Proving The Bible

[Mike]

To all:

 

I’m concerned about the tone this discussion is taking. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone here that there are people who do take the bible literally. Hornet has been courteous in stating his views. Even if there are fundamental disagreements on things, we owe him the same.

 

Peace,

Mike (as moderator)

[JenellYB]

Thank you Mike, Patrick. Yes, we owe that.

However, I think part of what has run us off track is that I think Hornet needs to clarify his position. I have become uncertain what that is, and therefore, how to repond to it. At the start, perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought Hornet was asking how one might make valid refutation of the arguments others may set forth in their assertions that the bible is literally the inerrant Word of God. However, over the course of the discussion, I feel it has developed that Hornet himself holds that belief and is attempting to set forth those assetions as his own position. So, it would help to know what's going on if Hornet will clarify that point//is he looking for sound, valid refuations of arguments set forth by others that view, or is he trying to prove that view that he holds himself. I've just become uncomfortable in feeling uncertain just where Hornet is coming from, and where he's trying lead this discusssion.

 

Jenell

[glintofpewter]

Hornet,

 

While googling I found this: "hornet"= thutmose III. Does this have anything to do with your ID?

 

I worked with a young earth creationist who knew that God wrote the Bible so that anyone could understand it without any study helps and that if every word in the Bible wasn't true then Jesus did not exist. This seems to me to be brittle faith for young person to have. John was not a young person and probably will never find anything that will contradict his beliefs about the Bible

 

In contrast I don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God or that the truth of Jesus depends on the historical and scientific accuracy of the Hebrew Scriptures.

 

It seems that you and I will disagree on the dating of the Exodus. The 480 years between the Exodus and Solomon depends on the Israelite use of 40 years as a time period. I agree with Dennis Bratcher in the article cited below that 40 is not an exact number and is not useful in determining a chronology. I lean toward the 1250 BCE dating of Exodus but that is not important because I like the 'Peasant Revolt' understanding of the Exodus rather than the Gradual Infiltration or Military Invasion. Actually it makes sense to me that a group of returning slaves would join the marginalized 'peasants' of Canaan in a revolt during a breakdown in Canaan society and rule.

 

Currently there seems to be little archaeological support for anything before 5 years after Solomon's death. 1 Kings 14:25 mentions King Shishak of Egypt. There is extra-Biblical archaeological evidence for this in the Egyptian records of Shishak's activities including sheltering King Jeroboam.

 

These are the earliest archaeological connections with the Bible that I am aware of. They do not provide proof for the inerrancy and historical accuracy of the Bible but they do provide context. For instance, Assyrian records supporting the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE and the seige of Jersualem in 701 BCE provide context for the book of Micah and the words of Isaiah 1.

 

The following comes from a long article about the difficulty in nailing down a precise date for the Exodus. Even within the Bible there is conflict as to which date is correct.

 

The Date of the Exodus: The Historical Study of Scripture by Dennis Bratcher

http://www.crivoice.org/exodusdate.html

 

Our temptation is to assume that the Bible was written for us directly. Historical investigation helps us realize that while Scripture has ongoing relevance, it is not timeless (outside of time) any more than God’s revelation in that history is timeless. God’s actions are and have always been time conditioned for us, because he has chosen to reveal himself in human history, not apart from it. Since that is true, historical investigation will always be necessary, not to prove that something happened, or when it happened, or how, but rather to help us hear the confession about God from the midst of God’s historically conditioned self-revelation and the people’s historically conditioned witness. In that sense, while historical investigation cannot prove much about the Faith, it is a crucial tool of biblical study.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[JosephM]

I concur with Mike,

 

Hornet has been a respected member here since May 2010 with about 60 posts and though his views differ significantly from most PC's he has as Mike said "been courteous in stating his views". All of his previous posts are open to examination. While it is true the opening post does not necessarily reveal his personal position to those unfamiliar with him,, the approach is acceptable and his words not dis-respectable to others. I think this thread provides a wonderful opportunity for dialog and understanding of the topic and positions but of course it should be considered that it is difficult to address all of an overwhelming progressive view by just one person whose view may differ and patience on all our part would be a positive thing.

 

JosephM (as Mod)

[GeorgeW]

Joseph and Mike,

 

I absolutely agree with the necessity of courtesy and respect. But, when one makes absolute claims (unqualified) about the nature of God, the historicity (and probably implied inerrancy) of the Bible, or the like, I think it is reasonable for others to challenge those claims pointing out the empirical and/or logical flaws.

