Proving The Bible

[PaulS]

Instead of saying that Jesus taught that the New Testament was the word of God, I would say that Jesus anticipates the divine inspiration of the New Testament through his authorization of the apostles, whose teachings inform and ratify the New Testament. The canon of the New Testament was determined by its adherence to the coherent and ancient teachings of the apostles of Jesus. The apostles were authorized representatives of Jesus. They taught what Jesus taught. The apostles were commissioned by Jesus, had unique historical experience with Jesus, and were given special inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into the truth.

 

The New Testament writers did not say that slavery was morally right. An omission of the condemnation of slavery is not the same as the endorsement of slavery.

 

Hornet, of course you are entitled to say that Jesus anticipates the divine inspiration of the NT, but what eveidence can you offer for such? Does Jesus quote anywhere that the books that will be written over the 150 or so years after his death, and which won't be accepted or cannonised as the ultimte Word of God until close to 400CE, are somhow the word of God?

 

Ancient teachings maybe, but coherent? Have you ever lined up the 4 gospels to see just how profound the discrepancies are between them?

 

And just how do you know the alleged apostolic writers actually did write what Jesus taught? Nobody can know what Jesus taught because all we have to go on is somebody else's say so?

 

Personally I've always found it strange that of the 12 disciples allegedly handpicked by Jesus as His authorised represetatives, only 3 or so managed to write about him. I wonder why there was never a Gospel of Simon, Andrew; Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas (or maybe there was), Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot (again, maybe there was).

 

You say "The canon of the New Testament was determined by its adherence to the coherent and ancient teachings of the apostles of Jesus. The apostles were authorized representatives of Jesus. They taught what Jesus taught. The apostles were commissioned by Jesus, had unique historical experience with Jesus, and were given special inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into the truth." Yet only 3 or 4 of them are given the questionable title as authors of some of the NT. Wouldn't it be grand to know what the others thought of Jesus and his message?

[GeorgeW]

I think the 'Him' before 'He' grows up is God, i.e. Israel growing up before God.

 

That would be a grammatically plausible referent as the name 'Israel' in Hebrew is masculine. So, the verb inflection ("he") would agree in gender and number.

 

George

[PaulS]

Hi Jenell,

 

I believe that one should prove that the Bible is God-breathed before proving that the Bible is inerrant. (God-breathed means inspired by God.) First, I will give an argument in favor of it being God-breathed and then I will give another argument showing that it is inerrant.

 

Argument# 1 (Argument that the Bible is a God-breathed book)

 

Truth claim:

The Bible is a God-breathed book.

 

Evidence to support this claim:

Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.

 

Examples of fulfilled prophecy-

 

1. Isaiah writing around 700 B.C. predicts Cyrus by name as the king who will say to Jerusalem that it shall be built and that the temple foundation shall be laid. At the time of Isaiah’s writing, the city of Jerusalem was fully built and the entire temple was standing. Not until more than 100 years later would the city and temple be destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. After Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians, it was conquered by the Persians in about 539 B.C. Shortly after that, a Persian king named Cyrus gave the decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was around 160 years after the prophecy of Isaiah! Thus Isaiah predicted that a man named Cyrus, who would not be born for about 100 years, would give the command to rebuild the temple which was still standing in Isaiah’s day and would not be destroyed for more than 100 years.

 

{Could Isaiah actually have been written after Cyrus' existence? Therefore, rather than be a prediction, it is more so an account of history?}

 

2. The Messiah would be born of a virgin, not just of a woman.

 

[i think you are referring to the misinterpreted Hebrew which has been translated to virgin but which actually means 'young woman'. It seems Matthew (the only one to mention virgin birth) was also not much of a Hebrew scholar and may have jumped the gun to make a point rather than report a fulfilled prediction].

 

3. Isaiah 53 predicts that the Messiah would atone for the sins of other people. In an earlier post, I gave some reasons why the suffering servant could not be Israel.

