Very Strange

Strange, that no disinterested, independent, contemporary corroboration exists from any of the many thousands of alleged witnesses to the signs and wonders that Yahweh supposedly used to attest the man Jesus of Nazareth--very strange. So strange in fact, someone who is honestly searching for the truth just might be led to believe that none of these "attesting" miraculous signs and wonders ever happened.

One would think that if Yahweh truly doesn't want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) that he would have providentially given this type of supporting documentation. Instead, all we have is the biased testimony from the anonymous authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts.

From the Errancy Discussion list, June 14, 1998:

Commonplace, ordinary events of the past were often corroborated

by records left by various sources, but in the case of extraordinary 
or miraculous events, with which claims the Bible is filled, not a 
single disinterested, independent, contemporary source ever 

corroborated any of them. Biblicists rave about the fact that Luke

knew geography, topography, social customs, historical persons, 

etc., etc., etc., all of which can be considered only commonplace 

information. Miracles, however, would have been so extraordinary 

that they would have received wide attention. 

In Acts 2:22, Luke had Peter saying to an audience that numbered 

into the thousands that "Jesus of Nazareth [was] a man attested to 
you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did 
through him among you, as you yourselves know," so the claim 
was that such deeds as these were done in the open and were 
witnessed by many people. If that is so, then why is there no 
disinterested, independent corroboration of them?

Farrell Till

Israelites 40 Years Wandering In The Sinai?

The source of the following information is an article from the News Toronto Bureau by Barry Brown, dated February 27, 1988,  by way of Farrell Till on the Yahoo group errancyn, "The Size of the Hebrew Camps," 5-20-00:

On February 26, 1988, the Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren spoke at the Royal Ontario Museum about his excavations at 80 different sites in the Sinai peninsula from 1972 through 1982. He reported that he had found no evidence for a 40-year nomadic residence in this region by two to three million people. He reported finding at the ruins of an Egyptian outpost a record of two runaway slaves who had been spotted, but in all of his diggings, he found nothing about the sightings of a vast horde of people going through the desert. "They [the two slaves] were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600 thousand of military age weren't?" Oren questioned. "This can't be explained unless you invoke miracles here, and I am a member of the department of archaeology and not of miracles."

Oren reported that other archaeological expeditions beside his have been working in the Sinai region for just as long as he has, but they had found no traces of human activity at all from the time of the exodus except for small mining operations that were under the control of the Egyptians. He reported that archaeologists have found none of the cities that the Israelites allegedly conquered on their way out of the region except for the town of Kadesh, but he said, "To our great surprise, there is nothing there earlier than the 10th century." The exodus, however, allegedly happened in the 15th century B. C. The Bible reports that the 2.5 to 3 million Israelites camped at over 40 different sites, taking with them large herds of livestock, but Oren reported that no evidence of such encampments have been found.

The Communicator's Responsibility

by Kenneth W. Hawthorne

"It is always the writer's duty to communicate. It isn't the readers' responsibility to try to figure out what the writer meant."  Farrell Till (college English teacher for over 30 years).

I had a Church of Christ preacher tell me one time that the apostle Paul wrote the book of Romans using the language of a lawyer. The preacher seemed to look with pride upon Paul who was so educated that he was able to write like this. But why would Paul (allegedly guided by the Holy Spirit) do such a poor job of communicating to the average person who doesn't understand such difficult language? Especially considering whether one winds up in heaven or hell depends on understanding such writing.

With heaven and hell in the balance, one would think that the alleged omni-God Yahweh would have incontrovertibly proven his existence to each person individually. Then, after that was done, at the very least, communicated his will in writing with no errors and so plain and clear that there would be no need to try to figure out what he meant. An omni-God should have wanted to and been able to do this.

But, alas, such is not the case, adding more proof that Yahweh can not be God and  that the Bible is purely a work of man.

Jesus And George Washington

Excellent post by Farrell Till from the 1998 Errancy Discussion list. Christians on the list claimed that the evidence for Jesus's existence is just as good as for the existence of George Washington. Till obliterates that idea:

British records that referred to George Washington would be impartial, unbiased, and disinterested contemporary records in the sense that I have been using these terms in reference to Jesus and early Christianity. First of all, they would not be records that were written by people who were in any way trying to promote George Washington as a heroic figure. Secondly, they would be records left by people who were on the opposing side of the cause that George Washington was involved in. As such, they would provide a compelling reason to assume that this person was an actual historical figure.

