on many of the particulars that the theory has been debunked long ago, right? We’ve gone over that before, right? But that's simply false and misleading. Evolution is still the theory from which scientists work, even if the details are disagreed about, which is no different between Christians who believe but disagree about everything else concerning their faith.<BR/><BR/>Would you guys try to be more honest here with the evidence? Although, given the manner which you treat me with disrespect, I have a strong suspicion you do that with the evidence too.<BR/><BR/>Sorry if I haven't tried to answer every objection. I know from past experience that it'll just degenerate until you start calling me names, because I am not welcome here. I annoy you with poor arguments, circular reasoning and just plain stupidity, right?...unlike the other commenters you get! I've said my piece and provided a link for more details.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10028021923505104272008-03-23T20:05:00.000-04:002008-03-23T20:05:00.000-04:00JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:“How can you be sure of any hi...JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:<BR/><BR/>“How can you be sure of any historical event in history, much less a controversial one like a miracle?”<BR/><BR/>To say that miraculous events are controversial simply begs the question. What Loftus is saying, in disguised form, is that miracles are unbelievable because guys like Loftus don’t believe in miracles. So he’s appealing to unbelief to justify unbelief. Talk about viciously circular!<BR/><BR/>“History is a slender reed to hang one's faith upon, especially when it comes to the ancient superstitious past.”<BR/><BR/>The ancient “superstitious” past. Yet another question-begging assertion. This is a disguised way of saying that people in the past were more superstitious because they believed in miracles. So his objection boils down to the following claim:<BR/><BR/>i) Miracles are unbelievable because only superstitious people believe them.<BR/><BR/>ii) The proof that someone is superstitious is his belief in miracles. <BR/><BR/>Loftus keeps reasoning in a vicious circle. Tsk! Tsk!<BR/><BR/>Loftus commits two other mistakes that I (and others) have often corrected him one:<BR/><BR/>i) He constantly assumes that miracles are confined to the past.<BR/><BR/>ii) He disregards the fact that people are just as superstitious today as they ever were. And it’s not as if the pious have a monopoly on superstition.<BR/><BR/>Secular superstitions simply takes a secular form, viz. conspiracy theories involving Roswell, 9/11, Katrina, the “real” reason we went to war, &c.<BR/><BR/>“Take a philosophy of history class.”<BR/><BR/>I see. So no one in The Society of Christian Philosophers ever took a course in historiography. <BR/><BR/>“Where do you gain the knowledge of your worldview from? How do you fill in the details of that which you believe, like the virgin birth, Jesus’ miracles, the resurrection, ascension and prophesied return, if you don’t learn them from a study of history? Your worldview is based on history despite all your protestations to the contrary. And that’s circular reasoning.”<BR/><BR/>Loftus is now committing a level-confusion. The fact that our general confidence in historical testimony or archeology contributes to our worldview doesn’t mean that’s the only factor feeding into our worldview.<BR/><BR/>“You assume your history is correct then you argue for it. For if you didn’t assume your view of history is correct you wouldn’t.”<BR/><BR/>i) ”History” is simply another name for collective memory. There’s nothing viciously circular about reliance on a source of knowledge which we can’t do without. Memory is indispensable. Testimony is indispensable. These are elemental truth-conditions (among others) without which we couldn’t even function.<BR/><BR/>ii) At the same time, secularism undermines all fields of knowledge. If you’re an atheist, then there is more reason to be sceptical about historical knowledge. But it doesn’t end there. If you’re an atheist, there’s more reason to be sceptical about anything and everything, including your atheism. <BR/><BR/>Atheism cuts its own throat. It’s only Christian theism that can underwrite our confidence in anything. <BR/><BR/>“Science is a different basis than history to hang my beliefs on. Its results are surer by far.”<BR/><BR/>i) Loftus needs to take a course in the philosophy of science.<BR/><BR/>ii) I’d add that belief in scientific progress is a historical claim. If Loftus is sceptical about historical knowledge, then he must be sceptical about scientific progress—even assuming that we equate technological advances with knowledge about the world.<BR/><BR/>Scientific beliefs are memorial beliefs. Scientific knowledge is a form of collective memory. <BR/><BR/>If Loftus is sceptical of history and historical testimony, then he must be sceptical of science. How can he rely on the testimony of this scientist or that scientist? How can he rely on their memories? How can he rely on his memory of their memories? <BR/><BR/>iii) Science depends, to some degree, on observation, which is only as good as sensory perception. But, according to naturalistic evolution, our senses weren’t designed to discover the truth. Indeed, our senses have no purpose whatsoever. They are not for gathering information, since that would be a teleological explanation, and secular science has banished teleological explanations from the natural world. <BR/><BR/>“But there are a host of things we cannot know with any degree of assurance at all.”