The John 3:16 & 4:16 flaw?

and let us not forget, it is only in the case of the bible that valid historicity shows evidence for the supernatural.

Every other religious text is flawed in some way that prevents its valid history, which may surpass the new testament, from proving it's supernatural claims.

For instance, the single message of Muhammad is seen as less reliable than the collection of stories put together, and excluded, from the NT. (given one assumes that everything in the Qu'ran was written by Muhammad...) How unfortunate, given how much better it is as a history book.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I think more than likely Ross is applying a little biblical wisdom in his non-committal response. As Jesus put it, "be as shrewd as snakes, and as innocent as doves." [Matthew 10:16b/NIV] The man did the work, and clearly his work is up to par. He deserves his degree. Yet until the matter is at last settled is Ross free to use his new credentials and explain any seeming contradictions in his philosophy. Personally, I disagree with the concluding statement of the reporter. Just because Ross earned his doctorate from a secular university and wrote an acclaimed secular thesis, I would not for that reason dismiss or distrust his input.

No, what he's doing is playing by the rules of science until he can get his doctorate; at which point he'll start screwing with facts and using his title to lend validity to the effort, just like your doctors Gentry and Austin. In fact Dr. Ross has already appeared in a creationist documentary, as pointed out by the article. At the very most it makes him willfully ignorant and deceptive; at the very least it makes him a liar.

Originally posted by Tim Rout
"Q" is purely hypothetical and unprovable. It is more likely the gospel message remained oral until Mark wrote his work around 50AD.

While it would be nice to have the NT autographs, the mathematical probability of transmission error has been reduced to infinitesimal levels thanks to textual criticism and the abundance of ancient Greek manuscripts.

And if the NT was indeed written by a single person, then he was a literary genius, given the extraordinary diversity of the Greek text. No one in the field of New Testament studies would be crazy enough to suggest single source authorship.

Why do you ignore my point? We don't have the originals, therefore, we don't know who wrote them or how they were constructed. You cannot make the claims you have made without a probability of being wrong.

Also, it is highly unlikely that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote those books. It was not common for an educated man to know how to write back in the days of Jesus. That was reserved for specially schooled people known as scribes.

Also, 30 years is a long time to wait to write down something. Within a year of an event taking place without documentation, the accounts will drift as gossip replaces fact.

Also, if the people around Jesus were so well educated, why did they wait so long to write anything down? I believe the answer is simple; they did not know how to write.

Why didn't Jesus himself not write anything down? He was highly educated, but not a single book in the bible is written by Jesus.

At least the books I study were written by Buddha.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why didn't Jesus himself not write anything down? He was highly educated, but not a single book in the bible is written by Jesus.

At least the books I study were written by Buddha.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Ya figure that the son of God could read and write. 😮

I think he could read, and write a few words, but no, I don't think he could write.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Ya figure that the son of God could read and write. 😮

He only had 3 years of ministry. And if I recall correctly, it was the custom for such teachers to start writing AFTER their ministry. (i.e., Buddha wrote everything down only after he was done with his work because he wasn't nailed to a cross when he was finished)

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think he could read, and write a few words, but no, I don't think he could write.

He was educated in Egypt and was most likely able to write Hebrew just fine.

Originally posted by Quark_666
He only had 3 years of ministry. And if I recall correctly, it was the custom for such teachers to start writing AFTER their ministry. (i.e., Buddha wrote everything down only after he was done with his work because he wasn't nailed to a cross when he was finished)

He was educated in Egypt and was most likely able to write Hebrew just fine.

Why do you say that? Do you know what a scribe is? Was Jesus a scribe? If Jesus could write, why are there no book written by Jesus in the bible are anywhere?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you say that? Do you know what a scribe is? Was Jesus a scribe? If Jesus could write, why are there no book written by Jesus in the bible are anywhere?

Not to be a dick...but did you read Quark's post? 😕 😕

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not to be a dick...but did you read Quark's post? 😕 😕

Baffling, isn't it?

Originally posted by Quark_666
He only had 3 years of ministry. And if I recall correctly, it was the custom for such teachers to start writing AFTER their ministry. (i.e., Buddha wrote everything down only after he was done with his work because he wasn't nailed to a cross when he was finished)

He was educated in Egypt and was most likely able to write Hebrew just fine.

