12
   

Why do you think the Bible is factual?

 
 
kk4mds
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 10:11 am
My Bible, which does not include the so called 'new testament', and especially the first five books, is not meant to be a history book nor a science book.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 12:58 pm
Just in case anyone is interested in a serious answer to the question, I'm going to quote my friend Jenny Hawkins because she did a better job of it than I have time for and she said its OK to quote her.

Quote:
It’s interesting how often I come across these statements- “The bible is full of inconsistencies, contradictive, not reliable, is unscientific, has no proof or evidence, is illogical, etc etc..”. Yet no actial examples are given. Ironically, evidence-based skeptics who make such claims about the bible are not supporting their view with empirical facts.

Why do I have faith ? Well deep breath, here we go…

Using the same criteria by which we judge other historical works, not only is the Bible reliable, it is more reliable than any other comparable writings. Reliability is a question of truthfulness and accurate copying. Writings that are historically and factually correct and that have been faithfully preserved over time would be considered reliable. Higher levels of historical verification and better confidence in transmission make it easier to determine whether an ancient work is worthy of trust. By those measures, we can consider the Bible reliable.

As is true with any historical work, not every single detail in the Bible can be directly confirmed. The Bible cannot be called unreliable simply because it contains parts which cannot be confirmed or have not yet been confirmed. What’s reasonable is to expect it to be accurate where it can be checked. This is the primary test of reliability, and here the Bible has a stellar track record. Not only have many of its historical details been confirmed, but certain portions that were once in doubt have been verified by later archaeology.

For example, archaeological finds in the 1920s confirmed the presence of cities much like Ur, described in Genesis 11, which some skeptics doubted had existed so early. Engravings discovered in an Egyptian tomb depict the installation of a viceroy in a manner that exactly matches the biblical description of the ceremony involving Joseph (Genesis 41:39–42). Clay tablets dating to 2300 BC have been found in Syria strongly supporting Old Testament stories, vocabulary, and geography. Skeptics doubted the existence of the Hittites (Genesis 15:20; 23:10; 49:29), until a Hittite city, complete with records, was found in Turkey. There are dozens of other Old Testament facts supported by archaeological discovery.

More importantly, no facts presented in the Old or New Testaments have been shown false. This historical reliability is crucial to our trust in other statements made in Scripture.

Even the “miraculous” occurrences of Genesis have evidential basis we can appeal to today. Ancient Babylonian records describe a confusion of language, in accordance with the biblical account of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–9). These same records describe a worldwide flood, an event present in literally hundreds of forms in cultures all over the world. The sites where Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) once sat have been found, displaying evidence of fiery and violent destruction. Even the plagues of Egypt and the resulting Exodus (Exodus 12:40–41) have archaeological support.

This trend continues in the New Testament, where the names of various cities, political officials, and events have been repeatedly confirmed by historians and archaeologists. Luke, the writer of that gospel and the book of Acts, has been described as a first-rate historian for his attention to detail and accurate reporting. In both the Old and New Testament writings, the Bible proves reliable wherever it can be checked.

Accurate copying is also an important factor in the Bible’s reliability. New Testament writings were composed within a few decades of the events they describe, far too early for legend or myth to overtake actual history. In fact, the basic framework of the gospel can be dated to a formal creed just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus, according to Paul’s description in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8. Historians have access to a tremendous number of manuscripts, proving the New Testament was reliably and quickly copied and distributed. This gives ample confidence that what we read today correctly represents the original writing.

The Old Testament, as well, shows all evidence of being reliably transmitted. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in the 1940s, they were 800 years older than any other available manuscripts. Comparing earlier and later manuscripts showed a meticulous approach to transmission, once again adding to our confidence that what we have today represents the original texts.
Those factors all give objective reasons to consider the Bible reliable. At the same time, it’s critically important to examine those same factors in other texts we use to write our history books. The Bible has more empirical support, a shorter time between original writing and surviving copies, and a greater number of source manuscripts than any other ancient work, by far.
For example, there are ten copies of the works of Julius Caesar, the earliest from 1,000 years after he wrote, with no way to know how well those copies represent the originals. There are eight copies of the works of the historian Herodotus, the earliest from 1,400 years after he wrote. Archaeologists have found 643 manuscript copies of the works of Homer, allowing us a 95 percent confidence in the original text.

For the New Testament, there are currently more than 5,000 manuscripts, with most early copies anywhere from 200 to 300 years later, and some less than 100 years later. This gives a better than 99 percent confidence in the contents of the original text.

