Proving The Bible

[Hornet]

The problem is, Hornet, no matter how many events referenced in the bible are supported,proven accurate, by other evidence, archaological, other ancient texts,etc, that cannot be assumed to prove any other events for which there is no other evidence,and in much, cannot be. Neither does evidence that supports any event happening in a vague, general way, such as, let's say, the conquest of the city of Jericho in some time period....that Jericho fell, yes, evidence may support that, but hardly exactly how it happened, ie by magical means brought about by people marching and chanting. The one simply doesn't prove the other. THAT it happened doesn't prove HOW it happened.

There have been, are, writers of novels and short stories that take great care to research and document all the factual details of settings and major events that will provide the backdrop for the fictional narrative of their story. That every detail of that backdrop be correct and can be proven accurate has no relevance to the truth and accuracy of the story itself.

 

Jenell

 

Instead of trying to verify every single truth claim of the Bible with the findings of archaeology or historical sources outside of the Bible, do you think it would be better to verify some of the truth claims of the Bible such as the teachings of Jesus?

 

Can you give an example of an ancient fictional document that took great care to accurately mention historical locations, historical people and historical events (content that we can verify via archeology and cross-reference with other historical documents) and mixed it in with about 70-80% of the supernatural?

[NORM]

Can you give an example of an ancient fictional document that took great care to accurately mention historical locations, historical people and historical events (content that we can verify via archeology and cross-reference with other historical documents) and mixed it in with about 70-80% of the supernatural?

 

Funny you should ask!

 

I just read an article online that discussed how in the 4th and 5th centuries BC, educated Greeks still believed that the Trojan War depicted in the Iliad, and the interactions between the gods and men, were real.

 

Even in the 20th century, scholars, such as Heinrich Schliemann, debated the veracity of the historical aspects of both the Iliad and the Odyssey, while eschewing the divine interventions.

 

No serious scholar today considers the "historical" elements of Homer's works as nothing more than fiction. There is as much archeological evidence for the existence of the geographical places in the Iliad as there are for the existence of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt - which is NADA!

 

However...

 

This quote from a book on the subject pretty much sums it up:

 

No scholars now assume that the individual events in the tale (many of which centrally involve divine intervention) are historical fact; on the other hand, no scholars claim that the scenery is entirely devoid of memories of Mycenaean times: it is rather a subjective question of whether the factual content is rather more or rather less than one would have expected. - Finley, The World of Odysseus, rev. ed. 1978, Preface, p. 9.

 

This is what I feel is happening to the Bible. In previous centuries, the Bible was seen as authoritative on matters of history and geography. But, as time moves on and more information is revealed / discovered, the less we rely on the work as having anything relevant to tell us about historical fact.

 

NORM

[GeorgeW]

Instead of trying to verify every single truth claim of the Bible with the findings of archaeology or historical sources outside of the Bible, do you think it would be better to verify some of the truth claims of the Bible such as the teachings of Jesus?

Hornet,

 

If someone were to "verify" that Jesus was not God incarnate, would his teachings be invalid? Do they stand only on divine authority? Is there no inherent value in his teachings independent of his existence or divine status?

 

George

[glintofpewter]

Instead of trying to verify every single truth claim of the Bible with the findings of archaeology or historical sources outside of the Bible, do you think it would be better to verify some of the truth claims of the Bible such as the teachings of Jesus?

 

Can you give an example of an ancient fictional document that took great care to accurately mention historical locations, historical people and historical events (content that we can verify via archeology and cross-reference with other historical documents) and mixed it in with about 70-80% of the supernatural?

Isn't this "I can't prove my imaginary animal exists but if you can't show me another like it then that proves that mine is unique and therefore exists."!!! I am sure the logic people here can tell us the fallacy involved.

 

Although Beowulf is an Old English epic, the events it relates are set in an historical time and place outside England. History provides the fabric into which Beowulf’s fabulous feats and encounters with monsters are woven. http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~cpercy/courses/1001Purnis.htm

 

Beowolf is another example to your request. It is as history- worthy, probably more so than Genesis 1:1 through the Exodus, and maybe even the monstrous massacres of Joshua.

