A little response to "How Did the Apostles Die?"
Brian Dean errancy@infidels.org
Sun, 25 Jul 1999 15:41:47 -0400 (00932949707, 379B687B.B5C40409@worldnet.att.net)
> >jcorbin@execpc.com writes:
> >
> ><< I don't understand why unremarkable events such as famines and deaths add
> > credibility to the scriptures if those scriptures agree with non-biblical
> > sources. If contemporary meteorologists, the bible, and Antiquities all
> > agree that Herod was married on a sunny day, what of it? If you wade through
> > the Book of Mormon, it's a near certainty that you'll find SOMETHING that's
> > true. And whatever you find in the Book of Mormon that's true, it's almost
> > certain that it will unremarkable -- as unremarkable as famines, and Herod's
> > death. >>
>
> THEO
> >There is more. The skeptic Sir William Ramsey dug up the rocks in Asia Minor
> >and every inscription he found confirmed the historical accuracy of Luke's
> >writings. It just proves that it was written by someone who was either on
> >the scene or carefully interviewed people who were on the scene. A guy many
> >years later making stuff up could not have been so accurate. And yet, this
> >is not all of the evidence, but only part of it.
> >
>
> TILL
> Oh, dear, now we have Theo recycling that worn-out argument about Sir
> William Ramsay. (I even know how to spell the name.) How many times have
> we blasted this one out of the water? I remember a couple of times when
> this became the issue that sent at least a couple of biblical inerrantists
> packing.
>
> So, tell me, Theo, do you want to defend that old argument about Sir William
> Ramsay and the amazing historical accuracy of Luke? I hope you do, because
> it's been a while since I've had the opportunity to shoot fish in a barrel.
>
> I'll give you a little tip, Theo. You should check into some of these Josh
> McDowellian arguments before you send them out. You might be surprised at
> how often they have been shot down.
>
BRIDEAN
It is probable that THEO is probably not familiar with the earlier cases on this list
where these arguments have been shot down. I myself don't remember what those
arguments were and would like to see them.
So I recommend that to satisfy people like me and THEO, and to avoid rehashing
things that have already been covered that Till provide a link to the archives where
these issues have been dealt with. I don't regard the above response from TILL to
be adequate since on the surface it appears like mere boasting. It would have been
better for Till to say something like:
"The SirWilliam Ramsay argument was already covered on this list. You can read
the arguments at www.~~~~~~. Now do you still want to hold the position that
Sir William Ramsay proves the historical accuracy of Luke?"
The above would be just as short, but would address the issue in a much better
fashion.