<BR/><BR/>How is Loftus in any position to know what’s unknowable? What’s his frame of reference? He has to be certain of something to use that as a yardstick to calibrate degrees of certainty.<BR/><BR/>“And even if you adopt a supernatural viewpoint to history, there are many other worldview contenders.”<BR/><BR/>Such as what? Christian heresies? The occult?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53245175324756864132008-03-23T18:44:00.000-04:002008-03-23T18:44:00.000-04:00John,Thanks for your reply. Of course I assume th...John,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your reply. Of course I assume the historical truthfulness of my particular worldview when arguing for it and have never denied such. I’ve never had a problem admitting this when bringing my worldview into the marketplace of ideas. What I have denied in general is that a naturalistic interpretation of history is correct and specifically, I have denied your assertion that I can’t have certainty of any historical fact because doing so would undermine the purpose for taking a phil. of history class. As to circular reasoning in general, everyone does this whether they are cognizant of it or not when they presenting a case for their most basic assumptions about origin, morality, meaning, and destiny. Every human being begins with basic assumptions about the universe that are generally non-testable and non-repeatable via the scientific method. <BR/><BR/>As to your appeal to “science”, everyone contributing to this blog adheres to and supports serious, critical, scientific investigation via the scientific method. My Christian worldview accounts for the scientific method and history shows that Christians were the ones who developed and promoted the scientific method. For example, the AiG website shows that many Christians contributed to the progress of science in the following ways:<BR/><BR/>Charles Babbage invented a calculating machine. <BR/><BR/>Michael Faraday invented the electric transformer.<BR/><BR/>Friedrich Wilhelm Herschel was a Christian astronomer, mathematician, and musician. He discovered the planet Uranus and proved that the sun was not the center of the Milky Way galaxy.<BR/><BR/>James Joule discovered God’s laws of thermodynamics. <BR/><BR/>Johannes Kepler believed in the orderliness of the Creator and knew that the universe would reflect God’s orderliness. This truth helped Kepler discover God’s laws that govern how the planets move.<BR/><BR/>Joseph Lister helped keep infections down during surgery. <BR/><BR/>James Maxwell studied and conducted experiments on magnets and their electric charges. His work made possible things like radios, televisions, and microwaves.<BR/><BR/>Samuel B. Morse developed Morse code.<BR/> <BR/>Isaac Newton discovered God’s laws of motion because he knew from the Bible that God is always the same. So since God made the Earth and the rest of the universe, God’s laws should govern both.<BR/><BR/>John Ray studied plants and was the first to divide them into different groups.<BR/><BR/>Nicholas Steno made great progress in the study of geology and fossils. <BR/><BR/>Your assertions about the Bible containing mythic accounts are just that, assertions. Such assertions have been debunked to my satisfaction and to the satisfaction of millions of other intelligent Godlovers, both on this blog and in other media venues. These assertions allude to the JEDP hypothesis that was long-ago debunked by secular scholars, yet you and other unbelievers still uphold theories that were long-ago debunked to support your case. With all due respect sir, this is one of the reasons why intelligent and well-read Christians don’t take your assertions very seriously. <BR/><BR/>It is true that we can have greater assurance about certain historical events than others, but the Bible provides us ample evidence of supernatural events such as the resurrection of Christ. You rejection of this ancient, God-breathed textual evidence is grounded in many reasons, but John, the root problem is your hard heart. When you reject God’s testimony of the way things were and are you are rejecting God. You are in essence calling Him a liar and telling Him that you can interpret history apart from reference to His disclosure of Himself within the space-time-matter universe. This is why you will consistently interpret the evidence for your position and reject what Peter said here regarding the prophetic word of God, “So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.” (2 Peter 1:19)<BR/><BR/>This is why you must be born again to “see” the Kingdom. Unless you are born again, you will you always see any evidence that comes your way as fitting your worldview and all comers to the contrary are suspect from the outset. <BR/><BR/><I> “. . . . there are a host of things we cannot know with any degree of assurance at all, especially controversial miraculous claims in the ancient superstitious past.”