It is reasonable to attack an unarmoured portion of the body. One might even try to pierce an armoured portion by applying sufficient force. But the favourite target of the mortal representatives and servants of the enemy has not been helmets or breastplates. As tactically unsound as the policy may be, the sword has been their primary target.
I have lately spent some time discovering apologetic resources on the internet, and I would like to share the best I've found so far.
http://www.rae.org/bibref.htmlEasy to understand, and pretty thorough. I enjoy seeing how a few minutes of common sense and reason can demolish a lie which the enemy has invested decades creating. Guess I just have a thing for efficiency... Er... Okay, no
guessing about it. I love efficiency! Gotta list this one first.
F.F. Bruce workI shall recommend next. A small sample:
The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which noone dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt. It is a curious fact that historians have often been much readier to trust the New Testament records than have many theologians. Somehow or other, there are people who regard a 'sacred book' as ipso facto under suspicion, and demand much more corroborative evidence for such a work than they would for an ordinary secular or pagan writing. From the viewpoint of the historian, the same standards must be applied to both.
is a backup link.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.htmlThis a the result of
real biblical scholarship, and stands in sharp contrast to the fraudulent efforts produced by the enemy's servants.
http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/csbe.htmis a backup link.
http://biblicalscholarship.wordpres...rd-bauckhams-jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses/This is a nice single-topic article about eyewitness testimony. Although it's narrow in scope, there's something that makes me want to include it.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/links01.htmlhas many links to resources. I haven't read anywhere close to all of them, but what I've seen is pretty sound so far. Beats googling - that's for sure.
The objection might be raised that this belongs in the Bible Forum, rather than Creation vs. Evolution. This would be true, if the history were different. We have witnessed attempts here to discredit both the bible and its Author. Evolutionism has always advanced arguments against scripture, and there's no indication they'll stop.
Creationwiki has taken the time to debunk Talkdeceptions' assertions, and the fact that they were even made indicates that after all this time, the methods & motives of evolutionism remain unchanged.
Why do I say "all this time"? Well, John Tyndall's famous
Belfast Address of 1874 was an argument against the Creator. If this isn't the greatest example of
argumentum verbosium ever produced, I'm sure I
don't want to see the champion which beat it out.
I think it's good to have a Bible Forum where peaceful discussions can hopefully take place; but it's just artifice to claim evolutionism isn't opposed to scripture. Actions indicate otherwise.
The various schools of "criticism" are a bigger joke than even many of the resources let on. Out of politeness, and a desire to be strictly accurate, the tidbit of legitimate application is usually mentioned and explained. Generally, the extent to which legit "criticism" (I would prefer 'verification') has been twisted and perverted in order to obtain bogus results is not entirely plain.
Likewise, the history of these schools, their long strings of successive failures and setbacks, do not receive comprehensive treatment in most cases.
I say this not to be critical. I'm just pointing out that there are practical considerations when dealing with arguments from spam, and it is actually highly inefficient to go over everything point-by-point. The pioneers of more than one such school were fairly open about assuming God has never existed; but the current crop of proponents takes care to try to conceal this gross error (while retaining it, of course).
But why should I trouble presenting my own words when the actions of the enemy's agents speak so clearly? I invite any interested party to take a look at
The Bible as Literature, a present-day course. One could spend a good deal of time picking apart the propaganda presented. It cannot withstand questioning.
Some examples:
The Bible is a human document, and I will speak about it in that way. Whether it is also the revealed word of God is a matter of each student's individual faith.
How could the second sentence ever be true? Ever! What manner of inconsistent multiverse would be required?
Centuries of scholarly argument about the Bible have produced a very large body of knowledge. It is the role of courses like this to introduce students to this body of knowledge. Many religious people think this body of knowledge, biblical scholarship, is evil, devil-inspired, pagan, atheist, invented by the enemies of God. That attitude does not help one to pass a university course in the Bible.
Can even one individual be produced who holds such a view of
legit biblical scholarship?
How is failing the student who makes an accurate assessment of the propaganda consistent with (1) quoted above?
In the end the Bible is a work of literature and we are studying it as literature. You should read it and study it as you would study any other body of literature.
This
must be assumed, for as a conclusion it is unobtainable. The "in the end" portion of the sentence is misleading and out-of-order.
... It is conceivable that the Bible could be well taught by a teacher who believes that it is true, by a teacher who believes that it is untrue, or by a teacher who believes that it is partly true. That it could be well taught by a teacher uninterested in the question of its truth is not conceivable. ... (from the "Quotes" portion)
Including this quotation amounts to a confession of bias on the part of the teacher. The bias of this individual, and the intent to act thereupon are abundantly clear from the remainder of the text.
Is the purpose here not obvious: certifying more bogus "experts" who can in time produce more spam? And simultaneously wasting the time and money of any truth-seeking individual who may mistakenly enroll; smearing their record with a failing grade.
Yet such failing grades would be scant "payback". One cannot tally the time, money, and energies put into slandering the bible over the centuries, and continuing even now. But the results are an altogether different matter.
Zero! There is nothing meaningful to show in spite of the vast efforts invested. Nothing, that is, unless the greatly strengthened case
for the bible is reflected in the calculations; this would put them deep in the hole.
Getting back to the strategic aspect, one cannot scan the list of solid apologists without encountering name after name of former atheists who managed to impale themselves upon the sword, and become dead to the world. I provide these resources not as an invitation for spam; but as help for Christians who seek to become better prepared, and for scoffers who care to do their homework. There are hundreds of bogus claims against the bible, but finding anything with merit? If it were proper, I'd follow the custom & say "good luck!"
Lastly, an online bible is available at
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/k/kjv/browse.html
