I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheistby Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek
I finally finished reading this book cover to cover. While I got an overview of it during my Apologetics course at Big Sky Bible Institute, I decided to go back through and read the entire thing word-for-word.
This is an excellent book! If you want to know why you believe what you believe, are looking for evidence to back up your faith or refute people posing hard questions, or are an atheist searching for truth, this book is a great place to start looking!
At 447 pages, it may look a little long at first, but I think that this book strikes a great balance between being too short and simplistic, and too long and wordy. They include great quotations, awesome facts, easy to read charts, and parable-like stories to aid understanding. These guys back up their facts and quotations with excellent citations, but still write in easy to understand english. Basically, they say really smart things and you can understand it.
A little bit about the authors: Norman Geisler has authored or coauthored over sixty books, has taught at the university and graduate level for over 40 years, and has debated in all 50 states and 25 countries, has a Ph.D. in philosophy, and is president of a seminary. Frank Turek has two masters, and (at the time of publication) is going for a doctorate of apologetics. He's vice president of the same seminary as Geisler (Southern Evangelical Seminary), and is a renowned writer and speaker.
Here is the general thought process that the book follows, and the points that it consequently proves beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Truth about reality is knowable.
2. The opposite of true is false.
3. It is true that the theistic God exists. This is evidenced by the:
a. Beginning of the universe (Cosmological Argument)
b. Design of the universe (Teleological Argument/anthropic principle)
c. Design of Life (telological argument)
d. Moral Law (moral argument)
4. If God exists, then miracles are possible.
5. Miracles can be used to confirm a message from God (i.e., as acts of God to confirm a word from God)
6. The New Testament is historically reliable. This is evidenced by:
a. Early testimony
b. Eyewitness testimony
c. Uninvented (authentic) testimony
d. Eyewitnesses who were not deceived
7. The New Testament says Jesus claimed to be God.
8. Jesus' claim to be God was miraculously confirmed by:
a. His fulfillment of many prophecies about himself;
b. His sinless life and miraculous deeds;
c. His predictions and accomplishments of his resurrection.
9. Therefore, Jesus is God
10 Whatever Jesus (who is God) teaches is true
11. Jesus taught the Bible is the Word of God.
12. Therefore, it is true that the Bible is the Word of God (and anything opposed to it is false)
And I love how Geisler and Turek quote loads of atheist sources that support their points...
(Read this book online on Google Books)
9 comments:
that book looks well used...havent picked it up since bsbi...
you totally should though, it's awesome!
I finally finished reading this book cover to cover.
6. The New Testament is historically reliable. This is evidenced by:
a. Early testimony
b. Eyewitness testimony
c. Uninvented (authentic) testimony
d. Eyewitnesses who were not deceived
Does this historical reliability apply, do you think, to the gospel writers' direct reporting of the exact words spoken by various people?
I have in mind how often our gospels' writers "quote" other people. Besides Jesus' the gospels also record words of the disciples, Herod, angels, demons, Satan, tax collectors, and crowds of people all saying the same words all together. The gospels even record long speeches spoken in dreams, and verbatim accounts of inner thoughts that were never spoken, but that Jesus knew because He could read minds.
Here's our historical reliability question : How'd they do that? How did the gospel writers know, all those decades later, exactly—word for word—what the angel said in Joseph's dream, or Herod said in his secret meeting, or the Pharisees thought in their private thoughts but never spoke? What possible method could our gospel writers have used to come up with the verbatim quotations they claim to give?
Or did the gospel writers get all those "quotations" by just making them up? Is it more likely that "Matthew" knew the words Herod spoke in a secret meeting, or did "Matthew" probably, like everyone else back then, just make up quotes because that was the standard way to tell a story?
And if the only reasonable non-magical explanation is that the gospel writers got their "quotations" by making them up, then .... our gospel writers made stuff up. Just made it up. And it is not true the gospels are historical, not in the sense that the sayings and events we read about in them actually happened.
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas /
Firstly, my question to you is, what specific secret meeting are we talking about? If we are talking about the meeting between Herod and the Magi in Matthew 2, I would say the first thing to think about, is how secret was that meeting? The Magi went to see Joseph, Mary and Jesus, and then were warned in a dream not to go back to Herod and tell him about Jesus. I personally think it's quite probable that they told Mary and Joseph what was going on.
Secondly, while Geisler and Turek going through this section of the argument, I believe they say at some point that the common practice of the day was to write the general gist of whatever someone had said. While the gospel writers did not make up the quotations, it is probable that they paraphrased (at least slightly).
