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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
“I hadn’t even left yet (was just reading something before I did) and you miss me already?”
Absolutely, to the same degree and extent that I miss bat barf.
LikeLike
In response to Mike’s comment on Daniel 9, the article I wrote about it is here if anyone wants to read it. There’s a lot to Daniel 9, so I won’t bother going over all of it again here in a comment. The only additional point I’ll add is that even though the Persian calendar used 360-day years, they added an extra 30 day month every 6 years, so it still washes out to the same way that we count years today. For anyone not very versed in the different ways to read Daniel 9 that point may not make much sense, but Mike should know what I’m talking about.
The point is, Daniel 9, even if you allow for the particular decree that Mike is arguing for, has lots of issues. Trying to make it fit Christ is no easy task. But again, if we’re going to discuss this particular issue much more, it might be best to continue it on that thread.
LikeLike
” The only additional point I’ll add is that even though the Persian calendar used 360-day years, they added an extra 30 day month every 6 years, so it still washes out to the same way that we count years today.”
Why you are gone to the Persians I have no idea Nate but no the Babylonians used a 360 day that did not always use intercalary days or months. intercalary year are only necessary for agriculture and season reasons. Many countries used more than one calendar
“The point is, Daniel 9, even if you allow for the particular decree that Mike is arguing for, has lots of issues. Trying to make it fit Christ is no easy task.”
Total, absolute and desperate nonsense. If you start with the decree that actually restored Jerusalem and you use the 360 day calendar there is absolutely no issue. You end up within the life time of Christ simply and easily.
Further there is some good teaching out there regarding how the the same 360 day year pinpoints other dates from straightforward Biblical calculations and the 70 years Daniel says is to be cut out. The statistical odds against it being by chance are pretty high.
Do some good research for a change Nate.
LikeLike
“Absolutely, to the same degree and extent that I miss bat barf.’
Not to fear Arch. I have confidence in your ability to create more in the morning so you won’t be missing it for long.
LikeLike
What are you gaining from this Mike?
LikeLike
You must be referring to when I go to the bathroom in the morning, to take a Mike.
LikeLike
Same question to to Arch 🙂
LikeLike
“You must be referring to when I go to the bathroom in the morning, to take a Mike.”
What ever you call your bat barfs is of no concern to me arch 🙂
“What are you gaining from this Mike?”
What are you getting from asking me Port. I’ve just scanned though and cannot find a single post where you make any good point. its almost all about me and you will not be heard on that subject for the simple reason that no objective person would find any poster more offensive and rude than your beloved arch comrades especially to Naivethinker. None of you are going on and on about them because they are supportive of you ideologies.
So why should I be informed by hypocrisy?
LikeLike
you got me Mike, darn the deconstruction of my conniving ways! 🙂
You are right, I have been hypocritical at times, and I haven’t really jumped into this thread too much to say something substantial.
I have been mainly asking you questions because I don’t really feel I have too much to add to the conversation at this point.
It could be also that I may not be as well informed or educated on these things as you, and that’s ok 🙂 I can accept that.
I’m asking you these things because I would like to understand what you have to say, rather than filling in the blanks.
I’m trying to work out if you are setting out to be reactive, or that is just comes naturally in the way you communicate. Or maybe I’m the one who is wrong…An alternative would be to ignore you, which I don’t think is fair or respectful, for I don’t think you deserve to be ignored.
But I was the one who asked first, so I suppose I could have never asked…fair enough
I do find you really rude though Mark, it could be just me, but what you keep referring to as “rubber stamping” could just be that people don’t like being talked down to and treated like crap. And I don’t think you appreciate it either.
If your right, and people here are affirming each others views in a vacuum of groundless opinion and rubber stamping… then its good that you are bringing different contribution the the vacuum 🙂 .
But talking down to people, and getting involved in throwing insults around with other people detracts from that. Even if other people are doing it, does that mean you should too?
And I’m just as guilty of many things. I am not perfect.
Have a good night,
LikeLike
By the way Arch and Ark have had exchanges on this as well.
I disagree with them as well at times in regards to how they have treated other people in a conversation. You might even come across this in your travels to different threads.
Its not a nice feeling if you feel you are being ganged up on by a group of people that seem to support each other or know each other to an extent.
I get that, and a person coming into such a thread or conversatiuon to be then payed out, or eventually being the a butt of a joke at their expense is never a nice thing. No matter who does it.
Hope that gives you a better view of what I mean. Its not a “lets gang up on Mike thing” at least its not that to me. I have already had these conversations with both Ark and Arch. I have shared my thoughts, and what they have then done after is up to them, just like it is up to you 🙂
Thanks
LikeLike
and I didn’t mean that last bit to be condescending, after all I really don’t know anything about you Mark,
For all I know your responses might be valid in these circumstances, but in my opinion if someone tries to embarrass or belittle someone at another expense, then that does not help in encouraging understanding. matter who posts it. Whether it be theist, atheist or deist. Like I said, I don’t know your intentions. these are just my thoughts.
and I’ll try to keep myself in cheque 🙂
LikeLike
and also learn how to spell check* 😛
LikeLike
@Nate. Re: Mike.
Ditch this dickhead, Nate. Re-run the the post and maybe you can find a way to leave this idiot in the Spam Can.
LikeLike
I can see that. I’m not sure what you guys want from Brandon, though. I realize he did come to atheist forums and I also realize that, whether he sees it that way or not, he seems to be proselytizing. Though I’m not sure how he’d go about giving an alternative opinion without it sounding that way?