 

On the other hand, if one qualifies their position (with 'I think,' 'I believe,' etc.), this implies that it is a matter of faith and leaves open the possibility that others can reasonably 'believe' otherwise.

 

George (as a participant)

[JosephM]

I would certainly agree George. Challenge is fine and most appropriate here in this case as long as it doesn't get personal. It was heading that way in the tone of things so Mike was just reminding us to be cautious. My objection as Moderator was solely to the use of the word "silly" even when it is expressed as an opinion because it is not necessary. Nor does it add to the conversation or any point being made to the other except to possibly provoke more of such unnecessary exchange or possible animosity even though i don't believe that was the intent..

 

Joseph (as Mod)

[antho91]

I think I cannot put away the fact that Bible has errors of translations. But by judging it in totality, as a history pieces of work which the disciples in the 1st century had tried to record down, I still can believe that Bible is fully inspired by God, and is still relevant to our lives in today's world.

[JenellYB]

Joseph, I apologize for using the word 'silly' where I did, in retrospect it might have been better stated as something like "invalid"...the intent of that comment that would have been conveyed would have been the same, though statedin a more polite way.

 

Re Hornet's history here, his views and ideas he may have expressed previously, I must beg ignorance. If I've read his previous postings, I was not recalling them in this discussion. So I was lacking that piece of foundation in trying to understandwhere Hornet is coming fron. If I've said anything to offend Hornet, or seems disrepsectful of his or any others views,I apologize.

 

I just realized that there is at times a weakness in such forum as this that comes out of of one of its very strengths...that is how easy lt we can come to think of and relate to others comments here as all part of a shared conversation between familiar participants, casually assuming the others know what we've already said on a topic elsewhere, in some different thread. That can easily cause confusion when someone that hasn't been following other discussions is missing some pieces of information.

 

As to this present thread, the topic as I understand it to be, if we wish to continue it on a productive course, I suggest we try to do so ina way that reasonably tries to address the core issue, rather than getting off on rabbit trails about whether or not archaology supports daites for historical events and such...not that those are not very interesting and potentially productive topics, but they are peripheral to and in some cases even aside from what seems to me the actual central topic raised here.

 

If I understand correctly what that topic actually is, and I could be wrong about it, but my understanding is that of "prooving the bible" in the sense of addressing certain claims made about it by some. Perhaps we can put this back on track by clarifying just what claims we are talking about, and in an approach to any such claims themselves, make it of no matter whether Hornet or anyone else is themselves attempting to put forth and support those claims or attempting to "test" or even disproove those claims. I.E., the facts, Ma'm, just the facts. Sound reason rather than emotional attachment to any particular position.

 

Toward that, I ask:

Hornet, whether you are expressing your own position, or as you began, exploring how one might respond to that position set forth by others, could you set forth any exact claim or claims in a clear statement, along with by what premesis and reasoning process anyone might have arrived at that conclusion(s) in form of a validly structured argument?

 

Consider that different people may be meaning something quite different even by such statements as that the bible is inspired by God, written by God, or "is THE Word of God". I know I have encountered many different ideas about just what any of those statements actually mean.

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

Thank you, Antho91.

Certainly "errors in translations" is a relevant issue, although one that arises secondarily to the core issue, of the accuracy, inerrancy, and nature of inspiration as applicable to the texts in their orginal languages.

 

When we address anything to "the bible", we are addressing it to the entirity of that collection of individual pieces of wrtings that make up what we call the bible. We are having to assume. in such claims made about the bible's inspired orgins, accuracy, and inerrancy, that there is some basis for granting as a blanket statement that each and every one of those separate books conform to one overall standard or authority.

 

Variations of and any particular errors in translation certainly provide what I think is valid challenge to any inerrancy claim. When we speak of the bible, we ARE referring to the book as we have it now. None of us today are actually studying this collection of texts as written in their orginal language, with full understanding of the nuances of those languages, and peculiar details of elements such as culture and common beliefs of the times in which each was written.

 

We recently, in another thread, got a little into differences in the "quality" of various translations and versions of the bible, which seem more accurate and reliable, the best for study. Since that very discussion point acknowledges some problems with variations between them, just which one of that myriad of versions are we to consider being this "The Bible" we are making any claim about? And why?