Yeah, and why doesn't he come and visit me. He could if he wanted too. 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon
Not to be a dick...but did you read Quark's post? 😕 😕

Hey! It was late…sleepy

Originally posted by Quark_666
He only had 3 years of ministry. And if I recall correctly, it was the custom for such teachers to start writing AFTER their ministry. (i.e., Buddha wrote everything down only after he was done with his work because he wasn't nailed to a cross when he was finished)…

That is the best idea I have read yet. It would make sense to wait until doctrine was well developed and the teacher was more mature. However, that would mean that the bible is a book of teachings and doctrine and not a history book.

Originally posted by Devil King
No, what he's doing is playing by the rules of science until he can get his doctorate; at which point he'll start screwing with facts and using his title to lend validity to the effort, just like your doctors Gentry and Austin. In fact Dr. Ross has already appeared in a creationist documentary, as pointed out by the article. At the very most it makes him willfully ignorant and deceptive; at the very least it makes him a liar.

Thank-you. Oh THANK-YOU THANK-YOU THANK-YOU!

In this one brief paragraph you have set forth in Technicolor the very point I've been trying to make for the last two weeks.

It doesn't matter to people like you what credentials a scientist holds or how careful his work is. If he's a biblical creationist, you reject him out of hand. Thank-you for making that so abundantly clear. 😱

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Thank-you. Oh THANK-YOU THANK-YOU THANK-YOU!

In this one brief paragraph you have set forth in Technicolor the very point I've been trying to make for the last two weeks.

It doesn't matter to people like you what credentials a scientist holds or how careful his work is. If he's a biblical creationist, you reject him out of hand. Thank-you for making that so abundantly clear. 😱

But you have made it clear that if the scientist is an atheist, you also reject that person out of hand. So, how are you any different then Devil King?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why do you ignore my point? We don't have the originals, therefore, we don't know who wrote them or how they were constructed. You cannot make the claims you have made without a probability of being wrong.

Also, it is highly unlikely that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote those books. It was not common for an educated man to know how to write back in the days of Jesus. That was reserved for specially schooled people known as scribes.

Also, 30 years is a long time to wait to write down something. Within a year of an event taking place without documentation, the accounts will drift as gossip replaces fact.

Also, if the people around Jesus were so well educated, why did they wait so long to write anything down? I believe the answer is simple; they did not know how to write.

Why didn't Jesus himself not write anything down? He was highly educated, but not a single book in the bible is written by Jesus.

At least the books I study were written by Buddha.

I think it is you who have ignored my point. Let me say it again.

While it would be wonderful to have the NT autographs to end all debate, the science of textual criticism and the abundance of ancient early manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, have reduced the mathematical probability of error to infinitesimal levels. Thus, we have good scientific reason to trust the NT canon as delivered.

As to your other points, they are pure speculation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But you have made it clear that if the scientist is an atheist, you also reject that person out of hand. So, how are you any different then Devil King?

Watch my context, Shaky.

If an atheistic scientist begins his argument against divine creation with the assertion "There is no God", then yes, I dismiss his work as unscientific. Wouldn't you?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
Watch my context, Shaky.

If an atheistic scientist begins his argument against divine creation with the assertion "There is no God", then yes, I dismiss his work as unscientific. Wouldn't you?

I would not care about someone’s religious point of view.
Devil King is simply saying that if a creationist puts his/her religion before science, then that makes his/her science of suspect quality. How is that different from what you are saying?

Originally posted by Tim Rout
I think it is you who have ignored my point. Let me say it again.

While it would be wonderful to have the NT autographs to end all debate, the science of textual criticism and the abundance of ancient early manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, have reduced the mathematical probability of error to infinitesimal levels. Thus, we have good scientific reason to trust the NT canon as delivered.

As to your other points, they are pure speculation.

Your point about the Greek NT reduces the mathematical probability of error to infinitesimal levels is also pure speculation.

Tim Rout:

What was the last real peer-reviewed biological article that you read?

Originally posted by inimalist
Tim Rout:

What was the last real peer-reviewed biological article that you read?

Is the bible a peer-reviewed biological article? 😉

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is the bible a peer-reviewed biological article? 😉

apparently one good enough to conclude the motives of all scientists doing research on the origins of life and evolution