 |
| Cover via Amazon |
Truthbomb Apologetics: 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts
Monday, January 16, 2012
Truthbomb Apologetics: 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts
Truthbomb Apologetics: 84 Confirmed Facts in the Last 16 Chapters of the Book of Acts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
84 historical facts in John Grisham's "The Client"...
ReplyDeleteList them.
ReplyDeleteYou are joking right?
ReplyDeleteNo. I am not joking. I don't think you can list 84 facts in a whole John Grisham novel. I think you just made that up without any documentation or proof. The list of 84 facts is from a single chapter in Acts - not to mention the the rest of the book. Of course you are bing sarcastic - suggesting that just because some facts correct in Acts don't make the book true, but you for get that John Grisham does no claim to be writing more than fiction, yet the prefaces to the books of Luke and Acts makes a much more substantive claim: to be an account of what really happened in an ordered way. Therefore your comment is little more than a joke in and of itself.
ReplyDeleteI'll let Foxy provide the list of 84 specific facts if she (?) likes.
ReplyDeleteBut, just from memory, I know Grisham gets several facts about NO and various automobiles and handguns correct, but those would simply pale in comparison to all the legal details that are in his FICTIONAL books, and going by truthbombs standard, those legal details would certainly qualify as facts in the same way including the correct usage of ***neokoros*** would qualify.
But this
Lost my train of thought. LOL
ReplyDelete***But this*** is all really besides the point, and what I find amusing is that your blog and more pointedly, your reactions to comments, is as good of an argument ***against*** free will as I have seen.
I'll let Foxy provide the list of 84 specific facts if she (?) likes.
ReplyDeleteThe comment i was responding to was anonymous. How do you know who it was who left it?
But, just from memory, I know Grisham gets several facts about NO and various automobiles and handguns correct, but those would simply pale in comparison to all the legal details that are in his FICTIONAL books, and going by truthbombs standard, those legal details would certainly qualify as facts in the same way including the correct usage of ***neokoros*** would qualify.
Go back and read my reply: I did not say that there were not 84 specific facts in a John Grisham novel. I said that I doubt the commenters ability to list them and they just pulled that number because of the post. And so what if Grisham gets some facts right? The point being made in the post is that Grisham never claims to be righting something that literally happened while the book of Acts is claimed to be historically true by the author's own preface. And John Grisham's work has no bearing on whether or not the Acts is true or any of the Bible for that matter.
***But this*** is all really besides the point,
Exactly. The point Geisler and Turek made is that if Luke had gotten these things wrong and/or gave false and contradictory information - then this would give evidence that Acts was not a true and historical document. The thing is it doesn't get those things you would expect to get wrong if text was made up by someone who didn't know what they were writing about.
and what I find amusing is that your blog and more pointedly, your reactions to comments, is as good of an argument ***against*** free will as I have seen.
Um...thank you? I'm not sure what you are talking about. But I don't think libertarian free will is a real thing. Who said it was? So...uh...thanks.
***The comment i was responding to was anonymous. How do you know who it was who left it?***
ReplyDeleteBecause, at least on this end, it says "Foxy La Rue said..."
***I did not say that there were not 84 specific facts in a John Grisham novel. I said that I doubt the commenters ability to list them and they just pulled that number because of the post.***
So you concede that having historical facts present, in and of itself, does not set a work of fiction apart from a work history. Cool.
For examples of works that get some facts correct and claim to be true (and you most likely don't believe they are), see the Urantia Book, the al'Quran, the Book of Mormon, anything involving bigfoot, most things involving the Kennedy assassination... etc... etc... wink...
***The point Geisler and Turek made is that if Luke had gotten these things wrong and/or gave false and contradictory information - then this would give evidence that Acts was not a true and historical document.***
Not any more than it does for Grisham.
What precisely would you ***expect*** to be wrong?
***But I don't think libertarian free will is a real thing. Who said it was? ***
I'm assuming you are an Arminian, given some other posts, so you do, presumably believe in some sort of limited free will. And yet you act like an automaton with your response to posts (I've been lurking a while).
ReplyDeleteBecause, at least on this end, it says "Foxy La Rue said..."
