1. How do you explain the high degree of design and order in the universe?
There are so many answers that could be given to this, and they have all been given before: here and here, for example, so I will be relatively brief.
The appearance of design and order is an illusion, perfectly well accounted for by scientific models and theories of the origins, and progressions, of life and the universe. Modern organisms are products of evolution - the mechanism whereby only the genes of those animals fit enough to mate are passed on and therefore attributes that aid survival in an environment generally carry on in a population while attributes that hinder survival do not. This theory well explains the many beautiful and complex attributes we can observe in ourselves and every other living organism.
It is also worth quickly looking at the premise of the question and wondering whether the universe even has a "high degree of design and order". While there are plenty of lovely things in the world - Ray Comfort's banana of course being one of them (although not exactly as God designed), there are also plenty of terrible, uncaring things that make life difficult for us, like cancers and viruses. And for all the wonderful apparent order of something like the eye, there is the uselessness of vestigiality.
2. How do you account for the vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories, places, and people?
I was unaware that there was "vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories", being of the understanding that there were many parts of the Bible that lacked any outside substantiation. So with interest I followed a link that accompanied the question, concisely entitled In what ways have archaeological discoveries verified it?
The link contains a list of five examples of people or events in the Bible that have been accounted for by evidence outside the Bible. In each case, the example is of a relatively inconsequential detail, such as whether Solomon really was as wealthy as we're told. There is no mention of any of the slightly more damning archaeological cases against the Bible, such as the lack of evidence for a world-wide flood, the lack of evidence of an Arc, the lack of evidence that kangaroos and koalas managed to get from the middle east to Australia after the flood or the pretty scant evidence that the exodus even took place - especially since somewhere near mount Sinai should be the corpses of 3000 idol-worshipping Israelites.
Given that they haven't accounted for any of these major inconsistencies, I refute the question's premise that there is "vast archaeological documentation of Biblical stories".
3. Since absolutely no Bible prophecy has ever failed (and there are hundreds), how can one realistically remain unconvinced that the Bible is of Divine origin?
Again, the link that accompanies this question gives aloof descriptions of these fulfilled prophecies, similar to the archaeological evidences of the last question. The main point they make is that, in the Old Testament, many prophecies were made that were fulfilled in the New Testament, many of them by Jesus. Let us remember however that prophecies of saviours, second comings and redemption are common to many mythologies and that a burgeoning religious group would do well to capitalise on such prophecies to give themselves extra weight. An author writing about the life of a man they believe to be the Messiah would not necessarily be exempt from the temptations of augmenting facts with details that would tie into the ancient and revered prophecies of the Hebrew scriptures, in order to convince fellows Jews of Jesus' divinity. Most of the prophecies of the Old Testament, like those of Nostradamus and of many modern psychics, are characteristically woolly and unspecific and therefore easy to mold to any agenda if desired.
Question 3 is followed by a few specific examples, so I will address these.
- Explain David's graphic portrayal of Jesus' death by crucifixion (Psalm 22) 1000 years previous to crucifixion being established as a form of capital punishment?
Psalm 22 only has a few lines which could refer to the actual circumstances of the death of Christ and although the piercing of hands and feet is described, there is no mention of being affixed to anything, let alone a cross. Therefore I think it is fair to question whether this is a description of crucifixion since any mention of the most distinguishing element of this mode of punishment is omitted. While crucifixion may not have been established at the time of writing of the psalms, other punishments involving nails, hands and feet may have been.
- How could any mere human pinpoint the birth town of the Messiah seven full centuries before the fact, as did the prophet Micah?
There is substantial evidence to say that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem at all. Robin Lane Fox's Truth and Fiction in the Bible contains a very clear break down of all the evidence that contradicts the Biblical and traditional accounts of Jesus' birth. To mercilessly paraphrase his far more thorough explanation: Joseph would not have been required to travel to the town of his birth had their been a census, any census would only be interested in where people live now. If there had been a census ordered by Quirinius, it would not have applied to Joseph anyway as Nazareth was still self-governing. Although a census, ordered by Quirinius, is recorded by Josephus, it was 10 years after the death of King Herod who died in 4BC.
The story placing Jesus' birth in Bethlehem at the time of both Herod and Quirinius was therefore most likely a specific attempt by the authors of Matthew and Luke (or some earlier oral tradition) to fulfil Micah's prophecy to lend weight to the idea that Jesus was the saviour.
- Account for the odds (1 in 10 to the 157th power) that even just 48 (of 300) Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in one person, i.e Jesus.
This seems like an extremely odd way to ask this question. Why 48 of 300? Why the use of numerical odds altogether? I can only assume this is a cunning ploy to attempt to fool otherwise scientifically minded people that they know what they're talking about.
However, as I have already discussed, prophecies fulfilled within the Bible - especially in events recounted by people who have a personal or political interest in conveying and spreading their message - cannot be taken credulously as evidence of anything.
- How was it possible for the Old Testament prophet Isaiah to have predicted the virgin birth of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14) 700 years before it occurred?
This might as well be the same question as the last two. I do not accept the premise that there was a virgin birth and therefore I do not accept the supposed fulfilment of this prophecy as evidence of anything.
These last three examples have all used a type of circular reasoning characteristic of defenders of Biblical inerrancy. The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.
Part 2 will follow soon...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please make any comments constructive and interesting. Spam and abuse will be removed.