Full Version: Bible or babble?
The Bible isnt scientific or proven yet not one of the skeptics Ive debated has a clue what those words mean. If they did they would know what constitutes scientific proof with regards to history and clearly they do not. For the love of good sense and reason define your terms, qualify a standard, and quite talking in circles. Presumption is something that science is supposed to overcome, not build on.
Methods of evaluation historical evidence:
The three I am most familar with are internal, external, and bibliographical testing. Anyone with another catagory I'll be glad to give it a whirl. .
Internal evidence:This would be to look at the Bible itself, Messianic prophesy would be one of the main topics under this heading. Any kind of an apparant contradiction would be considered an 'internal' evidence. It is critical to the internal evidence testing that you identify the heart of the message (i.e. the resurection) then the particulars indexed in descending order of importance. The old adage that a text without a context is a pretext is like the slogan that hangs over the door of this department of evidence.
External evidence:
This would be what you called corrabative or a secondary source. Simon Greenleaf's discussion about motive and the New Testement wittness comes into play here as would an historians insight into the events in question. Archeology, palentology, astronomy, form criticism, even metaphysics are all external to the primary source evidence and should be accumulated in mass to carry the same weight as primary evidence. Still if you accumulate enough in can negate even the best primary source evidence the same way circumstantial evidence can outweigh eye-wittness testimony if there is enough of it to be conclusive.
Bibliographical testing:
This is by far the most scientific of the methods since it evaluates the veracity of the Bible as a document without regards to the content. Primary source documentation is just another expression for best source document. Primary source documentation for the Constitution would be the Constitution at the National Archives of course (I think thats where they keep it) . Any question about what was actually ratified into law would go back to what was actually written there and attested to by those present. The document itself can be examined objectivly without regard to content even though the standard is relative and proof is a long drawn out process. This is a look at the Bible as a document, or the books of the Bible as compared to other writtings from the same period. Content is irrelavant.
Lets try external for 100 Alex. Legal evidence often goes to motive.
I will quote here from the greatest legal mind in the history of U.S. common law. Since we are talking about evidence his insight into the evidence that supports the Christian wittness might be usefull. The following is an exact quote from Therefore Stand, by Wilbur Smith. This book is possibly the best book on Christian Apologetics ever written:
"We next turn to an American, not a philosopher but an authority in jurisprudence. I refer to Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), who became the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846. It is recognized that "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States." sa Greenleaf's famous work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, the first volume of which appeared in 1842, was "regarded as the foremost American authority," passing through edition after edition, is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure. Greenleaf, trained in weighing evidence, while still professor of Law at Harvard, wrote in 1846, a volume that immediately took its place as one of the most significant works on the truthfulness of the Christian religion of his day: An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. The author devotes a number of pages to the consideration of the value of the testimony of the Apostles to the Resurrection of Christ and I trust that because the one who wrote these lines was the one who, by his legal works, was quoted thousands of times in the great court battles of our country, for three-quarters of a century, my readers will not be wearied if my quotation from his remarkable discussion of this evidence is extended to considerable length.
"The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the- rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the rangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no Testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come. "Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact, that they possessed the ordinary constitution of cur common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
Where are all these so called scientific reasons for rejecting the best primary source document in history? Where is it? It exists in the imagination of the modern mythology of science falsly so called along with the Easter bunny and Santa Clause.
Methods of evaluation historical evidence:
The three I am most familar with are internal, external, and bibliographical testing. Anyone with another catagory I'll be glad to give it a whirl. .
Internal evidence:This would be to look at the Bible itself, Messianic prophesy would be one of the main topics under this heading. Any kind of an apparant contradiction would be considered an 'internal' evidence. It is critical to the internal evidence testing that you identify the heart of the message (i.e. the resurection) then the particulars indexed in descending order of importance. The old adage that a text without a context is a pretext is like the slogan that hangs over the door of this department of evidence.
External evidence:
This would be what you called corrabative or a secondary source. Simon Greenleaf's discussion about motive and the New Testement wittness comes into play here as would an historians insight into the events in question. Archeology, palentology, astronomy, form criticism, even metaphysics are all external to the primary source evidence and should be accumulated in mass to carry the same weight as primary evidence. Still if you accumulate enough in can negate even the best primary source evidence the same way circumstantial evidence can outweigh eye-wittness testimony if there is enough of it to be conclusive.
Bibliographical testing:
This is by far the most scientific of the methods since it evaluates the veracity of the Bible as a document without regards to the content. Primary source documentation is just another expression for best source document. Primary source documentation for the Constitution would be the Constitution at the National Archives of course (I think thats where they keep it) . Any question about what was actually ratified into law would go back to what was actually written there and attested to by those present. The document itself can be examined objectivly without regard to content even though the standard is relative and proof is a long drawn out process. This is a look at the Bible as a document, or the books of the Bible as compared to other writtings from the same period. Content is irrelavant.
Lets try external for 100 Alex. Legal evidence often goes to motive.
I will quote here from the greatest legal mind in the history of U.S. common law. Since we are talking about evidence his insight into the evidence that supports the Christian wittness might be usefull. The following is an exact quote from Therefore Stand, by Wilbur Smith. This book is possibly the best book on Christian Apologetics ever written:
"We next turn to an American, not a philosopher but an authority in jurisprudence. I refer to Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853), who became the famous Royall Professor of Law at Harvard University, and succeeded Justice Joseph Story as the Dane Professor of Law in the same university, upon Story's death in 1846. It is recognized that "To the efforts of Story and Greenleaf is to be ascribed the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position among the legal schools of the United States." sa Greenleaf's famous work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, the first volume of which appeared in 1842, was "regarded as the foremost American authority," passing through edition after edition, is still considered the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure. Greenleaf, trained in weighing evidence, while still professor of Law at Harvard, wrote in 1846, a volume that immediately took its place as one of the most significant works on the truthfulness of the Christian religion of his day: An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice. The author devotes a number of pages to the consideration of the value of the testimony of the Apostles to the Resurrection of Christ and I trust that because the one who wrote these lines was the one who, by his legal works, was quoted thousands of times in the great court battles of our country, for three-quarters of a century, my readers will not be wearied if my quotation from his remarkable discussion of this evidence is extended to considerable length.
"The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in Him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teachings of His disciples. The interests and passions of all the- rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes, imprisonments, torments, and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propagate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience, and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually risen from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the rangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no Testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come. "Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact, that they possessed the ordinary constitution of cur common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations, and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for its fabrication."
Where are all these so called scientific reasons for rejecting the best primary source document in history? Where is it? It exists in the imagination of the modern mythology of science falsly so called along with the Easter bunny and Santa Clause.
There are many historical events that have been validated by other cultures that didn't believe in the God of Abraham.
1. That Jews were enslaved in Egypt. References in Egyptian writings.
2. Jesus was a real person and was crucified. References in Roman writings.
3. Rome burnt down Jeruselem. Roman references.
4. Abraham was a real person who had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The Koran backs that up and btw also talks about Jesus.
As a Cristian, I accept the Bible as truth. I find your statement very offensive, it is the basis of my faith and the faith of MILLIONS around the world. I'm sure that Jews and Muslims alike find your statements offensive also.
1. That Jews were enslaved in Egypt. References in Egyptian writings.
2. Jesus was a real person and was crucified. References in Roman writings.
3. Rome burnt down Jeruselem. Roman references.
4. Abraham was a real person who had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The Koran backs that up and btw also talks about Jesus.
QUOTE
There is a lot of allegory in the Bible but accepting it as truth... is a little ridiculous.
As a Cristian, I accept the Bible as truth. I find your statement very offensive, it is the basis of my faith and the faith of MILLIONS around the world. I'm sure that Jews and Muslims alike find your statements offensive also.
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 17 2003, 05:56 PM)
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jun 22 2003, 11:28 PM)
Theres a lot of ways to go with this; the empty tomb, the conversion of Paul, the 30,000 extant copies of the Bible, the dead sea scrolls, messianic prophecy.some coming withing 60 years of the original. Maybe you like to define what you mean by proof. Internal external, of bibliograpical?
How does any of that prove that what is recorded in the Bible is true or accurate?
Let me ask you....how do you determine claims of truth in the world around you? There is a certain kind of truth that is tested thru observation, experimentation, eyewitness and scientific evidence, right? And then there is history....you can compare the stories in the scriptures to the standards of history according to the time period. You learn tons and tons of information about the lifestyles and morays of the people during that time....and of course, it lines up with what we know from history outside of the Bible. Next..you can test the claims of truth by using logic. Is it logically consistent? Is it coherent? One of the awesome thing I find about the Bible is the amount of fulfilled prophecy. The very dimension of the sheer fullfillment of OT prophecy should be enough to convince anyone that they are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature.
Either way.....looks like your mind is already made up.
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 17 2003, 05:55 PM)
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Jun 22 2003, 10:41 PM)
What, if anything, is there to support the Bible as either a historical or scientific book?
There isn't a shred of evidence that the Bible is a scientifically accurate book. In fact, in every case where the Bible claims God did something that can be evaluated scientifically, we find that the Bible is wrong.
Historically is another matter, of course, but simply because a few cities that the Bible claims existed may have actually done so, it doesn't demonstrate that the Bible is correct in any other way.
ok then....so how did King Solomon know that there were pathways in the ocean in Psalm 8? Is it because of this psalm that Matthew Fontaine Maury ( the founder of the science of oceanography) discovered the shipping lanes in the sea, which he then spent the rest of his life mapping them out. His charts are still used today! All because he read it in the Bible and decided if God's word said that there were paths in the sea then by golly, he was gonna find them. And he did. So how did King Solomon know this over 3 thousand years ago when we couldnt figure it out until the last few hundred?
And how did Job know that God hung the earth on nothing in Job 26:7? Scientists once believed that the earth was held up by some sort of support structure.....How did Job know thousands of years ago, what no one could have known until 1492?
Also...why was a woman told by a messenger of God in Judges 9:7 to drink no wine while she was pregnant? Why shouldnt she? They knew nothing of fetal alcohol sydrome until very recently. But still, she was told to abstain.....
You say none of this is scientifically accurate? I beg to differ
QUOTE(valley @ Jul 17 2003, 10:39 PM)
Let me ask you....how do you determine claims of truth in the world around you? There is a certain kind of truth that is tested thru observation, experimentation, eyewitness and scientific evidence, right? And then there is history....you can compare the stories in the scriptures to the standards of history according to the time period. You learn tons and tons of information about the lifestyles and morays of the people during that time....and of course, it lines up with what we know from history outside of the Bible. Next..you can test the claims of truth by using logic. Is it logically consistent? Is it coherent? One of the awesome thing I find about the Bible is the amount of fulfilled prophecy. The very dimension of the sheer fullfillment of OT prophecy should be enough to convince anyone that they are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature.
Either way.....looks like your mind is already made up.
Either way.....looks like your mind is already made up.
The problem is that there is *NO* fulfilled prophecy. Sure, there are plenty of claims of prophecy, but none that stand up to even the most cursory evaluation. If you'd like to pick one or two, I'd gladly show you just how flimsy the claims are.
And after many, many years of study of the Bible, I'd be more than willing to put my knowledge against anyone's. I stand behind what study reveals, not what faith and belief demand.
Okay, Ill take your challenge. Disprove the old testament prophecy with the Messiah against Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
valley,
"...how do you determine claims of truth in the world around you?"
I have answered this question at least a dozen different ways and applied everyone of the to the Bible. My posts in here are far outweighed by the 7 pages of debate in the Science section, I have never found a way around presumption. I would almost be willing to give my own rebuttal if I thought anyone would actually read it. You are right about one thing, my mind is made up. After 20 years of carefull study I am convinced but not because some anchient poet lulled me into some kind of an altered state. I realize the Bible staggers the imagination and pushes you beyond the confines of you ability to comprehend. That does not make it false, it makes it hard to believe. In fact most Christian scholars are convinced that it is humanly impossible to belive the Gospel based on forensic science.
There is a distinction made between 'knowing' faith and showing (demonstrating) faith. This qoute is from one of the leading Christian apologists of our time. He was on of the people that Lee Strobel interviewed in his book "The Case for Christ" where he investigated the Christian faith with skills he aquired as a journalist.
"In this section I shall address the question, How does a Christian believer know that Christianity is true? In answering this question, I distinguish between the role of the Holy Spirit and the role of rational argument and evidence. I shall argue that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit gives us an immediate and veridical assurance of the truth of our Christian faith and that rational argument and evidence may properly confirm but not defeat that assurance." (William James Craig, Classical Apologetics)
William Craig
"...how do you determine claims of truth in the world around you?"