In short, we not only have objective reasons to claim the Bible is reliable, but we cannot call it unreliable without throwing out almost everything else we know of ancient history. If the Scriptures don’t pass a test for trustworthiness, no records from that era can. The Bible’s reliability is proven in both its historical accuracy and its accurate transmission.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 01:13 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
It’s interesting how often I come across these statements- “The bible is full of inconsistencies, contradictive, not reliable, is unscientific, has no proof or evidence, is illogical, etc etc..”. Yet no actial examples are given. Ironically, evidence-based skeptics who make such claims about the bible are not supporting their view with empirical facts.


It is absolutely dishonest to say this when I have provided dozens of examples of how the Bible is not reliable. Saying there are no empirical facts to prove its unreliable is laughably dishonest.

Quote:

Using the same criteria by which we judge other historical works, not only is the Bible reliable, it is more reliable than any other comparable writings. Reliability is a question of truthfulness and accurate copying. Writings that are historically and factually correct and that have been faithfully preserved over time would be considered reliable. Higher levels of historical verification and better confidence in transmission make it easier to determine whether an ancient work is worthy of trust. By those measures, we can consider the Bible reliable.


Even biblical scholars say some of the Bible stories were plagiarized. Such as the Enuma Elish, which is the babylonian creation myth. You(she) is either willfully ignorant or blatantly hoping what she says is true. It's a load of male cow feces.

The Bible has clearly been edited and changed. There are manuscripts that contradict other manuscripts. There are older versions of copies the don't have new additions in them. It suggests as they were being copied over the years they were being added to.

Almost every creditable biblical scholars has determined the entire book of Deuteronomy to be a forgery.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 02:06 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:

It is absolutely dishonest to say this when I have provided dozens of examples of how the Bible is not reliable. Saying there are no empirical facts to prove its unreliable is laughably dishonest.

I looked back over this thread and did not see any examples of what you insist is there. I do see lots of assertions to that effect, but nothing empirical.

As far as authorship goes, there are places where that is in doubt. But the fundamental aspect of the bible I'm defending is that it reflects what actual human beings thought, said and did in that timeframe. When combining the works of many men over that many years, some who depended on others to write it down for them, some mistakes would not be surprising.

But the vast majority of bible scholars (of which Ms. Hawkins is one) agree on the fact that the writings disclose what the people of that time truly believed and experienced.

It is the basic story told in the book that is claimed as reliable. Pointing out silly contradictions like two witnesses counting different number of people at a gathering, etc. does nothing to disprove the veracity of the book.

The conspiracy theories that it was all a fabrication is something no historian or bible scholar believes.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 02:41 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

As far as authorship goes, there are places where that is in doubt. But the fundamental aspect of the bible I'm defending is that it reflects what actual human beings thought, said and did in that timeframe. When combining the works of many men over that many years, some who depended on others to write it down for them, some mistakes would not be surprising.


It's more than just "mistakes", it's clear when the copies are examined and dated that there are clear time frames when new passages are added that none of the older copies contain. Only the later copies contain the new additions. This happens more than a "mistake", full complete sentences and occasionally paragraphs are added.

These aren't simple spelling errors or bad Grammer "mistakes", they are additions.

It is a well known fact and biblical scholars have given names to these additions because the original word usage and styling are different than the surrounding text. They stand out as clear additions. Infact they go as far as to add the same person/writer took liberty to add in new passages in several different texts.

It wasn't just one person either, there are several that they categorize based on style, word use and elements that didn't exist in the earlier style. That indicate the additions occured sometimes 50 to 100 years after the text was in circulation.

Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 03:35 pm
@Krumple,
A very lousy analogy. People who simply believe that the Bible is the literal word of God are not "dumping their trash" on you or anyone else.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 03:40 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

A very lousy analogy. People who simply believe that the Bible is the literal word of God are not "dumping their trash" on you or anyone else.


It's a perfect analogy. If you are dumping trash in the street it doesn't directly impact me but everyone indirectly. Many theologies are mental trash that pollute the conscious and disrupt proper handling of reason and logic, if it doesn't explicitly suggest to abandon them all together.

So yes the analogy fits well.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 03:45 pm
@Krumple,
Quote:
These aren't simple spelling errors or bad Grammer "mistakes", they are additions.

You didn't give any examples so I can't debate the point. But I don't want to get off on that sidetrack anyway.

