378
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 222:
Line 222: + + + +
→Name
::So, what I would like for you to do is to go to a Christian book outlet and purchase anything by author Josh McDowell, especially ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict''. I appreciate the fact that you have extensive knowledge concerning languages, and you are willing to educate yourself more in that field. But you also need to educate yourself in the history of the Bible, and not from a critical point of view, hence McDowell. Like you, I want the correct information on this page, but as someone who was trained and qualified in law enforcement, I know the difference between emphirical evidence and hearsay; and I cannot and will not accept hearsay in any article I write. If it won't stand up in a court room, it won't stand up here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
::So, what I would like for you to do is to go to a Christian book outlet and purchase anything by author Josh McDowell, especially ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict''. I appreciate the fact that you have extensive knowledge concerning languages, and you are willing to educate yourself more in that field. But you also need to educate yourself in the history of the Bible, and not from a critical point of view, hence McDowell. Like you, I want the correct information on this page, but as someone who was trained and qualified in law enforcement, I know the difference between emphirical evidence and hearsay; and I cannot and will not accept hearsay in any article I write. If it won't stand up in a court room, it won't stand up here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:::If it's from a Christian bookshop, it goes without saying that ''Evidence That Demands a Verdict'' is biased towards standard (or perhaps not-so-standard) Christian readings of the scriptures - which Jews (whose scriptures the Old Testament is) are of course constantly amazed at - rather than being a purely dispassionate, scholastic approach. So if we're talking about educating ourselves in the history of the Bible, then it's the history of the Bible that needs to be studied, and not merely what we ''would like'' the history of the Bible to have been. Thus (for example) Schonfield's ''The Passover Plot'' and Finkelstein & Silberman's ''The Bible Unearthed'' ought also to be studied, as should any number of reputable works on the Dead Sea Scrolls (mainly for the contextual light that they throw on the subject). All of them throw light - however unwelcome - on the subject. More to the point, the Bible itself should be read - and not just the bits of it that happen to fit our particular thesis. Fact should not be regarded as 'criticism': if it's truly fact, it's purely dispassionate.
:::As for 'emphirical evidence' on what other books 'could have wrote', perhaps you should take a look at Shakespeare, or Nostradamus, or the Egyptian Book of the Dead, or anything of the kind. Such questions always arise where people attach inordinate importance to the exact words of ancient texts (perhaps you should read more of them?), and not merely in the case of the Bible - though, obviously, the more this is rammed down people's throats, the more likely they are to want to look at it critically. Can you blame them? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)