I have answered this question at least a dozen different ways and applied everyone of the to the Bible. My posts in here are far outweighed by the 7 pages of debate in the Science section, I have never found a way around presumption. I would almost be willing to give my own rebuttal if I thought anyone would actually read it. You are right about one thing, my mind is made up. After 20 years of carefull study I am convinced but not because some anchient poet lulled me into some kind of an altered state. I realize the Bible staggers the imagination and pushes you beyond the confines of you ability to comprehend. That does not make it false, it makes it hard to believe. In fact most Christian scholars are convinced that it is humanly impossible to belive the Gospel based on forensic science.
There is a distinction made between 'knowing' faith and showing (demonstrating) faith. This qoute is from one of the leading Christian apologists of our time. He was on of the people that Lee Strobel interviewed in his book "The Case for Christ" where he investigated the Christian faith with skills he aquired as a journalist.
"In this section I shall address the question, How does a Christian believer know that Christianity is true? In answering this question, I distinguish between the role of the Holy Spirit and the role of rational argument and evidence. I shall argue that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit gives us an immediate and veridical assurance of the truth of our Christian faith and that rational argument and evidence may properly confirm but not defeat that assurance." (William James Craig, Classical Apologetics)
William Craig
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 17 2003, 06:49 PM)
QUOTE(valley @ Jul 17 2003, 10:39 PM)
Let me ask you....how do you determine claims of truth in the world around you? There is a certain kind of truth that is tested thru observation, experimentation, eyewitness and scientific evidence, right? And then there is history....you can compare the stories in the scriptures to the standards of history according to the time period. You learn tons and tons of information about the lifestyles and morays of the people during that time....and of course, it lines up with what we know from history outside of the Bible. Next..you can test the claims of truth by using logic. Is it logically consistent? Is it coherent? One of the awesome thing I find about the Bible is the amount of fulfilled prophecy. The very dimension of the sheer fullfillment of OT prophecy should be enough to convince anyone that they are dealing with a supernatural piece of literature.
Either way.....looks like your mind is already made up.
Either way.....looks like your mind is already made up.
The problem is that there is *NO* fulfilled prophecy. Sure, there are plenty of claims of prophecy, but none that stand up to even the most cursory evaluation. If you'd like to pick one or two, I'd gladly show you just how flimsy the claims are.
And after many, many years of study of the Bible, I'd be more than willing to put my knowledge against anyone's. I stand behind what study reveals, not what faith and belief demand.
Cephus, first please answer my question about the science found in the Bible in my earlier response. How could the men who penned the scriptures know of these scientific findings thousands of years before they were discovered to be true?
Billy Jean.
Okay, Ill take your challenge. Disprove the old testament prophecy with the Messiah against the Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Now thats funny 
Okay, Ill take your challenge. Disprove the old testament prophecy with the Messiah against the Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
Now thats funny
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jul 17 2003, 06:56 PM)
valley,
"...how do you determine claims of truth in the world around you?"
I have answered this question at least a dozen different ways and applied everyone of the to the Bible. My posts in here are far outweighed by the 7 pages of debate in the Science section, I have never found a way around presumption. I would almost be willing to give my own rebuttal if I thought anyone would actually read it. You are right about one thing, my mind is made up. After 20 years of carefull study I am convinced but not because some anchient poet lulled me into some kind of an altered state. I realize the Bible staggers the imagination and pushes you beyond the confines of you ability to comprehend. That does not make it false, it makes it hard to believe. In fact most Christian scholars are convinced that it is humanly impossible to belive the Gospel based on forensic science.
There is a distinction made between 'knowing' faith and showing (demonstrating) faith. This qoute is from one of the leading Christian apologists of our time. He was on of the people that Lee Strobel interviewed in his book "The Case for Christ" where he investigated the Christian faith with skills he aquired as a journalist.
"In this section I shall address the question, How does a Christian believer know that Christianity is true? In answering this question, I distinguish between the role of the Holy Spirit and the role of rational argument and evidence. I shall argue that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit gives us an immediate and veridical assurance of the truth of our Christian faith and that rational argument and evidence may properly confirm but not defeat that assurance." (William James Craig, Classical Apologetics)
William Craig
"...how do you determine claims of truth in the world around you?"
I have answered this question at least a dozen different ways and applied everyone of the to the Bible. My posts in here are far outweighed by the 7 pages of debate in the Science section, I have never found a way around presumption. I would almost be willing to give my own rebuttal if I thought anyone would actually read it. You are right about one thing, my mind is made up. After 20 years of carefull study I am convinced but not because some anchient poet lulled me into some kind of an altered state. I realize the Bible staggers the imagination and pushes you beyond the confines of you ability to comprehend. That does not make it false, it makes it hard to believe. In fact most Christian scholars are convinced that it is humanly impossible to belive the Gospel based on forensic science.
There is a distinction made between 'knowing' faith and showing (demonstrating) faith. This qoute is from one of the leading Christian apologists of our time. He was on of the people that Lee Strobel interviewed in his book "The Case for Christ" where he investigated the Christian faith with skills he aquired as a journalist.
"In this section I shall address the question, How does a Christian believer know that Christianity is true? In answering this question, I distinguish between the role of the Holy Spirit and the role of rational argument and evidence. I shall argue that the inner witness of the Holy Spirit gives us an immediate and veridical assurance of the truth of our Christian faith and that rational argument and evidence may properly confirm but not defeat that assurance." (William James Craig, Classical Apologetics)
William Craig
ummm.....my post was aimed at Cephus, not you Anarchy
I agree with all that you have said so far (all that I have had the chance to read anyways )
What's so funny about it? Your the one that said that you could disprove the prophecies. DON'T try to belittle me for my beliefs personal attack removed ! 
You're the one who made the claim
You're the one who made the claim
QUOTE
The problem is that there is *NO* fulfilled prophecy. Sure, there are plenty of claims of prophecy, but none that stand up to even the most cursory evaluation. If you'd like to pick one or two, I'd gladly show you just how flimsy the claims are.
And after many, many years of study of the Bible, I'd be more than willing to put my knowledge against anyone's. I stand behind what study reveals, not what faith and belief demand.
And after many, many years of study of the Bible, I'd be more than willing to put my knowledge against anyone's. I stand behind what study reveals, not what faith and belief demand.
Anyone interested in Messianic Prophecy, I have something tommorow, Im kind of dizzy from all the circular reasoning today.
QUOTE
Im kind of dizzy from all the circular reasoning today.
what do you mean?
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Jul 17 2003, 10:37 PM)
There are many historical events that have been validated by other cultures that didn't believe in the God of Abraham.
1. That Jews were enslaved in Egypt. References in Egyptian writings.
2. Jesus was a real person and was crucified. References in Roman writings.
3. Rome burnt down Jeruselem. Roman references.
4. Abraham was a real person who had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The Koran backs that up and btw also talks about Jesus.
There is a lot of allegory in the Bible but accepting it as truth... is a little ridiculous.
As a Cristian, I accept the Bible as truth. I find your statement very offensive, it is the basis of my faith and the faith of MILLIONS around the world. I'm sure that Jews and Muslims alike find your statements offensive also.
1. That Jews were enslaved in Egypt. References in Egyptian writings.
2. Jesus was a real person and was crucified. References in Roman writings.
3. Rome burnt down Jeruselem. Roman references.
4. Abraham was a real person who had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The Koran backs that up and btw also talks about Jesus.
QUOTE
There is a lot of allegory in the Bible but accepting it as truth... is a little ridiculous.
As a Cristian, I accept the Bible as truth. I find your statement very offensive, it is the basis of my faith and the faith of MILLIONS around the world. I'm sure that Jews and Muslims alike find your statements offensive also.
Actually, you have that wrong, I'm afraid.
1. There are no records of the Jewish slavery in Egypt. In fact, there is no evidence of an exodus, nor of the Hebrews arriving in Palestine en masse as the Bible states. This is yet another example of tradition overshadowing reality, just as those who still claim that slaves built the pyramids even though we know that isn't the case.
2. Likewise, there are no official records to Jesus specifically in Roman writings, although there are references in Tacitus, etc. at a later date. This isn't to suggest that Jesus wasn't a real person, I don't think there is any reason to think that is the case, but Jesus certainly wasn't unique either. He was simply one of a large number of 'Messiahs' that existed in and around Jerusalem at the time
3. Rome burnt down a lot of places. Not sure what this is supposed to prove. No one has said that the Bible has never reported historical facts accurately. The latter half of the OT is quite accurate in a lot of ways and deals quite nicely with Jewish history. This doesn't mean that all of the Bible is true or accurate though.
4. The Qu'ran makes a lot of references to the Bible and uses it as a source. Not quite sure what this is supposed to prove either, since Allah and God are, according to Muslims, one and the same, or more properly, Allah is simply God with a latter-day spin. There simply is no independent evidence that Abraham ever lived and indeed, most Jewish scholars don't believe that anyone in the Bible until the time of Abraham were real.
And it's nice that you accept the Bible as truth, but do you do so because it's true, or because your faith demands that it be true? I'm sorry that you're offended, but I'm sure that all the religions that Christians claim are lies are likewise offended. Christianity has no more evidence to support it's veracity than any other religion.
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/outside.htm
Jews in Egypt: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html
Is the Bible true? http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
You are mistaken. The HISTORICAL truths here are what we're debating, not the philosophy behind the religions. Your statement does nothing to support your theory other than to show you obvious distain for Christianity.
It proves that two seperate religions, who today are at odds, at one point had one origin. If one group of people say somethings true, it can be doubted. But two? And we're talking about ISLAM, one of the largest religions in the world.
And your evidence for this? Actaually, your evidence for ANY of your statements? You're just throwing things out and nothing to back them up. I have PHYSICAL FACTS and archeology, science, eyewitness accounts per manuscripts and writtings. Biblical archeology is BIG and is one of the largest funded because the evidence backs up the historical writings of the Bible. It is a story of a people, a lineage and cannot be easily discounted because of some peoples distain for the Spirituality that happens to encompass it.
QUOTE
The Roman historian Tacitus
Tacitus was a Roman historian. His ‘Annals’, written about 115 AD, mention the emperor Nero’s persecution of the Christians in Rome in AD 64. This was the year of the great fire of Rome. There were suspicions that the emperor himself had started the fire. This is what Tacitus says (Annals 15:44):
To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.
Notice the following points from Tacitus:
Christ was executed while Tiberius was emperor (14-37 AD)
He was executed by order of Pontius Pilate (procurator from 26-36 AD)
His movement had its origins in Judea
There were enough Christian believers at Rome by AD 64 to be made scapegoats by the emperor Nero
This comes from an unsympathetic pagan writer.
Tacitus was a Roman historian. His ‘Annals’, written about 115 AD, mention the emperor Nero’s persecution of the Christians in Rome in AD 64. This was the year of the great fire of Rome. There were suspicions that the emperor himself had started the fire. This is what Tacitus says (Annals 15:44):
To dispel the rumor, Nero substituted as culprits, and treated with the most extreme punishments, some people, popularly known as Christians, whose disgraceful activities were notorious. The originator of that name, Christus, had been executed when Tiberius was emperor, by order of the procurator Pontius Pilatus. But the deadly cult, though checked for a time, was now breaking out again not only in Judea, the birthplace of this evil, but even throughout Rome, where all the nasty and disgusting ideas from all over the world pour in and find a ready following.
Notice the following points from Tacitus:
Christ was executed while Tiberius was emperor (14-37 AD)
He was executed by order of Pontius Pilate (procurator from 26-36 AD)
His movement had its origins in Judea
There were enough Christian believers at Rome by AD 64 to be made scapegoats by the emperor Nero
This comes from an unsympathetic pagan writer.
Jews in Egypt: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a027.html
Is the Bible true? http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t003.html
QUOTE
but I'm sure that all the religions that Christians claim are lies are likewise offended.
You are mistaken. The HISTORICAL truths here are what we're debating, not the philosophy behind the religions. Your statement does nothing to support your theory other than to show you obvious distain for Christianity.
QUOTE
The Qu'ran makes a lot of references to the Bible and uses it as a source. Not quite sure what this is supposed to prove either...
It proves that two seperate religions, who today are at odds, at one point had one origin. If one group of people say somethings true, it can be doubted. But two? And we're talking about ISLAM, one of the largest religions in the world.
QUOTE
most Jewish scholars don't believe that anyone in the Bible until the time of Abraham were real.
