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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
Then again, it could just be a formulaic tactic to ingratiate himself to the other conversant, like you said.
Putting myself in his shoes, if I’m in perceived enemy territory, I might try to do the same thing. Probably not, though.
LikeLike
“Oops, I meant to direct my comment @Howie and Ruth.”
Wouldn’t it be great, if like Ning websites, or even FaceBook for that matter, allowed one to correct comments – but alas 😦 WordPress doesn’t allow for that —
LikeLike
This is pretty much how I see it too. Honestly, it sounds a lot like the way I try to converse…
This is why I advocate giving each other the benefit of the doubt.
LikeLike
Howie and Ryan,
Thanks for the feedback on nesting.
LikeLike
@Arch: I don’t fault you one bit for being irritated (in a chalk screech way) by smarmy attitudes. And Unklee actually does sometimes play the “see I proved it, you are all dishonest” card a bit too much, but when I call him on it he usually backs off that pedal a little bit at least. Either way, I think everyone should personally come to their own conclusions about whether or not they want to engage with someone and I think you’ve gone overboard in trying to drag everyone into your own character assessment of Brandon. Nate’s comment I thought was best – Brandon and Unklee are trying to be as polite as possible so why not try and engage their comments intelligently just like Rautakyy is doing (I’m hoping to take time next week to read ALL of that conversation by the way). And frankly I can see how sometimes my own comments can come across smarmy – in fact you once thought I was purposely doing it to make fun of Unklee when I was not.
Oh, and I miss Captain Catholic as well – very bright fellow.
LikeLike
@Ark – well said! If I might add, RE: “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.” – and that you lack the intelligence to see through their ruse.
LikeLike
As I said, Portal, you’re a nice guy – unfortunately, there are those out there, who are poised to take advantage of that.
LikeLike
RE: “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.” – and that you lack the intelligence to see through their ruse.
It is utterly impossible to force people not to make untrue assumptions about others. While that may be what they think, I know the truth about myself. I know what I’ve been through, the research I’ve done, and the study I’ve put into this. I also know that while I may not be the brightest bulb in the box I’m not a moron. So what anyone else thinks of me is really not my business, nor my problem. It’s theirs. If they want to dismiss me because [they think] I wasn’t a proper Christian, or because I’m a woman [some people do that], or because they think I’m unintelligent there’s just not a whole lot I can do about that. Banning them only proves their point, though, that we don’t want other opinions – that we can’t hold up to their scrutiny.
LikeLike
@NeuroNotes: Hi Victoria!! I’m very glad you decided to comment here (and btw, if Mike replies to you I would say Ruth’s technique is probably best at avoiding engaging with troll-like behaviors).
As to this comment of yours regarding the visions I think it is a great point, and it in fact relates (although not obviously maybe) to a short thing I wrote in my very first comment of this post: “Another interesting topic related to the resurrection proof texts is that Paul’s experience is listed along with all the other people who had experiences. I’ll leave people to think about what the implications of that might be.”
The reason why I mentioned that is because it seems all scholars agree that Paul’s experience was a visionary one, not one which engages with a dead corpse walking around. None of Paul’s letters indicate anything of the disciples/apostles/etc. experiences as seeing a dead corpse walking around. In fact this famous I Corinthians passage used by so many apologists which includes the 500 also lists all the other disciples as having experiences right along side Paul’s with no distinction like “oh, my (Paul’s) experience was visionary, but the others saw the actual corpse walking”. I personally see this as a very important point in the whole scheme of things especially when it comes to the minimal facts approach that Licona, Habermas and a lot of others try to use. They use this minimal facts approach because they realize that a lot of scholars have conceded that the gospels contain embellishment and are not as trustworthy as some of Paul’s writings. So they stick to Paul’s passage which scholars agree is a lot more trustworthy. But Paul’s passage doesn’t really get very far though – to me I don’t see how it gets us further than the Marian apparitions which you mentioned.
LikeLike
@N℮üґ☼ – “That area (the hub of 3 major religions) is one of the most seismically active regions in the world.”
In fact, the faultline that created the Great Rift Valley in Africa, runs right along the area of the Dead Sea and Sea of Galilee, and a resulting earthquake that threw indigenous bitumen (quite flammable) high into the air where it ignited, was responsible for the destruction of the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.
LikeLike
@Nate.
Take no notice of Arch, he’s just a bloody old fossil and merely needs to remember to put the @ sign and the name of the person in his posts, and maybe copy a bit of relevant text. 😉
LikeLike
Re: “It is utterly impossible to force people …”
@Ruth: I entirely agree with everything you’ve written in this comment of yours, and I liked it quite a bit. I know you don’t care at all, but I personally respect you!!
And yes, banning is not the solution either unless they go way overboard, (e.g. threatening people) – but Mike hasn’t done that.
LikeLike
This is what it comes down to for me:
When I was struggling with doubts and trying to come to terms with what I did or did not believe, I read a lot of blogs, articles, and books. I was always turned off by those who used a condescending tone, no matter what position they held. Anyone who pretends that Christians/atheists/deists/etc are stupid are being disingenuous. When I was a Christian, I believed I had good reasons for being one. Now that I’m an atheist, I believe I have good reasons too. If I see someone claim that the other side has no grounds for their position, then I tend to dismiss anything else they say.
