Changes

"If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresenta [sic] any part of Jesus' story." Sorry, but hasn't Andrew demonstrated that the Bible is false with regard to [[Essay:Adultress Story]]? Many other sections are disputed too, I understand, by more qualified Biblical scholars. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 07:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

"If any part of His life did not take place as stated, then the Bible is false. No one has yet shown that the Bible misrepresenta [sic] any part of Jesus' story." Sorry, but hasn't Andrew demonstrated that the Bible is false with regard to [[Essay:Adultress Story]]? Many other sections are disputed too, I understand, by more qualified Biblical scholars. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 07:51, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

:The Reverend Professor Keith Ward ([http://www.gresham.ac.uk/text.asp?PageId=25 qualifications here]) - and not a liberal, but a [http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/501/ critic] of Dawkins - for example points out in "What The Bible Really Teaches - A Challenge for Fundamentalists" (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London; 2004 ISBN 0-281-05680-3 p.147): "...in the song of Zechariah, in the Gospel of Luke...[the] prophet blesses God for, he says, with the birth of Jesus God has kept his promise 'to rescue us from the hands of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear' (Luke 1:74). It is false that the Jews were delivered from fear of Roman domination, and allowed to live in peace. The nation was destroyed by Rome within a generation." So what are we to take from that? That the Bible really ''is'' erroneous? Or the Gospel? Or the Gospel writer? Just that section of prophecy? Is there perhaps some ''other'' interpretation of the words? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 08:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

:The Reverend Professor Keith Ward ([http://www.gresham.ac.uk/text.asp?PageId=25 qualifications here]) - and not a liberal, but a [http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/501/ critic] of Dawkins - for example points out in "What The Bible Really Teaches - A Challenge for Fundamentalists" (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London; 2004 ISBN 0-281-05680-3 p.147): "...in the song of Zechariah, in the Gospel of Luke...[the] prophet blesses God for, he says, with the birth of Jesus God has kept his promise 'to rescue us from the hands of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear' (Luke 1:74). It is false that the Jews were delivered from fear of Roman domination, and allowed to live in peace. The nation was destroyed by Rome within a generation." So what are we to take from that? That the Bible really ''is'' erroneous? Or the Gospel? Or the Gospel writer? Just that section of prophecy? Is there perhaps some ''other'' interpretation of the words? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 08:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

I also have concerns about this article.  In principle, it's correct.  Practice is not so clear-cut, however.  The main problem, I think, is in expecting archaeology to be able to prove that something ''didn't'' happen.  Archaeology "proved" (according to the article) that Assyria didn't exist.  The same with the Hittites.  Now the "proof" turned out to be wrong, and Assyria and the Hittites ''did'' exist.  But until the evidence was found, isn't it true to say that Archaeology "proved" the Bible wrong?  No, it's not true, because a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.  And that's the point:  Archaeology cannot really prove that something ''didn't'' happen, so the Bible is not falsifiable ''in that manner''.

I also have concerns about this article.  In principle, it's correct.  Practice is not so clear-cut, however.  The main problem, I think, is in expecting archaeology to be able to prove that something ''didn't'' happen.  Archaeology "proved" (according to the article) that Assyria didn't exist.  The same with the Hittites.  Now the "proof" turned out to be wrong, and Assyria and the Hittites ''did'' exist.  But until the evidence was found, isn't it true to say that Archaeology "proved" the Bible wrong?  No, it's not true, because a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack.  And that's the point:  Archaeology cannot really prove that something ''didn't'' happen, so the Bible is not falsifiable ''in that manner''.