hits counter The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Evidence I & II: Fully Updated in One Volume To Answer Questions Challenging Christians in the 21st Century - Ebook PDF Online
Hot Best Seller

The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Evidence I & II: Fully Updated in One Volume To Answer Questions Challenging Christians in the 21st Century

Availability: Ready to download

Evidence I & II -The classic defense of the faith: Now fully updated to answer the questions challenging evangelical faith today. The New Evidence maintains its classic defense of the faith yet addresses new issues. The New Evidence is destined to equip believers with a ready defense for the next decade and beyond


Compare

Evidence I & II -The classic defense of the faith: Now fully updated to answer the questions challenging evangelical faith today. The New Evidence maintains its classic defense of the faith yet addresses new issues. The New Evidence is destined to equip believers with a ready defense for the next decade and beyond

30 review for The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict: Evidence I & II: Fully Updated in One Volume To Answer Questions Challenging Christians in the 21st Century

  1. 4 out of 5

    Chad Warner

    Not as helpful as I expected, based on references to it in other books. It's not very easy to follow. Maybe that's just because I'm weak in philosophy, and the book gets fairly philosophical. I skimmed large swaths of the book that are about areas I'm not interested in, such as establishing the authorship of the Pentateuch. There are 3 parts, each making a case: the case for the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity. Topics include how we got the Bible, historical reliability of the Bible, support for J Not as helpful as I expected, based on references to it in other books. It's not very easy to follow. Maybe that's just because I'm weak in philosophy, and the book gets fairly philosophical. I skimmed large swaths of the book that are about areas I'm not interested in, such as establishing the authorship of the Pentateuch. There are 3 parts, each making a case: the case for the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity. Topics include how we got the Bible, historical reliability of the Bible, support for Jesus' deity, supernaturalism, biblical criticism, skepticism, agnosticism, and miracles. Notes Part 1: The Case for the Bible IntroductionI have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this. —C.S. Lewis, Professor of Medieval and Renaissance Literature, Cambridge UniversityHow We Got the Bible Why OT Apocrypha isn't canon 1. They contain historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachronisms. 2. They teach false doctrines and practices (that conflict with inspired Scripture). 3. They use literary types and styling that doesn't match Scripture. 4. They lack elements of genuine Scripture (prophetic power, poetic and religious feeling, etc.). OT Apocrypha wasn't considered canon by Philo, Josephus, Jesus and NT writers, church councils of first 400 years, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Jerome, Luther and Reformers. Is the New Testament Historically Reliable?The interval then between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed." —Sir Fredrick KenyonFor most of the Biblical text a single reading has been transmitted. Elimination of scribal errors and intentional changes leaves only a small percentage of text about which any questions occur. … Although there are certain differences in many of the New Testament manuscripts, not one fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. —Dockery, Mathews, and SloanPrinciples for understanding apparent discrepancies • Understand context. • Interpret difficult passages in light of clear ones. • Just because a report is incomplete doesn't mean it's false. • NT citations of OT don't need to be exact. • Bible uses non-technical, everyday language. • Bible uses round numbers as well as exact ones. • Bible uses literary devices. • An error in a copy doesn't necessitate an error in the original.In my opinion, every book of the New Testament was written by a baptized Jew between the forties and the eighties of the first century (very probably sometime between about A.D. 50 and 75). —William F. AlbrightJosephus' reference to Daniel as a 6th century BC writer confirms the supernatural nature of Daniel's prophecies. Census in Luke 2 • Romans had a regular enrollment and also held censuses every 14 years. This procedure was begun under Augustus in 23-22 BC or 9-8 BC, the latter being the one referred to in Luke 2. • An inscription found in Antioch is evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria around 7 BC (as well as AD 6). • A papyrus found in Egypt shows that people were to return to their homelands for a census. • There were regular censuses in Egypt, Gaul, Cyrene. • Based on Luke's present tense, it's likely that Luke means that censuses were taken throughout the empire at different times, and Augustus started this process. • Luke mentions the later census in Acts 5:37, so it's likely that Luke is distinguishing the Luke 2 census. • Luke 2:2 could be translated, "This census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria." There are several NT parallels for this translation. Luke names 32 countries, 54 cities, 9 islands without error. Is the Old Testament Historically Reliable? Among Dead Sea Scrolls discovered In 1947, 2 copies of Isaiah from 1,000 years earlier than manuscripts that were previously the earliest are 95% word-for-word identical; other 5% is mostly slips of the pen and variations of spelling. OT copyists preferred a younger of 2 manuscripts (if they were equally correct), because a used manuscript was likely to be damaged with use. Guide to selecting a correct reading 1. Prefer an older reading, because it's closer to original. 2. Prefer the more difficult reading, because scribes are more apt to smooth out difficult readings. 3. Prefer the shorter reading, because copyists were more apt to insert new material than omit parts. 4. Prefer the reading that best explains the other variants. 5. Prefer the reading with the widest geographical support, because separated manuscripts are less likely to have influenced each other. 6. Prefer the reading that is most like the original author's usual style. 