So you just copy-and-pasted from somewhere else without any link or reference. Okay.
So you concede that having historical facts present, in and of itself, does not set a work of fiction apart from a work history. Cool.
Duh! Do you agree that having incorrect facts, in and of itself makes a work fictitious?
I'd expect for a fictional work, written without any first-hand knowledge to get place names, events, and many cultural incidentals and customs wrong. I'd expect not tie it down in a literal place and time. Like Star Wars and other fairy tales are set "A long, long time ago in a land far, far away.
I'm assuming you are an Arminian, given some other posts, so you do, presumably believe in some sort of limited free will. And yet you act like an automaton with your response to posts (I've been lurking a while).
What posts would that be? I'm not an Arminian. And I'd say that free will does exist...only that God has it fully and completely. You have what God says you have.
I am not sure what you are getting at about Foxy's comment.
ReplyDelete***Do you agree that having incorrect facts, in and of itself makes a work fictitious?***
No, Herodotus, Suetonius, Thucydides all come to mind.
**I'd expect for a fictional work, written without any first-hand knowledge to get place names, events, and many cultural incidentals and customs wrong.***
You seem to be committing the false dilemma fallacy here. Yes, a fictional work might not have first hand knowledge of the culture and time, like Star Wars, but that does not mean all fictional works are not sent in the time and culture of the author. The Aeneid comes to mind, or John Grisham for that matter. It does not follow that if the Acts author was writing about a time and culture that he or she knew well, then everything the Acts author wrote was true.
I am not sure what you are getting at about Foxy's comment.
ReplyDeleteMy apologies. When I first saw the comment it said it was Anonymous.
I asked: Do you agree that having incorrect facts, in and of itself makes a work fictitious?
You responded
No, Herodotus, Suetonius, Thucydides all come to mind.
So then why do you think the book of Acts is Fictittious?
It does not follow that if the Acts author was writing about a time and culture that he or she knew well, then everything the Acts author wrote was true.
Who said it did? I didn't. The point of the post is not that this is a case-closed argument for the reliability of Acts. It's just one very good point of evidence in a cumulative case for the inerrancy of Acts. It is a necessary but not sufficient component in demonstrating that Acts is not fictitious.The post does not even try to assume this - you did.
Yes, I am sure the original commenter’s name *changed*. More than likely you misremembered it like eyewitnesses are wont to do… :)
ReplyDelete***So then why do you think the book of Acts is Fictittious {sic}?***
If you look back at our comments, you’ll see that is not my claim. My point here, given your incurious dismissal of Foxy’s statement, has been to try to get you to see that even if a work is *non-fiction* in category or genre, that doesn’t mean all events related in the work are true or the work is without error. You are working with another False Dilemma here by claiming that because Acts is not *fiction* it is true. Let’s take Dean Hartwell’s *non-fiction* work “Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11” as an example, it includes accurate *facts* about NY, airplanes and the Airlines, cruise missiles, the events of 11-9-01, etc…, he ***claims to be righting {sic} something that literally happened*** and presumably does not intentionally mean to deceive but I think we’d all agree his work is by no means *true*.
***It’s just one very good point of evidence in a cumulative case…***
I am always hearing about this *cumulative case* but I am never seeing it being made.
If you look back at our comments, you’ll see that is not my claim. My point here, given your incurious dismissal of Foxy’s statement, has been to try to get you to see that even if a work is *non-fiction* in category or genre, that doesn’t mean all events related in the work are true or the work is without error. You are working with another False Dilemma here by claiming that because Acts is not *fiction* it is true. Let’s take Dean Hartwell’s *non-fiction* work “Planes without Passengers: the Faked Hijackings of 9/11” as an example, it includes accurate *facts* about NY, airplanes and the Airlines, cruise missiles, the events of 11-9-01, etc…, he ***claims to be righting {sic} something that literally happened*** and presumably does not intentionally mean to deceive but I think we’d all agree his work is by no means *true*.
ReplyDeleteSo basically you are wasting time for no apparent reason because you are not trying to argue that Acts is false or true only that 84 true facts in a single chapter doesn't make the book true - which isn't what I ever said in the first place. Thanks a lot. Good thing you are not trying to make a cumulative case or anything.