 

There is about 500 years of history, biased against the Northern Kingdom, in the Bible. From the death of Solomon to the return to Jerusalem some of the events are supported by extra-biblical sources. Genesis to Joshua is not history. It is a Grand Story written to encourage and unify a people into a small nation with a profound calling to be a light to the world called by a God who is finally seen as the only God.

 

Hornet, I appreciate that you believe that the Bible is inerrant. That is separate from proving that 40 years is 40 years and adding them up, etc. But you are bringing us the questions. We respond and then you change the subject.

 

simple questions

1. Based on Judges, Acts and Kings when is the Exodus? Show your math, please. If the date is not the most commonly accepted date ca. 1250 BCE briefly explain what is wrong with this date.

2. What is the evidence that David ruled a kingdom? What archaeological ruins would you point to?

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[Jagged Zen Monkey]

I view religion as yesterday's science, and the bible as a text book that hold records of the developed theories held at that time. To me, God is a term used to identify the origin of life, and the nature of. Our theories evolve as we evolve, just as science has evolved from its primitive religious roots.

[JenellYB]

Hornet, I haven't and can't try to repond to your last post, because I honestly do not understand what you are asking or suggesting by any of it, or how it relates to any matter concerning the question/proof of accuracy or inerrancy of the bible. Perhaps you could rephrase your point?

 

Jenell

 

PS, Btw, I am entirely at a loss as to what is the meaning of this this term or phrese, "truth claim." What is, what do you mean by, "truth claim?"

 

PS PS... I did find this, but it doesn't seem to be how you are using it..

 

Pragmatism.

a hypothesis not yet verified by experience.

[glintofpewter]

Stumbled across "slaying the Dragon" by Bernard F Batto. From the intro-

 

Not so many years ago it was commonplace to claim that "history is the chief medium of revelation". Biblical narratives are not as historical as once assumed, however. . . . The thesis upon which this book is predicated is that myth is one of the chief mediums by which biblical writers did their theologizing.

[Neon Genesis]

Instead of trying to verify every single truth claim of the Bible with the findings of archaeology or historical sources outside of the Bible, do you think it would be better to verify some of the truth claims of the Bible such as the teachings of Jesus?

 

Just because some truth claims of the bible might be true doesn't make it all true. There are real people and places in the Da Vinci Code and Dan Brown gets some of the teachings of Christianity historically accurate but that doesn't suddenly mean that Robert Langdon is a real historical person or that the real descendant of Mary Magadalene is alive today and she's Sophie Nevu nor does it mean everything in the Da Vinci Code is historically accurate.

 

Can you give an example of an ancient fictional document that took great care to accurately mention historical locations, historical people and historical events (content that we can verify via archeology and cross-reference with other historical documents) and mixed it in with about 70-80% of the supernatural?

The Koran?

[Hornet]

Hornet, I haven't and can't try to repond to your last post, because I honestly do not understand what you are asking or suggesting by any of it, or how it relates to any matter concerning the question/proof of accuracy or inerrancy of the bible. Perhaps you could rephrase your point?

 

Jenell

 

PS, Btw, I am entirely at a loss as to what is the meaning of this this term or phrese, "truth claim." What is, what do you mean by, "truth claim?"

 

PS PS... I did find this, but it doesn't seem to be how you are using it..

 

Pragmatism.

a hypothesis not yet verified by experience.

 

Hi Jenell,

 

I wanted to know if there was a ancient document that claimed to be historically accurate and at the same time was really fiction. How would a document like that be different from the Bible?

 

A truth claim is a statement that expresses a viewpoint. This can be either true or false.

[glintofpewter]

I wanted to know if there was a ancient document that claimed to be historically accurate and at the same time was really fiction.

Hornet,

There are many documents, ancient and otherwise, that claim to be true accounts and are not. Many of them contain facts that can be verified but are not reliable history. By "really fiction" do you mean, black and white,"it is either all non-fiction or all fiction, all true or not at all true"? There are some facts in the Bible. I think they have little to do with any value or truth we derive in reading the Bible.

