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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
“Where??? Nate has no more points.”
sure he does – you read his blog on it here: https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/contradictions-part-9-the-resurrection/
and I’ve mentioned several of them. I’ll list a few more here:
1) were they told to go to galillee or wait in jersulam?
2) how many angels were there and where were they encountered
3) where and when was jesus encountered?
4) did the women tell anyone what they saw or not?
there’s a few… again…
LikeLike
“Speak for yourself. I am trained in Greek. Seminary boy here. :)”
sorry If i’m skeptical. besides being trained in something isnt the same being an expert in that thing.
But regardless, the translators of the bible were scholars.
But please tell us either what the correct transliteration should have been or direct us to a more accurate rendering?
LikeLike
” 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.”
is this your argument, that mathew 28 “said it” so it must be true… despite what the other gospels say… because god is real and the bible is real… therefore we can know that matthew 28 is right, because it’s written?
and as far as knocking you out, i didnt realize you were putting up real enough resistance to even call this a struggle.
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.”
Weak beyond words. An earthquake and a shining angel would surprise anyone. Theres nothing it the the text anywhere where the belief Jesus was the son of god had anything to do with having fear or no fear at the unexplained events. The very fact that after all of that had already happened (in both our readings) the angel tells them not to fear indicates the woman would not be above being afraid because the believed Jesus was the son of God. You have no point
“Look, I know you can’t own up to this looking like a contradiction, and I don’t really expect you to. ”
Nate stick to the point. You are getting desperate. I can just as easily claim and with overwhelming evidence that you cannot own up to your errors or false claims of proof or a contradiction. You simply move the goal post every time theres something you didn’t know , made an error on or did not research to your favorite fall back “it should be more clear” therefore my point still stands. So go ahead and show me from the greek text where I have twisted the use of the word gar as used at times to begin parenthetical clause. YOu wo;t succeed but it will at least be on point.
“But to act as though our contention with this passage is just crazy is unreasonable and hints at being dishonest.”
Look You a really are not in a position to tell me about honesty so do what you claim you want with the discussion and deal with the content of my posts because you are back to fabricating – I never said anyone was crazy. In this thread it was stated.that the accounts were impossible to consolidate and its just false. get angry and handwave, ban me all you want because your contradiction has been blown up by someone who knows the parenthetical use of a word in the greek text. It will not change you have not proven a contradiction
“It would be great if you could shed the bluster and just discuss this rationally.”
It would be great if your last post actually demonstrated you wish to hold yourself to that standard Nate because it was mostly about me and not the subject.
“And I don’t think this is the biggest contradiction anyway.”
Sorry Nate but from what I have read this might be your best shot
LikeLike
“Weak beyond words. An earthquake and a shining angel would surprise anyone. Theres nothing it the the text anywhere where the belief Jesus was the son of god had anything to do with having fear or no fear at the unexplained events. The very fact that after all of that had already happened (in both our readings) the angel tells them not to fear indicates the woman would not be above being afraid because the believed Jesus was the son of God. You have no point”
hey, mathew wrote it. take it up with him. we cant figure it out either.
LikeLike
Mike, why would the angel need to tell the women to be unafraid if all the gospel accounts are true? After all, in at least one account, the angels are called men. That he has to tell them this is further indication that they were there when he rolled away the stone.
LikeLike
mike, still dodging. But that and being rude is most of what you do.
the problems are still there. ignore them all you like, they wont go away.
Greek scholar? provide the translation we should be reading from. maybe that’s the issue.
but you wont. you’ll call someone dishonest.
then you’ll write something like, “THE END”
and then complain about atheists being mean to you
and then talking goal posts
etc
etc
etc
but wont address the issues as they’re presented. This serves as my prophecy.
LikeLike
1) were they told to go to galillee or wait in jersulam?
2) how many angels were there and where were they encountered
3) where and when was jesus encountered?
4) did the women tell anyone what they saw or not?”
Like I said William they fare no better and for the very same reasons plus few other weaknesses
You want them broke down? fine then i must go but I don’t have the time to reiterate the same problem for each one.