Thirdly, let's look at Luke. Luke was a historian and wrote the book of Acts which contains over 84 historic details that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. http://books.google.com/books?id=PCGhbTrI9QoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA256#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Luke also records, in the same book of Acts, 35 miracles in addition to the 84 historically confirmed details. Geisler and Turek go on to say, "In light of the fact that Luke has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he's not telling the truth about the miracles he records." Continuing on, Luke says in Acts 1:1 that this is a continuation of a former book in which he wrote about Jesus (which is the gospel of Luke). "As New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg observes, 'A historian who has been found trustworthy where he or she can be tested should be given the benefit of the doubt in cases where no tests are available.' " In addition, the gospel of Luke contains many details that have been independently verified. http://books.google.com/books?id=PCGhbTrI9QoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q=&f=false So here's the crux of the issue: "Since Luke is telling the truth, then so are Mark and Matthew because their Gospels tell the same basic story."
Finally, if these are just fictitious stories, what did the apostles get out of their tall tales? The disciples eventually died for their beliefs. Almost all of them died horrible, torturous deaths. There is no way that they would have gone through the torture that they experienced if they had completely made up the tale of Jesus’ divinity. The disciples told the truth.
Here's a brief summary essay I wrote for class on this section:
http://randomer.blogspot.com/2008/04/how-i-know-new-testament-documents-are.html
Firstly, my question to you is, what specific secret meeting are we talking about? If we are talking about the meeting between Herod and the Magi in Matthew 2, I would say the first thing to think about, is how secret was that meeting? The Magi went to see Joseph, Mary and Jesus, and then were warned in a dream not to go back to Herod and tell him about Jesus. I personally think it's quite probable that they told Mary and Joseph what was going on.
Yes, Mt 2. As you know Mt doesn't report generally what was going on, he reports exactly what Herod said. Word for word. And your theory is…
the Magi themselves remembered their conversation with Herod's exactly ?
And reported Herod's words to Mary and Joseph exactly ?
And Mary and Joseph remembered Herod's words exactly ?
And remembered Herod's words decades later, exactly ?
And decades later told Herod's words to Mt exactly ?
Who decades later himself remembered Herod's words exactly ?
That's your theory?
And the Magis' traveling question, in Mt 2:2 that has a similar history?
And the chief priest's chat with them Mt 2 – that has a similar history?
How did Mt. 3 know, all those decades later, exactly—word for word—John the Baptist said out in the desert before there were any Jesus' apostles?
Chapter 4 of the Gospel of Matthew records a long conversation between Jesus and the Devil, who were at the time alone in the desert. How was "Matthew" able to record their conversation, alone in the desert, word for word?
According to Mt. 5 – 8 Jesus sat down up on the mountain and spaketh He words, in English translation 2,400 in their numberédness. He spakethed them once, and "Matthew" did wryte them downe. Decades later. Verbatim.
Here's the quiz. Right now go read those 2,400 words. Then write them down exactly . Check your work. How'd you do?
Secondly, while Geisler and Turek going through this section of the argument, I believe they say at some point that the common practice of the day was to write the general gist of whatever someone had said. While the gospel writers did not make up the quotations, it is probable that they paraphrased (at least slightly).
Sounds to me like Geisler and Turek want it both ways. When Mt says, "And Jesus spoke, saying…", is the gospel reliable or not? Did Jesus say the words Mt says He said, or not?
Or is the truth something different, that Jesus, and Herod, and the angel, and the chief priest, and another angel, etc., etc. did not speak the words Mt says they spoke, but said something perhaps similar, as far as Mt – who often wasn't there – could piece thing together decades later?
Again, Mathew reports that on that specific day at that specific hour Jesus stood on that specific mountain spoke those specific 2,400 words. Mt doesn't say, "And He said a number of nice things I can't remember too well, but best I can recall it went something like this." Mt doesn’t say that. Mt say, "And he spoke, saying…"
But it is not humanly possible that anyone could have heard 2,400 spoken words and recorded them as Mt pretends to have. What "Matthew" claims to do is not possible .
What "Matthew" claims to do is not possible. "Matthew" made these conversations up. "Matthew" made stuff up. The stuff we read in "Matthew" did not happen the way "Matthew" said it did. "Matthew" cannot be trusted. The New Testament is not historical, not in the sense that the sayings and events we read about there actually happened.
Thirdly, let's look at Luke. Luke was a historian and wrote the book of Acts which contains over 84 historic details that have been confirmed by historical and archaeological research. http://books.google.com/books?id=PCGhbTrI9QoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA256#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Luke also records, in the same book of Acts, 35 miracles in addition to the 84 historically confirmed details. Geisler and Turek go on to say, "In light of the fact that Luke has proven accurate with so many trivial details, it is nothing but pure anti-supernatural bias to say he's not telling the truth about the miracles he records."
Shakespeare is famously accurate in his details about Verona, or Genoa, or whatever in Romeo and Juliet. No one supposes R and J is anything buy fanciful fiction.
Sounds like Geisler and Turek are to the unsophisticated uncertain as Benny Hinn is to the unsophisticated unwell.
