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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
I don’t have an a priori objection to the supernatural. But since it’s defined as something “beyond nature,” I think its occurrence would be extremely unlikely.
I’m not versed enough in quantum physics to go down that road, nor do I think any layperson is, so I’ll leave that aside for now. When I think of the supernatural, I think of miracles. There’s no natural explanation for Jesus walking on water or healing lepers, for instance. I’ve never seen anything to make me think that events like that can happen. I’m not saying they’re impossible — but I haven’t seen enough evidence to make me believe in them yet.
I agree with your assessment of the way some atheists view this, but I don’t share their objection. I don’t dismiss the notion of the supernatural out of hand — I believe that if God exists, then he could probably violate the laws of physics if he wanted to. But since I’ve seen no good evidence of this, I don’t believe it happens.
That’s the position I was coming from when writing this post.
LikeLike
Mike – perfect response – exactly the one that I was expecting, and yes your response and it’s quality is quite apropos for what we are talking about – rhetoric is a big part of what does the job in growing religions – along with the other things I mentioned (although charisma doesn’t seem to be present here, which is likely why we don’t see mass conversions on this blog).
Your counter makes it clear you missed what I wrote – I wonder if when you research things you miss the main points of what you read just like you have here – so your “research” really doesn’t really mean a whole lot. But I guess you have conceded that the 500 really isn’t very convincing so I think you are right it is better to move on.
You seem to like to claim over and over again that we weren’t Christians before as if somehow this bolsters your viewpoint, and we’ve already told you that this calls into question everyone’s salvation. Since you keep bringing it up, I think a good topic would be for you to explain to us exactly how someone could be sure that they were a True Christian.
@Nate – since it is your blog, if you think this last thing I mentioned is too off topic please put the kibosh on it.
LikeLike
He also seems to imply that everyone in the country lived in Jerusalem, but Israel is a big country, in terms of its overall population at the time. One of the primary reasons that Yeshua (his real name), if he ever existed, was reputed to have spent his entire ministry in the area of Galilee, was because the Sanhedren – the Jewish religious authority, the body of priests who declared him blasphemous – had no authority outside of Jerusalem. If indeed he appeared to 500, as alleged, at Mt. Tabor, that mountain is located in Lower Galilee, Israel, at the eastern end of the Jezreel Valley, 11 miles (18 km) west of the Sea of Galilee – again, well out of reach of the Sanhedren – why would he expose his followers to them and risk their persecution as well?
LikeLike
“You’re misreading things, Mike. I didn’t suggest moving on because you’re some master debater who has blown all our points out of the water. I suggested it because this has become so tedious.”
Nate please read better. You misrepresenting what I write is tedious as well. I never even implied. that you suggested moving on because I was a master debater. read the quote again. Quite the contrary I said others are hanging on because I pointed out somethings they did not know. this is the second time in this thread you have quoted me then said
“What William said (as well as several others) is right: the 500 are not specified. I believe Ruth provided several quotes from scholars who think they were most likely centered around Galilee, not Jerusalem.”
You and they are wrong and obviously wrong because there is no passage in all of the Bible that JUST mentions the 500. You are twisting it…..some would say even quote mining it. You can turn right to passage and see that it mentions names, designates the 12 and the 500. ALL of your links to apologists go well beyond the 500 but you ignore it . The point is hopeless and weak because you ignore the rest of the text and hang on to the 500 as if thirteen designated and identifiable witnesses is not enough. I’ve asked what the magic number is 14? 41? Thats why i want to move on. You have no point once there is in the text identifiers of some of the witnesses. Its a totally failed point.
” But no skeptic starts with that assumption, which is why we’re not going to get anywhere in this discussion.”
I don’t know what goal you have gotten in your head that I am after but I’ve gotten EXACTLY where I wanted to go Nate and if I have gotten nowhere neither have you. If I gambled I’d bet a good sum that the blogger you are supposedly responding to does not claim that a skeptic should start out with the assumption either but thats the beauty of responding to something that no one knows what you are responding to. You can take any point in isolation and divide it from its context.