 

[it is just my opinion, but I don't think your reasons really held up]

 

4. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

 

[i think you'll find most biblical scholars are convinced that Chirst was born in Nazareth (hence the moniker Jesus of Nazareth rather than Jesus of Bethlehem) and that the whole trip to Bethlehem story was created to fit this prophecy. There seems to be no evidence of a census (which is why Matthew has them going to Bethlehem, nor of any mass murders of infants by Herod]

 

5. The Messiah would come from the house of Judah, from the root and stump of Jesse, and from the house of David.

 

[but he didn't - Joseph's 'seed' had nothing to do with Jesus. Jesus was miraculously conceived without male sp_rm (add 'e') so how can he come from that male hereitary line?]

 

6. The Messiah would come out of Egypt.

 

[so did he come out of Bethlehem or Egypt? Again, I think most scholars would say this is a creation tailored to fit the precition, not fulfilment of a prediction]

 

7. The Messiah's ministry would include miraculous healings and the deliverance of spiritual captives.

 

[What single miraculous healing of Jesus' do we have evidence of today?]

 

8. The Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.

 

[Again, most likely a story tailored after the event to reflect what the writer wanted people to think of Jesus. What proof exists?]

 

Argument# 2 (Proof that the Bible is inerrant)

 

Premise 1: All God-breathed books are inerrant.

Premise 2: The Bible is a God-breathed book.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is inerrant.

 

The truth of the first premise seems obvious. God cannot lie; He cannot make mistakes; He cannot give out false information. God cannot guide people into writing something that is false. Argument# 1 provides support that premise 2 is true.

 

"God cannot guide people into writing something that is false". Why not? God seems to spend plenty of time in the OT tricking people, saying one thing before changing his mind, and leading people astray.

[JosephM]

Hi Jenell,

 

I believe that one should prove that the Bible is God-breathed before proving that the Bible is inerrant. (God-breathed means inspired by God.) First, I will give an argument in favor of it being God-breathed and then I will give another argument showing that it is inerrant.

 

Argument# 1 (Argument that the Bible is a God-breathed book)

 

Truth claim:

The Bible is a God-breathed book.

 

Evidence to support this claim:

Fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.

 

Examples of fulfilled prophecy-

 

1. Isaiah writing around 700 B.C. predicts Cyrus by name as the king who will say to Jerusalem that it shall be built and that the temple foundation shall be laid. At the time of Isaiah’s writing, the city of Jerusalem was fully built and the entire temple was standing. Not until more than 100 years later would the city and temple be destroyed by King Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. After Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians, it was conquered by the Persians in about 539 B.C. Shortly after that, a Persian king named Cyrus gave the decree to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem. This was around 160 years after the prophecy of Isaiah! Thus Isaiah predicted that a man named Cyrus, who would not be born for about 100 years, would give the command to rebuild the temple which was still standing in Isaiah’s day and would not be destroyed for more than 100 years.

 

2. The Messiah would be born of a virgin, not just of a woman.

 

3. Isaiah 53 predicts that the Messiah would atone for the sins of other people. In an earlier post, I gave some reasons why the suffering servant could not be Israel.

 

4. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

 

5. The Messiah would come from the house of Judah, from the root and stump of Jesse, and from the house of David.

 

6. The Messiah would come out of Egypt.

 

7. The Messiah's ministry would include miraculous healings and the deliverance of spiritual captives.

 

8. The Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver.

 

Argument# 2 (Proof that the Bible is inerrant)

 

Premise 1: All God-breathed books are inerrant.

Premise 2: The Bible is a God-breathed book.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible is inerrant.

 

The truth of the first premise seems obvious. God cannot lie; He cannot make mistakes; He cannot give out false information. God cannot guide people into writing something that is false. Argument# 1 provides support that premise 2 is true.

 

Hornet,

It seems to me this post of yours addresses the heart of any differences between yourself and others here. Your second argument is based on the first so only the first has to be addressed. The 8 prophecies you mention of course would require proof or evidence that they were fulfilled. What evidence can you provide other than quoting statements or assertions in the same Bible as proof they were fulfilled as stated?

