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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
“If it is so easy to debunk this, wouldn’t have been better to debunk it than to engage in sandbox theatrics?”
Yes Ruth you have shown how fair and honest you are by claiming that my stating I was pressed for time was sandbox theatrics. Any other demonstrations of how fair you can be?
LikeLike
@ Mike,
I’m trying to figure out why your lack of time caused you to do such a thing to begin with. Either engage with the post or don’t. My point was, if it was so easy, would it really take more time to write your debunking than it does to engage in this manner? I’m not saying you don’t have a debunk for it, I’m saying why engage in such a childish way instead of presenting your material? Your reply to me only further demonstrates this. That you cannot see that is bemusing.
LikeLike
Hey ratamacue0,
thanks for the pretty pictures. Was there supposed to be something in there that was going to give me pause or are you just assuming a person you have never met doesn’t know the claims of atheists?
MY bet is before this is over I will be hearing begging that the resurrection passages are contradictions not proofs
LikeLike
Ruth I have already begun to address what you claim I was not going to. that you skip that and go to rhetoric has us both bemused. Congratulations.
LikeLike
“MY bet is before this is over I will be hearing begging that the resurrection passages are contradictions not proofs”
they’re claims, not proofs, unless your speaking of something besides mere claims?
LikeLike
and Mike, thanks for the tomb reply. I’ll reread my bible with your comments in mind before I conceded or disagree.
thanks again.
LikeLike
From the OP:
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.
Yes, one of the many things that is said about how reliable these eye-witnesses was is that no-one refuted it. But how could they? Since it is such a vague claim no one would know that they were the ones being used as an eyewitness. You could never go into a court room and say that there were 500 witnesses to an event that happened, even five years ago, and not give names.
And even though this was written, at the earliest 40 years after the event, it wasn’t widely distributed. It’s not like Paul made a thousand copies of it, or even ten. How many people read this account? How widely spread would the claim have even been?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Ruth I have already begun to address what you claim I was not going to. that you skip that and go to rhetoric has us both bemused. Congratulations.”
come on mike, let’s not fall back into our old ways criticizing someone for something you do as well. we were doing so well staying on point. you’re better than that.
LikeLike
Ruth I have already begun to address what you claim I was not going to. that you skip that and go to rhetoric has us both bemused. Congratulations.
Yes, I see that. Thank you.
LikeLike
Not to fear though ark out did you in the silly retort area.
Bless you , Mike. It’s always nice to get a compliment from the Box Seats where the intelligent monkeys sit.
I guess it must be a better class of banana you lot throw.
LikeLike
” You could never go into a court room and say that there were 500 witnesses to an event that happened, even five years ago, and not give names. ”
reading the passage does wonders. You might even see some names if you did. Of course why would the passage go into 500 names since most of the people it would list were in Israel not Corinth? The title of the book is after all 1 CORINTHIANS so the well known names in the church are mentioned and the church at jerusalem is summarized as having a large body of people. No foul . No vagueness since names are mentioned. Weak point.
LikeLike
“Bless you , Mike. It’s always nice to get a compliment from the Box Seats where the intelligent monkeys sit.
I guess it must be a better class of banana you lot throw.”
You are welcome Ark. I will see if the attendant will give us anything but overripe bananas to throw to the lower seats but I cannot promise you anything.
LikeLike
@Mike Anthony.
For what it’s worth, only a complete idiot ( or indoctrinated unfortunate who didn’t know better) would accept anything in Matthew, especially regarding the so called crucifixion and resurrection.
First, let’s all remind ourselves that 600 verses in ”his” gospel were purloined from Mark. And ‘Matthew’s’ is the gospel that contains the Zombie Apocalypse for which even christian apologist Mike Licona lost his job over for stating in his book this was not to be taken literally which rather upset his apologetic buddies and employees.
So, is ‘Matthew’s’ gospel trustworthy in any context?
No, not really.
LikeLike
“Weak point.”
which point were you referring to? at first I thought it was yours, but then I thought that sounded weird – for you to make a point and then criticize yourself. But I wouldn’t put anything past you, so I figured I seek clarification.
LikeLike
“well Ark that’s not fair. If it wasnt trustworthy god wouldnt have included it in his perfect bible. If it’s good enough for god, it should be good enough for us.”
– is what i think mike might agree with.
LikeLike
“For what it’s worth, only a complete idiot ( or indoctrinated unfortunate who didn’t know better) would accept anything in Matthew, especially regarding the so called crucifixion and resurrection”
SO much substance in that response Ark….Like all your recent comments.
“Mike Licona lost his job over for stating in his book this was not to be taken literally which rather upset his apologetic buddies and employees.”
I did a search in My Bible for Mike Licona. Guess what? His name didn’t come up. hmmm. Oh you think because you cite somebody agreeing with you thats evidence for your claims? ahhh. carry on. I will work on better bananas for you. The extra potassium may help you to make better arguments.
LikeLike
“which point were you referring to? at first I thought it was yours, but then I thought that sounded weird – for you to make a point and then criticize yourself. But I wouldn’t put anything past you, so I figured I seek clarification.”
I’ve been working on a equation that seems to hold up upon repeated tests. Theres a direct correlaton between the inferior quality of your rhetoric when your claims are challenged and the fact that you have no immediate answer. Please work on reading the resurrection texts so the rhetoric at least rises to seal level. For your own good – you may drown diving that deep.
LikeLike
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
So, I read the passage. I already had done. A number of times.
He appeared to Peter alone, then to Peter with the twelve. That would be no big revelation since that had already been claimed. Then he appeared, apparently to his brother, James, and to the apostles.