And your evidence for this? Actaually, your evidence for ANY of your statements? You're just throwing things out and nothing to back them up. I have PHYSICAL FACTS and archeology, science, eyewitness accounts per manuscripts and writtings. Biblical archeology is BIG and is one of the largest funded because the evidence backs up the historical writings of the Bible. It is a story of a people, a lineage and cannot be easily discounted because of some peoples distain for the Spirituality that happens to encompass it.
I dont want to ruin this fine debate i dont, remember, freethinkers and such are a very small minority, usually frowned upon by the big three religions and the like. More then once in a religion debate, not here, i have been called a large amount of names from heathen, infidel, and even a satanist So this person may have been flamed is all.
When i deal with religion and questions like this, i raise my points as to why so many deitys and religions in humankinds short recoded history, what makes one any more real then the other, who gives a religion the right to mold reality, why is it bad to want to leave it behind, does it have negitive impacts such as war, and am i "evil" because i study human nature and enjoy what science has to offer me.
So this person may have been flamed is all.When i deal with religion and questions like this, i raise my points as to why so many deitys and religions in humankinds short recoded history, what makes one any more real then the other, who gives a religion the right to mold reality, why is it bad to want to leave it behind, does it have negitive impacts such as war, and am i "evil" because i study human nature and enjoy what science has to offer me.
QUOTE
When i deal with religion and questions like this, i raise my points as to why so many deitys and religions in humankinds short recoded history, what makes one any more real then the other, who gives a religion the right to mold reality, why is it bad to want to leave it behind, does it have negitive impacts such as war, and am i "evil" because i study human nature and enjoy what science has to offer me.
I think it's great that you want to study religions and question them. I do the same thing!
I don't follow blindly with the "church", infact, for all tense and purposes, I live "outside the will of God", according to my Mom, because I'm a lesbian. I read the Bible formyself and take from it what touches MY heart and that's when God speaks to me, not through the ramblings of some hypocritical preacher! I can hardly stand to go to church, because of their intollerance. Don't let the "church" be the only example of what Christianity is, because in my opinion, they have distorted it.True religion has NOTHING to do with organized religion. True religion is a personal, life long yearning for serinity, love and peace. That's what Jesus was really about: compassion. I would describe myself as a spiritual person, I seek truth. You and I aren't that different.
QUOTE(valley @ Jul 17 2003, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 17 2003, 06:49 PM)
And after many, many years of study of the Bible, I'd be more than willing to put my knowledge against anyone's. I stand behind what study reveals, not what faith and belief demand.
Cephus, first please answer my question about the science found in the Bible in my earlier response. How could the men who penned the scriptures know of these scientific findings thousands of years before they were discovered to be true?
Cephus? Didja forget about me?
QUOTE(valley @ Jul 18 2003, 04:44 PM)
QUOTE(valley @ Jul 17 2003, 06:59 PM)
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 17 2003, 06:49 PM)
And after many, many years of study of the Bible, I'd be more than willing to put my knowledge against anyone's. I stand behind what study reveals, not what faith and belief demand.
Cephus, first please answer my question about the science found in the Bible in my earlier response. How could the men who penned the scriptures know of these scientific findings thousands of years before they were discovered to be true?
Cephus? Didja forget about me?
Nope, I've just been told that I can't post two messages in a row (I have no idea where, every other forum on the planet allows you to do so) so I have to wait for someone else to post between my messages. Sorry to the moderators, but I find it very distracting to have to search through messages addressed to other people, just in case someone quoted one of my messages in there somewhere. I'll have to go back and find your message and respond specifically when I can, but if I recall, you asked how the ancient Hebrews knew scientific facts.
You assume incorrectly that ancient man was stupid. Ancient man had a great knowledge of many things. The Greeks knew that Earth was spherical and had measured it with a great degree of accuracy, something the Hebrews never figured out (they believed the earth was flat). Ancient Egypt knew a lot about astronomy and cosmology. We could go on and on looking at all the things that ancient man discovered.
That said though, the Hebrews weren't particularly advanced, nor do I recall any of your examples being particularly original to them. As I said, I'd have to go back and look and if there is anything in particular you'd like me to address, I'd be happy to.
QUOTE(Cephus @ Jul 18 2003, 01:15 PM)
but if I recall, you asked how the ancient Hebrews knew scientific facts.
You assume incorrectly that ancient man was stupid.
You assume incorrectly that ancient man was stupid.
LOL! Where did I assume stupidity in the hebrews? Read carefully Cephus....and please try to keep your presuppositions out of it. I know its difficult, I do it sometimes too but you're racing too far ahead of me in those, hon. Lets try to keep it to the text.
btw...I'm having trouble with the style in here too..I'm very familiar with forums but this one is set up differently...the 2 boxes and making a quote within a quote a bit confusing.
edit: was disappointed to see the school thread closed. Missed getting my reply in by about 5 minutes or so. And it was educationally based too!
QUOTE(valley @ Jul 17 2003, 06:47 PM)
ok then....so how did King Solomon know that there were pathways in the ocean in Psalm 8? Is it because of this psalm that Matthew Fontaine Maury ( the founder of the science of oceanography) discovered the shipping lanes in the sea, which he then spent the rest of his life mapping them out. His charts are still used today! All because he read it in the Bible and decided if God's word said that there were paths in the sea then by golly, he was gonna find them. And he did. So how did King Solomon know this over 3 thousand years ago when we couldnt figure it out until the last few hundred?
And how did Job know that God hung the earth on nothing in Job 26:7? Scientists once believed that the earth was held up by some sort of support structure.....How did Job know thousands of years ago, what no one could have known until 1492?
Also...why was a woman told by a messenger of God in Judges 9:7 to drink no wine while she was pregnant? Why shouldnt she? They knew nothing of fetal alcohol sydrome until very recently. But still, she was told to abstain.....
You say none of this is scientifically accurate? I beg to differ
And how did Job know that God hung the earth on nothing in Job 26:7? Scientists once believed that the earth was held up by some sort of support structure.....How did Job know thousands of years ago, what no one could have known until 1492?
Also...why was a woman told by a messenger of God in Judges 9:7 to drink no wine while she was pregnant? Why shouldnt she? They knew nothing of fetal alcohol sydrome until very recently. But still, she was told to abstain.....
You say none of this is scientifically accurate? I beg to differ
Cephus....here is the post I was talking about. Sorry it got lost in the thread. I would have bumped it up for you last night but we lost power for 3 hours...I actually had to read a book instead. Isnt that sad!
I think you are reading too much into the "sicience" of the Bible. King Solomon's statement may have meant something entirely different. Actual ocean travel did not exist in those days, at least to our knowledge. Just navigating the coasts and the Mediterranean was difficult enough.
I believe that much of the Bible means little or nothing in this day and age. If you are a Jew, the basic laws as given are important. Certainly the rules allowing crime against the Gentiles are no longer taught. I believe the Muslim world has similar rules concerning non-Muslims.
If you are a Christian, certainly the teachings of Jesus in the 4 Gospels are very important, and the teachings of Paul are less important by comparison.
But there is much in the scriptures that have been written by man and placed there for less than honorable motives. There are also some books that got left out of the Bible.
So you should be careful about what you practice. Believe what you want, but practicing some of the rules or laws as given in the Bible will just get you put in jail.
I believe that much of the Bible means little or nothing in this day and age. If you are a Jew, the basic laws as given are important. Certainly the rules allowing crime against the Gentiles are no longer taught. I believe the Muslim world has similar rules concerning non-Muslims.
If you are a Christian, certainly the teachings of Jesus in the 4 Gospels are very important, and the teachings of Paul are less important by comparison.
But there is much in the scriptures that have been written by man and placed there for less than honorable motives. There are also some books that got left out of the Bible.
So you should be careful about what you practice. Believe what you want, but practicing some of the rules or laws as given in the Bible will just get you put in jail.
I dont want to get off topic here since it seems to be geared toward Bible bashing but I was wondering if anyone is interested in what the Bible actually says. I only bring it up because it is customary to refer to the testimony of a wittness before trying to prove the testimony wrong. Did any of the Bible bashers ever think about what the Bible actually says before they rejected it?
"The Testimony of Christ's Post-Resurrection Appearances—The Appearances Enumerated. We come now to the second great body of evidence proving, we believe, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, i.e., His appearances to the believers between the morning of His resurrection, and His ascension forty days later. It is generally believed, whatever one may think of these so-called post-resurrection appearances of our Lord, that we have in the New Testament ten different occasions on which the Lord is said to have appeared to His followers in addition to His appearances to the Apostle Paul. It will be best, we think, to enumerate these here before we proceed to discuss the meaning of these appearances.
(1) To certain women as they returned from the sepulchre, after having seen the angel who told them Christ had arisen (Matt. 28:1-10).
(2) To Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre, probably upon her second visit to it that morning (John 20:11-18; Mark 16:9-11).
(3) To the Apostle Peter, before the evening of the day of the Resurrection, but under circumstances of which we have no details (Luke 24:34; I Cor. 15:5).
(4) To the two disciples, Cleopas and another, on the way to Em-maus, on the afternoon of Easter (Mark 16:12, 13; Luke 24:
!3-35)-
(5) To the ten apostles, Thomas being absent, together with others whose names are not given, assembled together on the evening of Easter day at their evening meal (Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:36-40; John 20:19-23; I Cor. 15:5).
(6) One week later, to all the eleven apostles, probably in the same place as the preceding appearance (John 20:26-28).
(7) To several of the disciples at the sea of Galilee, while they were fishing, the exact time undesignated (John 21:1-23).
(8) To the apostles, and above five hundred brethren, at once, on an appointed mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20; I Cor. 15:6).
(9) To James, under circumstances of which we have no information (I Cor. 15:7).
(10) To the apostles at Jerusalem, immediately before the ascension on the Mount of Olives (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:3-8)." (Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand)
"The Testimony of Christ's Post-Resurrection Appearances—The Appearances Enumerated. We come now to the second great body of evidence proving, we believe, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, i.e., His appearances to the believers between the morning of His resurrection, and His ascension forty days later. It is generally believed, whatever one may think of these so-called post-resurrection appearances of our Lord, that we have in the New Testament ten different occasions on which the Lord is said to have appeared to His followers in addition to His appearances to the Apostle Paul. It will be best, we think, to enumerate these here before we proceed to discuss the meaning of these appearances.
(1) To certain women as they returned from the sepulchre, after having seen the angel who told them Christ had arisen (Matt. 28:1-10).
(2) To Mary Magdalene at the sepulchre, probably upon her second visit to it that morning (John 20:11-18; Mark 16:9-11).
(3) To the Apostle Peter, before the evening of the day of the Resurrection, but under circumstances of which we have no details (Luke 24:34; I Cor. 15:5).
(4) To the two disciples, Cleopas and another, on the way to Em-maus, on the afternoon of Easter (Mark 16:12, 13; Luke 24:
!3-35)-
(5) To the ten apostles, Thomas being absent, together with others whose names are not given, assembled together on the evening of Easter day at their evening meal (Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:36-40; John 20:19-23; I Cor. 15:5).
(6) One week later, to all the eleven apostles, probably in the same place as the preceding appearance (John 20:26-28).
(7) To several of the disciples at the sea of Galilee, while they were fishing, the exact time undesignated (John 21:1-23).
(8) To the apostles, and above five hundred brethren, at once, on an appointed mountain in Galilee (Matt. 28:16-20; I Cor. 15:6).
(9) To James, under circumstances of which we have no information (I Cor. 15:7).
(10) To the apostles at Jerusalem, immediately before the ascension on the Mount of Olives (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:3-8)." (Wilbur Smith, Therefore Stand)
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jul 18 2003, 08:47 PM)
I dont want to get off topic here since it seems to be geared toward Bible bashing but I was wondering if anyone is interested in what the Bible actually says. I only bring it up because it is customary to refer to the testimony of a wittness before trying to prove the testimony wrong. Did any of the Bible bashers ever think about what the Bible actually says before they rejected it?
The Bible is not a witness, but a record that a witness is supposed to refer to when witnessing.
Considering that the Bible may not be totally accurate or translated correctly or interpreted honorably by weak minded men is not Bible bashing. I personally do not reject it, but I do take some of it with the proverbial grain of salt. And a lot more of it has no bearing on today's world, or we would be still stoning non-believers and sinners.
The Bible is a collection of books written by many men over many centuries, then translated and adapted many times by many men since, therefore we cannot always know what it actually says or what was originally meant, if anything was meant at all, in many cases.