 

Joseph

[GeorgeW]

Personally I've always found it strange that of the 12 disciples allegedly handpicked by Jesus as His authorised represetatives, only 3 or so managed to write about him.

Paul,

 

I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Gospels were not written by disciples. However, they may have been written by others with disciples among their sources.

 

There are no first person accounts ('He told me', 'I saw' and the like) in the Gospels. There are mistakes in geography that a Palestinian Jew would not make. There is clearly copying from Mark in Matthew and Luke, etc., etc., etc.

 

George

[JenellYB]

Hornet, everything you are presenting as supposed premises and argument are seriously flawed. You are still beginning with unproven (even untestable and unprovable) presuppositions as premises, proceeding through unsound arguments (mainly circular reasoning) to arrive at invalid conclusions that wouldn't reasonably follow the premises you give even if those premises were valid.

 

You are still going in circles...the bible is God-breathed (assumed premise) is used to support the conclusion that the bible is God-breathed. You use claim to fulfilled prophecies as claimed within the bible itself as premise for your argument that those same claims are valid ? That is circular reasoning.

 

You are also basing manyof your claimed premises and the arguments toward conclusions on yet another fallacy of logic, the 'appeal to authority.' That you can find others that embrace these same religious beliefs that have said and written about them doesn't make them or their statements credible as 'evidence' of their validity.

 

Hornet, look at how consistent more than one of us posting here in response are in our critiques of your faulty reasoning. Consider that we are different people of differing backgrounds that only "know' one another through recent, brief,and casual contact with one another here...we are not a cohesive and homogenous group all steeped in the same belief postion in this or other topics discussed here. Yet we are all coming up with the same "problems" with your reasoning processes here. Think about why that may be so.

 

I suggest you consider taking some time and effort to study at least the basic principles of logic, at least browse up "fallacies of logic" to see how and why your arguments here are invalid. From there, if you still want to find how to construct valid arguments for the beliefs you are trying to support, consider some time and effort toward learning at least the basics of the science of logic, aquire at least a working understand of the basic forms of sound reasoning. Perhaps you can find a book, or possibly even an online source, that presents the basics in a simplified form for beginners on the subject. I do not mean this in any way to put you down, belittle your intelligence or anything of the sort, just that it is evident you are not working from even a basic level understanding of sound reasoning, of valid use of logical argument.

 

By suggesting you locate a simplified resource for beginners I am making no allusion to your intellegence, but to the reality that most people don't realize what a difficult subject the science of formal logic is..I certainly didn't, before I took a college level course in formal Logic...although I has thought myself well-versed in principles of logic and sound reasoning, my inital reaction the first time I cracked open the textbook I had just bought for that course, and saw pages and pages of what looked like algebraic formulas and equations written out in strange symbols, was to immmedately rush back into the bookstore to return it and get my money back before I headed to the registrar's office to cancel my registration in that course....but I'm glad I didn't. It was one of the toughest courses I tackled, but also among those I feel gave me those most benefit in return for my effort.

 

I now strongly believe basic level logic should be taught to every child in school. Whether you or any would choose to move on from learning at least basics of logic to study of formal logic or not, understanding just the basics has huge benefit. And for what your expressed interests are here, trying to effectively present arguments for something you believe to be true to others, it would put you on sound ground. But a caveat: By the time you get done studying and understanding principles of sound logic and reasoning, and apply them to your beliefs so as to construct sound arguments to support their validy, you just might find you do not accept them as valid anymore yourself....IF you are up to that challenge, IF you are confident enough in the validity of the beliefs you are promoting here, and IF you are prepared to accept the truth you find even if uncomfortable or inconvenient or unpopular among your peers, prove it to yourself by subjecting those beliefs to the test of sound reasoning.

 

Here's a suggested starting point:

 

http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Jenell

[JenellYB]

...and one even more basic, that might be a better place to start before the one I gave in previous post....

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

Jenell

[PaulS]

Paul,

 

I think the evidence is overwhelming that the Gospels were not written by disciples. However, they may have been written by others with disciples among their sources.