I did not dismiss Foxy La Rue's comment. I challenged it. And you've added nothing.
ReplyDeleteI am saying you have have added nothing because in effect the only thing we disagree on is that Acts is true. In effect you haven't rebutted anything else I have said but only agreed.
ReplyDelete***So basically you are wasting time for no apparent reason because you are not trying to argue that Acts is false or true only that 84 true facts in a single chapter doesn't make the book true***
ReplyDeleteGranted, but ultimately, is not that just what truthbomb (and you I suppose) are doing if this little top ten list bit doesn't show Acts is necessarily *true*?
***And you've added nothing.***
I think I've added the *fact* that everything in Acts is not necessarily true even is somethings in Acts are.
***So basically*** it's like this post of yours never happened. I've shown the claim is not necessarily true, and you've admitted this post does show that it's is either.
La revedere.
Also...
ReplyDelete***The list of 84 facts is from a *single* chapter in Acts...***
No...
***84 Confirmed Facts in the Last *16 Chapters* of the Book of Acts***
That is to say, *the list of 84 facts is from the last 42% of Acts*...
Granted, but ultimately, is not that just what truthbomb (and you I suppose) are doing if this little top ten list bit doesn't show Acts is necessarily *true*?
ReplyDeleteNo one ever said that this was all the evidence you need to show that Acts is necessarily true. But it is evidence that Acts is true.
I think I've added the *fact* that everything in Acts is not necessarily true even is somethings in Acts are.
No you added your opinion. You didn't prove anything in Acts was false. Your opinion is noted, you have every right to think whatever you want - no matter how wrong it is.
I've shown the claim is not necessarily true, and you've admitted this post does show that it's is either.
All I claimed was that there are 84 confirmed facts in the last 16 chapters of Acts. That's it. You added the rest. Trying to show that it doesn't make the rest of the book true. Although I believe the rest of the book is true - those 84 facts are not why I believe that.
That is to say, *the list of 84 facts is from the last 42% of Acts*...
Thanks for the correction. The Bible is infallible but obviously neither one of us are.
***No you added your opinion. You didn't prove anything in Acts was false.***
ReplyDeleteNo, it's a *fact* that everything in Acts is not *necessarily* true even is somethings in Acts are.
No, it's a *fact* that everything in Acts is not *necessarily* true even is somethings in Acts are.
ReplyDeleteNow here is where the rubber meets the road. You have to prove that there are things in Acts that are not true....not just assert it. Go ahead and prove that there is something in Acts that is not true.
You did not understand my last comment, did you?
ReplyDeleteYup. If you are going to say that Act is not true, then you ought to be able to back that up. If you are saying that you don't know if Acts is true or not, then you ought to just admit your ignorance.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you should also re-read that
ReplyDeletelast sentence I think there is a typo
No, it's a *fact* that everything in Acts is not *necessarily* true even is somethings in Acts are.
Did you mean
No, it's a *fact* that everything in Acts is not *necessarily* true even if somethings in Acts are.
?
If so, then my question stands. You ought to be able to demonstrate that there are things in Acts that are either not True or not "necessarily" true. Where is your evidence?
It is a *fact* that everything in Acts is not *necessarily* true even if some things in Acts are.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a controversial statement nor should it be too difficult for you to understand.
Let me ask you. How would one prove, now, with evidence, that Paul did not raise Dorcas from the dead?
But why assume that it is true?
Why would you assume that it was false? And Paul didn't raise Dorcas, God did. Paul wasn't even present. Peter was. Acts 9: 32-43
ReplyDeleteI'm constantly transposing Paul and Peter when I do this stuff from memory.
ReplyDeleteBut the question remains, why assume that it is true?
Why should you assume it isn't true? I see no reason at all to assume it's false. There is no evidence for pointing to it being false. Therefore why would you think it's not true?
ReplyDeleteWhy assume anything is false then? The Iliad gets many historical facts correctly and accurately reflects the culture and time it is written in.
ReplyDeleteBut we all, *I hope*, assume Hermes did not actually help Priam sneak into the Myrmidon camp.