</I><BR/><BR/>You’re doing the very thing you’re accusing me of doing, namely begging the question. The difference is that I admit when I’m doing it, whereas you are oblivious to the same. The is also a ridiculous assertion that has been debunked, namely, that ancient people were stupid. I address this in my post, <I>“Some today might naively assume that the First Century was an age of extreme childish credulity - that people in those days were willing to attribute supernaturalism to almost any unusual occurrence. But this is an unfair way to describe that time. Jerusalem was a crossroads of the world. Educated men had been reading Aristotle for over three centuries and Epicureanism was the prevailing philosophy of the day (which said “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.”). Many in the Greek and Roman world barely recognized the existence of a real God and held in utter contempt the idea of God intervening in the affairs of men. The Jews also were a skeptical and reasoned people, and had absorbed Roman and Greek philosophical ideas. Thus, the swoon theory seems to have swooned long ago!”</I><BR/><BR/><I>My view of history is that coming to any degree of assurance about many historical claims is problematic at best . . . .</I><BR/><BR/>This isn’t the claim you originally made. You said, <I> “How can you be sure of <B>any</B> historical event in history, much less a controversial one like a miracle?”</I> Also, I understand the problems that historians face when dealing with certain historical events, and those things have been taken into consideration by such scholars as Wm. F. Albright, F.F. Bruce, Wm. Lane Craig, Edwin Yamauchi, and even unbelieving scholars such as Pinchas Lapide agree that the physical resurrection is the explanation that best fits the historical evidence. Again, given the historical data alone, they all agree that the resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for the empty tomb. The onus is on you, Mr. Loftus to prove that they didn’t take into consideration the common problems associated with evaluating any historical claim and subsequently overcome them throughout their investigations, which had you read them, you would’ve realized that they were meticulous in their research and consistent with the application of their methods. <BR/><BR/><I>Your faith is based upon a circular approach to history.</I><BR/><BR/>As is yours. As I said, everyone reasons in a circle when it comes to properly basic beliefs, some just do it more consistently than others.<BR/><BR/><I>And as far as looking through history from a “mythological naturalistic” viewpoint goes, I have defended why I do this here.</I><BR/><BR/>And your defense thereof has been weighed in the balances on this blog and found wanting. I hope God grants you eyes to see your folly before its too late (Luke 13:3).Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-38962110120748067432008-03-23T16:30:00.000-04:002008-03-23T16:30:00.000-04:00Gene wrote:"When 'Rahab' occurs in the OT, it's a ...Gene wrote:<BR/><BR/>"When 'Rahab' occurs in the OT, it's a symbolic term for rebelliousness and it's embodiment in various nations (like Egypt)- or do you interpret poetry in woodenly literal fashion?"<BR/><BR/>Yes, he sometimes interprets poetry in a ridiculously literal manner, when he thinks that such an interpretation will help him argue against Christianity:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/05/god-fought-monsters-in-order-to-create.html<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/07/exegetical-carelessness-of-john-loftus.html<BR/><BR/>He's also been corrected, many times, about his claims concerning the alleged unreliability of ancient sources. See the following thread, especially the comments section:<BR/><BR/>http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/07/significance-of-eyewitness-testimony.htmlJason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65381148478079360412008-03-23T16:15:00.000-04:002008-03-23T16:15:00.000-04:00Science is a different basis than history to hang ...<I>Science is a different basis than history to hang my beliefs on. </I><BR/><BR/>Fideism is fideism and naturalism is naturalism, whether it's scientific or historical. All you've done is move the same questions to another discipline. We've been over that before.<BR/><BR/><I>Its results are surer by far than the mythic accounts in the Bible where God creates the world in conflict with a sea god named Rahab out of the existing chaotic waters, </I><BR/><BR/>You know, it's this sort of irrational argumentation that makes you such a second rate adversary.<BR/><BR/>1. That's an assertion, not an argument. <BR/><BR/>2. If you're trying to propose some sort of copycat theory in which the Genesis account is taken from <BR/>a Babylonian myth, then this commits you to the Documentary Hypothesis.<BR/><BR/>a. The DH sounds good to atheists like yourself. Unfortunately, for you, it long ago fell out of favor with Assyriologists as well as theological liberals. It's only lazy slackers like yourself that still hold onto it. <BR/><BR/>b. Consequently, this must be quite the conundrum for you, for you're telling us to "take a philsophy of history class" yet you don't seem at all familar with ANE research these days. Okay, fair enough - but you might want to acquaint yourself with Assyriology and the latest in biblical criticism.<BR/><BR/>c. Tell you what, John, why don't you line up the text of the Eluma Elish and the Genesis account and tell us, point by point, which parts were borrowed and, if there was borrowing, in which direction. <BR/><BR/>d. You should also do this with respect to the Gospel accounts and various Greek, Roman, and Persian myths, since no doubt you probably believe that too.<BR/><BR/>e. When "Rahab" occurs in the OT, it's a symbolic term for rebelliousness and it's embodiment in various nations (like Egypt)- or do you interpret poetry in woodenly literal fashion? If so, that explains a lot.<BR/><BR/>f. And to infer that Genesis tells the story of creation out cosmic conflict would require a larger argument. Where, pray tell, is that to be found?