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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
”
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/
”
I’ve read it long ago as I have indicated. its a flop because nate insists as he did with Samuel 27 reading in his own conclusions rather than the text speaking for itself. the errors in logic can be traced to a few things
A) the fallacious reasoning that if one witness specifies a name or names it rules anyone else from being present. (even someone relating this comment thread would select certain people as being apart of it without exclusivity being implied leaving out others)
B) The aforementioned “easter play syndrome” (common in christmas plays with the wisemen and shepherds etc) where one person named at one point has to always be present at another point in the group and never does anything independently as they do in real life
C) insisting on his own assumptions in order to get to where he wishes to go
and D)
the attitude toward proving contradictions that believes its the person or group accused of lying or contradictions that has the burden of proof and to disprove their lie or contradiction rather than Nate proving the contradiction.
Perhaps you all as regular readers have culpability on D because as rubber stampers you don’t really require or hold nate to any standards since not having them leads to conclusions you want anyway. Nate can’t be held totally liable because after all as the saying goes
give the people what they want what they want.
LikeLike
“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 😉 )” – mike =====>
))
LOL, i dont have to beg, that seems to be what mathew has said. But there are other problems beyond these… can you dismiss them all?
LikeLike
“I’ve read it long ago as I have indicated. its a flop…”
yet you avoid answering the problems or explaining where he’s wrong. interesting tactic, but it lacks credibility. nate has shwon where there are problems and explains why they’re problems – as the text reads.
again, if you’re suggesting that joining all accounts into one master account, creating different version from the previous 4, then I still think any contradiction could be “fixed” between conflicting stories.
LikeLike
the fallacious reasoning that if one witness specifies a name or names it rules anyone else from being present. — Mike
If someone is going to believe the bible and the story of the resurrection as it is written, then it is YOU who is making an assumption that others were present.
Again, if someone believes the bible as it is presented to people of this generation, then to add to or take away from the scripture is forbidden. That includes guessing or assuming what it “really” says.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“the fallacious reasoning that if one witness specifies a name or names it rules anyone else from being present. — Mike”
and this is inaccurate anyways, in nate’s article on the topic, he doesnt make an issue out f this anyways. so once again, mike is arguing when there’s nothing to argue about.
LikeLike
and mike, you’re saying that mathew 28 should have been written in the following order in order to be in chronological order?
28:2
28:3
28:4
28:1
28:5…
is this correct?
LikeLike
And yet some of you still insist he’s not an idiot —
LikeLike
@Nan
If someone is going to believe the bible and the story of the resurrection as it is written, then it is YOU who is making an assumption that others were present.
Again, if someone believes the bible as it is presented to people of this generation, then to add to or take away from the scripture is forbidden. That includes guessing or assuming what it “really” says.
I’ve put each account side by side starting with Mark, then John, then Luke, then Matthew and I’m working through it(I have limited time as well. I just didn’t see the point in trash talking since I’m really not good at that-it’s not fun for me).
It did seem as though the easy peasy debunk required a lot of “reading into it” to determine what it “really meant”.
But weren’t these letters/documents written to different audiences at different times? Would they have had all of these documents to cross reference since there was not cohesive NT at the time? Wouldn’t they have been taken at face value?
The recipients of each one of these wouldn’t have had the luxury of using one against another to say “oh Mary must have broken away and run ahead of the group”.
LikeLike
You’re right, Ruth. Early Christians must have had very different ideas of what happened, depending on what gospel was in circulation in their area. It would have been interesting to overhear a conversation between an ardent follower of Mark’s gospel (especially with the original ending!) and an ardent follower of John’s…
LikeLike
Haven’t you figured it out yet Ruth? Rabid theists like Mikey pick a point which they maintain to be true, then warp and twist whatever evidence – or rather, information – that there may be, until it points to their assertion.
LikeLike
h, I see, when you referenced Daniel 9 you were talking about the 70 weeks prophecy.”