 

Jenell

[JenellYB]

Btw, I did not mean in my above comments to in any way demean the discussion of archaological information, I actually found it quite interesting, just not seeming to me relevant to the topic here. Any and all conclusions being drawn for that information is still speculative at best, not really "proovable" one way or the other.

I might add, that in such a claim as biblical inerrancy, it is of no matter how many details found in the texts can be proven true, it only takes valid refutation of just ONE to effectively strike down, invalidate, the inerrancy claim.

 

Jenell

[Hornet]

So, we get to pick and choose?

 

George

 

I don't just get to pick and choose which laws apply to us today. There is an objective way of knowing which Old Testament laws apply to us today. Inferences drawn from the New Testament can help us to know which Old Testament laws apply to us today.

[Hornet]

Is this the same archaeologist about whom the Wikipedia article says, "Kenyon's work has been cited to support the Minimalist School of Biblical Archaeology that argues the pre-586 BCE. Old Testament historical account was highly exaggerated."

 

I'm not certain if that is the same archaeologist.

 

 

The wonderful thing about apologetics is it starts with a presumption of historical accuracy and looks around until it can find anything that might support the presumption. Apologetics is not an objective evaluation of the body of evidence: It selectively accepts anything that supports the presumption and rejects anything that refutes it.

 

That depends upon the apologist. Some may start from that presumption and some may not. Some may be objective and some may not.

 

Doing apologetics does not necessarily entail the idea that one is not objective. One could look at all of the evidence, even the evidence that is claimed to refute the truth claim of the apologist.

[Hornet]

Hornet, This creates problems for purported evidence for the Exodus, Judges and Kings and is not generally agreed on today.

 

 

Then you are a dispensationalist?

 

Dutch

 

How does that create problems for Exodus, Judges and Kings?

 

I'm not a dispensationalist. I don't follow the principle that says, "None of the Old Testament laws are applicable to us today unless they are repeated in the New Testament."

[Hornet]

Hornet,

You speak of Jesus being seen after his death by 500. It seems to me because a book (the Bible) testifies of itself does not make it so. To assume such can be applied to any any religious book, or book, whose only evidence of some matters consists of its own declarations. Your claim of Jesus rising from the dead is such a declaration supported only by its own statements. Yet even more unbelievable would be this verse in Mathew 27:52-53. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints that slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

 

Now, to my mind, this would be a far greater miracle than one man raising from the dead. Here we have graves (plural) being opened and many bodies being raised and appearing to many. An undeniable miracle that i would think could not be silenced as could the reported appearance of one man. Yet where in any of the other books of the NT or in any writings of historians do we hear of such a monumental event? How can such a thing be hid? Can logic or rational thinking overlook such inconsistencies or problems such as this when examining evidence?

 

Joseph

 

One could prove that the New Testament is historically reliable before using it to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

I agree that the account of many graves being opened and many bodies being raised is a far greater miracle than one person being raised from the dead. I don't know if this account is mentioned in extra-biblical sources. It is still reasonable to believe even if it is mentioned only once.

[Hornet]

Toward that, I ask:

Hornet, whether you are expressing your own position, or as you began, exploring how one might respond to that position set forth by others, could you set forth any exact claim or claims in a clear statement, along with by what premesis and reasoning process anyone might have arrived at that conclusion(s) in form of a validly structured argument?

 

Jenell

 

In my original post, I wanted to know the following:

 

If the findings of philosophical inquiry, history, and science prove that the Bible is inspired by God, then would this mean that the findings of philosophical inquiry, history, and science have more authority than the Bible? In other words, if X proves that the Bible is inspired by God, then would X have more authority than the Bible? Let me explain what "inspired by God" means. To say that the Bible is inspired by God means that the truth claims of the Bible come from God.

 

Now, here is another issue. I would argue that the Bible is inspired by God. The evidence for this is that Jesus fulfilled many of the Old Testament prophecies.

[JosephM]

One could prove that the New Testament is historically reliable before using it to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

I agree that the account of many graves being opened and many bodies being raised is a far greater miracle than one person being raised from the dead. I don't know if this account is mentioned in extra-biblical sources. It is still reasonable to believe even if it is mentioned only once.

 

Hornet,

 

Thanks for your response.