 

Dutch

[JenellYB]

Hornet, first, since ancient literature is not a field in which i've had much study and cannot claim much knowledge about, I don't know whether there is or not. And if such exist, as for how it might compare to the bible, that would have to determined by consideration of that particular piece of literature itself. Second, the bible, as we call it, is not "a" document, but a collection of different texts written at different times by different people.

 

Thank you for explaining how you are using "truth claim,' wouldn't it just be easier and more direct and clear to just say "viewpoint?"

And perhaps who's point of view?

 

Jenell

[Hornet]

Thank you for explaining how you are using "truth claim,' wouldn't it just be easier and more direct and clear to just say "viewpoint?"

And perhaps who's point of view?

 

Jenell

 

The biblical writer's point of view.

[Hornet]

Hornet,

There are many documents, ancient and otherwise, that claim to be true accounts and are not. Many of them contain facts that can be verified but are not reliable history. By "really fiction" do you mean, black and white,"it is either all non-fiction or all fiction, all true or not at all true"? There are some facts in the Bible. I think they have little to do with any value or truth we derive in reading the Bible.

 

Dutch

 

I meant a piece of writing where the author made up the story. The story could have some truth in it, but it was the author's intent to make up a story.

[Angel Whispers]

I think if we go by the presupposition that most Evangelicals defend, that the Bible is the inspired words of God, as if he dictated through divine inspiration chapter and verse, then we have to consider the councils that were convened so as to canonize the orthodox version we know today.

And then we have to wonder about the apocrypha.

 

It all seems to come around to the claim that the Bible is inspired by God, while the actions of mortal men regarding it's compilation imparts the notion they believed themselves then worthy of designating themselves as his editors-in-chief.

 

Proving the Bible. I think we'd need the autographs that were first used to begin the process of compiling what was largely something garnered from an oral tradition. Those written parts, like letters, scrolls, etc... that were added in with the oratory. And then we'd have to wonder if a God did inspire the word why so much of the Bible's content is derived from different cultural resources and religious traditions. If God gave the word, why is so much of what is contained in 66 books garnered from other human sources throughout history?

 

I've just become aware of the work of Professor Bart Ehrman. He may help to shed some light on all of this in his many books on the subject. He was formerly a Fundamentalist Christian, a minister for a time, and is now a James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of religious studies at U of NC Chapel Hill, and an agnostic.

[GeorgeW]

I've just become aware of the work of Professor Bart Ehrman. He may help to shed some light on all of this in his many books on the subject. He was formerly a Fundamentalist Christian, a minister for a time, and is now a James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of religious studies at U of NC Chapel Hill, and an agnostic.

 

Angel, I highly recommend Ehrman's books.

 

George

[glintofpewter]

Hornet,

I meant a piece of writing where the author made up the story. The story could have some truth in it, but it was the author's intent to make up a story.

I believe the Deuteronmistic historian did exactly that when they wrote the book of Joshua. They were creating a "great history" for a people who felt "inferior" or at least bullied. I believe they did this consciously - on purpose. The question is not the historical accuracy of Joshua but what the stories say about their theology and theodicy. What do we think and say and do when a good God let's evil happen. Why do we have a need to demonize others to create a place for ourselves in the world?

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[JenellYB]

Hornet: A truth claim is a statement that expresses a viewpoint. This can be either true or false.

 

So you are using it for what is actually someone's opinion? I don't know why 'truth claim' would be the term, 'opinion' would be more accurate and less confusing.

 

Usig 'truth claim" would seem to me more appropriate to expressing something one knows to be true, even if some others may not. In which case, there is a burden of proof on the one claiming it.