<BR/><BR/><I>and then creates the universe of stars on the fourth day.</I><BR/><BR/>Oh no! Light before stars! Gasp, what are we to do?! Surely this is insoluable for us little old Christians!<BR/><BR/>Once again you may want to avail yourself of a standard commentary. This problem disappears when we realize the key to interpreting the Creation Account is the Flood Account.<BR/><BR/>Let's start with the flood and move back. In the flood account we have a triple-decker ark with a window and a roof (6:16; 8:6,13). The animals occupy different decks. During the deluge the ark has water above (rain) and below (floodwaters).<BR/><BR/>Now, let's compare this to the world. In the creation account, the world has windows (7:11) and a roof (1:6-8; 14-16). It has water above and below (1:2,7). The world has three decks: sky, earth, water (cf. Exod 20:4). Animals occupy different "decks."<BR/><BR/>So when we ask what God was doing in Gen 1, I think we need to distinguish between direct and indirect action, and between literal and literary levels. When does the action denote a direct creative deed, and when does it depict the work of a carpenter? In the latter case, the account is picturing God as a cosmic carpenter. Noah constructs the ark the way God constructs the Earth.<BR/><BR/>Suppose we ask why there was light one day one, indeed, why there was a day one with a diurnal cycle before the sunlight on day four? The literary answer would be that a carpenter cannot install skylights until he has put a roof on the house. But there was sunlight before there were skylights. Problem solved. Care to pose any more of these alleged difficulties?<BR/><BR/><I>But there are a host of things we cannot know with any degree of assurance at all, especially controversial miraculous claims in the ancient superstitious past.</I><BR/><BR/>When in doubt slander the past! Good job, John! Care to beg the question any more? We've been over this one with you and many others before. So, when all is said and done,all you can do is muster the same third rate assertions that we've already addressed.GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17662202790700569072008-03-23T09:56:00.000-04:002008-03-23T09:56:00.000-04:00Dusman said…You well know that your philosophy of ...Dusman said…<I>You well know that your philosophy of history will be determined by your underlying *worldview.*</I><BR/><BR/>Where do you gain the knowledge of your worldview from? How do you fill in the details of that which you believe, like the virgin birth, Jesus’ miracles, the resurrection, ascension and prophesied return, if you don’t learn them from a study of history? Your worldview is based on history despite all your protestations to the contrary. And that’s circular reasoning. You assume your history is correct then you argue for it. For if you didn’t assume your view of history is correct you wouldn’t.<BR/><BR/>Dusman said…<I>As an apostate, your beliefs about the history of the world are indeed slender reeds to hang your faith on, especially since you weren't there to see the beginning of the universe (if you even believe there was a beginning to it), have no special revelation that supports your adherence to "slender reed" atheistic theories, </I><BR/><BR/>Science is a different basis than history to hang my beliefs on. Its results are surer by far than the mythic accounts in the Bible where God creates the world in conflict with a sea god named Rahab out of the existing chaotic waters, and then creates the universe of stars on the fourth day.<BR/><BR/>Dusman said…<I>and ironically, what you suggest regarding a philosophy of history (i.e., "How can you be sure of any historical event in history . . .?") undermines the basis for believing in *any* historical facts, which of course, includes a history of philosophy class, which will assume that certain historical facts are verifiable and known in order for the professor to make his case; contrary to your assertions above. So, assuming your own statements above, I should take a philosophy of history class but in actuality, that will be of no real benefit whatsoever since according to you, any appeal to any historical event is undermined by your assertion that we can't "be sure of any historical event in history".</I><BR/><BR/>Some events in history can be known with a greater assurance than others. I see no problem with affirming that. But there are a host of things we cannot know with any degree of assurance at all, especially controversial miraculous claims in the ancient superstitious past. And we can indeed claim with a great amount of assurance that history is problematic without that claim being undermined by the admission that history is fraught with many serious problems. I can claim something is problematic, x, without that claim being problematic. We do this all of the time. Philosophical thinking is not bound by the same problems that affect any given historical event.<BR/><BR/>Dusman said…<I>It seems that if I take the class per your advice but assume your view of history per your advice, I'm wasting my time contrary to what you've asked me to do. This is exactly where you've left me: I'm damned if I do take the class, and damned if I don't. ;-) </I><BR/><BR/>My view of history is that coming to any degree of assurance about many historical claims is problematic at best, and I think a philosophy of history class will convince you of this.