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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
…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 agree with you, BUT, since both sides of this seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum they can’t both be correct or true. We need that color and flavor [with supporting evidence, of course] to make judgements. I didn’t mean just conjecture and opinion.
LikeLike
My guess is, bragging rights – he will go on other sites, boasting about how he whipped our asses with his irrefutable logic – the man truly is a legend in his own mind – but all he actually accomplished here was to leave a slime trail of foam and spittle, and of course, vitriol.
LikeLike
right, I get what you are saying now 🙂
thanks Ruth
LikeLike
Exposing insanity, wherever I find it.
LikeLike
Mike, why are you arguing for the Babylonian calendar when Daniel was living under Persian rule? And even if you stick with the Babylonian, they also added a month every so often to keep the calendar aligned with the seasons. Instead of having it every 6 years by default, as the Persians did, they added it by decree as needed.
Either way, all of these cultures understood a year to be 4 seasons, just as we do. Any culture that went to a straight 360-day calendar would eventually have their “January” coming at the wrong time of year. So even though different cultures had different ways of doing it, all of them figured out a way to balance their calendar so that the various months stayed align with the various seasons. In other words, they all had ways to average out to a 365-day year.
I’m not trying to say that you’re necessarily wrong (even though I do think that, of course), I’m just trying to make the point that if you’re looking for solid evidence of an actual prophecy, Daniel 9 is probably not the best one to use. It’s filled with language that can be interpreted different ways, and you even have to use a non-standard definition of a year to make things work out the way you want. If there’s a clearer prophecy, you’d be better off using it — in my opinion.
LikeLike
See what I mean? Foam, spittle and vitriol —
LikeLike
Sadly, nice guys so often get sand kicked in their face.
Mike just stands there and does it openly and then knocks down the sand castle, and piddles on it.
With people such as Brandon and unklee their methods are covert and a lot more insidious.
If you doubt this, simply go back to earlier posts, on their own blogs or other people’s where they have commented. The derogatory tactics are the same
Their objective is not to interact with the intention of understanding or a view to changing their perspective or even remotely considering a rethink of their religion.
Their approach is smarmy, couched in condescending language, long-winded and usually meaningless posts that veer off on all sorts of tangents so one is chasing aftger every meaningless statement.
Re-read Brandon’s comment regarding the Exodus and try to see what he is actually saying, for if you acknowledge that his POV may have merit then he has to explain all the supernatural elements of the ridiculous story as well, and he will not because this means fighting the battle on YOUR terms: one that does not include the supernatural.
So for these people, it is far easier to come across as reasonable while still trashing every scientific and secular scholarly approach, and then go on to subtly ( or not so) accuse you of ‘misunderstanding’ the religious texts of such things as OT prophecy, Resurrection etc ad nauseum.
And all the time, while you are believing they are behaving in a reasonable manner, they are insinuating that you could not possibly have been a proper Christian.
Christians like this are disingenuous dickheads, plain and simple. They need a swift kick up the arse or a clip round the ear.
LikeLike
That was a pretty intense dialogue that was triggered from this post Nate 🙂 I mean things escalated pretty quickly…
LikeLike
LikeLike
Ark, you may be right about that. But I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt. If guys like Brandon and unkleE are respectful toward me, I’ll try my best to be respectful toward them. I don’t mind if we can’t come to an agreement on some of these things. Honest people sometimes come to different conclusions.
So if a Christian visits this blog and remains respectful, I’d like for everyone else to treat them respectfully as well, even if you think they may have ulterior motives. Why can’t we just address their points without calling their character into question?
LikeLike
@Portal – wow, you’re a genuinely nice guy, he’ll eat you alive, or walk all over you, his option. If you’ve noticed – and I realize it’s a long thread – in the very beginning, I presented evidence, which he ignored, rather than refute (it’s easier), then later, he acknowledged the fact that he was ignoring what I had to say. Only then, did the insults begin, as I began to see that other than foam, spittle and vitriol, he had nothing substantial to offer. I don’t attack people indiscriminately.
LikeLike
yeah, but would it have been so bad to just point out that he was dodging and avoid the insults? I’m afraid that to objective bystanders, it just gets hard for people to tell the difference between guys like Mike and all the rest of us if we engage in the same tactics. I’ll admit, the immediate payoff you get from zingers is pretty great — I just worry that it does more harm than good in the long run.
LikeLike
Arch,
I’m a fairly accommodating person I’ve realised, which isn’t always a good thing
I understand you guys didn’t see eye to eye. I personally don’t think taking shots makes a pe4rson more wiling to change to how you would rather them behave,
but I appreciate you don’t attack indiscriminately 🙂
LikeLike
And Arch, I mean at the end of the day, he can say what he wants, as long as he doesn’t insult my mum (which he doesn’t know) and which I don’t think he would say something like that anyway.
If someone is being ripped into, I like to think I would call it out. On a blog I feel comfortable on anyway. Although I haven’t always called it out, so yeah I dunno
At the end of the day I realise these are only words, if someone calls me or you something on the internet, unless they know me or you personally or have talked to me or you for some time, there really is no reason to attach anything else to it 🙂 but its still not a nice feeling initially I find.
LikeLike
@Nate
Fair enough, Nate, I respect you too much to argue the point.