“1) were they told to go to galillee or wait in jersulam?
there no point there at all. The angel tells them to go to Galiliee and they eventually go but not before having to be convinced to obey because they doubted. Nate then goes into this whole spiel about having to stay in the city only he leaves out that Acts is written By Luke ( your claims against that are an entirely different matter that you cannot beg for here to prove a contradiction) That makes it quite clear that this command is for after the ascension because they go out of the city to Olivet
“how many angels were there and where were they encountered”
same old Easter play syndrome.
“where and when was jesus encountered?”
same old Easter play syndrome
did the women tell anyone what they saw or not?
my reading as I recall is that they told no one until they got to who they wanted or needed to tell. People do it all the time – tell no one until they tell someone. big whoop.
Like I said without Matthew 28 to try and force to say one thing you all don’t have a lot left of any substance and the point on the greek usage of gar I noticed stands unrebutted (because its perfectly true its used that way)
“sorry If i’m skeptical”
No need to apologize. Its not like a skeptic who doesn’t know Greek being skeptical about me knowing it means a hill of beans.
“But please tell us either what the correct transliteration should have been or direct us to a more accurate rendering?”
Sigh…off on some strawman again because of your lack of understanding Theres nothing wrong with the english translation. For in the English language is used parenthetically as well. Pointing out that gar is used often times as for is used that way only underlines it as a legitimate way to read the text and the “for’ in English too.
LikeLike
And why did Josephus mention Jacob, brother of Jesus?
LikeLike
Acts say that Jacob, brother of Jesus, was killed by sword. But Josephus says that the man, brother of JESUS, was stoned.
LikeLike
‘Mike, why would the angel need to tell the women to be unafraid if all the gospel accounts are true? After all, in at least one account, the angels are called men. That he has to tell them this is further indication that they were there when he rolled away the stone.”
Sorry nate. that won’t work. Even in your reading he tells them that after he s descended, rolled away the stone and is sitting on the stone. The scary part is pretty much all over with. So its proves that he was not telling them that to alay their fears at everything else because that would have been too late. A look at the text explains exactly what he means
Matthew 28:5 (KJV)
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: FOR I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
there we have the because gar word again. indicating they ought not to be afraid because I know you seek jesus …he is risen.
SO the fear he was alaying had to do with Jesus not being there and him arising would be the reason to not be afraid.
Finally all the gospels relate fear in the women at some point and neither mark Nor Luke mention it in regard to any stone being rolled away by an Angel with an earthquake so the idea that that was the fear he was addressing does not hold water
LikeLike
Mike — why won’t you answer William’s questions? They are quite simple and well spelled out.
How many angels were there and where were they encountered?
Where and when was Jesus encountered?
These questions have nothing to do with the “Easter play syndrome.” They are straightforward questions that beg an answer.
Let me answer the question for you about who the women told — in Matthew, they ran to tell “his disciples;” in Mark, they “said nothing to anyone;” and in Luke, they told “the eleven and … all the rest.”
No matter how you look at it, there are only THREE things that the resurrection gospels agree on: Mary Magdalene visited the tomb, it was the first day of the week, and the tomb was empty. They do not agree on the precise time the women visited the tomb; the number and identity of the women; the purpose of their visit; the appearance of the messenger(s) – angelic or human; what the women were told; the women’s response.
From a rational perspective, all we know is Jesus died.
LikeLike
“there’s not even a paragraph break between the angel’s appearance and his statement to the women.”
Nate I just saw this and I have to admit since you claimed to have done so much study I have thought that you were just being deceptive a good deal of the time but I’ll have to pull back a little and just not think you really did a lot of research like you claim.
.
Nate Biblical greek and Hebrew do not use paragraph breaks to change subject. they are usually a page of text. NO chapter division and no verse divisions. If you don’t believe me you can google NT greek manuscripts
LikeLike
“These questions have nothing to do with the “Easter play syndrome.” They are straightforward questions that beg an answer.”
I’ve spent a good deal of my day answering people on this blog and its just insanely intellectually dishonest (yeah now nate can say I called someone crazy) of you to claim I am dodging anyone. It has EVERYTHING to do with the Easter play syndrome. If one person says they saw one but another say they saw one in no court would it be concluded that automatically they were not telling the truth. You can have two angels and one group only see one or you can one angel and another can join him.
