|
Dear family,
I am debating a young man who claims to be an atheist. His first
article is in the Editorial section of the Wilson County News,
dated, May 28, 2008. You can read Danny’s article there. I will
re-write my rebuttal this one time. You can read the future
rebuttals in the paper. I would like to thank Wendy Riggs and Carter
Thomas for their help on this rebuttal. If you would like to help
with future rebuttals to Danny’s articles, let me know with a email,
mike@fbcf.org.
Rebuttal to ‘Bible is Stolen Myths’. Not even close! The
article uses as one of its main sources, Wikipedia which is a work
in progress and wanting at best. On the site itself
one can read: “Most of the articles can be
edited
by anyone with access to the
Internet .
. ." "Users should be aware that not all articles are of
encyclopedic quality from the start, and may contain false or
debatable information. Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About,.
Concerning the virgin birth of Jesus: If there was no virgin birth,
then Jesus could not be God, as He claimed to be. If He is not God,
then, according to C.S. Lewis, He was either a liar or a lunatic.
"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said
would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic --
on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he
would be the Devil of Hell. You must make a choice. Either this
man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a mad man or something
worse." ~C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (HarperCollins
Edition 2001), p. 52. Josh McDowell says that if Jesus knew that he
was not God, then he was lying and deliberately deceiving his
followers. But if he was a liar, then he was also a hypocrite... he
would also be a fool because it was his claims to being God that led
to his crucifixion. Many will say that Jesus was a good moral
teacher . . . How could he be a great moral teacher and knowingly
mislead people . . .?" ~Josh McDowell, More Than a Carpenter
(Living Books, 1977), pp. 27-28. On reliability of the Scriptures
Josh McDowell points out that archaeological discoveries have
"confirmed the accuracy of the New Testament manuscripts." (More
Than a Carpenter, p. 42) 'Accuracy' is not a term used in
regard to myths or legends. One uses that word when discussing
facts & truth. "If a person discards the Bible as
unreliable in this sense [historicity & validity], then he or she
must discard almost all the literature of antiquity." ~McDowell,
More Than a Carpenter (Living Books 1977), p. 57. On
archaeology as evidence that the Bible is true: "Scholars have
concluded that no archaeological evidence found to date flat-out
contradicts the Bible . . . Sir William Ramsay of Oxford University
in England, one of history's greatest archaeologists . . . was an
atheist. He spent 25 years . . . to try to disprove the book of
Acts, which was written by the historian Luke. Instead of
discrediting Luke's account, Ramsay's discoveries kept supporting
it. Finally, he concluded that Luke was one of the most accurate
historians who had ever written." ~Lee Strobel, The Case for
Christ Student Edition (Zondervan 2001), pp. 68-69. The most
credible and authentic book in ancient literature is without
question, the Holy Bible.
Mike Clements, Pastor FBCF
|