7. Prefer the reading that doesn't reflect a doctrinal bias. Part 2: The Case for Jesus If Jesus Wasn't God, He Deserves an Oscar Jesus claimed deity in a way His accusers recognized, and crucified Him for it (John 19:7). Jesus claimed to be divine (John 10:25-33; 5:17-18, 23-24; 8:19, 58; 14:1, 8-9). Jesus accepted worship as God (Matt 8:2; 14:33; John 9:35-39; 20:27-29). Jesus spoke of Himself as Jehovah (John 4:42; 8:24, 28, 58; 12:41; Matt 13:14-15). Jesus believed Himself to be fulfillment of OT prophecies of Messiah. His referring to Himself as "Son of Man" is from Daniel 7. Significance of Deity: Old Testament Prophecies Fulfilled in Jesus Christ OT contains over 300 references to Messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus. There's at least a 250-year gap between prophecies of Christ being written down and their fulfillment in Jesus. Support of Deity: The Great Proposition Although "almah" isn't the common word for virgin, the way its used always means a virgin. The context of Isa 7:14 also shows that "almah" here means virgin, and a pregnant virgin. Jesus' genealogies • Matt gives Joseph's genealogy. Luke gives Mary's. Luke doesn't say he's giving Joseph's genealogy; he's just saying that Jesus was supposed the son of Joseph. The point of the difference is that Solomon's line was the royal line, and Nathan's line was the legal line (see Jer 22:30; 1 Chron 3:17-18). That both genealogies have some names in common doesn't prove they're the same. Those names aren't uncommon. In Matt, Joseph isn't said to have begotten Jesus; he is referred to as "the husband of Mary, of whom [feminine genitive] Jesus was born." • Another possibility: both genealogies are Joseph's, with Matt giving legal descendants of David (those who did our could have sat on throne), and Luke giving actual paternal line to Joseph. • Another possibility: Matthan (Matt 1:15) had Jacob, then died. Matthan's widow married Malchi (Luke 3:24) and had Eli (Luke 3:23). Eli's half-brother Jacob took Eli's wife in levirate marriage (Deut 25:5-6; Gen 38:8-10), so that Joseph was the legal son of Eli. • Another possibility: Matt left Mary's name out to keep his desired structural symmetry. Part 3: The Case for and Against Christianity Is the Bible from God? NT claims to be God's Word (Heb 1:1-2; 2:3). Peter calls Paul's writings "Scripture" (2 Pet 3:16) and 1 Tim 5:18 draws from Luke 10:7 and Deut 25:4 in saying "Scripture says." Because writings of Luke, who wasn't an apostle, are quoted as Scripture, and Peter (who was rebuked by Paul) considered Paul's writings to be Scripture, then entire NT should be considered Scripture, included in Scripture referred to in 2 Tim 3:16. Scripture claims to be inspired by God. If it's from God, we can logically assume it's inerrant, because God's truthful character requires it (John 17:17; Ps 119:160; Prov 30:5; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18; Rom 3:4). Bible states Peter's confession of Christ, inscription on cross, and 10 Commandments in different ways, showing that inerrancy includes diversity of expression (rather than requiring identical wording). "Inerrancy is defined in terms of truth, and truth is a property of words organized in sentences." So, a modern grammatical error doesn't preclude an inerrant Bible. Rules of grammar represent normal usage, but skilled writers break them to communicate better. Imprecision doesn't imply error. Almost any statement could be expressed more precisely. Inspiration doesn't require use of technical, scientific language. Bible uses common, prescientific language. Inerrancy doesn't require the record of someone's exact words; the exact voice (meaning) is sufficient. Copies and translations of Scripture are still God's Word. Solomon's copy of Mosaic law (1 Kin 2:3), Ezra's copy of the law (Ezra 7:14), and Ezra's translation (Neh 8:8) were considered God's Word. "A good copy or translation is for all practical purposes the inspired Word of God." Case for inerrancy: Bible is a historically reliable and trustworthy document. So, we have reason to believe that Jesus did what it claims, and is who it claims (God in human flesh). So, He has infallible authority. Jesus taught that Scriptures are inerrant Word of God. Since God is truth, His Word must be inerrant and infallible. Bible teaches 1) all words of Scripture are revelation of God (2 Tim 3:16; Ex 24:4; Rev 22:19; 2 Sam 23:2; Jer 26:2; 1 Cor 2:13) and 2) everything God says is true and without error (John 17:17; Ps 119:160; Heb 6:18; Titus 1:2; Prov 30:5). Inerrancy is the logical conclusion. If original American constitution were destroyed, but we had good copies, no American liberties would be lost. In same way, because we have good copies of Scripture, we have God's Word.You can trust your Bible, for it is the inspired Word of God. The pollution which intruded in the transmission and translation of the Bible is minor, under control, and diminishing.The Presupposition of Anti-Supernaturalism Anti-supernaturalism is philosophically untenable because no one below status of a god could know universe so well as to rule out miracles. Archaeology and Biblical Criticism Although many records in the Bible aren't directly attested by archaeology, they're compatible with what we know from archaeology, which wouldn't be the case with legend or fiction. In Ancient Near East, simple accounts were embellished to become elaborate legends, not opposite. Evidence supports view that Genesis is true and extrabiblical accounts are history become myth. Genesis record of Flood includes dates, and reads like a ship's log. Extrabiblical accounts include elaboration and corruption of original truth. Part 4: Truth of Consequences Defending Miracles "… within a theistic framework, natural law is not a closed system; therefore, a miracle is not necessarily a violation of natural law." God is constantly present in creation, as the sustaining necessary Being. The contrast isn't between 1) "nature" and 2) God's "interventions" into nature, but between 1) God's normal upholding the natural order and 2) His special activity. You can't treat historical events, including miracles, the same way you treat scientific laws, because historical events are unique and unrepeatable. To evaluate historical events requires credible testimony of their occurrence. Scripture has 5x more references to heart as to mind. Though it may be more probable that miracles don't occur than that they do, it's foolish to rule out the possibility of miracles simply based on probability.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Keith