There are hundreds of faiths interpreting these words differently, thus the many religions that all claim to have the truth. There are thousands of scholars who spend their entire lives discussing what the scriptures might mean in any given text or time of said text, and only the foolish ones claim to have all the answers.
It is wise to take from the Bible that which is obviously good and apply it to our lives, and also wise to not worry about the rest until God himself explains it to us, or tell us how it was meant to be written as opposed to how it may have gotten presented to us in such error.
There are many sites online that detail the inconsistencies if any are interested. Some of them are nit-picky, others are downright thought provoking. Have fun.....
Billy Jean,
I commend your defense of the faith you were raised under, but I also encourage you to investigate the issue from both sides (if you have not done so already). Perhaps similar to your upbringing, I was raised on Christian apologetics, but what was enlightening for me was to study the arguments of scholars on both sides. While I approve of the Bible's teachings on the Golden Rule and the beautiful sacrificial picture of Christ, other portions of the Bible leave much to be desired. You mentioned in your post that you were a lesbian. Are you aware of the moral aspersions the Bible casts on homosexual loving relationships? Quoting Romans, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
I don't mean to attack your spirituality in anyway, but I do encourage you to rethink your unilateral support of the Bible (if that is the case -- I don't want to read too much into your posts). With the passages such as Lev. 26, Deut. 28, and Num. 31 (read them if you haven't before), I just don't think the Bible is a book worth expending energy to defend.
Briefly, I wanted to make several comments regarding the Exile. Your web-link discusses the archeological findings of Asiatic dwellings. While this could've been the Hebrews, archeologists and historians are increasingly concluding there is no evidence of any large Hebrew habitation (see http://www.ohiodominican.edu/president/Exodus.shtml). Exodus 12:40 gives 430 years as the length of time the Israelites were in Egypt and, according to Exo. 12:37, the exiled population reached 600,000 (not including women and children). What is troubling for Biblical accuracy, however, is the lack of any Egyptian records of Ramses II's army being destroyed in the Red Sea. The rule of Ramses II (1279 to 1213 B.C.) is well-documented and surely would've included such an event.
Anyway, gotta run.
~Solarlux
I commend your defense of the faith you were raised under, but I also encourage you to investigate the issue from both sides (if you have not done so already). Perhaps similar to your upbringing, I was raised on Christian apologetics, but what was enlightening for me was to study the arguments of scholars on both sides. While I approve of the Bible's teachings on the Golden Rule and the beautiful sacrificial picture of Christ, other portions of the Bible leave much to be desired. You mentioned in your post that you were a lesbian. Are you aware of the moral aspersions the Bible casts on homosexual loving relationships? Quoting Romans, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
I don't mean to attack your spirituality in anyway, but I do encourage you to rethink your unilateral support of the Bible (if that is the case -- I don't want to read too much into your posts). With the passages such as Lev. 26, Deut. 28, and Num. 31 (read them if you haven't before), I just don't think the Bible is a book worth expending energy to defend.
Briefly, I wanted to make several comments regarding the Exile. Your web-link discusses the archeological findings of Asiatic dwellings. While this could've been the Hebrews, archeologists and historians are increasingly concluding there is no evidence of any large Hebrew habitation (see http://www.ohiodominican.edu/president/Exodus.shtml). Exodus 12:40 gives 430 years as the length of time the Israelites were in Egypt and, according to Exo. 12:37, the exiled population reached 600,000 (not including women and children). What is troubling for Biblical accuracy, however, is the lack of any Egyptian records of Ramses II's army being destroyed in the Red Sea. The rule of Ramses II (1279 to 1213 B.C.) is well-documented and surely would've included such an event.
Anyway, gotta run.
~Solarlux
Whats so hard to believe about the Bible, is it all those miricles going on? Maybe it is just certain ones. Here is a short list of a few of the miricles from the New Testement, tell me which ones seem hard to believe and we can talk about it.
The Scriptural Witness
Jesus said, "Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them" (Luke 7:22). Jesus' miracles demonstrated a great variety of power: power over nature, power over disease, power over demons, powers of creation, and power over death. What He did also fulfilled prophecy and pointed to Him as the Messiah predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Among the many supernatural acts He performed were:
Miracles of Physical Healing
—A leper (Matt. 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-15)
—A paralytic (Matt. 9:2-8; Mark 2:3-12; Luke 5:18-26)
—Peter's mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-17; Luke 1:29-31)
—A nobleman's son (John 4:46-53)
—Physical infirmity (John 5:1-9)
—A withered hand (Matt. 12:9-13; Mark 1 -6; Luke 6:6-11)
—Deafness and dumbness (Mark 7:31-37)
—Blindness at Bethsaida (Mark 12-25); in Jerusalem (John 9); Bartimaeus Mark 10:46-52)
—Ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19)
—Malchus's severed ear (Luke 22:47-51)
—Hemorrhage (Matt. 9:20-22; Mark : .25-34; Luke 8:43-48)
—Dropsy (Luke 14:24)
Miracles in the Natural Realm
—Water converted to wine at Cana (John 2:1-11)
—Stilling of a storm (Matt. 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25)
—Supernatural catch of fish (Luke 5:l-ll; John 21:6)
—Multiplying food:
1. 5,000 fed (Matt. :4:15-21; Mark 6:34-44; Luke 9:11-17; John 6:1-14);
2. 4,000 fed (Matt. 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-9)
—Walking on water (Matt. 14:22, 23; Mark 6:45-52; John 6:19)
—Money from a fish (Matt. 17:24-27)
—Fig tree dried up (Matt. 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14)
It might help if you knew before hand what kind of a standard of evidence you require. I like the one historians use (internal, external and bibliographical) but logical and intuitive are fine if you prefer.
The Scriptural Witness
Jesus said, "Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them" (Luke 7:22). Jesus' miracles demonstrated a great variety of power: power over nature, power over disease, power over demons, powers of creation, and power over death. What He did also fulfilled prophecy and pointed to Him as the Messiah predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures.
Among the many supernatural acts He performed were:
Miracles of Physical Healing
—A leper (Matt. 8:2-4; Mark 1:40-45; Luke 5:12-15)
—A paralytic (Matt. 9:2-8; Mark 2:3-12; Luke 5:18-26)
—Peter's mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-17; Luke 1:29-31)
—A nobleman's son (John 4:46-53)
—Physical infirmity (John 5:1-9)
—A withered hand (Matt. 12:9-13; Mark 1 -6; Luke 6:6-11)
—Deafness and dumbness (Mark 7:31-37)
—Blindness at Bethsaida (Mark 12-25); in Jerusalem (John 9); Bartimaeus Mark 10:46-52)
—Ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19)
—Malchus's severed ear (Luke 22:47-51)
—Hemorrhage (Matt. 9:20-22; Mark : .25-34; Luke 8:43-48)
—Dropsy (Luke 14:24)
Miracles in the Natural Realm
—Water converted to wine at Cana (John 2:1-11)
—Stilling of a storm (Matt. 8:23-27; Mark 4:35-41; Luke 8:22-25)
—Supernatural catch of fish (Luke 5:l-ll; John 21:6)
—Multiplying food:
1. 5,000 fed (Matt. :4:15-21; Mark 6:34-44; Luke 9:11-17; John 6:1-14);
2. 4,000 fed (Matt. 15:32-39; Mark 8:1-9)
—Walking on water (Matt. 14:22, 23; Mark 6:45-52; John 6:19)
—Money from a fish (Matt. 17:24-27)
—Fig tree dried up (Matt. 21:18-22; Mark 11:12-14)
It might help if you knew before hand what kind of a standard of evidence you require. I like the one historians use (internal, external and bibliographical) but logical and intuitive are fine if you prefer.
Anarchy Praxis,
I recognize the Bible has an impressive list of post-resurrection appearances by Jesus, but one thing which concerns me is a lack of internal consistency. The main discrepency I saw, which really troubled me, was as follows: (I encourage you to look up these passages and look at them carefully)
Matthew: Upon arriving at the tomb, Mary learns from an angel that Jesus is risen: "He is not here, he has risen, just as he said" (28:5-7)
John: Mary arrives at the tomb and finds it empty. There is no mention of angels (20:1)
Matthew: Mary hurries from the tomb "filled with joy" and runs to tell the disciples the news (28:8)
John: Mary leaves the tomb, finds Peter, and tells him "They have taken the Lord...and we don't know where they have put him" (20:2)
So why, in the book of John, doesn't Mary know that Jesus is risen from the dead? In Matthew, an angel tells her he is risen and she runs off with joy to tell the disciples. In John's account, (further emphasizing that she doesn't know Jesus is risen), Mary later runs into Jesus but doesn't recognize him. She's crying and says to him, "They have taken my Lord away and I don't know where they have put him." It's surprising that she would say "they" (Romans or Jews) moved the body after she (according to Matthew) had just witnessed a violent earthquake, an angel rolling away the stone, heard from an angel that Jesus had risen (i.e., had not been moved by strangers), and had run to tell the disciples with joy about it?
I believe discrepencies such as these lend to the conclusion that these accounts are not inerrant but rather are versions of an evolving story. For example, the oldest account (Mark) is also the least impressive one (no earthquake, etc). Anyway, just food for thought. Let me know what you think.
~Solarlux
I recognize the Bible has an impressive list of post-resurrection appearances by Jesus, but one thing which concerns me is a lack of internal consistency. The main discrepency I saw, which really troubled me, was as follows: (I encourage you to look up these passages and look at them carefully)
Matthew: Upon arriving at the tomb, Mary learns from an angel that Jesus is risen: "He is not here, he has risen, just as he said" (28:5-7)
John: Mary arrives at the tomb and finds it empty. There is no mention of angels (20:1)
Matthew: Mary hurries from the tomb "filled with joy" and runs to tell the disciples the news (28:8)
John: Mary leaves the tomb, finds Peter, and tells him "They have taken the Lord...and we don't know where they have put him" (20:2)
So why, in the book of John, doesn't Mary know that Jesus is risen from the dead? In Matthew, an angel tells her he is risen and she runs off with joy to tell the disciples. In John's account, (further emphasizing that she doesn't know Jesus is risen), Mary later runs into Jesus but doesn't recognize him. She's crying and says to him, "They have taken my Lord away and I don't know where they have put him." It's surprising that she would say "they" (Romans or Jews) moved the body after she (according to Matthew) had just witnessed a violent earthquake, an angel rolling away the stone, heard from an angel that Jesus had risen (i.e., had not been moved by strangers), and had run to tell the disciples with joy about it?
I believe discrepencies such as these lend to the conclusion that these accounts are not inerrant but rather are versions of an evolving story. For example, the oldest account (Mark) is also the least impressive one (no earthquake, etc). Anyway, just food for thought. Let me know what you think.
~Solarlux
Its been years since I went over this so I'll have to give you this from my notes. I cannot attribute them to any one source but here is a synthesis of a few of the inconsistancies. As far as the earthquake not mentioned in Mark, Mark is shorter then Matthew or Luke. The fact that Mark does not mentioning the earthquake doesnt really register with me. I dont see the story getting more extravagant with the telling because there are just as many miricles. What is added is not exaggerated attention grabing devices but details. Luke has more parables, Matthew quotes from the OT more, Half of John's Gospel covers the space of the last three days. These differences have to do with the purpose of the author and the audiance being addressed. The narrative and the doctrines of the faith are not changed in the slightest. If I missed your question just let me know and I'll give it another try.
The two men in the tomb were angels (Luke24:4). Only Luke mentioned them both . Mark only mentions the one who spoke for the duo (Mark 16:5). Such minor differences in the gospel accounts are all reconcilable. Here's a summary of the events of the resurrection, assembled from all 4 evangelists' accounts:
-Finding the stone rolled away, the women entered the tomb, but found it empty
(v. 3).
-While they were still in the tomb, the angels suddenly appeared (v.4; Mark 16:5). The angel who spoke reminded them of Jesus' promises (v. 6-8)
-Then sent them to find Peter and the disciples to report that 'was was risen' (Matt. 28:7,8; Mark 16:7,8).
-The women did as they were told (vv. 9-11).The disciples were skeptical at first (v. 11), but ran to where the tomb was, John arriving first (John 20:4), but Peter actually entering the tomb first (John 20:6), John was probably out of breath.They saw the linen wrappings intact but empty, proof that Jesus was risen (v. 12; John 20:6-8).They left immediately (v. 12; John 20:10).
-Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene returned to the tomb, and was standing outside weeping when Christ suddenly appeared to her (John 20:11-18).That was His first appearance (Mark 16:9).
