I’m writing this post in response to something a fellow blogger has written about why the Bible is trustworthy (though I’ve lost the link to the post). He and I come down on different sides of this issue, and I thought the best way to tackle this would be to respond to each of his points in order.
1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.
Yes, we should, but this means different things to different people. When we read ancient historical texts, what do we think about the supernatural events that they relate? Many ancient historians talk about miracles, or attribute certain events to various gods — do we accept those claims? Of course not. We accept the events, like wars, famines, political upheavals, but we chalk up the supernatural claims to superstition.
However, when Christians ask that we treat the Bible the way we would treat other historical sources, they don’t mean it in the way I just described. They’ll say, “if you believe the histories about George Washington, why do you reject the stories of the Bible?” But this isn’t a true comparison. If we had an historical account that claimed George Washington could fly, we would dismiss it, even if everything else it recounted was factual.
There’s another difference as well. What we believe about George Washington has no real impact on the rest of our lives. However, most versions of Christianity say that if we don’t believe Jesus was the actual son of God, we’ll face eternal consequences. What could be more important than making sure we hold the correct view? So if God loves us and wants us all to believe, doesn’t it make sense that the “extraordinary claims” of the Bible would have “extraordinary evidence”? That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.
2) Witnesses for the Bible.
It’s often mentioned that the Bible was written over a period of 1500 years by 40+ authors. That timeline is not accepted by all scholars, but even if it were, this has nothing to do with whether or not it is accurate or inspired. In order for later authors to write things that fit with what came before, they only need to be familiar with those earlier writings. In other words, the Bible is much like fan fiction.
Paul says that Jesus appeared to 500 people after his resurrection, so some Christians point to that as evidence too. But who were these 500 people? Where did they see the risen Jesus? Was it all at once, was it 500 separate appearances, or was it something in between? This claim is so vague, there’s no way it could be contested. Even if a critic could have rounded up a multitude of people who all claimed to not have seen Jesus post-resurrection, Paul would only have to say, “It was 500 other people.” No, Paul’s 500 witnesses are completely useless. Instead of actually being 500 separate witnesses for the risen Jesus, this is just one claim — Paul’s. Plus, let’s not forget that Paul is telling this to fellow Christians, not skeptics. No one in his audience would be inclined to call foul anyway.
Sometimes it’s pointed out that the earliest critics of Christianity did not question Jesus’ existence or his miracles, but just claimed that he was one of many people who claimed similar things. But I don’t think we should really expect ancient critics to focus on his existence or miracles anyway. How do you prove that someone didn’t exist? And aside from Christian writings, we have no sources about Jesus anyway, so how could they disprove either his existence or his miracles? And these critics lived in a time in which the existence of miracles were almost universally accepted. So arguing from this point doesn’t seem very convincing to me.
When it comes to historical sources for Jesus, it’s true that Josephus probably mentions him. And there are a couple of other references by other historians within the first 100 years or so after his death. But these references tell us nothing about Jesus other than that he might have existed, and that there were people at that time who were Christians. These points are virtually uncontested — and they say nothing about who Jesus really was. It’s hard to count them as any kind of evidence in Jesus’ favor.
3) Archaeology
Christians will often cite the Bible’s agreement with archaeology as one reason to believe it may be divinely inspired. For instance, most historians used to believe that the Hittites never existed, since the only record of them came from the Old Testament. However, in the 19th and 20th centuries, evidence finally came to light that overturned that opinion, exonerating the Bible.
But does this agreement with archaeology really indicate that the Bible was divinely inspired? Many books have been written that seem to record accurate history — does this mean we should assume those authors were inspired by God? Of course not. While agreement with archaeology is a good sign, it’s not necessarily a reason to leap to the conclusion that God had anything to do with writing the Bible.
The story doesn’t end here, though. As it turns out, archaeology does not always agree with the Bible. The Israelites’ exodus from Egypt, for instance, has no archaeological evidence. While that is an example of missing evidence, we also have examples of contradictory evidence: archaeology indicates that Joshua’s conquest of Canaan did not actually happen, the kingdoms of David and Solomon appear to be far smaller than the Bible depicts, and the Book of Daniel contains several anachronisms, including its incorrect labeling of Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzar’s son.