 

There are no first person accounts ('He told me', 'I saw' and the like) in the Gospels. There are mistakes in geography that a Palestinian Jew would not make. There is clearly copying from Mark in Matthew and Luke, etc., etc., etc.

 

George

 

Thanks George. Yes, true. I perhaps should have expanded my statement to make it clear that I was referring to the 'tradition' that the writers of Mathew, John, and maybe 1st & 2nd Peter, were disciples, but where even the tradition acknowledges we have no canonised writings from the remaining 9 disciples (8 if you scrap Judas).

 

As you know I was responding to Hornet's statement: " Instead of saying that Jesus taught that the New Testament was the word of God, I would say that Jesus anticipates the divine inspiration of the New Testament through his authorization of the apostles, whose teachings inform and ratify the New Testament. The canon of the New Testament was determined by its adherence to the coherent and ancient teachings of the apostles of Jesus. The apostles were authorized representatives of Jesus. They taught what Jesus taught. The apostles were commissioned by Jesus, had unique historical experience with Jesus, and were given special inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into the truth."

 

 

My more concise thoughts in response to this are to wonder how Hornet can be so confident that the canon of the NT was determined by its adherence to the coherent & ancient teachings of the apostles of Jesus when it would seem, according to tradition, that only 1/4 of the disciples wrote about Jesus. If the 12 disciples were authorised representatives of Jesus, taught what he taught, and were given special inspiration by the Holy Spirit, there seems little detail of it, and from them, in the NT.

 

Number of NT books - 27. The number of which tradition attributes to actual disciples of Jesus - 7 (at a stretch). The number attributed to Paul (who never met Jesus when he lived as a man, or listened to his teachings, or experienced his comapnionship, according to the tradition) - 13. Of course it is also commonly believed that at least 6 of Paul's alleged books weren't actually written by Paul, but by somebody pretending to be Paul or writing in his name to gain acceptance/authority for his/her writings. Again, to me this makes a bit of a mockery of the NT being God-breathed and reliable - we have NT authors lying about who they are - how can we even start to trust what they have written?

[NORM]

It is possible for a copy for an ancient document to accurately reflect an earlier copy. For example, the Book of Isaiah of the Masoretic Text accurately reflects the Book of Isaiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls and there is about a 1000 year gap between these two documents.

 

Hornet, I would encourage you to take a trip to Hebrew University and visit the Orion Center where scholars will show you early photographs from the scrolls (they are actually easier to read because of the oxidization of the animal skins) so you can see for yourself. I went several years ago, and it was well worth the time and effort (and many bribes!!)

 

Here is a sample of some of the scholarly examination of the Dead Sea Scrolls in comparison to the Masoretic texts I found from a link on the Hebrew University's web site:

 

This first page illustrates several of the characteristics that are present and recur often in the rest of the Scroll. Some letters which were missed by the first copyist or scribe were written in above the line of words You will see, (all above the first line,) that an ayin was elided from Isaiah's name and was inserted later either by the original scribe, correcting his own mistake, or by a later editor. It is anyone's guess which is true and can not be concluded either way with certainty., but it is more likely a later editor. (There is evidence in the scroll of multiple editors with different "hand-writing" and spelling and editorial marks.) The same is true for the yod added to the last of Jerusalem and the waw in the word biy-yomey. If you see those you might also see that the original scribe missed the yod which properly begins Hezekiah's name in Hebrew* on the second line and what looks like a correction in the lamed in the word "kings of" is the scribal peculiarity of making the lamed extremely large in the word "malchey". He is consistent in making large lameds.

*See page 28 and comments there under line 29 for a thorough examination of the 4 different ways that the Q scribes spelled Hezekiah's name.

1. Some of these additions might be corrections by the original scribe or some may be additions of vowel letters like o, u, or i which are indicated by waw, for the first two and yod for the last . This addition of elided letters and the addition of waw and yod where they help in the reading above the line is very frequent.

2. Sometimes a word is added above the line which has been left out by the copyist. There is no illustration of that on this page but it is not infrequent.