-Sometime soon after that, He met the other women on the road and appeared to them as well (Matt. 28:9,10). Later that day he appeared to two of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (vv.13-32) and to Peter (v.34).
A Chronological list:
Luke 24:34 appeared to Simon (1 Cor. 15:5-8). Scripture describes at least 10 distinct appearances of Christ between the resurrection and ascension. He appeared to:
1) Mary Magdalene at the tomb (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-18)
2) To the women on the road (Matt. 28:9,10)
3) To the disciples on the road to Emmaus (vv 13-31)
4) To Peter (v. 34)
5) To 10 of the 11 disciples,Thomas being absent ivv. 36-43; Mark 16:14; John
20:19-25)
6) To the 11 disciples with Thomas present) 8 days later (John 20:26-31)
7) To 7 disciples oy the shore of the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-25)
8) To more than 500 disciples, probably on a mountain in Galilee (1 Cor. 15:6; Matt.
28:16);
9) To James (1 Cor. 15:7)
10) To the apostles when He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:3-11). After His ascensior He
appeared to Paul (1 Cor. 15:8). The next time He appears it will be in glory
(Matt. 24:30).
The two men in the tomb were angels (Luke24:4). Only Luke mentioned them both . Mark only mentions the one who spoke for the duo (Mark 16:5). Such minor differences in the gospel accounts are all reconcilable. Here's a summary of the events of the resurrection, assembled from all 4 evangelists' accounts:
-Finding the stone rolled away, the women entered the tomb, but found it empty
(v. 3).
-While they were still in the tomb, the angels suddenly appeared (v.4; Mark 16:5). The angel who spoke reminded them of Jesus' promises (v. 6-8)
-Then sent them to find Peter and the disciples to report that 'was was risen' (Matt. 28:7,8; Mark 16:7,8).
-The women did as they were told (vv. 9-11).The disciples were skeptical at first (v. 11), but ran to where the tomb was, John arriving first (John 20:4), but Peter actually entering the tomb first (John 20:6), John was probably out of breath.They saw the linen wrappings intact but empty, proof that Jesus was risen (v. 12; John 20:6-8).They left immediately (v. 12; John 20:10).
-Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene returned to the tomb, and was standing outside weeping when Christ suddenly appeared to her (John 20:11-18).That was His first appearance (Mark 16:9).
-Sometime soon after that, He met the other women on the road and appeared to them as well (Matt. 28:9,10). Later that day he appeared to two of the disciples on the road to Emmaus (vv.13-32) and to Peter (v.34).
A Chronological list:
Luke 24:34 appeared to Simon (1 Cor. 15:5-8). Scripture describes at least 10 distinct appearances of Christ between the resurrection and ascension. He appeared to:
1) Mary Magdalene at the tomb (Mark 16:9; John 20:11-18)
2) To the women on the road (Matt. 28:9,10)
3) To the disciples on the road to Emmaus (vv 13-31)
4) To Peter (v. 34)
5) To 10 of the 11 disciples,Thomas being absent ivv. 36-43; Mark 16:14; John
20:19-25)
6) To the 11 disciples with Thomas present) 8 days later (John 20:26-31)
7) To 7 disciples oy the shore of the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-25)
8) To more than 500 disciples, probably on a mountain in Galilee (1 Cor. 15:6; Matt.
28:16);
9) To James (1 Cor. 15:7)
10) To the apostles when He ascended into heaven (Acts 1:3-11). After His ascensior He
appeared to Paul (1 Cor. 15:8). The next time He appears it will be in glory
(Matt. 24:30).
i always wondered why this sort of attention does not go into say the quran or any other religious documents like hinduism if you can call it that. To post something on topic, i would like to know for myself how much of the bible can be real history from stuff that is not, being it stories took place so long ago, i imagine that it is a difficult task.
The hardest part of establishing the Bible as history is getting someone (Christian or otherwise) to admitt to an objective standard. The ' quran or any other religious documents like hinduism' are not historical narratives, plain and simple. The question, 'how much of the bible can be real history ' in short, a lot. It meets every test of historical qualification.
First, a quote from your response:
The original Markan account doesn't even include the resurrection (the earliest manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20). The last words are, "the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Again, this contradicts Matthew's account, which says,"So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples." (Matt. 28:8).
Again, how does one reconcile:
"the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." (Mark)
-- with --
"So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples." (Matthew)
It's difficult for me to imagine a more explicit inconsistency.
To summarize the order of events you listed in your post:
1. Women visit tomb, see the angel, and learn of Jesus' resurrection
2. Women fetch disciples who check out the tomb
3. Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene stands outside the tomb weeping, and Jesus appears to her
However, Matthew paints a different picture: "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greetings,' he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me" (28:8-10).
So according to Matthew, we see:
1. Women (Mary and Mary Magdalene) check out the tomb and leave to tell disciples.
2. Women (Mary and Mary Magdalene) are intercepted by Jesus, who gives additional instructions on what to tell the disciples.
Ultimately, the problem is that John gives a different order of events than Matthew/Luke.
Referring back to my original post, I'm still interested in an answer to the following question: In John's account, why does Mary think that the Jesus' body was stolen when talking to the disciples? Matthew decribes her as leaving the tomb with "joy" to tell them about the angel's report of Jesus' resurrection.
QUOTE
As far as the earthquake not mentioned in Mark, Mark is shorter then Matthew or Luke. The fact that Mark does not mentioning the earthquake doesnt really register with me. I dont see the story getting more extravagant with the telling because there are just as many miricles. What is added is not exaggerated attention grabing devices but details.
The original Markan account doesn't even include the resurrection (the earliest manuscripts do not contain Mark 16:9-20). The last words are, "the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Again, this contradicts Matthew's account, which says,"So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples." (Matt. 28:8).
Again, how does one reconcile:
"the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." (Mark)
-- with --
"So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples." (Matthew)
It's difficult for me to imagine a more explicit inconsistency.
To summarize the order of events you listed in your post:
1. Women visit tomb, see the angel, and learn of Jesus' resurrection
2. Women fetch disciples who check out the tomb
3. Meanwhile, Mary Magdalene stands outside the tomb weeping, and Jesus appears to her
However, Matthew paints a different picture: "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. Suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greetings,' he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, 'Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me" (28:8-10).
So according to Matthew, we see:
1. Women (Mary and Mary Magdalene) check out the tomb and leave to tell disciples.
2. Women (Mary and Mary Magdalene) are intercepted by Jesus, who gives additional instructions on what to tell the disciples.
Ultimately, the problem is that John gives a different order of events than Matthew/Luke.
Referring back to my original post, I'm still interested in an answer to the following question: In John's account, why does Mary think that the Jesus' body was stolen when talking to the disciples? Matthew decribes her as leaving the tomb with "joy" to tell them about the angel's report of Jesus' resurrection.
Where to start, where to start...
Both I and Quark have dealt with your supposed examples of internal, external and bibliographical testing. While these are indeed methods of evaluating historical evidence, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding for each of them. The Bible is not proof of itself in regards to the historical accuracy of its claims (your internal evidence) anymore than rewriting the same thing over and over again (your bibliographical evidence) is. Beyond that, you have offered no more external evidence supporting Biblical claims than anyone else participating in this particular debate topic. I've seen both Flavius Josephus and Tacitus brought up, both of whom comment on Christianity but would by no means qualify as witnesses or accurate sources of information in regards to most (if not all) Biblical claims. I would encourage those participating, and those entering into the debate, to continue offering any new possible resources.
I already offered early in this debate an article dealing with the whole notion of the exodus, but I would be curious to know what Egyptian writings you are referring to, Billy Jean? Last I heard there was even more archeological evidence suggesting the Egyptians used very few (if any) slaves in their work, but rather required citizens to assist in construction as a kind of national duty.
As to #2 I'd be curious to know what Roman writings you are referring to. One other poster has already stated that there's not necessarily any reason to discredit the idea of there being a person similar to Jesus, but there doesn't appear to be anything supporting the Biblicial portrayal of such a person. Anything suggesting otherwise would be greatly appreciated for this debate of course!
Rome burnt down a lot of places, and as somebody again already mentioned, the argument isn't that the Bible never recorded any event with at least some historical accuracy.
The Koran isn't in a position to validate those claims as it was written thousands of years after a historical Abraham was said to have lived.
To better illustrate, I'll reference each of the Bible verses you bring up in your argument...
It would seem to me more like the writer of Psalms is presuming fish follow paths in the sea no less than humans and mammals (excluding whales) follow paths on land. This seems an incredibly far cry from the comparison you seek to make with oceanography and shipping lanes.
Valley said it was "hung on nothing," whereas the actual verse states it is hung over nothing. The next assertion was that scientists believed the earth to be supported from below, neglecting to mention the Bible made this same claim in spite of other scientists and philosophers assuming otherwise (and correctly) before the Bible was ever put into print.
I guess we can get back to this one when the right passage is cited... It's curious to see someone presuming a passage advising one pregnant woman not to drink wine to be evidence of some divine knowledge about fetal alcohol syndrome while ignoring that other pregnant women of the time and centuries later were not somehow privy to this knowledge even despite familiarity with Biblical writings.
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jul 17 2003 @ 06:36 PM)
Methods of evaluation historical evidence:
The three I am most familar with are internal, external, and bibliographical testing. Anyone with another catagory I'll be glad to give it a whirl...
The three I am most familar with are internal, external, and bibliographical testing. Anyone with another catagory I'll be glad to give it a whirl...
Both I and Quark have dealt with your supposed examples of internal, external and bibliographical testing. While these are indeed methods of evaluating historical evidence, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding for each of them. The Bible is not proof of itself in regards to the historical accuracy of its claims (your internal evidence) anymore than rewriting the same thing over and over again (your bibliographical evidence) is. Beyond that, you have offered no more external evidence supporting Biblical claims than anyone else participating in this particular debate topic. I've seen both Flavius Josephus and Tacitus brought up, both of whom comment on Christianity but would by no means qualify as witnesses or accurate sources of information in regards to most (if not all) Biblical claims. I would encourage those participating, and those entering into the debate, to continue offering any new possible resources.
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Jul 17 2003 @ 06:37 PM)
1. That Jews were enslaved in Egypt. References in Egyptian writings.
2. Jesus was a real person and was crucified. References in Roman writings.
3. Rome burnt down Jeruselem. Roman references.
4. Abraham was a real person who had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The Koran backs that up and btw also talks about Jesus.
2. Jesus was a real person and was crucified. References in Roman writings.
3. Rome burnt down Jeruselem. Roman references.
4. Abraham was a real person who had two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The Koran backs that up and btw also talks about Jesus.
I already offered early in this debate an article dealing with the whole notion of the exodus, but I would be curious to know what Egyptian writings you are referring to, Billy Jean? Last I heard there was even more archeological evidence suggesting the Egyptians used very few (if any) slaves in their work, but rather required citizens to assist in construction as a kind of national duty.
As to #2 I'd be curious to know what Roman writings you are referring to. One other poster has already stated that there's not necessarily any reason to discredit the idea of there being a person similar to Jesus, but there doesn't appear to be anything supporting the Biblicial portrayal of such a person. Anything suggesting otherwise would be greatly appreciated for this debate of course!
Rome burnt down a lot of places, and as somebody again already mentioned, the argument isn't that the Bible never recorded any event with at least some historical accuracy.
The Koran isn't in a position to validate those claims as it was written thousands of years after a historical Abraham was said to have lived.
QUOTE(valley @ Jul 17 2003 @ 06:47 PM)
so how did King Solomon know that there were pathways in the ocean in Psalm 8? Is it because of this psalm that Matthew Fontaine Maury ( the founder of the science of oceanography) discovered the shipping lanes in the sea, which he then spent the rest of his life mapping them out. His charts are still used today!
...
And how did Job know that God hung the earth on nothing in Job 26:7? Scientists once believed that the earth was held up by some sort of support structure...
...
Also...why was a woman told by a messenger of God in Judges 9:7 to drink no wine while she was pregnant?
...
And how did Job know that God hung the earth on nothing in Job 26:7? Scientists once believed that the earth was held up by some sort of support structure...
...
Also...why was a woman told by a messenger of God in Judges 9:7 to drink no wine while she was pregnant?
To better illustrate, I'll reference each of the Bible verses you bring up in your argument...
QUOTE
6 You made him ruler over the works of your hands;
you put everything under his feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
you put everything under his feet:
7 all flocks and herds,
and the beasts of the field,
8 the birds of the air,
and the fish of the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
It would seem to me more like the writer of Psalms is presuming fish follow paths in the sea no less than humans and mammals (excluding whales) follow paths on land. This seems an incredibly far cry from the comparison you seek to make with oceanography and shipping lanes.