 

An example that comes to mind, that is actually a real case in my life right now, is that in the past several years, I have spoken to some others that I know there to be a certain wild animal present in the vicinity of my home, that few people believe exists in this area, and many insist doesn't exist at all, is an old myth. Now, I'm not stating I think there is such an animal, and that at least one of them resides near my home as an opinion, i am stating as a true fact, based on having clearly seen the animal myself. To me, I am making a "truth claim", whether anyone else believes or knows it to be true. But to others, unless and until I were to present, such as a photo, or to kill it and show it to others, proof of it, my claim is just that, my claim of something as I know to be true. In recent months, I've found others that live nearby that also claim to have seen it, some on many more occasions than myself, and even pretty up close and personal enough to be scary, and no one else believes them either. So, we've just kind come to among ourselves, ok, so now we know about this, let's just shut up about it, considering that it may be best the don't beleive us, lest some hot shot decide to come in here and try to hunt it down and kill it for a rare trophy anyway. As long as the animal doesn't bother us, we won't bother it. But we still make this as a truth claim. It is not our opinion. Now to state anything further, like where it came from, how it got here, or if it has always been here and has parents also nearby hear, THAT would be merely our opinion.

 

Hornet wrote:I meant a piece of writing where the author made up the story. The story could have some truth in it, but it was the author's intent to make up a story.

 

As I've said, I am NOT very knowledgable about ancient literature. But i have seen references to such ancient things of that kind. One that comes to mind readily is the Epic of Gilgamesh, from within the same region out of which came the bible, and which I understand predates even the bible in some of the discovered versions. And, that it actually contains some of the same myths and stories as found in the bible, particulary gensis, such as the creation/garden myth, a great flood, and other stuff. again, I do not know it in detail. But I still don't see how that would related to the claims about the bible being suggested.

 

Jenell

[Hornet]

Hornet: A truth claim is a statement that expresses a viewpoint. This can be either true or false.

 

So you are using it for what is actually someone's opinion? I don't know why 'truth claim' would be the term, 'opinion' would be more accurate and less confusing.

 

Usig 'truth claim" would seem to me more appropriate to expressing something one knows to be true, even if some others may not. In which case, there is a burden of proof on the one claiming it.

 

Jenell

 

To make a truth claim would be to express what you think is true or what you know to be true. If someone thinks that X is true, but he finds out later that it is false, then it could not be said that he knew that it was true. He thought that it was true, but he did not know that it was true.

[JenellYB]

Hornet wrote: To make a truth claim would be to express what you think is true or what you know to be true. If someone thinks that X is true, but he finds out later that it is false, then it could not be said that he knew that it was true. He thought that it was true, but he did not know that it was true.

 

Then wouldn't that be applicable is that one did have some substantial evidence for believing it was true to begin with? Not simply heresay, what others have said they think, or one's own opinion? To just THINK something is true is an opinion, not at all the same as to KNOW it is true.

For example, in my situation above, for me to state what I dod about that animal I've seen, to me, and for me, it is a "truth claim." I am claiming I know it to be true, based on my personal witness, observation, of that animal. But for anyone else, all the could say is that Jenell has said she saw it, but we don't know if she really did or not, or if she might have been mistaken about what she saw. To others, it would NOT be a truth claim, but merely their opinion whether to believe me or not.

Btw, in this case, this animal, there are those that immediately dismiss my claim without consideration at all, for there those that believe the "truth " is this animal does not even exist! That it is a myth, a rural legend. This is not the first one I've seen, and there's actually many others that have reported seeing them, all along, so i already "know" they are truely existant in this area....and must say of those maysayers, that you haven't seen it, or it hasn't been "offcially proven" to be real, doesn't adequate to prooving it doesn't exist.

 

Now, if evidence emerged that somebody had been surreptiously turning specimens of a large long tailed black exotic cat from Africa or somewhere loose in the thickets from Texas to Florida for the centuries white men have occupied this land, THEN I might consider what I "know" to be true, to perhaps not be so true as I'd believed.

 

Jenell

[matt67]

I'm late to this topic. I heard debates from both sides. Neither side proves anything. Do you believe what it says, is the question. Does it speak to you inside your heart?

[PaulS]

I'm late to this topic. I heard debates from both sides. Neither side proves anything. Do you believe what it says, is the question. Does it speak to you inside your heart?

 

Which bits Matt? Does the entire bible, every sentence, speak to you inside your heart, or just some parts of it? Do you belive what it says, all of what it says? I think that's what is being discussed here in large part.