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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
Mikey declined to show me how brilliant he is, however I anticipate his ego will not allow that status to remain quo for long.
LikeLike
RE: “waking on water” – if you’ve been doing that, you’ve probably been wetting the bed.
LikeLike
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.
Did I say any of that? I don’t think so.
I did know it was addressed to a church. I didn’t need you to point this out. That you did only bolstered my argument. This is the problem with addressing people you don’t know. I was a Christian for 20 years and took Bible study seriously.
My point was he used a weak witness of 500 to address people who likely wouldn’t have even questioned it anyway. He was writing to believers, not trying to prove anything to anyone beyond that.
Yet, many apologists use this argument that Jesus appeared to over 500 unnamed witnesses as an unquestionable proof of the claim’s veracity. That it was claimed that he appeared to the 13 well-known people isn’t in question here.
I never claimed that no letter should be written to believers or churches. I only claimed that using these 500 alleged witnesses to pad the numbers of the claim does nothing for someone who doesn’t believe and who is skeptical about the historicity of the Bible to begin with.
Using the Bible to prove the Bible seems a fruitless endeavor.
LikeLike
“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.”
mike, you’re flailing here. that’s obviously why he brought it up.
“wow, 500 people saw jesus, so you can know it happened even if you didnt see him yourself..”
that’s what he was saying. saying “nuh, uh” doesnt change that.
LikeLike
Oh, dear. You just got the first Dickhead Award of the afternoon for that comment.
I am now reasonably confident that those reading your posts will suspect you are a fraud.
Next you’ll be saying I invented William Lane Craig and Gary Habermaas.
LikeLike
“What millions of people? You are delusional.”
that;s the point. what 500 people?
so I guess we agree after all, that just claiming a large number of people have seen something doesnt really count for anything.
this wasnt even a trap. I mean, I laid out this as my point when i first made it…
“drop on their knees and give their lives to Christ because Paul wrote down 500 names of now dead people?”
I dont know. My pointy that “500 people” isnt a good proof and doesnt serve as evidence as many like to pretend.
that’s really all I’m getting at.
LikeLike
By the way, if the argument is silly you should be spending time on apologetics websites telling them to stop using that argument. It is silly. That is what I’m saying.
LikeLike
He’s a first rate prat, and I suspect ignorant or a fraud – or maybe a troll? Look below. He’s just suggested I referenced apologist, Mike Licona because he agrees with me! RFLOL.
LikeLike
Did anybody else hear, “I’m rubber and you’re glue…?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A simple link to the image would work. ;)…Do share the link to the image if you care to bother.”
Nah, that’s like eating dry pancakes and then drinking syrup – text and images go together.
LikeLike
“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.”
Don’t know how to inform you any better . maybe read the book? Nowhere does Corinthians claim its written to anyone else but the church at Corinth. citing that it is written to a church as a point against it is just totally silly nonsense. Now that being the case would the church at Corinth relate the events at Jerusalem to unbelievers who could verify the facts? WHY YES!. How do we know? Because Thats called preaching the Gospel which all Christians are commanded to do.
We could argue back and forth as to whether the church could have survived had there been no one in Jerusalem making a claim at seeing a risen Christ. Sure . Atheists do it all the time as if people back in that day were just dumb goats willing to die, be rejected from synagogues etc for something that would have been verified to them as never happening by anyones account. Should the blogger have left it out because nate and his readers beg that its not a legitimate argument? Nope.
LikeLike
“By the way, if the argument is silly you should be spending time on apologetics websites telling them to stop using that argument. It is silly. That is what I’m saying.”
Poor Ruth….Their argument is not silly. You argument that because it was addressed to a church it is negated is vastly silly. .
LikeLike
Thanks for not bothering.
LikeLike
“Look below. He’s just suggested I referenced apologist, Mike Licona because he agrees with me! ”
Ark when you make a good point I will probably have a heart attack. My cardiac health is looking rosy. I am not very familiar with Liconia neither did I claim you invented him but like it or not lie about it or not you did use his name in support of one of your arguemnts
“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.”
Thats just obvious. I never said he agreed with your entire position but you did cite him as supporting a position against apologist and did use it in support of your claims regarding Mattew but be my guess
Lie some more.