 

The reason i do not personally find it reasonable is because it seems reasonable to me that IF there were MANY people raised from the dead such as reported in Mathew, i believe it would be reasonable to find it mentioned in historical accounts outside the church Bible; As far as i know, it isn't. That in my opinion is just too big a thing to be hidden.if it included so MANY saints raised that were shown to MANY. While your statement "It is still reasonable to believe even if it is mentioned only once." may sound reasonable to you, in this issue/point i certainly find it very difficult to agree or understand your reasoning in that statement.

 

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

There is an objective way of knowing which Old Testament laws apply to us today. Inferences drawn from the New Testament can help us to know which Old Testament laws apply to us today.

Hornet

 

I would be interested in the criterion or criteria that you apply.

 

George

[GeorgeW]

Doing apologetics does not necessarily entail the idea that one is not objective. One could look at all of the evidence, even the evidence that is claimed to refute the truth claim of the apologist.

 

I disagree. The very nature of apologetics is a biased approach. One starts with a presumption of historical or scientific truth and then seeks supporting evidence or reinterprets the text to conform to the basic premise - inerrancy.

 

George

[minsocal]

It seems possible to me that the Bible is a pluralistic communicative device, designed to reach many readers at different levels of capacity, over a variety of circumstances changing over time. That would be a divine accomplishment.

 

Myron

[Hornet]

The following three statements come from RC Sproul's book, Scripture Alone, on pages 72 and 73:

 

1. The Bible is a reliable and trustworthy document.

2. On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

3. Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority.

 

I'll add two more statements:

4. Jesus taught that the Bible is the word of God.

5. Whatever Jesus teaches is true.

 

If the five statements above are true, then one is justified in believing that the Bible is the word of God.

[NORM]

I agree that the account of many graves being opened and many bodies being raised is a far greater miracle than one person being raised from the dead. I don't know if this account is mentioned in extra-biblical sources. It is still reasonable to believe even if it is mentioned only once.

 

Would it be reasonable, then, to believe that my uncle Charlie is not really dead, but is wandering around the parking lot of Walmart?

 

You see, this is why I find it difficult to accept the Biblical accounts of people being raised from the dead.

 

I've been in all kinds of places for more years than I like to count, and I've NEVER seen a person rise from the dead. I've never even seen anyone miraculously cured from the common cold.

 

I can with all certainty predict that the next person to die will stay dead.

 

In other words, dead things staying dead is the NORM. Dead things not staying dead is an anomaly. Therefore, those putting forth the notion that dead people indeed may reanimate have the burden of proof to reveal more examples than those related in a 2,000 year old book.

 

Can you provide any modern, verifiable instances of the dead reanimating?

 

NORM

[Neon Genesis]

The following three statements come from RC Sproul's book, Scripture Alone, on pages 72 and 73:

 

1. The Bible is a reliable and trustworthy document.

Which bible? The Samaritans' bible which had only five books of the OT in its canon? The Catholic bible which has additional books to Protestant bibles? Or is it the Ethiopian canon which has over 80 books in their bible? If we accept Protestant bibles as the only reliable and trustworthy document from God, which Protestant bibles should we accept? Should we accept Martin Luther's bible who was opposed to James and Revelation being included in the canon because he thought they were contrary to the teachings of Jesus and Paul? Or is it the Jehovah's Witness bible which has a radically different translation than other Protestant bibles do?

 

2. On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

How does a book prove Jesus is the son of God?

 

3. Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority.

King Saul was also the son of God so was Saul infallible?

 

I'll add two more statements:

4. Jesus taught that the Bible is the word of God.

The bible did not exist when Jesus was alive.

 

5. Whatever Jesus teaches is true.

Even when Jesus was wrong about mustard seeds being the smallest seed?

 

If the five statements above are true, then one is justified in believing that the Bible is the word of God.

Even if we accept the five statements above as true, how does it justify believing the bible is the word of God?

[glintofpewter]

Chronological problems with Exodus, Judges and Kings

I don't think archaeology can prove any Biblical dates for the Exodus from Egypt or the Conquest of Canaan. In Joshua's case if 1400 BCE is used that might line up with the timeline at Jericho but not with other sites. If a 1250 BCE is used Jericho is in dis-use and other sites are occupied. Whichever date is asserted creates disconnects between archaeological evidence and Biblical narrative.