Remember, it's the STORY that matters. So tell me about these additions. Do they distort or alter the story in any way? If they don't, what is your objection?
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 03:48 pm
@Krumple,
Nonsense

If you believe that little green men live next door to you and keep this to yourself, how does that impact the collective consciousness?

Are you arguing we are all part of a hive mind?
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 03:59 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Nonsense

If you believe that little green men live next door to you and keep this to yourself, how does that impact the collective consciousness?

Are you arguing we are all part of a hive mind?


How often do theists "keep it to themselves". Okay I will grant you that if all theists kept it to themselves, I'd have no real leg to stand on. However; some of the theology does distort how they are to interact towards others and not always in a positive way.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 04:24 pm
@Leadfoot,
Lead.
It's extensive. The additions I mean. It's a bit of a challenge to walk through them because there is a lot to explain and connect which is probably why the average christian theist is ignorant of them.

One example is the biblical writer given the name D.

This writer due to style is hypothesised to have edited parts of; Joshua, Judges, Exodus, Kings and Samuel.

This requires going over several copies, referencing their dates and analyzing the writing style and language. They stand out. The best way to put this is if, let's say you take a Steven King novel and allow a sixth grader to add bits and pieces to paragraphs or sentences. You have two methods by which to notice this.

One you can compare the "older copy" to the "newer copy" and see the differences.

Second you can see by the vocabulary, writing style, or method stands out from the other text. It only appears "different" in the areas of their comparison. This means the additions stand out to be clearly later additions. The styles are blatant meaning it's clear another writer is present.

You can't see these passages in English because they are "hidden" within the translation process. You have to examine the ancient copies to see these elements present themselves. So I can't give you scripture in English to say, this part is an addition. You can't compare the writing style differences.

The writer P. Is another in particular Exodus 6:2-3 That El Shaddai and Yahweh are the same god. The error is that they are not the same god. They failed to cover or rewrite all of the Hebrew history. It is well known that El Shaddai and Yahweh were two seperate gods in ancient polytheistic Jewish history.

P continues multiple times to add that any reference to El Elyon are meant to refer to Yahweh. Now why would this error need to be referenced? How could a mistake like this occur? It suggests the writers didn't know that El Elyon was infact Yahweh so it requires P to inform the reader. But the history contradicts this. It is clear that El Elyon and Yahweh were two distinctly different gods but P's efforts were to rewrite history to create a monotheistic following of Yahweh ONLY.

Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 04:39 pm
@Leadfoot,
Lead.

I know my statements are one thing but here is a reference.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges.

Quote:
Exodus 6:2 I am Yahweh. The speaker declares His name to be 'Yahweh', though to the patriarchs He had been known, not by this name, but as El Shaddai.


Biblehub.com/commentaries/Exodus/6-2.htm
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 05:21 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Nonsense

If you believe that little green men live next door to you and keep this to yourself, how does that impact the collective consciousness?

Are you arguing we are all part of a hive mind?


How often do theists "keep it to themselves". Okay I will grant you that if all theists kept it to themselves, I'd have no real leg to stand on. However; some of the theology does distort how they are to interact towards others and not always in a positive way.


Then your argument is with proselytizing not the underlying belief, and it's towards the latter that you should direct your ire and disdain.

Whatever belief system you embrace affects (or "distorts" as you would have it) the way you interact towards others...and not always in a positive way, as exemplified by your criticism of a belief that, in and of itself, doesn't affect your life.
Krumple
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 05:30 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Krumple wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Nonsense

If you believe that little green men live next door to you and keep this to yourself, how does that impact the collective consciousness?

Are you arguing we are all part of a hive mind?


How often do theists "keep it to themselves". Okay I will grant you that if all theists kept it to themselves, I'd have no real leg to stand on. However; some of the theology does distort how they are to interact towards others and not always in a positive way.


Then your argument is with proselytizing not the underlying belief, and it's towards the latter that you should direct your ire and disdain.

Whatever belief system you embrace affects (or "distorts" as you would have it) the way you interact towards others...and not always in a positive way, as exemplified by your criticism of a belief that, in and of itself, doesn't affect your life.


It does indirectly. Just as my original anology implies. The garbage isn't direct effecting me but indirectly is.

This means any interaction with a believer will ultimately impact me weather positive or negative so it is never completely kept to themselves.