LikeLike
Regarding the 500+ that supposedly witness the resurrection. It’s possible that Paul embellished, or it’s possible that these people actually thought they saw the resurrection when one or several planted the suggestion. It only takes one person (the power of suggestion) to start mass hysteria. Case in point:
“Between April 1968 and May 1971 hundreds of thousands of people reported seeing apparitions of the Virgin Mary over a Coptic Orthodox church in Zeitoun, near Cairo, Egypt. When photographed, these phenomena appeared as irregular blobs of light.
The characteristics of these luminous phenomena strongly suggested the existence of tectonic strain within the area. According to the hypothesis of tectonic strain, anomalous luminous phenomena are generated by brief, local changes in strain that precede earthquakes within the region. More detailed descriptions of the phenomena, such as visions, often occurred as ‘flashes’; their details usually reflected the religious background.
Psychological factors determine more elaborate details of the experiences because there are both direct stimulations of the observers brain as well as indirect contributions from reinforcement history.” (Derr, John S. & Michael A. Persinger ‘Geophysical Variables and Behavior: LIV. Zeitoun (Egypt) Apparitions of the Virgin Mary as Tectonic Strain-induced Luminosities. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1989, 68, 123-128]
and
Eyewitness reports and security cameras captured a large number of light flashes during the 2007 Pisco, Peru M 8.0 earthquake. Together with seismic records obtained on a local university campus, the automatic security camera records allow for an exact timing and location of light flashes that illuminated a large portion of the night sky. The light flashes identified as earthquake lights coincided with the passage of the seismic waves.”
http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-earthquake-lights-01662.html
That area (the hub of 3 major religions) is one of the most seismically active regions in the world.
LikeLike
Thanks, Ark. 🙂 That means a lot to me.
I have a lot of respect for you and Arch, too. And William — he likes to dish it out as well sometimes. But yeah, if we could dial it back a bit, I think that would be great. I should have the next post up soon (hopefully today), so that will be a good trial run. 🙂
Btw, I know some of you have mentioned adding nesting comments here, and I’ve thought about it. However, if I do it, it’s going to mangle past comment threads — some will show nested, but others won’t. So it might be really confusing for later readers to piece together. So right now, I’m tempted to keep things as they are — sort of like a traditional message board.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
@Ruth – RE: “I’m not sure what you guys want from Brandon, though.”
I can’t begin to speculate as to what goes on in the Arkster’s mind, though I suspect it usually involves two monkeys and a yo-yo. My problem with Brandon is not his beliefs – he’s entitled to those, everyone is – it’s his smarmy, saccharine, manipulative, formulaic behavior that makes my skin crawl, much like nails on a chalkboard.
“I think that’s a WONDERFUL question, Ruth – BUT –“
LikeLike
To clarify, older threads won’t look as they do now, because some people have posted comments through WP readers, rather than just visiting the blog. So some of the comments will nest, but others won’t, and I’m afraid that will be far more confusing than it is now.
Plus, when nesting, some people get really confused on how to keep nesting the comments when the ‘reply’ button no longer shows on the most recent comment.
LikeLike
I think it would confuse things
LikeLike
@NeuroNotes
That’s fascinating! Thanks for sharing that link.
LikeLike
“There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the lord came down from heaven…
… His appearance was like lightening and his clothes were as white as snow.” Matthew 28: 2,3
—
From the link I posted previously:
“Seconds before the 2009 L’Aquila, Italy earthquake struck, pedestrians saw 10-cm high flames of light flickering above the stone-paved Francesco Crispi Avenue in the town’s historical city center.”
“In 1906, about 100 km northwest of San Francisco, a couple saw streams of light running along the ground two nights preceding that region’s great earthquake.”
“Earthquake lights, also known as ground lights, take a variety of forms, including spheres of light floating through the air.”
LikeLike
@Howie – personally, I like CC (Captain Catholic) and miss conversations with him, as he doesn’t pop in often – he’s open, honest, definitely un-smarmy, and a pleasure. Even the unk-man and I have, in my opinion, reached some degree of mutual respect. But I’ve expressed my opinions of Brandon and Mike, and I stand by those, unwaveringly. I’m not alone, even VW and Neuro, who used to constitute his fan club, have backed away from regular correspondence with Brandon. I also dislike the way, like a predatory animal, he searches out the weak in the herd, and I HAVE read each of Rautakyy’s comments in their entirety, and I’m glad to see that he’s holding his own, though politely.
LikeLike
@Nate: actually nesting is quite a “religious” topic as well with some people having extremely strong feelings about on both sides. I prefer your current way Nate and I’ve seen a lot of very well run and highly commented blogs use your current method. But, I definitely see pros and cons to both. One thing I do definitely wish was that WordPress had a way to do non-nesting like you do but still have a “reply” button shown on the comments. Instead I always use my e-mail copies to reply, but if you aren’t copied on a thread you don’t get the e-mails.
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying, and it can be a little grating, but I wonder if he’s like that in other matters – if that’s just his personality? I wonder if anytime he thinks he’s right about something that’s the way he approaches it, y’know, to soften to blow of the perceived correction.
“Great job, Ruth – BUT – you need to think about drawing blood from another vein. You see, if you draw from this vein it’s going to collapse because this person is dehydrated. If their vein collapses it’s going to cause all sorts of other problems. If it causes all these other problems then we’ll have more problems to medicate.”
See what I mean?
LikeLike