 

Non-literalists and literalists take two different approaches to the timeline in the Bible. Non-literalists understand the numbers to represent general ideas about time and people and do not audit the math. They do look to archaeology and history to provide context but not prove the Bible. Literalists have to become mathematicians. Those who think like the author of this web page, Biblical Chronology: THE JUDGES OF ISRAEL, that the numbers are real, that is, "40" = 40 years and not a "generation", work very hard adding up the numbers so that they arrive at the 'right' answer, that is, the answer that proves the Bible is reliable, even literal. While he is adding up the years he runs into problems. The additions do not give him the answer he needs so I find the following snippets

• The total number years (510+), even without the inclusion of the missing years, significantly exceeds the expected value of 400 years.
  
• ...
  
• This suggests the actual chronology of this period is to be determined not by adding up the years, but by matching to a common recurring theme.
  
• ...
  
• This means that now we are trying to reduce a total of 320+40+? years to a total of 300 years.
  
• ...
  
• To reduce the total several views have in the past been proposed.
  
• ...
  
• To reduce the total it is proposed that the following verses have been incorrectly rendered and understood.
  
• Othniel Judg 3:11 So the land had rest for forty years. ... (and 3 more citations where 40 might not equal 40.)
  
• ...
  

I would have thought that Acts 13:20 would have made it obvious that what Luke or the Deuteronomistic historian wrote about years and numbers of people had to be taken with a grain of salt. And I just shake my head when I read on this web site that

• Other versions [as opposed to KJV and NKJV], such as the NIV & NASB, correct this obvious chronological inaccuracy.
  

Are they really saying that the NIV is a more carefully researched translation than the NKJV?! And that the NKJV is inaccurate!?

 

Well I prefer my Biblical arithmetic fuzzy - using numbers like 40, 12, 10, 10,000 to mean something less precise than the numerical quantity. (The numbers in Ezra/Nehemiah reveal an OCD personality type and require a different conversation.)

 

 

 

Should we rely on the claims of a text, any writing, that what is written is the truth, the real facts of the matter?

 

We never ever do this. We can't. It is a mental impossibility. We are always evaluating everything we encounter against our life experiences. Everyone who has ever read the Bible is simultaneously testing it's claims against their own experience.

 

In the "Life of Pi" the author represents it as a true account. (I highly recommend the book and so does our president.)

Some quotes and comments, all of which could apply to the Bible in my view

• In a letter directly to [the author] Yann Martel, Barack Obama described Life of Pi as "an elegant proof of God, and the power of storytelling".
  
• Religion is of utmost importance to Pi. Discuss the role of religion in his life and how it helps him survive his ordeal.
  
• [W]hy does Yann Martel begin with the Author’s Note, which gives the impression that Pi’s account is truth, not fiction?
  
• Why does Pi give two accounts of his ordeal? Which is the true story, and which one would you rather believe?
  

Don't these sound like discussion starters for an inductive Bible study?

 

Life of Pi claims to be true. It has documents to prove it. Should I believe it without testing it?

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[JosephM]

The following three statements come from RC Sproul's book, Scripture Alone, on pages 72 and 73:

 

1. The Bible is a reliable and trustworthy document.

2. On the basis of this reliable document we have sufficient evidence to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

3. Jesus Christ being the Son of God is an infallible authority.

 

Hornet,

 

These are declarations. The first declaration in my experience can not be verified as such anymore than any other religious book. To me this makes the rest of the declarations without basis.

 

I'll add two more statements:

4. Jesus taught that the Bible is the word of God.

5. Whatever Jesus teaches is true.

If the five statements above are true, then one is justified in believing that the Bible is the word of God.

 

These added statements seem to me to be based on the first declaration above.and your interpretation of what is written. They to me are obviously a part of your belief but cannot be proven because you cannot know for a fact what Jesus did or did not say. You can only choose to believe it all because you can verify some of it. That is certainly a prerogative that in my view you are entitled to.. The way i see it, our difference is simple enough. You believe that IF SOME things are verifiable as true in the Bible, it is reasonable to assume that ALL of it is true whereas i believe that while there are things in the Bible that are verifiable as true, it is not reasonable to assume that all of it is true. If i apply what i see as your logic, it seems to me i might also believe the same and also some other books as all true which my experience has shown me otherwise for both the Bible and other books.

 

Thanks for an interesting conversation. I believe i understand your position on the topic and have no further comments so i will just follow the responses of others and yourself..

 

Peace and Love in Christ,

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

Hornet,

 

While I don't agree, I have no objection to anyone believing the Bible is the inerrant word of God UNLESS they also use this as justification for doing harm to others such as racism, sexism and homophobia, or they try to impose this interpretation on others in school programs and the like. Then, I object.

 

George