3. Aleph is often added to the end of words where the Masoretic text does not use aleph. For instance the word "Kiy." the conjunction, meaning "because" or "that" has an aleph appended. An example of this can be seen in the first word on the right in line 3 of the text above. Addition of aleph to words not having aleph at the end of the word in the Masoretic is frequent in the Qumran text and may be evidence of Aramaic which is marked by the use of aleph sufformatives . Such Aramaic influence in the scribe should be expected...

 

It goes on and on and on like that - detailing all of the MANY, MANY deviations and mistakes the copyists made in the scrolls. You can find the entire examination of the Isaiah text here: http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-1.htm

 

 

Jesus affirmed that the Jewish Scriptures were inspired by God. Jesus confidently quotes and interprets the Old Testament as a settled matter of His worldview. He said that the Scriptures cannot be broken and that they are true. Jesus equated the Hebrew Bible with the very words of God, as when he said that David's writing in Psalm 110 was through the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:35-36). He also said that the religious leaders of his day nullified the word of God through their human tradition.

 

Instead of saying that Jesus taught that the New Testament was the word of God, I would say that Jesus anticipates the divine inspiration of the New Testament through his authorization of the apostles, whose teachings inform and ratify the New Testament. The canon of the New Testament was determined by its adherence to the coherent and ancient teachings of the apostles of Jesus. The apostles were authorized representatives of Jesus. They taught what Jesus taught. The apostles were commissioned by Jesus, had unique historical experience with Jesus, and were given special inspiration by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit would guide the apostles into the truth.

 

The New Testament writers did not say that slavery was morally right. An omission of the condemnation of slavery is not the same as the endorsement of slavery.

 

Hornet, it is obvious to me that you are guided by faith.

 

I cannot find fault in that.

 

NORM

[JenellYB]

Hornet, I must apologize. I have realized i was out of line in my last post in several points. I have realized that I allowed frustration from situations in my own personal relationships to spill over onto you here, and that was wrong.

 

Perhaps to acknowledge the source of my difficulties trying to understand your position would help. As I observed earlier in this thread, the "apologetics" approach is something I do not understand. That is a failure on my part. I've simply not learned how to get my mind around the idea, the position, of trying to support and defend an idea, belief, or claim, without knowing first why and how one would arrive at that idea, beleif, or claim to begin with. And I admit that in the particular ones you are setting forth, i enter into your presentation of them with some pretty signficant pre-existing frustration of that sort, for that they are not new ideas in my experience, I have encountered them many times in my life, and with the same difficulty for me in trying to understand the position of those that hold them....why and how does one arrive at, accept them as valid, to begin with.

 

Perhaps it would help if you could explain how you, personally, first encountered them as possiblities, then came to accept them, by what process of experience and reasoning they became real for you.

 

Jenell

[Javelin]

These are just some radom thoughts that reflect my 40 year experience with Christian conservatism and why I ultimately rejected that approach to God.

 

When it comes to Bible inerrancy I doubt there are any new arguments. Rationalist, based on my experience, are generally puzzled by the willingness of those who embrace conservative religious traditions to believe the Bible is in any substantive way literally true or factually accurate. That is especially true when the lack of evidence to support such a supposition is added to the mix. The evidence that does exist would seem to effectively expose the myth of Bible inerrancy.

 

Faith is generally acknowledged as belief without supporting evidence and I agree that is a rational definition of faith. That leads me to wonder how faith can exist when there is certifiable evidence that invalidates the premise that such faith is based on. It has been my experience that conservatives simply ignore any evidence that challenges their faith/beliefs or they define such evidence as a work of the devil.

 

Knowledge would appear to be the enemy of many conservative religious traditions. Since conservatives are genereally unable to disprove the evidence they choose to ignore it and then they often threaten anyone who questions their beliefs with the wrath of God and eternal damnation.They have developed an effective catch 22 to insure their adherents remain compliant.

The day eventually came when I could no longer ignore the scholarship as well as the obvious inconsistencies and contradictions that are replete throughout scripture. I was forced to set my faith aside and embrace reality, logic, and history. And when I did that I found out, in spite of the dire warning from my conservative friends, that my faith in God was not destroyed it was simply adjusted to reflect reality and history.