LikeLike
“Don’t know how to inform you any better . maybe read the book? Nowhere does Corinthians claim its written to anyone else but the church at Corinth. citing that it is written to a church as a point against it is just totally silly nonsense. Now that being the case would the church at Corinth relate the events at Jerusalem to unbelievers who could verify the facts? WHY YES!. How do we know? Because Thats called preaching the Gospel which all Christians are commanded to do.”
mike, what are you talking about? are you even trying to follow the discussion as we’re having it? all anyone said was how referring to 500 random people does nothing to validate a claim – especially when sharing it with people who already agree with him.
are you dodging this on purpose? Paul is free to mention any number he wishes, it just doesnt serve as any proof or any evidence and we’re just saying that it’s is pointless to use it as evidence of any kind.
this shouldn’t be a difficult point to grasp.
LikeLike
I feel like these arguments are confusing points rather than making things more comprehensible
LikeLike
LOL, portal001, nate’s argument or all the crap that followed?
LikeLike
“so I guess we agree after all, that just claiming a large number of people have seen something doesnt really count for anything.”
Nope we don’t. does that passage PROVE the gospels are true by itself? Nope I don’t think so and neither does any Christian I know. Is it an argument for authenticity based on the fact that anyone that went to Jerusalem from Corinth could confirm or deny the fact given that a large segment of the church there would have had eye witnesses? yes.
this is where Nate’s poor blogging etiquette comes in. You are all arguing as If the blogger hinged his argument upon that and yet you don’t know what he said, what importance heattached to it, what the exact context was etc. Its all hearsay based on Nate who can’t even either remember enough of the blog article to find it with Google or just cant be bothered because after all this is really just a rubber stamp readership so who cares?
LikeLike
and by arguments I mean any of the comments that seem to be more focused on critiquing what a person wrote earlier rather than sticking to the points being discussed that go beyond this
LikeLike
if that makes sense? I’m not sure if it does…I’m re-reading what I wrote and perhaps it doesn’t. Its pretty late here 🙂
LikeLike
Liconia
Licona. Mike Licona. Do try to get it right, Mike. Please. Simply Google him. ‘Tis not that difficult, surely?
Yes…I am becoming more convinced we are dealing with another SOM, ladies and gents.
Oh, and Mike? Matthew is a crock, from start to finish.
But wait, I am sorry, Mike. Perhaps I should have asked up front; do you actually believe in the raising of the dead at the Crucifixion?
LikeLike
“Nope we don’t. does that passage PROVE the gospels are true by itself? Nope I don’t think so and neither does any Christian I know. Is it an argument for authenticity based on the fact that anyone that went to Jerusalem from Corinth could confirm or deny the fact given that a large segment of the church there would have had eye witnesses? yes.”
I think you’re just talking about something else, because we do agree that randomly citing any quantity of nameless individuals isnt good evidence and fails miserably as any semblance of proof.
that’s been the discussion. that’s what we’ve been talking about, mike.
LikeLike
“who cares?”
looks like just you. no one else care about your etiquette rules. That’s another blog topic – we’re on religion.
LikeLike
“mike, what are you talking about? are you even trying to follow the discussion as we’re having it? all anyone said was how referring to 500 random people does nothing to validate a claim – especially when sharing it with people who already agree with him.”
Nope thats not all that has been claimed. You have as much stated that Paul was trying to make it “sound like” the claim was confirmed as opposed to him legitimately holding that it was by the 500 and the name and identified apostles. Nate himself has indicated an intent that Paul would have to deceive and you all have argued not merely that it is not enough for us to day but that even at the time of writing it would have been necessarily vague
“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.”
Thats just nonsense. the 500 would have been part of the church. A simple visit to Jerusalem would have made it anything but vague.
Finally Ruth raised the issue that no names were mentioned which is just totally false and has been debunked. So its you that have not been following the discussion.
anyway really must go now . have fun
LikeLike
“Licona. Mike Licona. Do try to get it right, Mike. Please. Simply Google him. ‘Tis not that difficult, surely? ”
Maybe this will get though the density – Don’t care about Mike Liconia. Not an apostle, not in the Bible. Nothing to do with the text.
the end.
come up with something relevant for when I come back
LikeLike