Now why are you changing the subject? Besides What are the many historical facts that the Iliad (and the Odyssey for that matter) gets correctly and accurately and what fact do Acts get wrong? Waiting.
ReplyDeleteIf you are interested, you should read by M. I. Finley and Bernard Knox's *The World of Odysseus*
ReplyDeleteAs for what Acts gets wrong, I would be interested in your answer to my original question. How would one prove, now, today, with evidence, that Dorcas was not raised from the dead?
As for what Acts gets wrong, I would be interested in your answer to my original question. How would one prove, now, today, with evidence, that Dorcas was not raised from the dead?
ReplyDeleteYou can't prove Dorcas was not raised from the dead. (Can't prove a negative, right?)
There is no evidence that God did not raise Dorcas from the dead. There is no reason to assume that Acts is false - especially since you can't demonstrate it false with counterfactual evidence. (You ignored my challenge to provide some). But if you want contemporary evidence, what about the fact that God is still performing such kinds of miracles today - all over the world. Some such of these miracles have been well documented. If that isn't good enough for you - you still have to bring evidence showing that it didn't happen to Dorcas or admit you don't know. But you can't say you know Acts has things in it that did not happen. The best you can say is that you doubt Acts because of your own unfounded presuppositions. Which is your right. Stupid. But it is your right.
***You can't prove Dorcas was not raised from the dead. (Can't prove a negative, right?)***
ReplyDeleteGreat! There you are! I'll let you think through the implication if you are brave enough.
La revedere.
Too bad you didn't grasp the rest of the comment. No surprise though.
ReplyDeleteI grasped it, but *1* it did not add anything beyond your first sentence, which you really need to try to grasp the implications of, and *2* I've never not seen a miracle claim debunked or if it happens to be unfalsifiable, then I've never not seen it shown to be ultimately unevidenced. And I've looked, quite extensively.
ReplyDeleteI know I said *la revedere* already, but why'd truthbomb focus on the *last* 16 chapters of Acts? I know, but do you?
ReplyDeleteI grasped it, but *1* it did not add anything beyond your first sentence, which you really need to try to grasp the implications of, and *2* I've never not seen a miracle claim debunked or if it happens to be unfalsifiable, then I've never not seen it shown to be ultimately unevidenced. And I've looked, quite extensively.
ReplyDeleteI don't think you've looked hard enough. You have already come to the conclusion that miracles don't happen and have never really known for yourself. That's not good enough to assume that Dorcas was not raised from the dead.
I admit that I don't know why you think Geisler and Turek focused on the last 16 Chapters of Acts but there isn't any need not to look at the beginning. Read Josephus and the New Testament by Steve Mason.
***You have already come to the conclusion that miracles don't happen and have never really known for yourself.***
ReplyDeletepatently false.
I do however require a higher standard of evidence for *historical claims* of miracles, which ironically is precisely the same standard you hold for the Iliad, the al-Quran and countless other works.
Also, I have read Josephus and the New Testament by Mason, and as I recall, one of the main themes is how the Patriarchs distort Josephus.
But why do you *think* I should reread it?
No what is false is that miracles do not happen. You can argue that you haven't experienced them, but you can't say that they don't happen. You can't prove that.
ReplyDeleteI do however require a higher standard of evidence for *historical claims* of miracles, which ironically is precisely the same standard you hold for the Iliad, the al-Quran and countless other works.
Not so fast. I'm not willing to dismiss a miracle claim just because it doesn't come from a fellow Christian. God can do anything He wants for whomever He wants. I mean He lets you keep breathing and you aren't a Christian. God does good things for nonbelievers all the time. That and adding Deuteronomy 13, tells me I can't just outright reject all other miracle claims without careful investigation, if possible.
Also, I have read Josephus and the New Testament by Mason, and as I recall, one of the main themes is how the Patriarchs distort Josephus.
Yes, that was one of points raised and something Mason managed to avoid. But one of the things he did was show many examples of where Josephus, Acts, and History all correspond and agree with one another. And He gives examples throughout the Book of Acts. Not just the last 16 Chapters. Maybe you missed it.