 

It has been my experience that traditional Christians often link bible inerrancy with the existence of God. It seems, at least for those who hold conservative beliefs, if the bible isn’t literally true then God doesn’t exist. One is dependent upon the other and that’s why they defend biblical inerrancy so fervently, because they are convinced their salvation rest in the balance. Denying the bible’s inerrant status is the same as denying the existence of God in their mind, and that is an unforgiveable sin. That sums up my 40 year experience with Christian conservative logic and teaching but others may have had a different experience.

[Javelin]

Bibliolatry is defined as excessive adherence to a literal interpretation of the bible. I have also seen it defined as a form of bible worship.I was affiliated with a group that engaged in such idolatry. Oppressive legalism is the predictable companion of bibliolatry.

[Javelin]

Some might find this site interesting and of some value. It deals with the question of how accurate the bible might be and how the Pagan religions may have influenced Christianity.

 

http://www.pocm.info/

[JenellYB]

Early on in my encounter with logic and philosophical thought was a need to reconcile the demands of those paradigms for evidence toward testing and prooving assertions and claims, with that of my own acceptance of belief on faith alone in some things.

As it was explained to me, and how I've reconciled this, is that while the one pertains to and can only be applied to ideas for which there is evidence that can be applied to tests of proof, the other pertains to and can only be applied to those for which there is not evidence and therefore not subject to tests of proof.

 

Principles of logic and philosophical thought are the foundation for scientific method, and as such, can only deal with positives, things with evidence that can be observed, qualified, quantified, in some way and by some means. Only positives can be 'proven' or 'dispoven'. Principles of logic and philosophical thoughts, or scientific method, cannot be used to 'proove' a negative. We can prove something exists, but not that something does not exist.

 

In any matter of beleif on faith alone, the emergence of any evidence that allows for a rational process of proof is no longer a beleif based on faith alone, but a conclusion drawn from examination of evidence.

 

So in its summary form, this reconciliation is, while i can accept, believe as true, on faith alone, something for which i have no evidence, has not been proven, and may be of a nature that could never be proven, I cannot accept, believe as true, or continue in a belief in, something for which I've discovered evidence that proves it false.

 

Further, while I can accept as true, believe, something for which i have no evidence, and cannot prove, I cannot from that argue for someone else's acceptance, belief in it, as true. All I can possible hope to "proove" in that is my own belief is true, that i really believe it myself. As it has been said, I really can believe someone else really believes what they say they believe, but that doesn't mean I believe what they believe, to be true.

 

Jenell

[Hornet]

Hornet, everything you are presenting as supposed premises and argument are seriously flawed. You are still beginning with unproven (even untestable and unprovable) presuppositions as premises, proceeding through unsound arguments (mainly circular reasoning) to arrive at invalid conclusions that wouldn't reasonably follow the premises you give even if those premises were valid.

 

You are still going in circles...the bible is God-breathed (assumed premise) is used to support the conclusion that the bible is God-breathed. You use claim to fulfilled prophecies as claimed within the bible itself as premise for your argument that those same claims are valid ? That is circular reasoning.

 

Jenell,

 

I'm not assuming that the Bible is God-breathed in order to prove that the Bible is God-breathed. The assumed premise is the historical reliability of the Bible, not the idea that the Bible is God-breathed. Assuming the historical reliability of the Bible does not necessarily assume the idea that the Bible is God-breathed.

 

The way to verify the historical reliability of the Bible would be to look at the findings of archaeology and the historical sources outside of the Bible.

[minsocal]

If compassion is the dominant concept and motivation ... there is but one goal. That goal is a "goodness of fit" between individual and system, and no system fits all.

 

Myron

[JenellYB]

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

[glintofpewter]

I think that for a time period between ca 960 BCE and 500 BCE there are many historical connections between the Old Testament and other historical events. It does not prove the Bible is inerrant or wholy reliable. The history related in the Bible is biased in favor of the southern kingdom and the priestly class. Knowing who the Deuteronomist Historians were is essential to recognizing this bias.