So beg your answer but don’t try to do what I said you guys would and thats go from you proving a contradiction to me having to prove there is not one. You want to say theres a contradiction then you prove it. You are the ones that made the claim
“Let me answer the question for you about who the women told — in Matthew, they ran to tell “his disciples;” in Mark, they “said nothing to anyone;” and in Luke, they told “the eleven and … all the rest.””
the extent to which you can accuse me of being impolite is when I just get exasperated at your desperate foolishness to try and make a failed point stick. If the passage that says they said nothing meant to say EVER then great swami tell the class how it is the writer who told you they said nothing about what happened was telling the story of what happened?
VAST silliness. It simple means at a particular time they told no one and when they found who they wanted to tell they did
” They do not agree on the precise time the women visited the tomb;”
You must have a great point there . Maybe their watches were broken….oh wait. oh thats right lithium battery shortage. Go figure .
“Matt: At dawn.
Mark: Just after sunrise.
Luke: Very early in the morning.
John: Early, while it was still dark.”
Petty nonsense and Drivel. So now each Gospel writer must be referring to the same arrival/departure time within the less than 20 minutes it takes to go from dark to dawn
“the number and identity of the women;’
Yes cause if you say later today that you and Nate were debating Mike and William said that he had debated Mike and anaive thinker then theres a contradiction if The sons of smoke and spittle said they were debating with Mike. Copy and past time…
Petty nonsense
“the purpose of their visit;”
What? Someone said they were going to Disney World? Chapter and verse
“angelic or human; ‘
God forbid if someone described an angel with two feet two arms and a head as a man. eh? We’ve finally got our best example of a Biblical contradiction people!!
Nan………. Try again please. NO don’t bother I am getting bored again. Got to take a break. I think I am going to check out some other blogs over this weekend. this can’t be the best skeptics have to offer
LikeLike
Mike —
You can have two angels and one group only see one or you can one angel and another can join him.
God forbid if someone described an angel with two feet two arms and a head as a man.
Taken individually, each resurrection narrative is very clear about who saw what. To me, you are making up possible scenarios of what “might” be the case rather than accepting what the bible clearly states. If you are not one of those who feel the bible is inerrant, then your interpretations might fly. But this is not the way you have presented yourself through your comments.
BTW, just out of curiosity, what is the “Easter play syndrome?” I tried to find the phrase on Google but was unsuccessful. I thought it had something to do with the plays that churches put on at Easter (even though I couldn’t see the connection that you seemed to be making.) If you get around to visiting Nate’s blog again, I’d really appreciate it if you’d provide your definition.
LikeLike
Nothing anyone says will make any difference to him Ruth, he’s on an ego trip, out to prove he can discount all atheist’s claims, and failing miserably to accomplish anything. At least Brandon has the good grace to PRETEND humility.
LikeLike
He’s trying to say, Nan – if one can see beyond his ranting literary style – that in a play, the director has his actors move as a group, but in real life, they don’t do that – they sometimes split off, going in different directions – ergo, Mary might have seen things that the others didn’t, making both scenarios true – but the only thing he’s really splitting, is hairs.
LikeLike
What’s he on? Not even SillinessOfMind can rant, unbroken, for this long —
LikeLike
Thanks, Arch … although I still have problems seeing how it all relates … ?? As you said, his literary style leaves much to be desired.
Maybe (fingers crossed), he’s gone for good and Nate’s blog posting can get back on track.
LikeLike
That’s it – it’s just too great a waste of time to wade through all of these rants.