Examples like these show that the Bible’s agreement with archaeology is not nearly as strong as some would claim, making it very shaky grounds for staking the claim of inspiration.
In the next post, we’ll talk about other reasons that people give: prophecy and internal consistency.
Finding Truth 
If I was as “severe” as you are Mike say while I am at work, about things I feel strongly about, I might find myself out of a job, since those I work with might find this severity as to them being just rude and disrespectful.
LikeLike
I thought you knew, Ron – he conveniently floated up into the sky, but 500 witnesses, whose names I neglected to get, saw him do it, so that should be proof enough for you.
I’ve always thought he was beamed up, much as he was beamed in and out of that locked room. I’ll check with Scotty in engineering and get back to you —
Scotty was quite the practical joker – I remember Kirk once saying, “Very funny, Scotty – now beam down my clothes!”
LikeLike
So just wondering, are you this “severe” offline Mike?
LikeLike
@Portal001: Thanks for the reply Ryan! Always good to hear from you and I’ve been doing well. I’m glad I didn’t misspeak about your beliefs. Doubt is actually an important part of life – anytime I start saying I don’t have doubts about my own worldview then I know I’ve gone over the cliff! 😉
LikeLike
What I’m NOT clear on, I’ll readily admit, is that if he could miraculously materialize in a locked room (John 20:19), why was it necessary for the stone to be rolled away for him to get out of the tomb? How much more “miraculous” would it have been if the stone were still in place, and he were gone?
LikeLike
No worries Howie 🙂 thanks
LikeLike
@ archaeoteryx1
Paul claims there were 500 witnesses, but Acts 1:15 informs us there were only 120 believers at that time. Looks like the “visionary” Paul might have padded his numbers a bit. Then again, by his own words, he’s a duplicitous changeling:
“I act like a Jew to the Jews, so I can recruit Jews. I act like I’m under the Law to those under the Law, so I can recruit those who are under the Law (though I myself am not under the Law).” 1 Corinthians 9:20 CEB
LikeLike
Acts? 🙂
http://www.westarinstitute.org/projects/the-jesus-seminar/seminar-on-the-acts-of-the-apostles/
http://vridar.org/2013/11/22/top-ten-findings-of-the-acts-seminar/
In other words, Acts is a crock.
LikeLike
@Ron.
To qualify. Under no circumstances was the previous post meant to disparage your comment.
I referenced Acts in this manner to show the spurious nature of biblical text in general.
No offence meant, Ron.
LikeLike
Paul was out to bolster his Google ratings, when it came to church establishment, and he saw less law-committed non-Jews as being his best base for recruitment. Don’t look forward to circumcision? Jonesing for a pork chop? Noi problem, come on down!
And I wouldn’t look to “The Acts” as being any more honest. In this, which I posted earlier, but which he, with whom you and I are in disagreement as to whether or not he’s an idiot, disregarded it, so I’ll post it again, in case you missed it:
LikeLike
“Isaiah 11 is a prophecy that one day a descendant of David will bring back and reunite all the Israelites that were scattered abroad. Daniel 9 is a prayer Daniel offers about how disobedient they’ve all been and how he would like for God to restore Jerusalem.”
Nate Daniel 9 is far more than a Prayer its a time prediction of the coming on a messiah that nails the time of Christ (and certainly would not be a postdiction since its in a Jewish book and they don’t automatically promote Christianity) . My goodness have you even read it? Its one of two things. You either left that off or you do not know about Daniel 9 either. Isaiah 11 is primarily about the Messiah. So you mischaracterized both
Look we all have to make decisions about the time we spend online and this would open up another debate and I am still awaiting an answer on my resurrection response which your guys swore up and down could not be reconciled .
You won’t like the rest of this post but it all comes back to my decisions regarding my time
I don’t know of any person that has studied Bible prophecy that does not know what Daniel 9 is about. Shucks I don’t know any Christian personally who doesn’t know it regardless if they didn’t study. So credibility is everything when opening up the time for a new debate and you claiming to have done all kinds of studies before leaving the faith and having to lie to the church you attended just opens up all kinds of credibility issues.
