1.6% of the North American population says that the Bible can’t be trusted in what it says. A couple even say that “evidence” actually turned them from Christianity. This of course is simply not possible. Either their claims of examining evidence are severely understated, or they’re simply lying.
Example: Determined to undermine the historical accuracy of the Bible, William M. Ramsay, a professor at Oxford studied archaeology with the aim of disproving the Bible. Once ready with the necessary scientific tools and learning, he travelled to Palestine and focussed on the book of Acts, which he fully expected to refute as nothing more than myth. After a quarter-century of work, Ramsay was awestruck by the accuracy of the book of Acts. In his quest to refute the Bible, Ramsay discovered fact after fact after fact which confirmed Its accuracy. He had to concede that Luke's account of the events and setting recorded in the narrative were exact even in the smallest detail. As an example see: http://makarios-makarios.blogspot.com/2009/08/can-you-trust-luke.html
Far from attacking the biblical account, Ramsay produced a book, "St. Paul, the Traveller and Roman Citizen," which supported it. Eventually, William Ramsay shook the intellectual world by writing that he had converted to Christianity.
Ironically, this man who set out to refute the Bible, found himself accepting the Bible as God's Word because of his explorations and discoveries. For his contribution to Biblical knowledge with his many books, he was knighted also.
Despite numerous examples of this type, this 1.6% of the population maintains their implausible position, not because of the evidence but in spite of the evidence. They must do this or their world-view will collapse.
It's what these people are like. It's how they think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're the one who is dishonest when presenting the opposite view.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you ignoring this...
***********
Not that I don't care about archeology, quite the contrary, it is always interesting to learn about history, but your next sentence is...
This 1.6% of the population still maintains their implausible position, not because of the evidence but in spite of the evidence.
...so it's not only about history; you consider that archeology should convince atheists that their position (non-belief in God) is implausible/wrong.
Explain that one to my slow mind.
********
Let me try to make that clear:
How can archeology/history proves anything that is considered magical?
What is your basis for judging the Bible?
How do you know what's real in the Bible versus what's symbolic?
How can you determine what part is, or is not, what you called a 'spiritual reality'?
Why do you decide to have faith in certain aspects of the Bible but not others?
How can archeology/history proves something like a virgin birth and a resurection?
This 1.6% of the population still maintains their implausible position, - that the Bible cannot be trusted in what it says.
ReplyDeleteJust take some time to think - Hugo - What must have happened for the Oxford atheist in this post, that he set out to disprove the historical aspects of Acts, and instead he became a Christian.
You know that this case is far from isolated, so just think about it. Don't argue -think. What must have taken place for this change to happen?
I'm having trouble trying to post my response,
ReplyDeletetesting 1...2...3...
Just take some time to think - Hugo - What must have happened for the Oxford atheist in this post, that he set out to disprove the historical aspects of Acts, and instead he became a Christian.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should prescribe to that which you recommend. A little thinking on your part might have helped you understand that converting from atheist to faith, works the other way around as well. What must happen for a priest, who dedicated their entire life to proving Catholicism, to convert to disbelief?
The problem with you, is that your idea of evidence is strange. Someone converting to Christianity is not evidence for god's existance. No more than it would be if someone converted to islam or hinduism. I doubt you would accept those examples as support for THOSE religions, would you?. You then say, despite the evidence... Well Mak, the problem is that we're looking for REAL evidence. Not tales of conversion.
ReplyDeleteYou can find examples of people doing and believing anything. From a woman marrying the Berlin wall to advocates of the ever crazy, truthism. These examples are evidence that human beings can convince themselves of anything, not that the crazy claims they suggest hold value as being true.
ReplyDeleteYou'll find this quote from Sir William M. Ramsey ALL OVER apologist blogs and websites...
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians.
But it's slightly more difficult to find this quote of his...
"You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s, and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice."
As Hugo said, archeology does not prove a virgin birth, only that a myth existed.
Is this the best you can do Mak? Even those slow of thought can see past this atrocity you suggest as logic.
Sorry but this blog was not letting me submit the WHOLE comment, I had to paste it in parts, don't know why. I know you can't type too much before having to partition your comment, but I didn't think I reached a threshold of text that necessitated such a partition.
ReplyDeleteYou know that this case is far from isolated, so just think about it. Don't argue -think. What must have taken place for this change to happen?
ReplyDeleteAre you really interested in an answer or are just making me lose my time?
I'll do as usual and assume that you are really interested; even though I always wonder if I'm wrong or not...
Anyway, interesting question, because you ask to not argue, but think. So that's what I am going to do. I'll try to write in words a thought process...
So, what claim am I looking at?
What must have happened for the Oxford atheist in this post, that he set out to disprove the historical aspects of Acts, and instead he became a Christian.
First, the fact that he was atheist only tells us that he did not believe in a god, we cannot know anything else about his beliefs. It's pointless with regard to the evidence that led to his conversion to Christianity.
Second, the story is that he 'set out to disprove the historical aspects of Acts'. What we can think about here is, why?. The story implies that, because he was an atheist, he wanted to prove Christianity wrong. That is possible. Is it relevant? No, because, again, it's pointless with regard to the evidence that led to his conversion to Christianity.
Third, I'll now jump to what you were really asking to think about, I guess, the evidence/reasons that led him to believe. The main point is that he wanted to disprove the historical aspect of Acts, but instead confirmed it to be accurate. No problem here, Acts can certainly be historically accurate.
Now, the next thing I am suppose to think about is why did it cause him to convert to Christianity? What I understand from such a story is that, for Ramsay, if the historical aspects of Acts were wrong, the whole book was wrong, and, by opposition, if the historical aspects of Acts were right, the whole book was right. That's where I stop believing. The way I wrote it probably makes it obvious, but let me know if I need to explain why...
Of course, in the case of Ramsay, I would not be surprised to learn that he also had spiritual personal experiences, read all the Bible after accepting Acts as true and saw some meaningful passages that changed his life. He probably gained a sense of enlightenment, had a personal relationship with Jesus, felt some love, relief, happiness when thinking about God, or Jesus. The Holy Spirit must have been something he could feel and trust. Jesus became his Savior, the Son that God sacrificed so that he could have salvation, the greatest gift of all. Having found an infinite reward consisting of an eternity in Heaven in the presence of a loving God, why would he refuse it, right?