Oh so now Daniel has more than a prayer eh? And why don’t we review my referencing?
” Jewish man just as Isaiah 11 prophecies who just happens to have lived in the time period specified by Daniel 9 vision prophecying his arrival.”
WHat else would I have been referring to Nate by “prophecying his arrival”? a little honesty?
“Honestly, that one’s so all over the place I thought you must have meant something else from Daniel 9”
Honestly we both know you are just handwaving. if you knew anything about Daniel 9 70 week prophecy me stating “prophecying his arrival”? would have indicated what I was refering to. No one who studied that would not know thats. Thats just not credible
” People have interpreted the 70 weeks thing to mean all kinds of things — it’s quite problematic.”
More handwaving. there is nothing problematic about the basics of that prophecy. People have different start dates but they end in the life of Christ. some have different views about the last week but that doesnt change the anointed one part. SOme anti-missionary jews have tried to claim something else for it but even their tradition indicate its a messianic passage. YOu will get nowhere with that ambiguous claim
“Instead of simply saying that, you launched into another ad hominem attack.”
Please go read what an ad hominem is its not an all purpose claim for when one feels insulted or even when was has insulted. I raised my concerns of time getting into another debate with you based on some lacks that are obvious not to make any point about Daniel 9
“You’d think that if you had the truth on your side you could simply deal in facts.”
and you would think if you had the facts on daniel 9 you would get to them rather than playing a game pretending not to know before or pretending to now.
LikeLike
Interesting observation, Nate.
Yet believers today try to correlate the event and make it come together as one grand story.
LikeLike
Of course.
For instance…
It was wrong of me to suggest that science might prove/disprove abiogenesis(because I never even suggested that it would definitely prove it), but archaeology gets a free pass because “the evidence just hasn’t been found…yet.”
I say the jury is still out on both, but am accused of having a bias(as if that isn’t the case from the other side).
None of that went unnoticed. I just don’t generally like to argue about things. I highly doubt anything I say will make much difference to him anyway. Hell, I even posted something that supported his Daniel 9 reference and that was criticized. *shrug*
LikeLike
“The indication is that the women were already at the tomb when this happened,
Nope thats NATE’S indication. the passage’s indication is that there was an earthquake the next greek word is gar indicating the reason for the earthquake and setting up a parenthetical explanation as it does in multiple greek passages.
“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.”
this is just nonsensical. You have the women see the angel descending, then rolling away the stone while there is a great earthquake then having rolled away the stone watching the angel then sit on top of it meanwhile all the men being terrified shaking to a near catatonic state but the women not being affected for no reason at all even though the angel does not tell them not to be afraid until all that is over. You must be kidding.
Nope. that just doesn’t work. Its contrived to make you get where you want to go. The more rational reading that doesn’t have the women somehow miraculously unafraid is that the earthquake is cited as taking place and the Gar “because” as it often did sets up a parenthetical explanation for what happened that caused the eathquake.
Of course you will no doubt argue until the cows come home that that can’t be the case because if it is your unsolvable contradiction fits in nicely with the other accounts that when they arrive the stone is already rolled away. Heres the thing though. Its perfectly legit use of the word Gar and you arguing for your own use does not prove a contradiction so your proof text nevertheless fizzles. Its just a claim with an alternative viable and more sensible alternative
LikeLike
yeah, “70 weeks” was totally clear. i mean “weeks” didnt really mean “weeks” and “70”… oh never mind.
Nostradamus was very clear too.
and only the unintelligent couldnt see how marvelous the king’s new clothes were…
it’s funny that you (mike) keep talking about hand waving as if that’s supposed to distract us from that fact you’re waving your hands.