***Not so fast. I'm not willing to dismiss a miracle claim just because it doesn't come from a fellow Christian.***
ReplyDeleteBut I noticed in Foxy's Ninja Turtle thread, you just said,
***and I seriously doubt you can prove that Ninjas really turned themselves into animals.***
This is the standard I suspect you *actually* hold *in practice* for non-Biblical, non-Christian miracle claims.
It is not so much that miracles do not happen, it is that you cannot prove the do.
So back to Dorcas,
***You can't prove Dorcas was not raised from the dead. (Can't prove a negative, right?)***
Would you admit that even if Dorcas was *not* raised from the dead, you could not prove she was not?
One: Miracles and magic are not the same thing. You can't mix categories and context in that fashion.
ReplyDeleteTwo: The point I have been making is that you can't prove that Dorcas was not raised from the dead. And given that God performs the same miracles and more than He did in the Bible there is more than enough evidence to be certain that Dorcas was raised from the dead. You have no rational reason to think that that Dorcas was not raised from the dead especially since you have conceded that miracles are possible.
Three: Ninjas themselves knew they were only making their enemies think they had supernatural powers. This is not the same thing as a Muslim making a claim about how Allah blessed him. Please don't project on me what you think I should believe to make a false argument when I habe told you that is not what I believe.
OK, so as a hypothetical, would you admit that even if Dorcas was *not* raised from the dead, you could not prove she was not?
ReplyDeleteSee the problem?
No, the problem is that you have concluded that Dorcas was not raised from the dead - and you have no reason to come to that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteOK, so as a hypothetical, would you admit that even if Dorcas was *not* raised from the dead, you could not prove she was not?
ReplyDeleteSo what? How does not being able to prove Dorcas was not raised from the dead show that Dorcas was not raised from the dead?
ReplyDeleteSo what? How does not being able to prove Hermes helped Priam into Achilles tent show that Hermes didn't help Priam into Achilles tent?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't tell you one way or another if it is true. That is the point. Stop being gutless and pick a position and back it up.
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't tell you one way or another if it is true. That is the point. Stop being gutless and pick a position and back it up.
ReplyDelete*** Stop being gutless and pick a position and back it up.***
ReplyDeleteYou appear to be saying that it shows a lack of intestinal fortitude if one does not commit to a yes/no belief on whether something in the past happened or not based on historical evidence.
That is actually very interesting and illuminates one of the main problems of belief in the hands of modern Western lay Christians and why historical evidence can never prove a miracle and in the end, it not religions friend.
Thank you for the demonstration.
You appear to be saying that it shows a lack of intestinal fortitude if one does not commit to a yes/no belief on whether something in the past happened or not based on historical evidence.
ReplyDeleteInstead of trying dodge what I said by responding to what I didn't say is truly sad. The event of Dorcas being raised from the dead is a "yes/no" proposition. Either she was raised or she wasn't. You have a huge contradiction. You say you reject that she was but maintain that because you say that there is not enough credible evidence to falsify that she she was not raised from the dead. That's talking out of both sides of your mouth. Further you have refused to give any real reason why you reject that she was raised from the dead. You have not spelled it out. Maybe I should have said such argumentation was dishonest instead of just "gutless".
That is actually very interesting and illuminates one of the main problems of belief in the hands of modern Western lay Christians and why historical evidence can never prove a miracle and in the end, it not religions friend.
What do you mean by "lay"? I'm a minister in a mainstream Christian church. Do you mean "lay" meaning not clergy or do you mean "lay" as not being a "scholar". Either way its very interesting coming from one who is anonymous. From what authority do you claim to make such a condescending statement. How many Ph.D.'s in theology and philosophy and history do you have and from where? Given your shoddy arguments, I'd bet you have no credentials and no authority and no expertise. Certainly not greater than my own. Not surprising coming from one who thinks more highly of himself than he ought.
Historical evidence is able to disprove a miracle. Lack of Historical evidence doesn't tell you a thing - either way. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate some rational reason for assuming that Dorcas was not raised from the dead.
***Instead of trying dodge what I said by responding to what I didn't say is truly sad.***
ReplyDeleteOntologically, yes, Dorcas was either raised from the dead, or she wasn't. However, With history, our only means of assessing a fact like this, is is not a simply "yes it happened/no it did not", it is a "is there enough evidence or is there not enough evidence to provisionally conclude that event x happened".