<BR/><BR/>Dusman said…<I>I wonder why you'd say this when you don't even know me, have never conversed with me, and don't have a clue as to what my educational background is? Is it because you don't like the way I present some of the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection? </I><BR/><BR/>The reason I did is because I saw no evidence you understand the problems that historians must deal with when you claimed with such assuredness that the resurrection of Jesus happened, that’s all.<BR/><BR/>Dusman said…<I>If you are suggesting that my taking a secular philosophy of history class (which I have done) will "open my eyes" to the truths of history, then you are dead wrong. My Christian worldview is not created by appealing to and examining historical facts through an already presupposed, contradictory grid of naturalism, for that would ask me to give up my Christianity in order to defend my Christianity, which is something you don't have the luxury of asking me to do.</I><BR/><BR/>It is YOU who are dead wrong about this. Your faith is based upon a circular approach to history. And as far as looking through history from a “mythological naturalistic” viewpoint goes, I have defended why <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/12/summary-of-my-case-against-christianity.html" REL="nofollow">I do this here</A>. And even if you adopt a supernatural viewpoint to history, there are many other worldview contenders.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-62323805236568620942008-03-23T08:58:00.000-04:002008-03-23T08:58:00.000-04:00"How can you be sure of any historical event in hi...<I>"How can you be sure of any historical event in history, much less a controversial one like a miracle? History is a slender reed to hang one's faith upon, especially when it comes to the ancient superstitious past."</I><BR/><BR/>John,<BR/><BR/>You well know that your philosophy of history will be determined by your underlying *worldview.* If one believes a priori that God can and does act in history and their composite worldview provides warrant for adhering to said worldview then they have grounds for believing in the accompanying historical facts. <BR/><BR/>As an apostate, your beliefs about the history of the world are indeed slender reeds to hang your faith on, especially since you weren't there to see the beginning of the universe (if you even believe there was a beginning to it), have no special revelation that supports your adherence to "slender reed" atheistic theories, and ironically, what you suggest regarding a philosophy of history (i.e., <I>"How can you be sure of any historical event in history . . .?"</I>) undermines the basis for believing in *any* historical facts, which of course, includes a history of philosophy class, which will assume that certain historical facts are verifiable and known in order for the professor to make his case; contrary to your assertions above. So, assuming your own statements above, I should take a philosophy of history class but in actuality, that will be of no real benefit whatsoever since according to you, any appeal to any historical event is undermined by your assertion that we can't "be sure of any historical event in history". <BR/><BR/>So now, do you or do you not want me to take a phil. of history class? Especially, since that class will assume certain historical events as having occurred for the sake of building it's case but since according to you I can't "be sure of any historical event in history" why should I take the class? It seems that if I take the class per your advice but assume your view of history per your advice, I'm wasting my time contrary to what you've asked me to do. This is exactly where you've left me: I'm damned if I do take the class, and damned if I don't. ;-) <BR/><BR/>Also, as to this comment: <I>"Take a philosophy of history class."</I><BR/><BR/>I wonder why you'd say this when you don't even know me, have never conversed with me, and don't have a clue as to what my educational background is? Is it because you don't like the way I present some of the historical evidence for Christ's resurrection? <BR/><BR/>If you are suggesting that my taking a secular philosophy of history class (which I have done) will "open my eyes" to the truths of history, then you are dead wrong. My Christian worldview is not created by appealing to and examining historical facts through an already presupposed, contradictory grid of naturalism, for that would ask me to give up my Christianity in order to defend my Christianity, which is something you don't have the luxury of asking me to do.Dusmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18050174688923887698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-72060327417119667292008-03-23T06:31:00.000-04:002008-03-23T06:31:00.000-04:00How can you be sure of any historical event in his...How can you be sure of any historical event in history, much less a controversial one like a miracle? History is a slender reed to hang one's faith upon, especially when it comes to the ancient superstitious past. Take a philosophy of history class.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-17016801427118297182008-03-23T05:13:00.000-04:002008-03-23T05:13:00.000-04:00Wow! What a great blog post! Very well-reasoned,...Wow! What a great blog post! Very well-reasoned, Scripturally supported, a tour-de-force that should convince a fence-sitter.<BR/><BR/>My only suggestion would be to include links refuting neo-Darwinian macro-evolution so as to address the Templeton apostasy.Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.com