LikeLike
Ooops I missed nate on Daniel 9 Before
“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/”
Great so we have eliminated one possibility and can confirm that you were just playing possum. Clearly a reference to when Messiah would come in Daniel 9 is obvious to someone who knows whats in Daniel 9 so you were just playing games. Thanks for the admission
“Why do they all end in Christ, Mike? Because they have to. ”
Nate you can float that utter nonsense to your rubber stampers and it will work – not me. The starting dates have to be a time of a verifiable command that results in jerusalem being rebuilt not as you fabricate any day that fits to ending in Christ. That gives EXTREMELY Limited choices and statistically makes it HIGHLY unlikely that by chance any of them would work. Frankly you are pretty much lying now to say you can do anything with that passage since if you did any research (always a dubious contention with you) there are only around three that could even marginally work as actual commands to restore and build jerusalem and only ONE that actually was a command that actually did result in its being restored. In your article you beg it has to be Cyrus decree to FUDGE it your way but the problem is the passage then goes on to say it will be rebuilt walls and all as a result of this command but that doesn’t happen until Nehemiah’s decree. Undeniable the command given to Nehemiah is what gets the walls built and jerusalem restored as Daniel 9 calls for. No other command actually does this.Jerusalem is in waste regardless of Cyrus. So for an effective decree that actually results in the rebuilding and not ruins of jerusalem and its walls Nehemiah is a better start point but oh no! that ends with Christ so dishonestly you call it fudging
” 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.”
Hand waving. NO one has had any great problems doing it. You are begging bread and your surprise is no evidence of anything not with you just expressing surprise I would hold my position on Matt 28 when there is no paragraph spacing when oops in fact no such paragraph for separate subjects even exist in greek manuscripts. YOU do far too much pretending you know what you are talking about Nate. that part is still dishonest.
The rest of your Daniel Article is pretty weak. Your fudge factor 2 still leads to the time of Christ And your fudge factors 3 and 4 rest upon your rejection of the 360 day year which is corroborated by the fact that Babylon where Daniel was written (I’m not concerned with your forgery claim) and Jews were in exile at the time (not in Israel) used a 360 day year in one of its calendars, The book of Enoch uses it, Revelations uses it and in fact even this day we still use it in financial markets. Your favored resource admitting –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/360-day_calendar
All Confirming its no invention but an actual calendar available to Daniel
Finally your last beg is that there are no decrees given to Nehemiah but of course as usual you never really do any research into original languages. the hebrew word simple means command as in esther 1:12 relating to any written or spoken command. In this case it would have to be of such authority that it would get Jersualem toward being rebuilt. Nehemiah secured such a “Dabar” from the king to return and build jerusalem even allowing for supplies as well to do so. Of course you do try to beg that its not a command but just letters to convey across the territory but Nehemiah rebuts you
Nehemiah 2:5-6 (KJV)
5 And I said unto the king, If it please the king, and if thy servant have found favour in thy sight, that thou wouldest send me unto Judah, unto the city of my fathers’ sepulchres, that I may build it.
6 And the king said unto me, (the queen also sitting by him,) For how long shall thy journey be? and when wilt thou return? So it pleased the king to send me; and I set him a time.
Its clear the request was to be sent to rebuild it and its clear the King granted the request and ordered it so even commanding that the very supplies to build it be granted to Nehemiah. desperate begin the supplies were provided the request was honored but no authorizations was given by the king is nothing but special pleading.
So do I have a problem hanging my hat on it? (and a great many other prophecies) Not not in the least Nate. As usual you just don’t do good research thats why you are always surprised.
LikeLike
“Maybe (fingers crossed), he’s gone for good and Nate’s blog posting can get back on track”
not to fear my young atheist. You can get back to your rubber stamping activities now.
LikeLike
There you go again — making assumptions. Sorry to disappoint but I’m not an atheist. And I don’t think you’ll find anything in my comments that indicates that I am. Try again.
LikeLike
And he exits, dribbling foam and spittle —
LikeLike
“There you go again — making assumptions. Sorry to disappoint but I’m not an atheist. ”
nan I don’t care what you claim for yourself, what semantic game you wish to play or what hair you split. You take the atheist position and get called as being one thats on you because its where you made your stand no matter what nomenclature you use. I’ve read several posts and comments from you and I don’t see you ever backing up a theist position but always an atheist one.
Now do you wish to go back to rubber stamping like I said you could or continue arguing with me?
“Try again.”
You want me too? I hadn’t even left yet
(was just reading something before I did) and you miss me already? Thanks man
LikeLike