****What do you mean by "lay"? I'm a minister in a mainstream Christian church.***
My apologies, but is my assumption that you have not attended Seminary, or not done post graduate work in Theology and or Biblical Studies correct?
***How many Ph.D.'s in theology...***
I have a D.D. from a well known school in the Dallas area.
***Historical evidence is able to disprove a miracle. Lack of Historical evidence doesn't tell you a thing***
You keep making fairly profound statements, and then don't follow them through.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHowever, With history, our only means of assessing a fact like this, is is not a simply "yes it happened/no it did not", it is a "is there enough evidence or is there not enough evidence to provisionally conclude that event x happened".
ReplyDeleteThat's a dodge and you know it. You are saying Acts is not true because it says Dorcas was raised from the dead yet you admit that you can't prove she wasn't or that she was. You have to have something better to stand on.
My apologies, but is my assumption that you have not attended Seminary, or not done post graduate work in Theology and or Biblical Studies correct?
My degrees are in Engineering, Physics, and Information Technology. I wonder are you implying that you need to be educated at the doctorate level to have a meaningful understanding of of Theology? I hope not. Because I wonder if you have Doctorate in Divinity how could you look at the evidence and miss that Acts is historical and accurate - given that you cannot show that it's false.
You keep making fairly profound statements, and then don't follow them through.
Uh...thank you? I think. I've got to ask, how do you know you have followed them through. You have Doctor's of Divinity yet you don;t know the one you spent so much time studying about.
***That's a dodge and you know it.***
ReplyDeleteNo, it is a recognition that ontology and epistemology are two different philosophical categories.
***I wonder are you implying that you need to be educated at the doctorate level to have a meaningful understanding of of Theology?***
***Because I wonder if you have Doctorate in Divinity how could you look at the evidence and miss that Acts is historical and accurate***
These two statements taken together are quite telling. But I wonder are you implying that being educated in theology can only lead to one possible conclusion, a conclusion that someone who is not educated in theology holds?
It is a dodge because you claim that Acts contains things that are not true although you know you can't prove they are not true because you can't use the same rules that you use for other events. Ever consider you might be using the wrong epistemology? The wrong standards. In every other pursuit of knowledge we use the correct tools for the correct subjects and not afraid to change those tools if we have to, except this one.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find telling is that you seem to think that I should come the same conclusions you have. I'm not making the same assumption because the Bible does reveal the inability to all of us to come to the correct conclusion without grace and mercy of God. The fact that you can't see it despite your valuable education and some witnout any formal education at all only means that it doesn't matter how smart or educated you are - only what God does with you. I'm praying that God extends his grace to encompasd you so you can see His word for what it truly is.
It is a dodge because you claim that Acts contains things that are not true although you know you can't prove they are not true because you can't use the same rules that you use for other events. Ever consider you might be using the wrong epistemology? The wrong standards. In every other pursuit of knowledge we use the correct tools for the correct subjects and not afraid to change those tools if we have to, except this one.
ReplyDeleteWhat I find telling is that you seem to think that I should come the same conclusions you have. I'm not making the same assumption because the Bible does reveal the inability to all of us to come to the correct conclusion without grace and mercy of God. The fact that you can't see it despite your valuable education and some witnout any formal education at all only means that it doesn't matter how smart or educated you are - only what God does with you. I'm praying that God extends his grace to encompasd you so you can see His word for what it truly is.
***It is a dodge because you claim that Acts contains things that are not true...***
ReplyDeleteI explained to you, in detail, six days ago, that that is not my claim.
If that wasn't enough, your *Christian Zombies* post has shown me that this is a waste of my time. La Revedere.
No, you say that Dorcas was not raised from the dead, yet say that there isn't enough historical evidence to conclude that Dorcas was not raised from the dead. Yeah...that makes since.
ReplyDeleteYou said:
ReplyDeleteIt is a *fact* that everything in Acts is not *necessarily* true even if some things in Acts are.
That's why I said you should make up your mind...and when pressed you insinuated that Dorcas was not raised from the dead and now you say your position is not that Acts had things in it that weren't true. You waffle so much...It's confused me.