Continuing on, Luke says in Acts 1:1 that this is a continuation of a former book in which he wrote about Jesus (which is the gospel of Luke). "As New Testament scholar Craig Blomberg observes, 'A historian who has been found trustworthy where he or she can be tested should be given the benefit of the doubt in cases where no tests are available.' " In addition, the gospel of Luke contains many details that have been independently verified. http://books.google.com/books?id=PCGhbTrI9QoC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA261#v=onepage&q=&f=false So here's the crux of the issue: "Since Luke is telling the truth, then so are Mark and Matthew because their Gospels tell the same basic story."
OK, so go over the part again about how Mt 5 – 8 records the exact 2,400 words Jesus spoke on that mountain on that day. How is it possible that anyone heard those words spoken, and recounted them verbatim? You can't do it. I can't do it. No one can. Matthew made 'em up.
Finally, if these are just fictitious stories, what did the apostles get out of their tall tales?
Read it again. Mt tells you where he got his birth legend details – from a tortured reading of the OT, where he saw prophesies no one else had ever read as prophesies.
The disciples eventually died for their beliefs. Almost all of them died horrible, torturous deaths.
Pious legends.
There is no way that they would have gone through the torture that they experienced if they had completely made up the tale of Jesus’ divinity. The disciples told the truth.
You might want to read Ignatius. Back then Christianity was something of a death cult.
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas /
In response to your comments,
The first post: is a pretty good question. I'll work on it.
In response to your second post, you might want to use some facts, site some sources, and refrain from broad, loaded statements if you are going to make a good arguement.
"details about Verona, or Genoa, or whatever in Romeo and Juliet"
Some specifics, please.
"Pious legends."
Pious legends? Is that your best response? Could you please at least site me a source, give me some evidence, a quotation from a leading atheist at the least.
"You might want to read Ignatius. Back then Christianity was something of a death cult."
What book should I check out? Shoot me either a direct link to an online copy, or cite the book (Preferably in MLA format).
"details about Verona, or Genoa, or whatever in Romeo and Juliet"
Some specifics, please.
Shakespeare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare
Was a playwright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playwright
In England http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England
Who wrote a famous play http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama
called Romeo and Juliet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_and_Juliet
Set in Verona http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verona
A town in Italy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy
Even though Romeo and Juliet never existed, many of the facts recorded by Shakespeare have been proven by archaeology and historical scholars to be correct. For example, Italy was a real country. Verona was a real town. People in Italy really did carry swords and live in houses.
People who've looked into it say Shakespeare got so much about Verona right, it's hard to believe he hadn't gone there himself. That's one of the reasons Oxfordians give for De Vere's authorship – De Vere did travel to Verona.
But even though many of the facts recorded by Shakespeare are historically and archaeologically correct, no on imagines that means R and J were real people, or that the "facts" in the made up play are "reliable."
In summary:
1. The idea that because a story includes correct facts of a general nature one must conclude that the details of the story are reliable is, well, childish in the extreme.
2. That Geisler and Turek imagine this sort of bald faced silliness is even worth discussing makes them look desperate. Which of course they are. This fluff doesn't persuade people the NT is reliable. It persuades people you are not serious.
3. Educated people are assumed to have a basic knowledge of Shakespeare.
"Pious legends."
Pious legends? Is that your best response? Could you please at least site me a source, give me some evidence, a quotation from a leading atheist at the least.
Your blog software already won't take a whole post. I was trying to keep things short.
Arguments based on speculations about the motives of ancient people you have no direct information about, and who may well not have in fact existed, are not persuasive.
If you have evidence that these people really did die as your Sunday school teacher told you, give it. Look at that evidence in context and you'll discover it comes from an ocean of unbelievable ancient folklore, myth and legend. EG…
"Now when he [Simon Magnus] was in Rome, he mightily disturbed the Church, and subverted many, and brought them over to himself, and astonished the Gentiles with his skill in magic, insomuch that once,...he...promised he would fly in the air; and...indeed he was carried up into the air by demons, and did fly on high in the air, saying that he was returning into heaven, and that he would supply them with good things from thence... I [Peter] stretched out my hands to heaven ... and besought God through the Lord Jesus to throw down this pestilent fellow, [cut for length]
Again, my response assumes a basic familiarity with the ancient evidence.
"You might want to read Ignatius. Back then Christianity was something of a death cult."
What book should I check out? Shoot me either a direct link to an online copy, or cite the book (Preferably in MLA format).
Ignatius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_of_Antioch was the bishop of Antioch in the early 2d century. His writings are among the earliest datable Christian texts, predating – as far as the evidence goes – even the gospels.
He was arrested and taken to Rome to be killed. As he traveled to Rome he wrote letters to several churches along the way. The thrust of the letters was, They're taking me to Rome to kill me, but don't you dare interfere. Don't you dare stop them from killing me. I want them to kill me. Being killed will make me die a suffering death, just like Jesus. That Jesus-mimetic death will be a holy thing. I'm looking forward to it.
Early 2d century Antiochan Christianity was a death cult.
Ignatius is widely available on the web.
Bino Bolumai
/ In Bino Veritas /
Post a Comment