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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
@N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ
I like your Yoko theme. How far down do your ‘nested’ comments go, Victoria?
LikeLike
“Not for females?”
LOL — I just meant that the research I was referring to, regarding heroin like brain activity, were done on the male orgasm.
LikeLike
No research done on females? You ladies always gotta be so mysterious…
LikeLike
@ N℮üґ☼N☮☂℮ṧ
Come again?
What research?
LikeLike
@Ruth – RE: “As for me, I just stop communicating, no matter how childish the other person gets. I shut down on them.”
The absolute truth, Ruth, is that that is really the best approach, and if EVERYone would do that, we’d be rid of Mikey in a heartbeat, because he’s only here for the attention, and getting none, would move on. But that’s the problem with getting a bunch of free-thinkers together – they don’t do what you tell them to! One thinks he/she has an appropriate response ot a comment of Mike’s and makes it, then another, and another, and suddenly, it’s back to business as usual!
LikeLike
@Ark
“I like your Yoko theme. How far down do your ‘nested’ comments go, Victoria?”
The most I’m allowed is 10. But thankfully, they don’t get narrower and narrower. It is especially annoying when you have a lengthy reply, and I tend to post a lot of research, myself, so it makes the comment seem much longer that it really is and that can discourage someone from reading it. If Nate’s template does that, then it’s probably in his best interest and those that follow him, to keep it the way it is, or at least limit the nesting. The default is usually set at 3.
LikeLike
Yeah, I did that for a bit. Until I realized all he was after was…
puppy..nose..pee stain
Nothing more can be said to a person like that, really.
LikeLike
“It was meant for a certain really old bird. lol” – Well at least you had the good grace to clean me up, since our last conversation on the subject.
LikeLike
RE: Yeah, I did that for a bit. Until I realized all he was after was…
puppy..nose..pee stain
Nothing more can be said to a person like that, really.
Again, @arch
I keep forgetting that part.
LikeLike
Thanks. I might investigate when I have more than ten people on my blog.
LikeLike
@arch,
“Well at least you had the good grace to clean me up, since our last conversation on the subject.”
That caused you to associate me with a certain troll who shall remain nameless. That cut me deep, arch. That cut me deep.
LikeLike
“Come again?
What research?”
LMAO
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/23/27/9185.abstract
LikeLike
“I might investigate when I have more than ten people on my blog.” – Have you considered saying something interesting? That could increase your traffic —
LikeLike
@Ark,
Lol.
LikeLike
“That cut me deep, arch. That cut me deep.” – Band-Aid –?
LikeLike
“Band-Aid –?”
At least you’re not pouring salt.
LikeLike
“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.” – Mike
Mike, thanks for addressing my questions one by one, except you avoided some.
Where were the angels encountered and when? I guess we could ask “how many times” too.
where was jesus encountered and when (at the tomb) and when?
With the galilee and jerusalem thing, I disagree. reading the texts as they are written, All directed the disciple to gather in galilee to see jesus, but luke tells them to WAIT in jerusalem until they receive power from on high. Jesus ascends and they get power in Acts… so when did they go to galilee? Did they go after the ascendtion… meaning jesus came back and then what? ascended again? Nothing states this, but i guess we could infer it if forcing these accounts together. And if the disciples went to Galilee before the events in jerusalem recorded in acts, then they didnt wait until that time as jesus directed them to do. No, this problem just doesnt go away.
I admit, the number of people or angles isnt that big of deal. Listing part of party in lieu on the entire party seems very likely/plausible/whatever – but the places and times encountered? That seems to be something else – at least to me.
and me asking you for a better translation or a more accurate version of the bible to use is not a strawman.
We were discussing the bible, and you criticized me for not knowing greek and for relying on the english version i have. The question is very valid then, if you know greek better than the scholars who transliterated the versions of the bible I’ve been reading (NIV, KJ, NKJ, NAS), then I’d like to know what you think the translation “should be” or at least a MIKE APPROVED TRANSLATION so that we can discuss the text, and avoid the problems of me not being a greek scholar.
This makes sense. And if you’re not going to provide such, dont criticize me for relying on the accepted translations of recognized greek and hebrew scholars.
and for future reference, do you also claim to be an expert on ancient hebrew?
LikeLike
“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.”
mike, sorry you feel like ypu’ve spent too much time. But if you could spend just a little more on these few points you keep skipping over:
where were the angels encountered and when? what did they say?
where was jesus encountered at the tomb and when? and what did he say?
I feel like these are substantially different between the gospels. explaining these may be helpful.
LikeLike
if the “70 weeks” in daniel 9 really meant “70 years,” what did the “1 week” mean? “1 year” or “1000 years” and how could we know and why wouldn’t the week to year conversion remain constant?
In prophecies like these, as with Nostradamus, do we just look at the “prophecy” in as many ways as possible until it begins to resemble something that has already occurred?
In other words, since the prophecy doesn’t make sense when it’s given, and cant be used to accurately predict what will come, we’re guessing what the meaning was after we think we’ve found the eventuality?
LikeLike
@ARK
Yeah, but you probably thought I was KIDDING, right? See for yourself!
LikeLike
Hi William – I’ve never seen any reputable scholar question whether or not the weeks mean weeks of years (in other words that the whole span Daniel was talking about was 490 years). Context as well usage of the Hebrew word “weeks” makes it clear as far as I remember. I’ve read several different Jewish, Christian and secular viewpoints and none of the ones I’ve read argue on this point. This doesn’t take away from your overall point you are making, but I did want to add that in my opinion there are some things that are reasonable to assume as correct interpretation regarding the passage and I think that is one of them.