You Christians (and don't say that you aren't one, because you are at least dedicated to defending the Christian cause) constantly ask, "Why didn't the enemies of Jesus produce the body when the apostles began to preach the resurrection," or, "Why didn't the enemies of Jesus oppose what Peter preached on Pentecost," etc., etc., etc. Such statements beg the question of NT accuracy and assume that what it says in these matters is completely accurate without even recognizing the possibility that these are stories that were made up years after that time in order to put Christianity into a specific time frame. If you could produce references to Jesus or the activities of the apostles that were clearly left by people who at this time were "enemies" of Jesus and Christianity, you would wet your pants with joy and excitement, because you would see it as compelling evidence that Jesus was an actual historical person and that Christianity did indeed begin at the time alleged in the NT. As it is, however, you can produce no such evidence, but that doesn't keep you from begging the question of NT accuracy in these matters.

If, for example, no one could produce any references that the British made to George Washington in the time that he allegedly led the colonial forces to a victory that brought about American independence, and if no references to Washington or the Revolutionary War could be found in French records of the time when French forces under the leadership of Lafayette allegedly assisted the colonial army against the British, and if no references to Washington or the Revolutionary War could be found in German records of the time when Hessian mercenaries allegedly fought on the British side against a colonial army led by Washington, and if no references at all could be found to Washington, period, except in the writings of those obviously determined to promote him as a great heroic figure, these facts would give people reason to suspect that he may have been just a legendary figure like King Arthur, who developed in the folklore of the past. I don't know about Terry, but I think that Conklin is intelligent enough to get the point. He just will never admit it. 

Being Skeptical

Being skeptical is smelling the milk before you drink.

Being skeptical is checking out your daughter's boyfriend before you let her stay out past ten.

Being skeptical is watching the weather forecast before the road trip.

Being skeptical is a sign of intelligence, of being rational, of being a good steward.

Skepticism is part of the thinking process. An important part.

Not being so eager to die for a cause or argue a point is a sign of maturity.

Sometimes the patience to watch, wait, listen, research and think trumps guns-a-blazin'.

The genuine hero says it when ears don't want to hear it and takes the knocks and walks the line simply because no other life is possible than the real one.

~Terry Walstrom

"Get[ting] The Fear Of Hell Out Of The Human Heart"

Robert Ingersoll was asked the following question (one of several

in an interview in the Philadelphia Times):

Question. Haven't you just the faintest glimmer of a hope that in some future state you will meet and be reunited to those who are dear to you in this?

Answer. I have no particular desire to be destroyed. I am willing to go to heaven if there be such a place, and enjoy myself for ever and ever. It would give me infinite satisfaction to know that all mankind are to be happy forever. Infidels love their wives and children as well as Christians do theirs. I have never said a word against heaven—never said a word against the idea of immortality. On the contrary, I have said all I could truthfully say in favor of the idea that we shall live again. I most sincerely hope that there is another world, better than this, where all the broken ties of love will be united. It is the other place I have been fighting. Better that all of us should sleep the sleep of death forever than that some should suffer pain forever. If in order to have a heaven there must be a hell, then I say away with them both. My doctrine puts the bow of hope over every grave; my doctrine takes from every mother's heart the fear of hell. No good man would enjoy himself in heaven with his friends in hell. No good God could enjoy himself in heaven with millions of his poor, helpless mistakes in hell. The orthodox idea of heaven—with God an eternal inquisitor, a few heartless angels and some redeemed orthodox, all enjoying themselves, while the vast multitude will weep in the rayless gloom of God's eternal dungeon—is not calculated to make man good or happy. I am doing what I can to civilize the churches, humanize the preachers and get the fear of hell out of the human heart. In this business I am meeting with great success.

—Philadelphia Times, September 25, 1885.

Prophecy Fulfillment And Probability

A very concise and accurate statement by Farrell Till concerning biblical prophecy. Excerpted from Prophecy Fulfillment And Probability, The Skeptical Review, 1993 / July-August:

...Mr. Dobbs alleged that the miracles of Jesus had been prophesied in Isaiah 53:4-5, his crucifixion in Psalms 22:16, his resurrection in Psalm 16:10, and his ascension in Psalm 68:18. Examination of these passages in context, however, reveal the same problem that Earle Beach and I discussed above relative to Jeremiah 31:15. The statements are notoriously obscure and become prophecies only through the arbitrary claims of the New Testament writers who lifted them out of context and applied them to situations that the original writers were not referring to. So there is no way that anyone can establish that these "prophecies" were originally intended to be prophecies. All we have is the mere unsubstantiated word of the New Testament claimants that they were meant to be prophecies, and that is not a good enough foundation to build a probability argument on.