A new error

[bhsmte]

I agree...the point was as an atheist he went on this fact finding journey to dispute the history of Luke and found it confirmed in every way (not the God stuff but the history...people, places, events, and so on)

Ok. People go on their own fact finding missions all the time. The reality is, how people either interpret their findings and or even manufacture their own findings, can have a great deal to do with internal psychological motivation to do so.

At the end of the day, people will believe all sorts of things, based on their individual psychological makeup and needs. Many of these beliefs, have little to do with actual objective evidence. And, there is nothing wrong with that, if it works for that person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is named for Zeus (Jupiter), the chief of the pagan pantheon (would equal Odin in Norse mythology) not Thor

No, in English the day is named for Thor. In romance languages, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, it is name for Jupiter.

It looks like you read only the short description of the Wiki article on the word.

 

[HitchSlap]

I agree...the point was as an atheist he went on this fact finding journey to dispute the history of Luke and found it confirmed in every way (not the God stuff but the history...people, places, events, and so on)

It's easiest to fool ourselves.

 

[HitchSlap]

No, in English the day is named for Thor. In romance languages, Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese, it is name for Jupiter.

It looks like you read only the short description of the Wiki article on the word.

I think sometimes they're so zealous to quote mine, they don't even realize.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You said "It was never about the Caananites since the OP used it to launch a false attack against atheists.

He (meaning me) seems to think that only atheists believed that the Caananites were wiped out, when I have never heard any atheism make such a claim"

When I never said any such thing nor do I believe it....

Yes, you did. It is quite clear in the OP. You claimed that only "anti-Bible" people made that claim. That is usually a slam against atheists. The Christians that I have heard make the claim were probably anti-Semitic, but they were not "anti-Bible".

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are incorrect on this one my friend.....

Really? I don't think so. But since you claimed he was an atheist it should be easy to find a reliable source, and in this case you can't use a biased Christian one, that supports this claim.

 

[pshun2404]

I have looked at his works and he did not really do what you said. All you have to do is to show that I was wrong on my claim about Luke's error. I doubt if you can. I have debate this before and ran into all sorts of crazy claims. None that were supported. I support my claim upon history.

So first which claim is that? And secondly as for Ramseys you can start with St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1951 where he states "I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the book…as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations."

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, you did. It is quite clear in the OP. You claimed that only "anti-Bible" people made that claim. That is usually a slam against atheists. The Christians that I have heard make the claim were probably anti-Semitic, but they were not "anti-Bible".

People that are "anti-Bible" includes a number of other categories not only atheists so grow up and do not take it personally and interpret what I said through that filter. Secondly what some people who believe the Bible is reliable say these things mean and what the Bible itself actually says can be two different things (I find the same inability to discern between the data and the story taught among many evolutionists as well).

Te data these scientists retrieved is valid, their conclusion (their story) about the difference between the facts they discovered and what the Bible says is in error!

 

[bhsmte]

People that are "anti-Bible" includes a number of other categories not only atheists.

There are boatloads of Christians who believe in God and Jesus and also feel the NT is not the most credible of sources. Nothing unusual about that. I see nothing to show this guy was an atheist.

 

[Speedwell]

You are incorrect on this one my friend....

Source? Evidence? You are making an extraordinary claim about a fellow Christian. You must have some basis for it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So first which claim is that? And secondly as for Ramseys you can start with St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1951 where he states "I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the book…as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations."

So what? A Christian was convinced that Luke was accurate. I double checked, he always was a Christian. And he was not a very good scholar or investigator either.

Of course it would have been a lot easier to search if you got his name right! His last name is "Ramsay". Now anyone can claim that they entered an investigation without prejudice. And in fact when someone makes that claim alarm bells should go off. It is the sort of claim that an honest person usually does not make. It is a given that they are honest and they don't feel the need to tell their audience:

"Hey, I am a really honest scholar".

At any rate, yes, he made that claim about Luke. So what? He is hardly an authority. His main line of work was archaeology. He was an amateur biblical scholar at best. He showed how poor of one he was by also testifying that all Pauline letters were written by Paul, and that is known not to be the case today.

Here is a short article about him, he is not a valid expert to rely on, try again:

William Mitchell Ramsay - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source? Evidence? You are making an extraordinary claim about a fellow Christian. You must have some basis for it.

Supposedly he was skeptical of some of Luke's knowledge of history, for some odd reason, he found that his place names were correct. I don't think that he checked into the Census of Quirinius.

That bit of skepticism does not make him an atheist at all.

 

[pshun2404]

Ok. People go on their own fact finding missions all the time. The reality is, how people either interpret their findings and or even manufacture their own findings, can have a great deal to do with internal psychological motivation to do so.

At the end of the day, people will believe all sorts of things, based on their individual psychological makeup and needs. Many of these beliefs, have little to do with actual objective evidence. And, there is nothing wrong with that, if it works for that person.

Again I agree...and this works in all fields of study and now it is up to us to separate the data from the narrative attached to get to what is true.

 

[pshun2404]

There are boatloads of Christians who believe in God and Jesus and also feel the NT is not the most credible of sources. Nothing unusual about that. I see nothing to show this guy was an atheist.

Again I agree and never said these scientists were atheists (just anti-Bible and that is fine as far as I am concerned).

 

[Subduction Zone]

People that are "anti-Bible" includes a number of other categories not only atheists so grow up and do not take it personally and interpret what I said through that filter. Secondly what some people who believe the Bible is reliable say these things mean and what the Bible itself actually says can be two different things (I find the same inability to discern between the data and the story taught among many evolutionists as well).

Te data these scientists retrieved is valid, their conclusion (their story) about the difference between the facts they discovered and what the Bible says is in error!

I know you too well pshun. Your bogus explanation is not cutting it. And sorry, but the error of Luke in regards to the census story is well known. It has not been refuted by any Christian.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again I agree and never said these scientists were atheists (just anti-Bible and that is fine as far as I am concerned).

edit
Sorry read to quickly.

I thought he was still talking about "anti-Bible" Christians.

 

[pshun2404]

Source? Evidence? You are making an extraordinary claim about a fellow Christian. You must have some basis for it.

His own testimony is may only reference...see his quotation I offered to SubductionZone above...

 

[bhsmte]

Again I agree and never said these scientists were atheists (just anti-Bible and that is fine as far as I am concerned).

Post 66?

 

[Subduction Zone]

His own testimony is may only reference...see his quotation I offered to SubductionZone above...

Did you even read that? He made no claim of being an atheist. And he was not a valid authority to rely on in the first place.

 

[Speedwell]

So first which claim is that? And secondly as for Ramseys you can start with St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1951 where he states "I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the book…as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations."

So he had unfavorable opinions about the historicity of the Book of Acts derived from his adherence to the Tubingen School of historical-critical exegesis. That makes him an atheist?

No, Michael Ramsay, atheist, is the product of Creationist apologists; Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell in this case.