    God used this book to change my life. I highly recommend it to anyone that has questions about the evidence base for Christianity.

  3. 5 out of 5

    Nathan

    This is a reference book. But I read the 700 pages straight through. (I wouldn't recommend that, but it helped me get a feel for the entire book.) New Evidence is best as a jumping off point for other resources (the bibliography alone was an impressive 40 pages). Admittedly, the individual arguments aren't incredibly deep or fleshed out (else the book would be encyclopedia-sized), but together they make for a comprehensive and convincing case. Some have complained that McDowell uses circular logic This is a reference book. But I read the 700 pages straight through. (I wouldn't recommend that, but it helped me get a feel for the entire book.) New Evidence is best as a jumping off point for other resources (the bibliography alone was an impressive 40 pages). Admittedly, the individual arguments aren't incredibly deep or fleshed out (else the book would be encyclopedia-sized), but together they make for a comprehensive and convincing case. Some have complained that McDowell uses circular logic in using the Bible to prove other things. This, however, comes only after McDowell uses 70 pages to establish the Bible's origin and validity. Others argue against McDowell's clear biases (i.e. he calls some of his references "great" or "profound"), yet McDowell openly admits his stance: "The best defense of Christianity is a clear, simple presentation of the claims of Christ and who He is, in the power of the Holy Spirit." (See the Introduction.) McDowell also spends a full 80 pages on the resurrection alone, which shows his priorities. While it isn't the end-all be-all, New Evidence is certainly a staple for any Christian's reference shelf. A lot of bang for the buck.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Cheryl

    Honestly, I never really had a hard time believing Christianity was true, so all this stuff seemed a little tedious to me. I also hate arguing and don't really think you can argue someone into faith in Christ. You either have faith or you don't. This book would be good for someone who feels they need all their questions answered before making any decisions. I tend to be much more intuitive in my decision making, so for me, it was something that was good for me to read, but I didn't have fun doin Honestly, I never really had a hard time believing Christianity was true, so all this stuff seemed a little tedious to me. I also hate arguing and don't really think you can argue someone into faith in Christ. You either have faith or you don't. This book would be good for someone who feels they need all their questions answered before making any decisions. I tend to be much more intuitive in my decision making, so for me, it was something that was good for me to read, but I didn't have fun doing it.

  5. 4 out of 5

    Mark Raley

    Very detailed philisophical reading. Not casual read.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Gintas

  7. 5 out of 5

    Bill Bridgman

  8. 4 out of 5

    Kenneth Behr

  9. 5 out of 5

    Jackie Kinsman

  10. 4 out of 5

    Rob

  11. 4 out of 5

    Malinda Powell

  12. 4 out of 5

    Dwayne

  13. 5 out of 5

    Julie

  14. 4 out of 5

    Ashley Black

  15. 4 out of 5

    John D. Farris

  16. 5 out of 5

    Marc

  17. 5 out of 5

    Trevor Rolls

  18. 5 out of 5

    Winfred E Herr

  19. 4 out of 5

    Christien Razafimbahiny

  20. 4 out of 5

    Traintracks81

  21. 4 out of 5

    Dennis Doolittle

  22. 5 out of 5

    Richard

  23. 5 out of 5

    Lisa

  24. 5 out of 5

    Bill

  25. 4 out of 5

    Duncan Robinson

  26. 5 out of 5

    Kevin Schafer

  27. 4 out of 5

    Kenny

  28. 5 out of 5

    Jason Owen

  29. 5 out of 5

    Fernando

  30. 4 out of 5

    Chris Jones

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.