The Apocalypse is Near: I Just Agreed With Dave Armstrong
Dave Armstrong has an excellent article here highlighting the absurdity of dealing with atheists regarding biblical exegesis.
The real problem facing atheists when they attempt to reason through the Bible is described in that hated book by the apostle Paul: “They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart” (Eph 4:18, emphasis added). Atheists can’t understand the Bible.
Posted on July 2, 2010, in Bible Thoughts and tagged atheism. Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.
Glad you liked it and thanks for the link. I have since expanded the article quite a bit, with in-depth answers to more stuff, and I plan on tackling several more “arguments” from this quite-overconfident fellow. 🙂
I’ve often said that the atheist approaches the Bible like a butcher approaches a hog . . . even the purely secular anthropologist or archaeologist would grant it infinitely more respect.
I’m no historian, but as far as I know, secular historians and anthropologists with no interest one way or the other (i.e. neither religious nor anti-religious) do use the Bible as a historical document. It’s not perfect, and it does raise some questions as to nailing down exact dates, but it holds up as well (or better) as any other historical document of the same period. I keep meaning to do more research in that area, but my primary area of interest in philosophy so that tends to be where I do most of my reading and research.
I’ve since put up two further critiques of his Parts Two and Three. I may seek out and reply to some of his other polemics as well; especially if they are as poorly argued as these so far. It can only give Christians confidence: to see the claptrap our atheist friends come up with in trying to run down Holy Scripture.
Nothing a Protestant would disagree with in any of these, save for one argument about oral tradition . . .
Christians say that other Christians don’t understand the Bible.
There’s also conservative, moderate, and liberal types of biblical interpretation within each major Christian denomination, along with secular biblical studies whose results cross boundaries with all three of the aforementioned general categories of biblical interpretation.
When we first heard about Ida, the scientists announcing the discovery were sure they had discovered one of the first links to human evolution. They put out a book and a documentary (I think). Upon closer examination, the lemur called Ida was nothing special, just another extinct lemur among many.
So what we have here is one group of scientists interpreting the evidence one way, and another group of scientists interpreting the same evidence a different way. That certainly doesn’t falsify evolution.
Which leads me to this question: If that doesn’t falsify evolution, why do various interpretations of the Bible falsify Christianity? Seems like a double standard to me.
Cory, Scientists detected their own error. They didn’t split into two denominations with separate houses of worship.
Christians walk around with the Bible, many claiming it’s the only truly God inspired collection of writings on earth, some say it’s inerrant. Biologists say neither concerning The Origin of Species.