Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As an example, here is a quote from Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict":
"There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ."
This "claim" is based purely on a third hand anecdotal story told about Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes) who was a Scottish judge from the 1700's.
The original quote originates from a biographical book by Robert Phillip published in 1841 about the life and times of a Rev John Campell. A friend of Campbell's - Rev Walter Buchanan had apparently told him an anecdotal story about a dinner party he remembered from 50 years earlier (in the 1700's), where he and some friends had dinner with Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes).
At the dinner party, Dalyrmple apparently claimed that he could put together the whole of the NT except for 7 or 11 verses based on his collection of writings from the early church fathers. It was a "tall story" told at a dinner party. Here is a link to the biography it was lifted from. See page 215 for the anecdote about Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes)
The whole claim is based on a "big fish" story with no basis in fact. This is the sort of smoke and mirrors that many Apologists use as a basis for their "evidence" of the 'reliablity' of the NT
That is brilliant work. It is so often found that a Big Claim by apologists tends to vanish under investigation. I found that was the case with a claim that human, animal and dinosaur bones had been found 'jumbled together'. Tracking down these Chinese whispers to the origin showed that it was based on the argument from 'living fossils' - specifically that prehistotric Ammonites and modern nautilus look the same. Therefore fossil creatures and modern ones must all have co -existed just ten thousand or so years ago.
Similarly, the claim to extra - Biblical historicity for Jesus (OT a different matter) tends to collapse when each claim is examined.
That is brilliant work. It is so often found that a Big Claim by apologists tends to vanish under investigation. I found that was the case with a claim that human, animal and dinosaur bones had been found 'jumbled together'. Tracking down these Chinese whispers to the origin showed that it was based on the argument from 'living fossils' - specifically that prehistotric Ammonites and modern nautilus look the same. Therefore fossil creatures and modern ones must all have co -existed just ten thousand or so years ago.
Similarly, the claim to extra - Biblical historicity for Jesus (OT a different matter) tends to collapse when each claim is examined.
To me, Josh McDowell's (very popular) books are pretty much just one big circle jerk of Christian evangelical apologists citing each other, faith statements, some blatant lies and a lot of misrepresentation and smoke and mirrors - like the claim above.
It almost makes me cringe in embarrassment when people make claims that are so easily debunked. I can accept it from people who clearly just haven't thought about it much and just blindly parrot what they hear, but for the people who actually originate the claims, they must have done some research and know at some level they are basically...lying.
Like the person who first uses a quote-mine - they needed to have actually read the quote in context first then deliberately made a choice to take it out of it's context to misrepresent it. Then it gets parroted by people who will never bother to check for themselves if it's true.
If people have to be deceptive to try to support and spread their beliefs, what does that say about their beliefs?
"Drinking the Kool-Aid" is a figure of speech commonly used in the United States that refers to a person or group holding an unquestioned belief, argument, or philosophy without critical examination.
In what sense are your beliefs, argument or philosophy questioned and critically examined?
To me, Josh McDowell's (very popular) books are pretty much just one big circle jerk of Christian evangelical apologists citing each other, faith statements, some blatant lies and a lot of misrepresentation and smoke and mirrors - like the claim above.
It almost makes me cringe in embarrassment when people make claims that are so easily debunked. I can accept it from people who clearly just haven't thought about it much and just blindly parrot what they hear, but for the people who actually originate the claims, they must have done some research and know at some level they are basically...lying.
Like the person who first uses a quote-mine - they needed to have actually read the quote in context first then deliberately made a choice to take it out of it's context to misrepresent it. Then it gets parroted by people who will never bother to check for themselves if it's true.
If people have to be deceptive to try to support and spread their beliefs, what does that say about their beliefs?
What makes me cringe (a little bit ) is when their claims get roundly debunked and they refuse to accept it. The various ploys and misdirections - and of course, just silence and then stating the same claim a bit later on -would fill a longer book than the Bible.
And the rationale is the 'Hey what do a few untruths matter if some souls are saved?' package. They KNOW on Faith that what they believe is true, therefore the arguments don't have to be factual, honest or reasonable, so long as they persuade.
To me, Josh McDowell's (very popular) books are pretty much just one big circle jerk of Christian evangelical apologists citing each other, faith statements, some blatant lies and a lot of misrepresentation and smoke and mirrors - like the claim above.
They were originally published in the late 60's or early 70's (it would be interesting to compare those editions to the more current ones published in the 90's and later) and I'm sure they were originally a response to the simple fact that more and more, higher education was a "must", but even in "Christian" institutions the need to be state accredited forced them to present science and literature without the Christian reality distortion field in place. They rightly saw that this would likely result in their young'uns being "seduced away" by "the wisdom of this world". It was an unsuccessful attempt to "innoculate" them before and during their time in the halls of higher learning. I remember having these books pushed at me when I was in high school in the early 70's.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What makes me cringe (a little bit 
) is when their claims get roundly debunked and they refuse to accept it. The various ploys and misdirections - and of course, just silence and then stating the same claim a bit later on 
-would fill a longer book than the Bible. 