So the named are the twelve diciples and his brother? Oh, and himself.
But my broader point still remains. How widely spread the letter to the Corinthians was, and those that are actually named goes to no one speaking up to say, “Hey, what’s he talking about? I didn’t see that!”
You only made my point stronger by pointing out that he was addressing the Church at Corinth. He was writing this letter to convince people who were already believers. Preaching to the choir.
LikeLike
He appeared to Peter alone, then to Peter with the twelve.
Sorry, that should say the other eleven.
LikeLike
Hey mike, my rhetoric is just a bit f tot for tat fun. I thought it was mutual, but your last response to me made me unsure. If you’re taking it personally, just say so and I’ll back off. I figured since you were doing it, it was open season.
as far as my replies to your comments on the events at the tomb – what is there to criticize? I thanked you for your points, and since I dont have a photographic memory, said that my official response would come after I had a chance to consult the book we;re all talking about. the bereans were noble for doing this and I want to make sure I cite correctly – just dont have the time right now.
is that really a problem? isnt it better if discuss the text itself, instead of our commentaries on it?
LikeLike
“But my broader point still remains. How widely spread the letter to the Corinthians was, and those that are actually named goes to no one speaking up to say, “Hey, what’s he talking about? I didn’t see that!””
Totally incoherent. The twelve were all well known people, Paul makes 13 . Cephas and James mentioned in particular. Your claim that no names were mentioned or referenced has been debunked and rather than admit it you are just hand waving. You are doing a fine job of showing your claim at being objective was utterly false. How many names would be enough for you since 13 identifiable well known figures are specified. Is the magic number 14 or 41?
“You only made my point stronger by pointing out that he was addressing the Church at Corinth. He was writing this letter to convince people who were already believers. Preaching to the choir.”
Welcome to a minimal level of competence. Seriously you did not know corinthians was addressed to a church? You think that make your point stronger because you were clueless about the basics? No that proves you were clueless. thats about it. So there ought to be no letters in the Bible directed to churches or its vague? Why? the church should only teach atheists? Do tell Silly argument.
P.S. Paul preached to people outside the church . He wrote letters to people he knew. No newstands in the first century. Go figure.
LikeLike
“Totally incoherent. The twelve were all well known people, Paul makes 13 . Cephas and James mentioned in particular. Your claim that no names were mentioned or referenced has been debunked and rather than admit it you are just hand waving. You are doing a fine job of showing your claim at being objective was utterly false. How many names would be enough for you since 13 identifiable well known figures are specified. Is the magic number 14 or 41?”
Mike, paul brings up “500” to make it sound like what he’s claiming is largely confirmed – but it fails to do so – and millions of people agree with me – but what differences does that make?
If paul is using the “500” to bolster his claims, it’s fair to question the source. how many were named? 2 or 3, that’s start I guess. It’s far from an incoherent point. You saying it’s incoherent doesn’t make anyone question their position, just question yours.
To someone who believes the bible is from god, a passage about 500 eye witnesses sounds great, but to skeptics, it brings on more questions – as it would with any issue.
“Welcome to a minimal level of competence. Seriously you did not know corinthians was addressed to a church? You think that make your point stronger because you were clueless about the basics? No that proves you were clueless. thats about it. So there ought to be no letters in the Bible directed to churches or its vague? Why? the church should only teach atheists? Do tell Silly argument.”
obviously that wasnt the point, so you’re either back to rhetoric yourself or you’re being dishonest. The point was that corinth was church and that spouting vague “evidences” to people who already agree with you just doesnt count for much.
Should the church only tech atheists? I dont know about only, but spending some time on it may be beneficial if what you;re pushing is true.
and by the way, that brings up another question, which version of Christianity is the right one?
LikeLike
Now unfortunately my time has gone for commenting today. I guess you can return to the rhetoric of KKChief that I am running away to feed my cat. Don;t have a cat prefer dogs but I will try and work out something and still not forget the bananas for ARk.
and william. I am cool bro. I don’t mind a tit for tat. As you can see I will zing back a tat for tit so as long as you aren’t going to get hurt on the zing backs – no problem mi amigo. I could do without the A hole business though but you have not gone there just saying.
LikeLike
“and william. I am cool bro. I don’t mind a tit for tat. As you can see I will zing back a tat for tit so as long as you aren’t going to get hurt on the zing backs – no problem mi amigo. I could do without the A hole business though but you have not gone there just saying.”
delightful. I’m down with it as long as i know no ones feelings are hurt and it remains in good fun. But i like the wrestle – just adds some flavor. I’ll get back to you on the tomb scenario.
LikeLike
“Mike, paul brings up “500″ to make it sound like what he’s claiming is largely confirmed
NO thats your claim and its totally bogus Get a grip. You don’t know why Paul brings up anything. You can’t read minds now much less 2,000 years ago so thats just empty rhetoric.
“– but it fails to do so – and millions of people agree with me – but what differences does that make? “”
What millions of people? You are delusional. Corinthians was written to a church. If the passage even listed every name what would these millions of people do who you claim believe as you do now? drop on their knees and give their lives to Christ because Paul wrote down 500 names of now dead people?
Stand by it. Its a silly argument and kinda desperate.
Even among gentile communities there were some Jews (and gentiles) that would travel back to jersualem and visit the church there. 500 is merely away of indicating how many people were still alive in the Jerusalem church who were witnesses in addition to the 13 identified people (the 12 specifies 12 well known people).
The fact that you people have to run down such silly weak points says it all.
LikeLike