How much did you really study? Obviously not much and if you claim to have studied and not even come across Daniel 9 (just about every commentary covers the issue) How can I even consider the claim even remotely credible when Daniel 9 is probably the most well known prophecy of a messiah coming outside or maybe one or two other passage? It proves rather conclusively that what you claim is actually quite false.
That’s my dillemma. You are certain of your intellectual honesty but I am not and quite honestly I sense you will just duck and dodge on any passage so really whats the point of debating it on your blog? Maybe another? Besides its not like I am hiding any secrets or running from you learning. For goodness sake crack three commentaries at random online and chances are at least two of them get into it.
LikeLike
So Mike, how about that meet-up with Jesus? I can book time-off whenever it’s convenient.
LikeLike
Here’s a timeline on the prophecies in Daniel 9 for anyone who might be interested.
http://www.thesecondcomingofchrist.org/dan09_timelines.htm
LikeLike
Mike: “…and umm still no response on my counter to the ressurrection contradiction”
I did. ”
“Paul claims there were 500 witnesses, but Acts 1:15 informs us there were only 120 believers at that time. ”
Hey Ron
So you are all full of more straight up and up lies today eh Ron? No one has answered my response on the resurrection account and nah Acts never says that “there were only “120 believers at the time but at one meeting of those who had returned together from olivet.
Still trying to convince me that you qualify for someone seeking an answer for the hope? because It appears you gave up and decided to prove my point on that even more.
At least on that you are doing a VERY good job
LikeLike
“So Mike, how about that meet-up with Jesus? I can book time-off whenever it’s convenient.”
🙂 No need to get time off laddie. you did say whenever it was convenient So under your own criteria at some point he will be in touch 🙂 🙂
LikeLike
@ Ark and Arch
I’m aware of the historicity issues. But I prefer to confront apologists with the inconsistencies contained within their “inerrant word of God” because it’s the one source they can’t quickly dismiss as irrelevant.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mike,
regarding the events at the tomb; I had planned on writing a long, verse by verse, outline, comparing the gospel’s differing versions, but have decided not to.
It would take too long here, as a blog comment. But rereading those 4 accounts, we easily see disparities between how many angel’s, where the angel’s were encountered, what the angel’s said, whether the women told anyone about what they saw or not, who told whom, when the tomb was entered and where jesus was encountered, what jesus said, and whether the disciples were to wait in jersusalem or go to galilee…. then there’s gardeners, and the earthquake, etc…
Now, we could mesh all 4 accounts together and pretend that settles it, but all you come up with is a 5th different account – which paints a different picture than the previous 4 accounts that we read in the gospels.
but, maybe the problem is mine. maybe I am just not seeing it. To me, it looks like any “contradiction” could be “reconciled” in the way that you’re suggesting the gospels are reconciled. But if i’m wrong, could you give me an example of a contradiction that cannot be “resolved” the way you are trying to resolve this?
this is a serious question.
LikeLike
“Here’s a timeline on the prophecies in Daniel 9 for anyone who might be interested.
http://www.thesecondcomingofchrist.org/dan09_timelines.htm
”
Thats a mess. I get what the author is trying to do but he has Daniel 9 titles but mixes in other chapters under it . Theres no reason for a timeline and pictures. If you searched for that I am sure you came across better articles on the subject. In fact given you all have claimed to have done so much research into the bible you would have come across ton loads of better pages than that.
LikeLike
Hello, Mike.
LikeLike
In the interest of keeping this post on topic (yeah, right), Nate did say:
“In the next post, we’ll talk about other reasons that people give: prophecy and internal consistency.”
Perhaps he intended to open that debate in the next post?
LikeLike
copy and paste for nate’s outline on the events at the tomb:
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/contradictions-part-9-the-resurrection/
LikeLike
Ron, here’s a site to which you might want to consider subscribing: http://www.Contradictionsinthebible.com
LikeLike
“regarding the events at the tomb; I had planned on writing a long, verse by verse, outline, comparing the gospel’s differing versions, but have decided not to.”