 

When is a reliable date for the Exodus supported by both Scripture and archaeology?

If Scripture is reliable and subject to our projections and motivations it should state a hypothesis to be tested. What I see is that Scripture can be used to support any of several dates.

 

1552 BCE

A look at all the archaeological evidence shows that the best fit of the data is to identify the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt around 1570-50 BC. Josephus says there are 592 years from the Exodus to the founding of Solomon's Temple (960 BC), while Sedar Olan Zutta says 480 years. The best explanation of this discrepancy is the omission of the oppressions in the Book of Judges (111 years).

http://www.bibleands...logy/exodus.htm

 

 

1440 BCE

1King 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel (ca. 960), . . .

But the author of this site had a hard time making the numbers in different scriptures agree. Why? Because the total number of years in Judges does not agree with 1King 6:1 and Acts 13:20. The ASSUMPTION is that they must and so the author of the page works with that in mind, finding innovative ways to manipulate and interpret numbers which don't add up to the DESIRED ANSWER. This is CIRCULAR, I think. He knows what the answer must be and massages the numbers in that direction to prove that Scripture is correct and coherent - which he assumed.

http://www.bibleinsi...chronology.html

 

1290 BCE

This late date is usually assigned to the close of the 13th century around 1290 BC. The late date relies on a more general view of the nature of Scripture combined with archaeological evidence.

Dennis Bratcher

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

 

To have archaeological evidence for the Exodus is not necessary to understand the stories of Passover, the Last Supper and Communion - and much else in life.

 

How many were slaughtered?

 

Judges 3:29 At that time they killed about 10,000 Moabites, all strong, able bodied men; no one escaped

Whether this took place about 1380, or 1280, or 1180 BCE, I don't think there is archaeological evidence supporting a Moabite population of 20,000 - 40,000 before the massacre. Actually I just read an article about Glueck's gap hypothesis trying to show evidence for enough population to be a threat to the Israelites.

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

[glintofpewter]

The Bible hypothesizes that 1) David existed - and 2) ruled as king. What is the archaeological evidence?

[glintofpewter]

Actually, if I had read Myron's post I might have saved some time. Wear the Bible that fits.

[themoreilearnthelessiknow]

I hope it is OK to add my thoughts on this matter as a general topic and not as a direct answer to the opening post.

 

I think an important point was touched on earlier: If your faith in Jesus is dependent upon the inherency of the Bible than you will not allow yourself to be persuaded otherwise. Until a person is open to seeing Jesus separate from the Bible they will do everything in their power to defend it as the Word of God. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who said: "Are you saved by Jesus or by the Bible." It really set me back as I realized that my faith wasn't in God but in The Bible. I also realized that if I truly believed the two went hand in hand then if one was shown to be wrong then the other was also.

 

For close to 25 years I believed that the Bible was the inspired Word of God and no one, and I mean no one, could tell me otherwise. I would shut my mind off to any other view. I mean yes, I would listen but I would not be truly listening. I was just seeking out a "Bible Answer Man" response to the point being presented.

 

It was not until I began reading books about the "Natural" world, that I was willing to let my guard down in regards to the Bible's description about how the world came to be.

 

Then as I began reading other spiritual texts like the "Tao Te Ching", "Dhamapada", "bhagavad gita," and the"Quran"did I allow myself to question the Bible as God's only source of communication with His creation.

 

In my view the Bible is a record of man's communication with the Divine. When I read through it's pages I am filled with awe! Let's take the amazing Ecclesiastes Chapter 12 for example. Solomon's realization that everything about the material world is meaningless hits to the core of my being. Or the Beatitudes of Matthew 5. I mean a person could spend a lifetime just contemplating those amazing words! I love the Bible and it will always be my goto book when I'm searching for spiritual answers but I can now say with certainty: I no longer believe in the Bible but rather the God who created the searching souls who wrote it's amazing words.

