This one is a column, but we’ll add it to our letter-to-the-editor collection. It appears in The Salem News of Salem, Missouri, population 4,950. They have a comments feature, but there aren’t any comments yet. Their headline is Historical validation for the Old and New Testaments.
Unless the writer is a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name — but today’s column was written by Tom Romer. At the end we’re told: “Tom Romer, former CEO of Romer Labs, is a world-renowned expert in the field of mold toxin testing in food products.” They say he’s “world-renowned,” so Tom qualifies for full name treatment. We’ll give you some excerpts from his column, enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary, some bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]. Here we go!
Earlier articles revealed how biological evolution is a historical narrative [It’s what?] that lacks the “in-between” fossil evidence that Darwin claimed would be discovered. [Ah yes, the missing links.] The Big Bang theory also lacks evidence that it really happened. [Wowie — no evidence!] No humans were around to testify that either biological evolution or the Big Bang were historical events.
Egad — Tom has found the fatal flaw in both theories — the lack of human witnesses. He says:
The Bible, however, is a written document, not just a theory about the past. [A written document!] Like most ancient documents, original copies of the Bible are not available due to disintegration over time. We only have copies of most ancient documents. But how do we know that the copies are true replicas of the original documents?
Yeah, how do we know? Tom tells us:
Historians of ancient literature have developed tests to determine how well copies correspond to the original documents. The main test is called the Bibliographic test. There are two factors in the Bibliographic tests: 1. How many copies of the original document are currently available? 2. How many years passed between the time when the original document was written and when the copies were made? The more copies available and the shorter the time span between when the original document was written and when the copy was made, the better the historical validity is.
That’s neat. Hey — there are first editions of The Lord of the Rings readily available, so Tom would conclude that it’s really historically valid. And a quick Google search located first editions of Mother Goose, so that’s historically valid too. He continues:
There are 5,656 copies of all or parts of the Greek New Testament, which were written between 50 and 225 years after the events happened. Because of this, the New Testament is the most historically validated ancient document. In second place is Homer’s Iliad, of which there are only 643 copies, written 400 years after Homer wrote this story.
Actually, the Epic of Gilgamesh is even more “historically validated,” because there are surviving tablets that tell the tale from at least ten centuries BC. Anyway, let’s read on:
There are only 10 copies of the history of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars, which were written 900 years after these wars occurred. There is more evidence that Jesus Christ was born, crucified, and rose from the dead than there is that Julius Caesar ever lived.
Yeah, phooey on Caesar! No historical validation. Another excerpt:
The Old Testament is historically validated in a different manner. [Ooooooooooooh!] The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 provided evidence that Masoretic copies of the Old Testament made in 916 A.D. were almost identical to Dead Sea Old Testament scrolls dated 125 B.C., 1000 years earlier. Thus, both the Old and the New Testaments are historically validated.
That’s nice, but it doesn’t come close to the “historic validity” of the Epic of Gilgamesh. And now we come to the end:
Compare this validation to that of biological evolution and Big Bang cosmology, both of which have no written documents to support them and no real evidence that either really occurred.
Okay, dear reader. You’ve seen Tom’s argument. What do you make of it?
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.