QUOTE
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
he suspends the earth over nothing.
Valley said it was "hung on nothing," whereas the actual verse states it is hung over nothing. The next assertion was that scientists believed the earth to be supported from below, neglecting to mention the Bible made this same claim in spite of other scientists and philosophers assuming otherwise (and correctly) before the Bible was ever put into print.
QUOTE
Judges 9:7
7 When Jotham was told about this, he climbed up on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted to them, "Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, so that God may listen to you.
7 When Jotham was told about this, he climbed up on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted to them, "Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, so that God may listen to you.
I guess we can get back to this one when the right passage is cited...
It's curious to see someone presuming a passage advising one pregnant woman not to drink wine to be evidence of some divine knowledge about fetal alcohol syndrome while ignoring that other pregnant women of the time and centuries later were not somehow privy to this knowledge even despite familiarity with Biblical writings.
"Referring back to my original post, I'm still interested in an answer to the following question: In John's account, why does Mary think that the Jesus' body was stolen when talking to the disciples? Matthew decribes her as leaving the tomb with "joy" to tell them about the angel's report of Jesus' resurrection."
I dont really know what the exact sequence of events were. Little details are not enough to warrant a rejection of the accounts as mutually exclusive. The important facts are that the women did not move the stone and the resurection came as a big suprise to all concerned. Its an interesting point to consider but whether they went and told the disciples right away isnt that earthshaking. Its an interesting point, Im aware of a number of these little inconsistancies and its not uncommon with eye-wittnesses 10 minutes after an event, let alone years later. Sorry if I disappoint you but there are some things I dont have an answer to.
I dont really know what the exact sequence of events were. Little details are not enough to warrant a rejection of the accounts as mutually exclusive. The important facts are that the women did not move the stone and the resurection came as a big suprise to all concerned. Its an interesting point to consider but whether they went and told the disciples right away isnt that earthshaking. Its an interesting point, Im aware of a number of these little inconsistancies and its not uncommon with eye-wittnesses 10 minutes after an event, let alone years later. Sorry if I disappoint you but there are some things I dont have an answer to.
Abs,
"While these are indeed methods of evaluating historical evidence, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding for each of them."
Where did I demonstrate this lack of understanding?
"While these are indeed methods of evaluating historical evidence, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding for each of them."
Where did I demonstrate this lack of understanding?
Enough with the double posts, AP. You've been asked to edit your previous post if you were the last one to do so elsewhere on this forum. Please follow that.
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jul 20 2003 @ 07:38 PM)
Abs,
"While these are indeed methods of evaluating historical evidence, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding for each of them."
Where did I demonstrate this lack of understanding?
"While these are indeed methods of evaluating historical evidence, you have demonstrated a lack of understanding for each of them."
Where did I demonstrate this lack of understanding?
I've already covered this with you in the first days of this topic and in the post which you have quoted here. While I have my doubts about your other abilities, it does appear you have the ability to read and I trust you will put it to good use if you truly desire an answer to your question.
Once upon a time in Pennsylvania there was a large, violent storm system that produced flooding in a small town. One of the inhabitants of that small town was a very pious man named Noah Smith.
While the neighbors were sandbagging their property and Noah's, they asked him if he wouldn't help them out. "Don't need to," said Noah. "God is going to deliver me from this flood."
The waters climbed over the sand bags and the neighbors were evacuating. "Noah," called one of his neighbors, "Come here, there's room in my boat. I'll get you to safety!"
"No thanks," said Noah confidently. "The Lord is going to deliver me from this flood."
The rain was still beating down while Noah had to move up to the roof.
A helicopter hovered over him as the water was licking at Noah's shoes. "Grab the ladder! We'll pull you up!" shouted the rescue worker.
"No!" Noah shouted back. "God is going to save me!" Thinking the man crazy and potentially combative, the helicopter pilot left him to find other survivors.
Well, Noah drowned. And as he stepped before God on his throne, Noah indignantly said, "God, I've believed in you all my life. Why didn't you save me from drowning?"
God scratched his head, leaned forward and asked, "Didn't I send you a boat?"
(I don't know who wrote this)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of us recognize the Bible as our lifeboat, whether or not it meets the critical standards of modern history or science.
Those who do not might consider looking for another boat when high waters come into their lives.
While the neighbors were sandbagging their property and Noah's, they asked him if he wouldn't help them out. "Don't need to," said Noah. "God is going to deliver me from this flood."
The waters climbed over the sand bags and the neighbors were evacuating. "Noah," called one of his neighbors, "Come here, there's room in my boat. I'll get you to safety!"
"No thanks," said Noah confidently. "The Lord is going to deliver me from this flood."
The rain was still beating down while Noah had to move up to the roof.
A helicopter hovered over him as the water was licking at Noah's shoes. "Grab the ladder! We'll pull you up!" shouted the rescue worker.
"No!" Noah shouted back. "God is going to save me!" Thinking the man crazy and potentially combative, the helicopter pilot left him to find other survivors.
Well, Noah drowned. And as he stepped before God on his throne, Noah indignantly said, "God, I've believed in you all my life. Why didn't you save me from drowning?"
God scratched his head, leaned forward and asked, "Didn't I send you a boat?"
(I don't know who wrote this)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some of us recognize the Bible as our lifeboat, whether or not it meets the critical standards of modern history or science.
Those who do not might consider looking for another boat when high waters come into their lives.
solarlux,
I have to concede to point you made, congradulations, your the first on here to do that. I wanted to share something I found while stumbleing around trying to resolve these contradictions. While I concede they are contradictory they are secondary details. You are not the first to notice and Christian scholars have answered this question before.
"In Matthew, when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived toward dawn at the tomb there is a rock in front of it, there is a violent earthquake, and an angel descends and rolls back the stone. In Mark, the women arrive at the tomb at sunrise and the stone had been rolled back. In Luke, when the women arrive at early dawn they find the stone had already been rolled back.
In Matthew, an angel is sitting on the rock outside the tomb and in Mark a youth is inside the tomb. In Luke, two men are inside.
In Matthew, the women present at the tomb are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. In Mark, the women present at the tomb are the two Marys and Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and the other women are present at the tomb.
In Matthew, the two Marys rush from the tomb in great fear and joy, run to tell the disciples, and meet Jesus on the way. In Mark, they run out of the tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone. In Luke, the women report the story to the disciples who do not believe them and there is no suggestion that they meet Jesus.
"And," I said to Craig, "Martin points out that John conflicts with much of the other three gospels. He concludes, 'In sum, the accounts of what happened at the tomb are either inconsistent or can only be made consistent with the aid of implausible interpretations.'"5
I stopped reading and looked up from my notes. My eyes locking with Craig's, I asked him point-blank, "In light of all this, how in the world can you possibly consider the empty tomb story to be credible?"
Immediately I noticed something about Craig's demeanor. In casual conversation or when discussing tepid objections to the empty tomb, he's rather mellow. But the tougher the question and the more piercing the challenge, the more animated and focused he gets. And at this point his body language told me he couldn't wait to dive into these seemingly dangerous waters.Clearing his throat, Craig began. "With all due respect," he said, "Michael Martin is a philosopher, not a historian, and I don't think he understands the historian's craft. For a philosopher, if something is inconsistent, the law of contradiction says, 'This cannot be true, throw it out!' However, the historian looks at these narratives and says, 'I see some inconsistencies, but I notice something about them: they're all in the secondary details." (The Case For Christ , Lee Strobel)
I have to concede to point you made, congradulations, your the first on here to do that. I wanted to share something I found while stumbleing around trying to resolve these contradictions. While I concede they are contradictory they are secondary details. You are not the first to notice and Christian scholars have answered this question before.
"In Matthew, when Mary Magdalene and the other Mary arrived toward dawn at the tomb there is a rock in front of it, there is a violent earthquake, and an angel descends and rolls back the stone. In Mark, the women arrive at the tomb at sunrise and the stone had been rolled back. In Luke, when the women arrive at early dawn they find the stone had already been rolled back.
In Matthew, an angel is sitting on the rock outside the tomb and in Mark a youth is inside the tomb. In Luke, two men are inside.
In Matthew, the women present at the tomb are Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. In Mark, the women present at the tomb are the two Marys and Salome. In Luke, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and the other women are present at the tomb.
In Matthew, the two Marys rush from the tomb in great fear and joy, run to tell the disciples, and meet Jesus on the way. In Mark, they run out of the tomb in fear and say nothing to anyone. In Luke, the women report the story to the disciples who do not believe them and there is no suggestion that they meet Jesus.
"And," I said to Craig, "Martin points out that John conflicts with much of the other three gospels. He concludes, 'In sum, the accounts of what happened at the tomb are either inconsistent or can only be made consistent with the aid of implausible interpretations.'"5
I stopped reading and looked up from my notes. My eyes locking with Craig's, I asked him point-blank, "In light of all this, how in the world can you possibly consider the empty tomb story to be credible?"
Immediately I noticed something about Craig's demeanor. In casual conversation or when discussing tepid objections to the empty tomb, he's rather mellow. But the tougher the question and the more piercing the challenge, the more animated and focused he gets. And at this point his body language told me he couldn't wait to dive into these seemingly dangerous waters.Clearing his throat, Craig began. "With all due respect," he said, "Michael Martin is a philosopher, not a historian, and I don't think he understands the historian's craft. For a philosopher, if something is inconsistent, the law of contradiction says, 'This cannot be true, throw it out!' However, the historian looks at these narratives and says, 'I see some inconsistencies, but I notice something about them: they're all in the secondary details." (The Case For Christ , Lee Strobel)
Anarchy Praxis,
I respect your willingness to concede the inconsistency, albeit secondary details. Any belief system will have gaps -- attempting to explain where no explanation exists only damages one's credibility. One does better to simply conceed a lack of an answer than waste breathe on entirely implausible explanations.
The reason why the 'minor inconsistencies' have troubled me is that it jeopardizes the doctrine of innerrency. If there are mistakes in some of their accounts, where else might mistakes lay? I conceed that the possibility exists that God is speaking through narratives, but nevertheless, any level of error creates a slippery slope. Where other errors might exist? What if Paul didn't really write 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians? (as secular scholars conclude) What if Peter didn't really write 1 & 2 Peter? What if the ecclessiastical councils made poor decisions regarding what was inspired? The original KJV version contained sections in Mark and John which carry theological significance (e.g., John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20). For hundreds of years, Christians believed those sections were the infallible word of God. Yet in the 20th century, we discovered those sections were not in the oldest manuscripts, so now modern versions either exclude them or note them as later additions. What other additions or inaccuracies might be found later?
In reading over this thread, I would argue it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove the historicity of the New Testament events using the N.T. itself. Why? Because secular/naturalistic explanations are also plausible. Briefly, to respond to the arguments I've seen listed for the historicity of the N.T.:
1. Simon Greenleaf, a great legal authority, asserted the historicity of the N.T.
Indeed, that is impressive, but many legal scholars today come to a far different conclusion. If I quoted a significant contributer in biology who asserts evolution, would you then deny creationism? What is your criteria for accepting/rejecting the conclusions of "experts"?
2. 300+ Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the gospels.
The secular interpretation is that the gospel accounts were written to directly fulfill O.T. prophecies. For example, note how Matthew and Luke attempt to fulfill the 'born in Bethlehem' prophecy: Luke uses a census to bring Mary to Bethlehem. Soon after Christ's birth, they head to Jerusalem for purification, and then on home to Nazareth. Matthew's account implies Bethlehem is Joseph's home residence, from where they flee to Egypt (for several years), and then later to relocate to Nazareth. The differences make me wonder if either of them was using accurate information. Many of Matthew's prophecies appear to be taken out of context, where the O.T. prophecies actually applied to O.T. settings (when read in context). Perhaps somewhat embarrassing is the "virgin" prophecy, based on the Greek Septuagint translation of the O.T. The actual Hebrew term used in the O.T. means "young woman" (another Hebrew term for virgin does exist, but wasn't used, as we would expect if the author had intended to make such a prophecy).
3. The disciples were willing to die for the cause.
As are many other numerous adherents to other religions.
Anyway, hopefully this is food for thought/discussion. If I missed any points, let me know.
~solarlux
I respect your willingness to concede the inconsistency, albeit secondary details. Any belief system will have gaps -- attempting to explain where no explanation exists only damages one's credibility. One does better to simply conceed a lack of an answer than waste breathe on entirely implausible explanations.