LikeLike
Mike, I’ve done a post on Daniel 9 — I know what’s in it:
https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/skeptical-bible-study-daniel-chapter-9/
But even your statement proves my point:
Why do they all end in Christ, Mike? Because they have to. They selected Christ and worked backward to try to make it fit Daniel’s prophecy. Everyone has problems doing it, which is why there are so many different versions. I truly was surprised that you pulled that one to hang your hat on, since it’s so ambivalent it could be made to say anything.
LikeLike
“miraculously unafraid”
LOL – yes, unfeinting women is a miracle when there men passing out. you know, mathew never said the women werent afraid – it just said they didnt “become as deadmen.” and maybe that’s all there is to it, since they were women, they wouldnt become as men…
it’s funny that you thing the simple reading dictates we take the passages as mathew wrote out of order.
LikeLike
“yet you avoid answering the problems or explaining where he’s wrong. ”
Thats it Will. when in doubt just put your head in the sand claim I haven’t and hope it all (or I) go away until you all have the rubberstamp community back to yourself.
LikeLike
“Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time. It is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie. ”
~Thomas Paine, Age of Reason
LikeLike
LOL, you’re still doing it… instead of answering all the issues, you either respond that way or argue about names, which is something no one is using as a point. LOL
is this your stand up routine?
LikeLike
“it’s funny that you thing the simple reading dictates we take the passages as mathew wrote out of order.”
Nope it funny that your simple english reading of a Greek text tries to ignore the parenthetical usage of word in the text and then you beg that your ignoring that fact counts as proof of a contradiction.
Now THATS hilarious. Can we book you guys for Vegas? 🙂 🙂
“maybe that’s all there is to it,”
a maybe as an answer for a sure contradiction argument? Make that two week s at Vegas.
LikeLike
According to Matthew, the guards would not have believed Jesus was really the son of God; however, the women did. Perhaps that explains why they wouldn’t have been as shocked/terrified as the guards were when an angel showed up.
Either way, the flow of the passage makes it seem as though they were already at the tomb — there’s not even a paragraph break between the angel’s appearance and his statement to the women. Actually, the wording of the passage makes it quite clear, so I’ll just post it again:
Look, I know you can’t own up to this looking like a contradiction, and I don’t really expect you to. You can argue that maybe the women weren’t there yet… that’s fine. But it’s supposition on your part. You can say that you give it the benefit of the doubt because of so many other reasons you have to believe it’s true. I could understand that position. And I don’t think this is the biggest contradiction anyway. But to act as though our contention with this passage is just crazy is unreasonable and hints at being dishonest.
It would be great if you could shed the bluster and just discuss this rationally. We don’t have to agree — I talk with many people on this blog and others with whom I don’t agree, but our conversations don’t devolve into shouting matches. I know that well-meaning, honest people can come down on different sides of these issues, even when they’re giving it their best effort. I’m willing to have that kind of conversation with you too, and the handful of times a decent person has shown through your surly exterior, I’ve enjoyed it. I just wish you’d let him out a little more often.
LikeLike
Nope it funny that your simple english reading of a Greek text tries to ignore the parenthetical usage of word in the text and then you beg that your ignoring that fact counts as proof of a contradiction.
Now THATS hilarious. Can we book you guys for Vegas? 🙂 🙂
HAHHA, that is hilarious – because neither you nor i are greek language scholars, and the “simple english reading” that i am doing is provided by greek language scholars.
you’re waving those hands awfully hard.
besides, there are much more problems than when the stone was rolled away… problems you keep dodging.
LikeLike
“LOL, you’re still doing it… instead of answering all the issues, you either respond that way or argue about names, which is something no one is using as a point. LOL”
Where??? Nate has no more points. If you claim otherwise present them because if Matt 28 doesn’t hold as proof for nate ( and it surely doesn’t) nothing will. go ahead knock me out with another point.
The NY dares you. it double dares you. lol
LikeLike
“HAHHA, that is hilarious – because neither you nor i are greek language scholars,.”
Speak for yourself. I am trained in Greek. Seminary boy here. 🙂
LikeLike