The fact is, none of us knows if there’s a god or not. I’m 99% sure that the god of the Bible is false, but I understand why some people believe in it. And I know that very intelligent, well-meaning people sincerely hold that position. If I spend my time throwing insults at them, I’m sabotaging my own position with any objective readers who are simply after truth. Rather, if I engage with people respectfully, and deal with their points rationally, then my personality is not as likely to get in the way of my points. If I am saying something worthwhile, then hopefully they’ll be able to accept it more readily. And I find it much easier to do this when I give others the same benefit of the doubt that I hope they give me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Nate – other than, “Kick WordPress to the curb,” which would be my foremost recommendation, I’m not clear on what you’re saying. I’ve been on a great number of WP sites, and Matt’s, and I believe Neuro’s, both have nested comments, and reply buttons that remain useable – Matt’s for sure, and I think Neuro’s as well.
LikeLike
@N℮üґ☼ – RE: ““Earthquake lights, also known as ground lights, take a variety of forms, including spheres of light floating through the air.”
I think yo0u may just have solved a lifelong mystery! Neither of my parents are any longer living, but as a child, BOTH swore that one dark and stormy night, a ball of lightening came in through the window and rolled right up the bed between them. As I grew older and learned more, that statement, which I believed and still do, raised questions in my mind. First, how was I ever born, if they slept that far apart, and second, why were neither of them affected by the electricity?
If it were light, and not lightning, that would explain everything, except for how I was conceived.
LikeLike
Nate, Well said 🙂
LikeLike
Maybe so. Used to, it worked like this:
If you allowed comments to nest 2 levels deep, then once you reached that limit, the reply button would no longer show up, since you couldn’t technically reply into a deeper level. It was easy to keep replying in that particular level though, just by going up and clicking on the reply button for the comment that started that particular level. But this seemed to confuse a lot of people.
Years ago, I did it for a while here, but it just got too confusing. Maybe they’ve improved it since then, but I’ve done so much content without nesting by this point that I think it would mangle much of the old comment threads.
As for WordPress, it may have a few quirks, but it’s one of the best CMS engines around. And while I could host my site independently and still use WP (plus tweak it in places), I’m too cheap to do it. 🙂
LikeLike
Quite interesting, Arch. There’s been some fascinating studies done in Harbon Springs. People come from all over the world and say they have ‘spiritual’ experiences.
Harbin Hot Springs rests between two ancient volcanos. One of them, northwest of Harbin, is a Pleistocene formation (including Cobb Mountain and Harbin mountain), while the other, directly is a Plieocene. I lived in CA for 10 years, and was living close to a fault line, and yes — I had ‘spiritual’ type experiences.
Nature is awesome, and we are just scratching the surface regarding how our brains and bodies are affected, but the more and more I research, the more it becomes clear to me that these experiences are not supernatural. Nature messes with our heads, and even man-made infrasound can as well. People have had “ghost” type experiences that are explainable. We can experience a frequency following response where our brain wave entrains to external frequencies. Geomagnetic activity can also interfere with our own brain waves hormones. This can lead to hallucinations.
——
“Data from the 19th century on hallucinations and magnetic disturbances were found to exhibit a direct and statistically significant correlation. The aa magnetic index over the period 1868-89 and concurrent visual hallucinatory activity were found to co-vary. Magnetic influences on the pineal hormone, melatonin, are suggested as a source of variation.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2012623
LikeLike
@Howie – (I shouldn’t even have to say, “@Howie,” my comment should appear just under yours) – I use my email copies to reply as well, but my comment ends up on the bottom of the stack, nowhere near the original comment. How does a non-subscribed reader, who doesn’t GET email notifications, even know I’ve responded to their comment, except by reading EVERYthing, which no one has the patience to do, not even Job.
LikeLike
I know that’s true, because Job called – he said, “F’get it! Oi, I’d rather coise g-d and die!”
LikeLike
Yeah Arch – that’s only one of the cons that I am aware of – there are more. I did say there were cons (to both methods). 🙂 If I wasn’t copied on replies (which I always make sure I am) , then searching for my name usually solves this con pretty well though without reading everything, and if the person forgot to put my name skimming through comments usually solves it pretty good too. Yes, I know you don’t like it – I don’t either. there are things I don’t like about nesting as well.
LikeLike
@Ruth – I see it as a disarming, ingratiating technique, totally lacking in sincerity. I view his motto as being, “Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not.”
At least when I say something, no one doubts that I mean it.
LikeLike
@Arch: Yeah, Job probably did have a Brooklyn accent. 😉
Oh yeah, you are right though, after a day or so after the conversation ends I never look back at a thread, but if I am NOT copied on reply comments then I will never know someone replied to me, whereas with nesting I’m pretty sure the replies get to the inbox even if I’m not subscribed (correct?). This is a better point than I first realized in my first reply to you. But again, any post I reply I click the subscribe, but I probably miss that sometimes which means there are likely posts I’ve been replied to that I have no clue of whatsoever. That isn’t something that would keep me up late at night worrying about though. 🙂
LikeLike
“This is why I advocate giving each other the benefit of the doubt.” – I have scars on my tongue from giving him the benefit of the doubt, at Neuro’s urgent urging, but in time, even she said (paraphrasing here) “Sic ’em!”
LikeLike
@ Arch,
At least when I say something, no one doubts that I mean it.
Don’t get me wrong, I value sincerity. It’s just that I don’t always expect it. I can’t control another person’s behavior. Only my own. If I don’t want value what someone is saying or don’t like their personality, I can always just not talk to them.
LikeLike