The reason why the 'minor inconsistencies' have troubled me is that it jeopardizes the doctrine of innerrency. If there are mistakes in some of their accounts, where else might mistakes lay? I conceed that the possibility exists that God is speaking through narratives, but nevertheless, any level of error creates a slippery slope. Where other errors might exist? What if Paul didn't really write 2 Thessalonians, Ephesians, and Colossians? (as secular scholars conclude) What if Peter didn't really write 1 & 2 Peter? What if the ecclessiastical councils made poor decisions regarding what was inspired? The original KJV version contained sections in Mark and John which carry theological significance (e.g., John 7:53-8:11, Mark 16:9-20). For hundreds of years, Christians believed those sections were the infallible word of God. Yet in the 20th century, we discovered those sections were not in the oldest manuscripts, so now modern versions either exclude them or note them as later additions. What other additions or inaccuracies might be found later?
In reading over this thread, I would argue it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove the historicity of the New Testament events using the N.T. itself. Why? Because secular/naturalistic explanations are also plausible. Briefly, to respond to the arguments I've seen listed for the historicity of the N.T.:
1. Simon Greenleaf, a great legal authority, asserted the historicity of the N.T.
Indeed, that is impressive, but many legal scholars today come to a far different conclusion. If I quoted a significant contributer in biology who asserts evolution, would you then deny creationism? What is your criteria for accepting/rejecting the conclusions of "experts"?
2. 300+ Old Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the gospels.
The secular interpretation is that the gospel accounts were written to directly fulfill O.T. prophecies. For example, note how Matthew and Luke attempt to fulfill the 'born in Bethlehem' prophecy: Luke uses a census to bring Mary to Bethlehem. Soon after Christ's birth, they head to Jerusalem for purification, and then on home to Nazareth. Matthew's account implies Bethlehem is Joseph's home residence, from where they flee to Egypt (for several years), and then later to relocate to Nazareth. The differences make me wonder if either of them was using accurate information. Many of Matthew's prophecies appear to be taken out of context, where the O.T. prophecies actually applied to O.T. settings (when read in context). Perhaps somewhat embarrassing is the "virgin" prophecy, based on the Greek Septuagint translation of the O.T. The actual Hebrew term used in the O.T. means "young woman" (another Hebrew term for virgin does exist, but wasn't used, as we would expect if the author had intended to make such a prophecy).
3. The disciples were willing to die for the cause.
As are many other numerous adherents to other religions.
Anyway, hopefully this is food for thought/discussion. If I missed any points, let me know.
~solarlux
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jul 20 2003, 03:15 AM)
The hardest part of establishing the Bible as history is getting someone (Christian or otherwise) to admitt to an objective standard. The ' quran or any other religious documents like hinduism' are not historical narratives, plain and simple. The question, 'how much of the bible can be real history ' in short, a lot. It meets every test of historical qualification.
The only portions of the Bible which can be considered historically accurate are those which also have secondary verification. We're finding today that a lot of the 'claimed' historicity in the Bible simply isn't so and a lot of things that we should be finding, we don't.
That doesn't mean that portions of the Bible may not be historically true, but assuming that because X really happened, that other portions are also true is ridiculous. The Bible is a book of mythology with some history sprinkled in.
solarlux,
What an intersting response I appreciate your thoughtfull and curtious way of expressing reservations about the Bible. That said, when I first became interested in Christianity their religion did not interest me in the slightest. That old book got my attention and has held it for some 20 years. I have over that time discovered a mountain of scholarship relating the Scripture and now regard it as incomperable. You asked about evolution and compared the discussion of evidence by Greenleaf to the scientists who support evolution as opposed to creation. Simply put Greenleaf is offering something comprehensive and complete, natural history going back millions of years is fragmentary and way out of my depth. I cannot accept carbon dating, fossils, and geology somehow disprove God created the world. I see simular methods applied to the New Testement and frankly Im not impressed with what natural history offers. The mentality of Newton and Descartes when they developed inductive science was that the metaphysics of Rome were incomprehensable in natural science. I feel the same way about natural science in metaphysics. Bottomline, the Bible is supported by every standard I am sure of. The quote that follows is one statement among many about the reliability of Scripture. This is from a time when it was commonly believed that the Bible was flatly contradicted by Archeology.
"Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived He was a student in the German historical school of the mid-19th century. As a result he believed that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century a,d. He was firmly convinced of this belief. from his research, to make a topographical study of Asia Minor, he was compelled to consider the writings of Luke. As a result he was forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He spoke of this when he said: "I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it. for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for-the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations." (Sir William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen) [taken from 'Evidence that Demands a verdict, by J.McDowell)
Now I'll be honest, this inerrancy is as alien to my way of thinking as natural or liberal theology, I consider both to be too extreme. And as far as details like the conficting accounts from the Gospels while impossible to dismiss are still secondary details. Its like perjury, if I you were on trial for having stolen an elephant and I testify in court that I saw you walking down the street with the elephant. By all standards of evidence this is very damaging to you, your defense attorney is going to cross examine me mercilessly. Suppose he points out I told the police I was there reading Theology Today later the police say I had a copy of Playboy instead. Chances are he will go off into a rant about my crediblity as a witness and maybe even raise some questions in the mind of the jury. He will never be able to prove perjury though, because it is not a material fact. The elephant here is the resurection not the details related to the wittness of this event as history.
Born of a Virgin
PROPHECY
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin
shall conceive and bear a Son, and
shall call His name Immanuel."
-Isaiah 7:14
FULFILLMENT
"She was found with child of the Holy Spirit.... Then Joseph ... did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name jesus." —Matthew 1:18,24,25 (See also Luke 1:26-35.)
In Hebrew the word "virgin" is denoted by two words:
1. bethulah: The proper meaning denotes a virgin maiden (Gen. 24:16; Lev. 21:13; Deut. 22:14, 23, 28; Judg. 11:37; 1 Kin. 1:2). Joel 1:8 is, according to Unger, not an exception because here it "refers to the loss of one betrothed, not married."
2. almah (veiled): A young woman of marriageable age. This word is used in Isaiah 7:14. "The Holy Spirit through Isaiah did not use bethulah, because both the ideas of virginity and marriageable age had to be combined in one word to meet the immediate historical situation and the prophetic aspect centering in a virgin-born Messiah." (Unger, UBD, 1159)
"Virgin" is denoted in Greek by the word parthenos: a virgin, marriageable maiden, or young married woman, pure virgin. When the translators of the Septugint translted Isaiah 7:14 into Greek they used the Greek word parthenos. To them Isaiah 7:14 denoted that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. (Matt. 1: 23; 25:1, 7,11; Luke 1:27; Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 7:25, 28, 33; 2 Cor. 11:2). (Unger, UBD, 1159)" [taken from Evidence that Demands a Verdict, J.Mcdowell]
One final point should be addressed here. One of the things about the slaughter of Christians for over 2 centuries that is over looked is that they overcame this kind of opposition by peacefull, even passive means. Motive is a profound element in the New Testement wittness both as it relates to historical qualifications and persuation, at least for me.
What an intersting response I appreciate your thoughtfull and curtious way of expressing reservations about the Bible. That said, when I first became interested in Christianity their religion did not interest me in the slightest. That old book got my attention and has held it for some 20 years. I have over that time discovered a mountain of scholarship relating the Scripture and now regard it as incomperable. You asked about evolution and compared the discussion of evidence by Greenleaf to the scientists who support evolution as opposed to creation. Simply put Greenleaf is offering something comprehensive and complete, natural history going back millions of years is fragmentary and way out of my depth. I cannot accept carbon dating, fossils, and geology somehow disprove God created the world. I see simular methods applied to the New Testement and frankly Im not impressed with what natural history offers. The mentality of Newton and Descartes when they developed inductive science was that the metaphysics of Rome were incomprehensable in natural science. I feel the same way about natural science in metaphysics. Bottomline, the Bible is supported by every standard I am sure of. The quote that follows is one statement among many about the reliability of Scripture. This is from a time when it was commonly believed that the Bible was flatly contradicted by Archeology.
"Sir William Ramsay is regarded as one of the greatest archaeologists ever to have lived He was a student in the German historical school of the mid-19th century. As a result he believed that the Book of Acts was a product of the mid-second century a,d. He was firmly convinced of this belief. from his research, to make a topographical study of Asia Minor, he was compelled to consider the writings of Luke. As a result he was forced to do a complete reversal of his beliefs due to the overwhelming evidence uncovered in his research. He spoke of this when he said: "I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavourable to it. for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me. It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for-the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations." (Sir William Ramsey, St. Paul the Traveler and the Roman Citizen) [taken from 'Evidence that Demands a verdict, by J.McDowell)
Now I'll be honest, this inerrancy is as alien to my way of thinking as natural or liberal theology, I consider both to be too extreme. And as far as details like the conficting accounts from the Gospels while impossible to dismiss are still secondary details. Its like perjury, if I you were on trial for having stolen an elephant and I testify in court that I saw you walking down the street with the elephant. By all standards of evidence this is very damaging to you, your defense attorney is going to cross examine me mercilessly. Suppose he points out I told the police I was there reading Theology Today later the police say I had a copy of Playboy instead. Chances are he will go off into a rant about my crediblity as a witness and maybe even raise some questions in the mind of the jury. He will never be able to prove perjury though, because it is not a material fact. The elephant here is the resurection not the details related to the wittness of this event as history.
Born of a Virgin
PROPHECY
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin
shall conceive and bear a Son, and
shall call His name Immanuel."
-Isaiah 7:14
FULFILLMENT
"She was found with child of the Holy Spirit.... Then Joseph ... did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name jesus." —Matthew 1:18,24,25 (See also Luke 1:26-35.)
In Hebrew the word "virgin" is denoted by two words:
1. bethulah: The proper meaning denotes a virgin maiden (Gen. 24:16; Lev. 21:13; Deut. 22:14, 23, 28; Judg. 11:37; 1 Kin. 1:2). Joel 1:8 is, according to Unger, not an exception because here it "refers to the loss of one betrothed, not married."
2. almah (veiled): A young woman of marriageable age. This word is used in Isaiah 7:14. "The Holy Spirit through Isaiah did not use bethulah, because both the ideas of virginity and marriageable age had to be combined in one word to meet the immediate historical situation and the prophetic aspect centering in a virgin-born Messiah." (Unger, UBD, 1159)
"Virgin" is denoted in Greek by the word parthenos: a virgin, marriageable maiden, or young married woman, pure virgin. When the translators of the Septugint translted Isaiah 7:14 into Greek they used the Greek word parthenos. To them Isaiah 7:14 denoted that the Messiah would be born of a virgin. (Matt. 1: 23; 25:1, 7,11; Luke 1:27; Acts 21:9; 1 Cor. 7:25, 28, 33; 2 Cor. 11:2). (Unger, UBD, 1159)" [taken from Evidence that Demands a Verdict, J.Mcdowell]
One final point should be addressed here. One of the things about the slaughter of Christians for over 2 centuries that is over looked is that they overcame this kind of opposition by peacefull, even passive means. Motive is a profound element in the New Testement wittness both as it relates to historical qualifications and persuation, at least for me.
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jul 22 2003 @ 01:08 PM)
Born of a Virgin
PROPHECY
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin
shall conceive and bear a Son, and
shall call His name Immanuel."
-Isaiah 7:14
FULFILLMENT
"She was found with child of the Holy Spirit.... Then Joseph ... did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name jesus." —Matthew 1:18,24,25 (See also Luke 1:26-35.)
PROPHECY
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin
shall conceive and bear a Son, and
shall call His name Immanuel."
-Isaiah 7:14
FULFILLMENT
"She was found with child of the Holy Spirit.... Then Joseph ... did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name jesus." —Matthew 1:18,24,25 (See also Luke 1:26-35.)
In the Matrix the Oracle informs Neo that he will have to make a choice between his life and the life of Morpheus. She also previously told Trinity that she would fall in love with The One. These all of course came true, but that does nothing to dispel the fact that the entire Matrix trilogy is fiction. Using the Bible to justify itself does nothing for demonstrating any historical accuracy of Biblical claims. I'm not sure why this is such a foreign concept to such a brilliant person as yourself, Anarchy.
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jul 22 2003 @ 01:08 PM)
One final point should be addressed here. One of the things about the slaughter of Christians for over 2 centuries that is over looked is that they overcame this kind of opposition by peacefull, even passive means. Motive is a profound element in the New Testement wittness both as it relates to historical qualifications and persuation, at least for me.