But also the reality is that rarely do theists attempt to keep their theology to themselves so it's impractical to scold me for acting as I do. Just like the anology, if there is no dumping of garbage then I have no complaint to be made as I have confessed. I am reacting to the dumping of their garbage.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 06:01 pm
@Krumple,
You're stretching your argument to the breaking point.

You don't appreciate proselytizing, neither do I, but to suggest that merely having a belief somehow affects you is unsupportable unless you have some metaphysical belief in a human hive mind.

A person who believes the Bible is the literal word of God, but who doesn't proselytize is not "dumping trash" anywhere. Neither you nor I have any true idea of how many people who have this belief are Evangelicals. You are making an assumption that even if it is true doesn't support your criticism of the belief as inane.

I'm really not sure why you are unable to limit your criticism to proselytizing, but you should.




Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Sun 2 Jul, 2017 09:48 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You're stretching your argument to the breaking point.

You don't appreciate proselytizing, neither do I, but to suggest that merely having a belief somehow affects you is unsupportable unless you have some metaphysical belief in a human hive mind.

A person who believes the Bible is the literal word of God, but who doesn't proselytize is not "dumping trash" anywhere. Neither you nor I have any true idea of how many people who have this belief are Evangelicals. You are making an assumption that even if it is true doesn't support your criticism of the belief as inane.

I'm really not sure why you are unable to limit your criticism to proselytizing, but you should.







The point is very few if ever, keep it to themselves. They are compelled to force even non-believers to adopt their idea of morality or ethics.

The entire illicit drug movement and prohibition of alcohol was driven by theists. This whole concept actually created more problems than it solved. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I see many problems within the world which are built upon religious ideas that this is how things ott to be. But ignore the consequences in their practical outcomes.

Not only that but hinder human progress on assumptions built within the theology to suggest something is unethical when it's not.

MethSaferThanTHC
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2017 05:15 am
@BDV,
It is not like there will be another Jesus story in the next 2017 years. So I put most my money on the bible as is.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2017 06:18 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
The entire illicit drug movement and prohibition of alcohol was driven by theists.

Seriously!?
Your history of the drug war and prohibition needs brushing up.
I suggest you look for the names Hurst, Rockerfeller, Hoover (FBI director) and Nixon as the prime drivers of the drug war.
These assholes were driven by greed, racial bias and political ambition, not theism.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2017 06:48 am
@Krumple,
Quote:
It is well known that El Shaddai and Yahweh were two seperate gods in ancient polytheistic Jewish history.

Again, you are trying to make you case by attacking the bible as the inerrant word of God. It is not, nor does it claim to be. Jesus said merely that the OT was valuable for teaching of all kinds of lessons.
Moses himself attempted to add yet another name for God and God told him in effect to shut up and stop asking for a name. As if a supernatural being needs a 'name' formed by squeezing air through vocal chords, it's just an absurd idea. And were there other (false) gods mentioned? Of course there were. But the claim that there is but one God is pretty clear.

The bible contains the writings of many men who were flawed in many ways. There are writers who were homophobes, misogynists, prigs, etc. We need the examples because there are some of the same types in religion today and we need to recognize them for what they are.

But I keep trying to bring you back to THE STORY. The book tells an accurate story of the events and thoughts about God in those days which is still applicable today. Either you like the story or you don't. No problem either way. I'm not here to ram it down anyone's throat.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Jul, 2017 08:25 am
@Krumple,
I know a great many theists (including myself) who do not attempt to force their beliefs on anyone. I don't know what your view is on abortion, and it really doesn't matter, but whatever it is it is informed by your belief system. By your reasoning, any on the opposite side of your view point can argue that your belief system is harmful and intrusive if you ever expressed your view or voted for a candidate, in part, based on the fact that his or hers aligns with your view.

Believing in a god doesn't taint society. Acting in certain ways that are motivated by that belief have throughout history been harmful to societies but they have also been very helpful.

If you were somehow able to wipe theism from the minds of everyone on earth there would still be wars, cruelty and suffering. The people who now use their theism as a vehicle for their evil deeds would simply find another: nationalism, racism, Marxism, etc.

 

Related Topics

5 Simple Questions about the Bible - Question by DwightDavis
The Bible (a discussion) - Question by Smileyrius
Old Testament - Question by gollum
Does the Bible contain any true information? - Discussion by jesusBastard
The Bible and Dinosaurs - Discussion by nycfunction
Contradictions in the Bible... - Discussion by Treya
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/23/2021 at 10:12:23