I’ve been kinda hard on the guy myself, but he’s a pleasure to talk to compared to this guy. He says he’s a seminary boy. William questioned that, but I don’t really. He’s going by The Book. I’d be interested to know what flavor of Christianity he holds to. It’s seems apparent it’s a fundamentalist one. IFB maybe?
LikeLike
Exactly Ruth – I for one want alternative opinions so I can be challenged in my own thinking which is a big reason I hang out on Nate’s blog way more than any other blog. Nate tries his best to create an environment where people can come and give alternative views, and I’ve already given several names of people who have done that, and some even very strongly (like Unklee). Captain Catholic can also be very strongly opinionated and we have all had some really good conversations with him as well. I could name others. Nate’s discussions with those people have always maintained a good level of respect and calmness to them while sometimes disagreeing quite strongly.
And as you say, Brandon is a pleasure to talk with no matter how “smarmy” he may sometimes come across. I have viewed every conversation I’ve had with Brandon as productive in the sense that they have never devolved into silly name calling, insults or character judgments, and we strongly disagree many times. In fact Rautakyy has been having a calm and intelligent conversation on Brandon’s blog in the past week (which I unfortunately haven’t had the time to read completely through because it’s very, very long).
As I’ve said, unfortunately I don’t see how discussions with Mike can be productive. His game is very obvious to me – to try and show that the atheists here are all dishonest and that none of them are really interested in truly understanding what is real, and I personally think it is very clear that he twists things we say to help bolster that. If you look for Nate’s post on the Tyre prophecy you can see where he exhibited the same behaviors.
LikeLike
I completely agree with you, Howie. I don’t mind – at all – being challenged in my thinking. I just don’t see how it’s productive to belittle people or to twist what they’ve really said. Misunderstandings take place, but it’s pretty apparent that Mike is deliberately misrepresenting what people say in an effort to make them appear dishonest, which (ironically) is dishonest itself. It’s also not a good tactic to accuse people of being biased when it’s obvious that the accuser is biased. Is it biased when you’ve researched and followed the evidence where it led? We all use our best judgements to come to conclusions. If it’s biased to [seem] as though one’s mind is already made up and won’t consider any new information, then pot meet kettle.
I’ve been following that conversation at Brandon’s. It’s been very nice to watch the two of them present their views without name-calling and bashing.
LikeLike
writing multiple posts is a bad habit of mine. would have been better just to have fit them all into one. They were a bit sugar coated. I agree though that the more different perspectives and people coming from different beliefs, the better the discussions, providing there is as shared respect dignity given to everyone…even that might sound a bit cheesy… but I think its necessary for decent conversation. Not to say humour shouldn’t be involved though.
LikeLike
@Nate & Ruth — I appreciate your comments. I’ve been following the “progress” of this post from day 1, and wanted to get involved here, but I know my weakness when dealing with people like Mike and would be tempted to get sarcastic with him because of the button-pushing tactics he uses. He has a troll personality, and nothing productive can come from that. Arch and Ark may not have had the best bedside manners but they call it as they see it. He doesn’t appear to be here to engage in civil discourse. He appears to be here to derail a potentially educational post. I’ve wanted to bring another perspective to this discussion, but have hesitated because of the predictable fallout from Mike, and just didn’t think it was worth my time and energy to invest in this discussion. Nate is incredibly patience and has my utmost respect.
LikeLike
I agree though that the more different perspectives and people coming from different beliefs, the better the discussions, providing there is as shared respect dignity given to everyone…even that might sound a bit cheesy… but I think its necessary for decent conversation. Not to say humour shouldn’t be involved though.
Different perspectives bring color and flavor to a conversation that otherwise wouldn’t be present. I get it that that’s all some people might want, but that’s not true of every one. It’s another gross exaggeration that paints everyone with a broad brush.
LikeLike
Oops, I meant to direct my comment @Howie and Ruth.
LikeLike
You have no idea how many times I’ve typed and erased and typed again… 😛
LikeLike
Me too. 😉
LikeLike
I think the last few comments from portal, Howie, and Ruth have been spot on. I really hate all the name calling. I think it does nothing but bring down the value of this blog.
I don’t want to ban people. I just wish we could all remain polite and stay on topic. One thing Mike is right about its that Brandon want treated fairly when he showed up here. The interactions I’ve had with him have always been positive. Even if his polite demeanor is just a ploy, so what? I’m sure people could claim the same about me. It’s far nicer to have a polite conversation than a name calling contest.
When we give into our baser natures and treat people rudely, it only reflects badly on us. And most observers are smart enough to see when certain people are being jerks without us finding colorful ways to point it out.
LikeLike
“It’s another gross exaggeration that paints everyone with a broad brush.”
Ruth, sorry, didn’t understand that. What is a gross exaggeration?
just wanted to add too, I think what’s more important than colour and flavour is whether a point is correct, or a belief is true.
I really enjoy reading and participating in diverse conversations, both online and off, but if the various opinions begin to confuse a broader understanding of peoples positions then that’s when things can become problematic.
But if everyone treats the other with dignity, then the opinions and values of people can be discussed and considered as they stand. In a perfect world…
LikeLike
“It’s another gross exaggeration that paints everyone with a broad brush.”
Ruth, sorry, didn’t understand that. What is a gross exaggeration?
Sorry, I had a type-erase-retype moment. lol
It’s a gross exaggeration that all everyone on this blog wants is rubber-stamping and back-slapping, or that every atheist is this or that – or that every Christian is, for that matter. There are a few, like you, Howie, and Ratamacue who have pleaded for civility so that both sides of this could be fleshed out.
LikeLike