Skepticism of Popular Skeptics: Double Standards
The Bible is one of those wonderful books that tells us to examine it to see if it’s really true. It has stood up to more scrutiny and slander than probably any other book known in history. Oh, that’s another point! Why has the Bible been pressed this hard while other books haven not?
If it wasn’t for certain things in the Bible, it would probably be considered the most historic and accurate book in present existence! It is from here we begin our study.
Peter Kreeft writes,
Essentially, the argument is that if we use the same critical standards and other ancient literature Modernists use on the Bible, we would doubt every single fact we know today about every single writer and event before the Middle Ages. If Modernists applied to the Bible the same standards that historians and textual scholars applied to secular literature of ancient times, the Biblical records would be accepted as some of the most reliable and credible into documents.
So what are these double standards? Compare the New Testament to other books of antiquity:
|
Author
|
When Written
|
Earliest Copy
|
Time Span (Years)
|
# of Copies We Have
|
| Sophocles | AD 496-406 | AD 1000 | 1400 | 100 |
| Tacitus (Annals) | AD 100 | AD 1100 | 1000 | 21 |
| Catullus (Poems) | 54 BC | AD 1550 | 1600 | 3 (Ind) |
| Aristophanes | 450-385 BC | AD 900 | 1200 | 10 |
| Thucydides | 460-400 BC | AD 900 | 1300 | 8 |
| Pliny the Younger | AD 61-113 | AD 850 | 750 | 7 |
| Suetonius | AD 75-160 | AD 950 | 800 | 8 |
| Demosthenes |
383-322 BC | AD 1100 | 1300 | 200 |
| Homer (Iliad) | 900 BC | 400 BC | 500 | 643 |
| Caesar (Gallic Wars) | 100-44 BC | AD 900 | 1000 | 10 |
| Plato (Tetralogies) | 427 – 347 BC | AD 900 | 1,200 | 7 |
| Aristotle | 384 – 322 BC | AD 1,100 | 1,400 | 49 |
| Herodotus (History) | 480 – 425 BC | AD 900 | 1,300 | 8 |
| Euripides |
480 – 406 BC | AD 1,10 | 1,500 | 9 |
| New Testament | 50 – 90 A.D. | AD 130 (frag) | 40 | 24,000 |
The numbers speak for themselves. Commenting on the subject, Sir Frederick Kenyon writes,
The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established. [The Bible and Theology]
So where does this leave us? Richard Purtill says
It is sometimes claimed that historians simply as historians regard Old and New Testament history as unreliable on some independent historical grounds. But…many events which are regarded as firmly established have historically far less documentary evidence than many biblical events. Furthermore, we have many more copies of the vocal narratives than of secular histories; and the surviving copies are much earlier than those on which our evidence for secular history is based. [Thinking about Religion]
I think I’ll let you, the reader, decide on this one. Who is having the double standard?
apologetiks 
Yes, but the bible talks of magic and supernatural happenings that have never been observed by any modern humans…ever Also many things that the Pentateuch talks about never happened…flood, tower of babel, Adam & Eve, garden of Eden, etc.
So I think a lot of people are discounting the bible as a compendium of myths. Certainly God cannot be proven, prayer has been tested and we know it does not work…ever. There has never been any clear evidence of religion working. We also know that theology was changed under many Popes and papers were destroyed so there would be no evidence for other variations.
The Internet in the last 6-7 years has made tremendous amounts of evidence available about religion.
People of religion try continually to shove the bible down peoples brain…and people with common sense can see the futility of it now if they will just search a little on the internet twom
Your comment is mostly spam/off-topic, but we can briefly discuss it.
1) The Bible talks about “supernatural” things. Yes, I’ve already addressed this in the post.
2) “Never happened…flood tower of babel, Adam & Eve, garden of Eden, etc..” You have just made a claim to absolute knowledge. No human alive can make the claim which you have just made.
3) “Prayer has been tested..we know it doesn’t work…ever” Obviously whoever “tested it” never read the Bible. The God of the Bible isn’t a cosmic Santa Clause. Therefore the “tests” assumed that God was false from the beginning. Nevertheless, since I’ve seen prayer work in my own life, my own experience shatters your absolute claim.
4) “Destroyed under Popes and papers…” Once again, I point you to the original post. We don’t have to worry about what Priests and Popes believed because we have copies of the original Bible, long before the first popes came along!
5) “Try to shove the Bible down peoples brain…” Christ never taught forced conversions and I do not shove the Bible down people’s throats. Then again, your definition is probably different from mine. Me asking someone if they’d like to hear about Jesus is probably some terrible war-crime. If this is so, I would request you to stop shoving your worldview down my throat.
“Just search a little on the internet…” The internet is a great resource, but I don’t think it can surpass books. Books are always filled with more detail and created in such a comprehensive way. The internet is often (not always) filled with pseudo-historians and “experts” that are secretly 12-year-olds typing on Wikipedia. Never rely fully on such a medium.
[…] 3] See http://apologetiks.com/2008/07/25/skepticism-of-popular-skeptics-double-standards/ […]
Supernatural Survival: How Is the Bible Still Around Today? « apologetiks said this on October 25, 2008 at 11:44 am |