[JenellYB]

Even more directly to the core of it, and even more deeply disturbing, than are you saved by Jesus or the bible, is, by faith in others that have told you to what you are supposed to believe about the bible. Or told you what the bible really says about Jesus, or God. Would it ever have occurred to any of us to beleive the bible as our source of faith, if some PEOPLE hadn't told us we should? When one realizes the beginning of one's faith is in what other PEOPLE have told us about anything....Oh, my....

 

Jenell

[Hornet]

Hornet, I must apologize. I have realized i was out of line in my last post in several points. I have realized that I allowed frustration from situations in my own personal relationships to spill over onto you here, and that was wrong.

 

Perhaps to acknowledge the source of my difficulties trying to understand your position would help. As I observed earlier in this thread, the "apologetics" approach is something I do not understand. That is a failure on my part. I've simply not learned how to get my mind around the idea, the position, of trying to support and defend an idea, belief, or claim, without knowing first why and how one would arrive at that idea, beleif, or claim to begin with. And I admit that in the particular ones you are setting forth, i enter into your presentation of them with some pretty signficant pre-existing frustration of that sort, for that they are not new ideas in my experience, I have encountered them many times in my life, and with the same difficulty for me in trying to understand the position of those that hold them....why and how does one arrive at, accept them as valid, to begin with.

 

Perhaps it would help if you could explain how you, personally, first encountered them as possiblities, then came to accept them, by what process of experience and reasoning they became real for you.

 

Jenell

 

Hi Jenell,

 

There are three aspects of Christian apologetics: 1) Giving evidence that Christianity is true, 2) Refuting belief systems other than Christianity, and 3) Answering objections to the truth claims of Christianity.

 

When I was in college, I became interested in finding out whether there was evidence for the truth claims of Christianity so I examined the evidence that pertains to creationism, the historical Jesus, the historical reliability of the Bible, God's existence, and the resurrection of Jesus and I realized that there was good evidence that supports Christianity.

[PaulS]

Hi Jenell,

 

There are three aspects of Christian apologetics: 1) Giving evidence that Christianity is true, 2) Refuting belief systems other than Christianity, and 3) Answering objections to the truth claims of Christianity.

 

When I was in college, I became interested in finding out whether there was evidence for the truth claims of Christianity so I examined the evidence that pertains to creationism, the historical Jesus, the historical reliability of the Bible, God's existence, and the resurrection of Jesus and I realized that there was good evidence that supports Christianity.

 

Hornet,

 

Around the same age I too became interested in finding out whether there was evidence for the truth claims of Christianity so I examined the evidence that pertains to creationsim (and found that the science of evolution blows creationsim out of the water), the historical Jesus (there is absolutely none other than a dubious statement attributed to Josephus), the historical reliability of the bible (no proof of David, the Exodus, Adam and Eve, Noah's flood, timelines all wrong, etc etc), and the resurrection of Jesus, and I realised that there was no evidence to support the fundamental view of Christianity and biblical literalism. IMO, one pretty much has to ignore all the evidence indeed to stick to their guns that this type of Christinaity is somehow factually and historically reported.

 

What I am really interested in after reading some brilliant biblical scholars such as Spong, Borg, Crossan et al, and after learning about and from this website, is that there is a proper alternative way to look at Jesus and Christianity without having to sacrifice logic and truth, whilst still holding true to Jesus' genuine message of love,compassion, and the Kingdom of God being here, now, on earth, and in each and every one of us.

 

A consistent message I read here is that there a number of ways to God, so I guess for some that includes a fundy, literal view of God & the bible, no matter what is presented to the contrary. Should they choose to not discuss matters when things are put to them, I am learning to simply let that be. If that is their way, I wish them all the best in their endeavours and leave them to it.

 

All the best

Paul

[NORM]

 

 

When I was in college, I became interested in finding out whether there was evidence for the truth claims of Christianity so I examined the evidence that pertains to creationism, the historical Jesus, the historical reliability of the Bible, God's existence, and the resurrection of Jesus and I realized that there was good evidence that supports Christianity.

 

I would be interested in reading your collected evidence to support these claims. I'm sure everyone participating in this thread is anxious to read them as well.

 

Have a most happy New Year, Hornet!

 

NORM