I wonder why. You have had posts much longer than it would take to quote my points and respond so I am not buying that. Sorry but thats just a duck and run to rhetoric.
“But if i’m wrong, could you give me an example of a contradiction that cannot be “resolved” the way you are trying to resolve this?”
Thats easy. IF matthew 28 actually said the women saw the angels rolling away the stone Like Nate tries to fudge then that would be a contradiction. if verse 4 read
“Matthew 28:4 (KJV)
4 And for fear of him the the women did shake, and became as dead men (well um women).”
rather than
Matthew 28:4 (KJV)
4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
then that would be a contradiction (it says the keepers shook and not the women because at the time of the earthquake the women were not there – or you could beg that the keepers were more scaredy cats than women I suppose 😉 )
As it is the passage says only that the the angel that did the rolling talked to them not that they saw the stone being rolled away. Nate has the women watching as the angel rolls away the stone, then sitting on the stone and then after the keepers are saying to them “by the way don’t be afraid” after they would have bee shaking as dead women.
Rather than me trying to squeeze out a contradiction much of Nate’s post on contradiction is him begging that it was one so the claim can be made form both sides
I still await a real rebuttal. This after all was supposed to be the most incapable to reconcile of contradictions and I am not seeing anything but begging. All I see is the “easter play syndrome” thinking that all the ladies mentioned have to be together at all times. Once we realize that Mary sees the stone rolled away and at some point breaks away there is zero contradiction. its all contrived and begging.
LikeLike
Oh, I see, when you referenced Daniel 9 you were talking about the 70 weeks prophecy. Honestly, that one’s so all over the place I thought you must have meant something else from Daniel 9. People have interpreted the 70 weeks thing to mean all kinds of things — it’s quite problematic. Instead of simply saying that, you launched into another ad hominem attack. You’d think that if you had the truth on your side you could simply deal in facts.
As to the resurrection, I agree with you that naming different women in the different accounts is not a true contradiction. But your point about the angel rolling away the stone just doesn’t fly. Here’s the passage:
1) The women visit the tomb
2) There was a violent earthquake and the angel rolled away the stone
3) The guards were afraid and (probably) passed out
4) The angel spoke to the women
The indication is that the women were already at the tomb when this happened, but unlike the guards, they were not so terrified that they passed out. That’s why the angel was immediately able to speak to them.
That’s what the passage indicates. If that’s not what happened, then God didn’t do such a great job of inspiring Matthew in this section, but considering Matthew’s tendency to mishandle OT passages, I don’t guess it’s shocking that he makes this mistake too.
LikeLike
“I wonder why. You have had posts much longer than it would take to quote my points and respond so I am not buying that. Sorry but that’s just a duck and run to rhetoric.”:
nothing to duck and run from. it’s obvious when you read them side by side and I listed, although nit in outline, many of the issues that I saw. if you want to avoid my points, that’s your business.
and your example of a contradiction was a bit vague. Can you list one in detail, or else, we;ll continually go back and forth. For example, I cite the events the tomb as told in the 4 gospels as a contradiction. Since they’re written out, anyone can go and read and reread the text, giving snippet of a story isnt quite the same.
But okay, because i doubt you’ll do that, would seeing an angel sitting on a rock be different than seeing two angels sitting inside the tomb? would that be a contradiction? read the passages again before responding.
“This after all was supposed to be the most incapable to reconcile of contradictions and I am not seeing anything but begging.”
well i dont know if it’s the most incapable, but you are having a hard time with it. where were the angles seen? when did mary run away? did the women speak of the event or didnt they? where did jesus first appear to them? what did the angel(s) say? were they supposed to wait ion jersulam or go to Galilee? was there an earthquake?
are you really suggesting that if we compiled all the different scenarios together, and made a 5 gospel account, that it would be the clearest picture of the events?
does someone want to, and have the time, to throw that together and see what it looks like?
Mike, quit talking about easter plays and just read the passages.
LikeLike