LikeLike
Hey Brandon – you still reading after this post has almost hit 500 comments? 🙂 I’m still interested in the point about archeology stuff. Like I said I haven’t read enough about this to talk intelligibly, which is why I am commenting. So far I’ve read your discussion with John Zande a while back, and also briefly searched a few sites on the topic, but that’s really not good enough for me to make a solid conclusion for myself. I wonder if you want to make a post on your blog regarding this. I say this because it seems to be a topic you keep running into, you seem to think you have good insight regarding it, and I’d like to get a more detailed analysis and statement of what the scholarly opinions are from someone who holds your opinion.
If you decide to do that, let me know and I can give you feedback on the kinds of things I’d like to learn on the topic.
LikeLike
You are probably right, Arch. I shall make a point of avoiding your blog for any sort of inspiration.
LikeLike
“mike, sorry you feel like ypu’ve spent too much time. But if you could spend just a little more on these few points you keep skipping over:”
I haven’t skipped over anything. I gave you my answer but what you want me to do is tediously go over each verse which you hypocritically claim you were going to do but would be too long for you and draw out for you how the easter play syndrome affects each and every movement and sentence, and repeat who said what and where like you can’t read yourself without applying yourself to anything . in other words if I don’t do what you refused to do I am skipping (and you wonder why I rightfully call you guys on intellectual dishonesty?). Plus its the same intellectually dishonest game – “I say there are contradictions and so the burden of proof is with you to show they are NOT contradictions rather than me prove that there are”
This is like 500 comments on this thread and EVERY ONE is tired of it. I haven’t even read the last 20-30 responses and i certainly consider it done. You’ve had days to put on the table why and where my answers don’t work but have done nothing but now claim I need to put them on the table so that ummm you can point out where they don’t work. Nothing but games . If people seeing different things independent of moving in herds does not work as you claim then point out the verses where it doesn’t work not beg that I must point them out for you
“I feel like these are substantially different between the gospels”
then you should have shown some good faith put up the verses and present why they are substantially different even though as I have pointed out people nor angels would move around in packs and herds but independently seeing different things and saying different things. Nate’s article certainly does not address that issue so you should have done so yourself. Not doing so is just lazy and shows two things
A) you are not serious in your approach
B) You are still laboring under the impression that what you feel, think or imagine is the issue. It isn’t. I gather from something Nate has said that he suffers from that same illusion too. I do not post here to convince you or to have you change your mind or to put things up to your vote. My only objective is to point out that you have not proven your point and I most definitely have.
Anyway 500 comments is waaaaaaaay more than enough and it will be my last time reading or responding to anything in this thread except my last reply to Nate here
LikeLike
“Mike, why are you arguing for the Babylonian calendar when Daniel was living under Persian rule?”
Nate for the love of Pete do some research ANY research or shucks even actually read Daniel. Daniel was raised and trained under Babylonian rule for almost his entire life. why would he be using persian calendars when at the time of Daniel 9 the persians had just taken over less than a year and we have no evidence that everything babylonian had been thrown out? You are making no sense again because you have done next to no research.
“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.”
Again do some research Nate. You seem to be under the misguided idea that ancient cultures used only one calendar. Just as with the 360 day calendar we use in financial markets people used different calendars for different things and there is no doubt whatsoever if you actually do some research that Bablyonian records indicate an astronomical year was 360 days. They used this to interpret omens. Days are only added to calendars used for syncing with seasons and harvests. Furthermore you have just stumbled upon exactly why God would use a straight system without intercalary years by proclamation – because they were subject to proclamations, human error and calculations the average reader at the time would be unable to do. Why in the world would God use such a system? It could forecast nothing because the future dates would be subject to human proclamations that the reader would not know when would be made. So the understanding of a straight 360 day year would stand as in fact babylonian writings reveal WAS the understanding of a year astronomically
“From the 20th of Nisan to the 20th of Nisan of the coming year, 6 times sixty days (and) 6
times sixty nights . . . ”
“”Twelve are the months of the year; 360 are its days. ”
http://www.mesopotamia.co.uk/astronomer/explore/diviner1t.html
So what would be better to use? A system which anyone could use and come to a time period or one no one could use to project anything because it would all be subject to proclamations or erratic adjustments that would be unknown in the future? Obviously the straight system for projecting future dates so your point fails miserably especially when we see evidence of other writings outside of daniel of the 360 day year like Enoch and revelations.
So theres really no question it was in use whatsoever and statistically the odd of the one command that actually results in Jerusalem being restored would add up using ANY available calendar of the time would end up at the time of Christ is significant no matter how much and waving or denial you are in.
It gets worse though Nate. The 70 year captivity according to jeremiah and levticus 26 mentioned in Daniel 9 was to be accepted on behalf of some of the Jews as “time served”.
Once that is taken into consideration Biblical calculations come out to 1948 for the end of punishment against the jews being separated from their land (all using straight forward numbers and calculations called for in the Bible)
Stunning coincidence eh?
“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.”
Again Nate do some research. They did not. intercalary systems are only needed when there needs to be a sync with seasons. For the purpose of projecting a future event that had nothing to do with seasons they would serve no use and actually stop the projection because days would be added in the future at times by officials that no one could predict before time.
“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.”
And you have failed by your usual lack of research. the 360 day calendar was a standard calendar used in babylon. Not the only one but no invention. Its corroborated by the babylonian records (where Daniel was), other books using it and other calculations verifying it.
This is always my issue with you Nate. You make great sweeping statements to maintain your own dogma which never pan out because you did and do no real research
LikeLike