According to the Bible and recent history the Jews have overcome various forms of opposition both peacefully and militarily. They've been around significantly longer than Christians, but I'd presume that you don't accept their continued presence as evidence Jesus wasn't the messiah. This being the case, I'm puzzled at how you would presume the tenacity of the Christian faith to be evidence of historical accuracy in the Bible or their general beliefs.
[QUOTE=Abs like Jesus,Jul 22 2003, 05:50 PM]
[/QUOTE]
In the Matrix the Oracle informs Neo that he will have to make a choice between his life and the life of Morpheus. She also previously told Trinity that she would fall in love with The One. These all of course came true, but that does nothing to dispel the fact that the entire Matrix trilogy is fiction. Using the Bible to justify itself does nothing for demonstrating any historical accuracy of Biblical claims. I'm not sure why this is such a foreign concept to such a brilliant person as yourself, Anarchy. [/QUOTE]
I would just say that this is apples and oranges. Saying that you cant use the Bible to justify the claims of the Bible is like saying the accussed cannot testify in his own defense. This goes back to the internal evidence test that you claimed was a valid test for the historicity of an event. I have no idea what is supposed to be a 'foreign concept to me' but there is one connection between the Matrix and the historical accuracy of the Bible. The question is about what from our world of sense is real and what is an illusion.
[/QUOTE]
In the Matrix the Oracle informs Neo that he will have to make a choice between his life and the life of Morpheus. She also previously told Trinity that she would fall in love with The One. These all of course came true, but that does nothing to dispel the fact that the entire Matrix trilogy is fiction. Using the Bible to justify itself does nothing for demonstrating any historical accuracy of Biblical claims. I'm not sure why this is such a foreign concept to such a brilliant person as yourself, Anarchy.
[/QUOTE]I would just say that this is apples and oranges. Saying that you cant use the Bible to justify the claims of the Bible is like saying the accussed cannot testify in his own defense. This goes back to the internal evidence test that you claimed was a valid test for the historicity of an event. I have no idea what is supposed to be a 'foreign concept to me' but there is one connection between the Matrix and the historical accuracy of the Bible. The question is about what from our world of sense is real and what is an illusion.
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jul 22 2003, 05:08 PM)
One final point should be addressed here. One of the things about the slaughter of Christians for over 2 centuries that is over looked is that they overcame this kind of opposition by peacefull, even passive means. Motive is a profound element in the New Testement wittness both as it relates to historical qualifications and persuation, at least for me.
And the Crusades? Peaceful and passive? The Muslim world has never forgiven the Christian world for the many atrocities committed against them during this extended period of history. Not to mention the Jews who were always targets of misguided "Christians" over the centuries.
Then there is the Peasant War where Martin Luther encouraged the killing of about 100,000 peasants. Seems his words were meant for the nobility, not the rest of us.
I suspect that every major western religion has some sort of incredible stupidity, if not evil act, to apologize for. The sad part is that the religious leaders have always used the Bible to support their efforts to dominate man, if not the entire world, by suppressing competing religions. Even if the Bible was inerrant, plain, simple, without confusing or probably just plain wrong portions, MAN would find a way to use the words for selfish motives.
One thing that, so far, has not changed is human nature.
The point of this debate is to examine the scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible. The Scientific accuracy has all but conclusively been ruled a failure leaving us to debate the historical accuracy. In trying to examine the historical accuracy of Biblical claims, it is not in the least reasonable to validate them with none other than Biblical claims. Saying the Bible is accurate because the Bible says so simply isn't going to fly here. Surely a person of your immense intellect can understand such an idea...
The point of the thread was stated as 'What, if anything, is there to support the Bible as either a historical or scientific book?". What supports the Bible as a historical book? What we are establishing here is the historical reliability of the Scripture. The historical reliability of the Scripture should be tested by the same criteria by which all historical documents are tested. Had this thread been called external evidence tests for the reliability the Bible itself would have been excluded, the topic of debate is 'what if any'.
"C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History, lists and explains the three basic principles of historiography. These are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test. (C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History)
THE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL TEST FOR THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant (currently existing) copies?
""When the textual scholar has examined the manuscripts and the versions, he still has not exhausted the evidence for the New Testament text. The writings of the early Christian fathers often reflect a form of text differing from that in one or another manuscript . . . their witness to the text, especially as it corroborates the readings that come from other sources, belongs to the testimony that textual critics must consult before forming their conclusions." (The Encyclopaedia Britannica , Vol 3, 579)
INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST FOR THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTEMENT
"The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself." (Aristotle, Constitutions). Christian scholarship is incredibly meticulas and examines the Scriptures from every concievable viewpoint. Internal evidence is by far the most extensive treatment of the text for the same reason that any text in question must be examined before what it actually says is confirmed or denied. Imagine a scientist trying to explain the how a machine will or will not work without referance to mechanics. Trying to confirm or deny the Bible without reference to the Bible is absurd.
"As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself—or else by objective archaeological information. The deductions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record; and no properly trained evangelical scholar has anything to fear from the hostile arguments and challenges of humanistic rationalists or detractors of any and every persuasion.
Dr. Archer concludes, "There is a good and sufficient answer in Scripture itself to refute every charge that has ever been leveled against it. But this is only to be expected from the kind of book the Bible asserts itself to be, the inscripturation of the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God." (Archer, Encyplopedia of Bible Difficulties, )
Anyone interested in Dr. Archers qualifications or a summary of principles for understanding apparent disicrepancies using internal evidence tests need only ask.
Bill55AZ,
You wrote, "The sad part is that the religious leaders have always used the Bible to support their efforts to dominate man, if not the entire world, by suppressing competing religions."
The Bible teaches nothing about suppressing competing religions, its competing religions (like secular humanism)that are trying to suppress the New Testement wittness. Allways is a long time. Does this include the first 200 years of Christian history?
"C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History, lists and explains the three basic principles of historiography. These are the bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, and the external evidence test. (C. Sanders, Introduction to Research in English Literary History)
THE BIBLIOGRAPHICAL TEST FOR THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The bibliographical test is an examination of the textual transmission by which documents reach us. In other words, since we do not have the original documents, how reliable are the copies we have in regard to the number of manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant (currently existing) copies?
""When the textual scholar has examined the manuscripts and the versions, he still has not exhausted the evidence for the New Testament text. The writings of the early Christian fathers often reflect a form of text differing from that in one or another manuscript . . . their witness to the text, especially as it corroborates the readings that come from other sources, belongs to the testimony that textual critics must consult before forming their conclusions." (The Encyclopaedia Britannica , Vol 3, 579)
INTERNAL EVIDENCE TEST FOR THE RELIABILITY OF THE NEW TESTEMENT
"The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself." (Aristotle, Constitutions). Christian scholarship is incredibly meticulas and examines the Scriptures from every concievable viewpoint. Internal evidence is by far the most extensive treatment of the text for the same reason that any text in question must be examined before what it actually says is confirmed or denied. Imagine a scientist trying to explain the how a machine will or will not work without referance to mechanics. Trying to confirm or deny the Bible without reference to the Bible is absurd.
"As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself—or else by objective archaeological information. The deductions that may be validly drawn from ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, or Akkadian documents all harmonize with the biblical record; and no properly trained evangelical scholar has anything to fear from the hostile arguments and challenges of humanistic rationalists or detractors of any and every persuasion.
Dr. Archer concludes, "There is a good and sufficient answer in Scripture itself to refute every charge that has ever been leveled against it. But this is only to be expected from the kind of book the Bible asserts itself to be, the inscripturation of the infallible, inerrant Word of the Living God." (Archer, Encyplopedia of Bible Difficulties, )
Anyone interested in Dr. Archers qualifications or a summary of principles for understanding apparent disicrepancies using internal evidence tests need only ask.
Bill55AZ,
You wrote, "The sad part is that the religious leaders have always used the Bible to support their efforts to dominate man, if not the entire world, by suppressing competing religions."
The Bible teaches nothing about suppressing competing religions, its competing religions (like secular humanism)that are trying to suppress the New Testement wittness. Allways is a long time. Does this include the first 200 years of Christian history?
Yes, it is "what, if any..." but you haven't provided any. Your attempt at internal evidence is nothing but circular reasoning all over again. I don't know how many times I have to explain it to you before you understand that the Bible claiming to verify it's claims with other Biblical claims is not evidence of biblical accuracy.
Your idea of bibliographical testing is a testament to the accuracy of today's copies of Biblical writings as compared with those of the original. It is not, however, evidence of historical accuracy regarding the claims made by the Bible in the first place. Quarkhead explained this in terms a grade school child could have understood weeks ago; why you fail to grasp this is beyond me.
Edited to add:
100 e-mails all stating a lie does not change that lie into truth. Rewriting the same words over and over again with the Bible (your bibliographical "evidence") does nothing for the accuracy of it's claims. It merely demonstrates that the text today is very similar to the original.
Your idea of bibliographical testing is a testament to the accuracy of today's copies of Biblical writings as compared with those of the original. It is not, however, evidence of historical accuracy regarding the claims made by the Bible in the first place. Quarkhead explained this in terms a grade school child could have understood weeks ago; why you fail to grasp this is beyond me.
Edited to add:
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jun 27 2003 @ 09:23 PM)
On June 27th, 322 people saw Quarkhead fly. I have their names. I have emailed this information to 100 friends, including the list of names of witnesses. Oh, and my mother? She was a virgin when I was born. There was a guy named Fred who I healed once. And my best friends, they all believe me. Instead of being simply web programmers, I have made them web programmers of men.
Prove I didn't fly. Prove I am not the Messiah.
Prove I didn't fly. Prove I am not the Messiah.
100 e-mails all stating a lie does not change that lie into truth. Rewriting the same words over and over again with the Bible (your bibliographical "evidence") does nothing for the accuracy of it's claims. It merely demonstrates that the text today is very similar to the original.
QUOTE(Anarchy Praxis @ Jul 22 2003, 09:30 PM)
Bill55AZ,
You wrote, "The sad part is that the religious leaders have always used the Bible to support their efforts to dominate man, if not the entire world, by suppressing competing religions."
The Bible teaches nothing about suppressing competing religions, its competing religions (like secular humanism)that are trying to suppress the New Testement wittness. Allways is a long time. Does this include the first 200 years of Christian history?
You wrote, "The sad part is that the religious leaders have always used the Bible to support their efforts to dominate man, if not the entire world, by suppressing competing religions."
The Bible teaches nothing about suppressing competing religions, its competing religions (like secular humanism)that are trying to suppress the New Testement wittness. Allways is a long time. Does this include the first 200 years of Christian history?
Appears that someone is not a good reader.
If we are talking about the Bible, 'always' in this context should mean (intuitively to the most casual reader) the last 2000 years, or since the Bible was written and made available to mankind, at least.
And I did not say that the Bible teaches anything about suppressing competing religions, but that MAN, the corrupter of all things, misuses the Bible in an effort to control other men, and perhaps even the whole world by suppressing competing religions.
Secular Humanism will never suppress Christianity, as Christianity has too much of a head start. If you fear that happening, you can stop worrying. If anything can make Christianity as a religion fail, it will be those Christian leaders who are false in their motives, vain in their belief, and greedy in their wallet.
Since you like to quote scripture, here is one that I like to discuss. Jesus said, "If you love me, feed my sheep". He didn't say hire someone to do these things for you, or to pay a minister a big salary to fleece His sheep, while all the time leading His flock into a false sense of security relative to their salvation by telling them that all they have to do is believe and put money in the plate and all is well.
"Your idea of bibliographical testing is a testament to the accuracy of today's copies of Biblical writings as compared with those of the original. It is not, however, evidence of historical accuracy regarding the claims made by the Bible in the first place. Quarkhead explained this in terms a grade school child could have understood weeks ago; why you fail to grasp this is beyond me"
Bibliographical testing isnt my idea its how historians determine the reliability of historical documents. It is bt far the most objective and the most scientific means of testing for the viability of anchient texts. Quarkhead's joke while amuseing is irrelavant. I agree that the explanation is at a grade school level but thats the whole problem.
BTW Secular humanism is just one of many religions that attacked Christian scholarship and their will be others after it fades away.
Bibliographical testing isnt my idea its how historians determine the reliability of historical documents. It is bt far the most objective and the most scientific means of testing for the viability of anchient texts. Quarkhead's joke while amuseing is irrelavant. I agree that the explanation is at a grade school level but thats the whole problem.
BTW Secular humanism is just one of many religions that attacked Christian scholarship and their will be others after it fades away.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.