LikeLike
*Smile*…No, Mike. Rubbish is rubbish. I don’t see the necessity of dressing it with unnecessary adjectives.
LikeLike
“Mike – perfect response – exactly the one that I was expecting, and yes your response and it’s quality is quite apropos for what we are talking about – rhetoric”
and with that Howie launches into an entire post of rhetoric.
Apropos for an atheist.
and no one can logically complain at that retort because this thread is full of retorts against believers
LikeLike
That really is your response Mike – maybe you want to start asking me my age again? 🙂
LikeLike
“You and they are wrong and obviously wrong because there is no passage in all of the Bible that JUST mentions the 500. You are twisting it…..some would say even quote mining it. You can turn right to passage and see that it mentions names, designates the 12 and the 500. ALL of your links to apologists go well beyond the 500 but you ignore it . The point is hopeless and weak because you ignore the rest of the text and hang on to the 500 as if thirteen designated and identifiable witnesses is not enough. I’ve asked what the magic number is 14? 41? Thats why i want to move on. You have no point once there is in the text identifiers of some of the witnesses. Its a totally failed point.”
twinsting nothing at all. The other names paul mentions, fine. we;re all talking about the 500 nameless individuals the paul speaks of after the few other names. agian, it’f fine if he mentions any number, it just doesnt serve as compelling evidence.
and I missed the point you made that let everyone know something they didnt know before.
but for a perfect god, who can do anything, including speak directly in our ears, to limit us with evidence like paul’s 500… well he can do that if he pleases. I just dont buy it and perhaps I’ll burn for not being convinced.
so, can we now move on? I’m not even really sure what we’re arguing about. paul says jesus appeared to 500 people. We all agree that’s what 1 Cor 15:6 says.
let’s move on.
LikeLike
Mike, you cant even begin fathom my position?
I can get disagreeing with it, i guess, but you act as if it makes zero sense. I know that it does make sense, which is why i am confused.
LikeLike
“Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence”
Do they? or only some extraordinary claims? I see atheist such as yourself make this argument all the time but then you duck out of it when convenient and even argue against the premise as it suits.
Is it extraordinary that the first living cell organized it self out of inanimate material. Yes in fact its so extraordinary that no one in the better part of a century studying it has figured out yet how it could have happened. Does any atheist accept the claim from theists that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”? Nope they all accept that abiogenesis happened and demand that theist do to.
Is it extraordinary that life evolved unguided and came up with all kinds of animals and life forms that in turn just happened to evolve instincts (unlearned behaviour) that allows them to use the features they have? So extraordinary I have never seen any good explanation for it but atheists insist that that must be accepted without any physical evidence ( the evolution of instinct is not preserved in the fossil record).
Several people who make that claim of extraordinary evidence swallow Multiple universes, everything coming out of nothing and on and on. It seems to be only applied universally to Religion as a gambit.
But when and where was ordinary even shown to have been set? Please point me to the papers confirming this illustrious set point. Claiming its what we experience now might SEEM to be appropriate but when looked at logically would be false to the history of the universe or what preceded it. plus whose experience makes this determination. My father saw a ghost. He is an honest rational man who no piece of evidence suggest would lie (and he and his friend have maintained it for years. He has never been a drunk and did not live in a time or place where he access to drugs. I know him and believe him. To me (not you because you know nothing of him) this is evidence but one thing is sure – his experience changes what he would consider “ordinary” so who get to set this base point of ordinary?
Which is why I asked for a definition of supernatural. Its a good foundational question.
And less anyone barf like the Arks and arch who I pretty much skip over when reading comments . I do not claim that miracles should just be accepted because someone says they happened but with good evidence not some undefined every changing “extraordinary claim” proof which is never pinned downed to any particular standard. Good evidence not no evidence.
“The claims of miracles were common, not only by Jesus, but by other “deities” as well. We reject the notion of any other deities at this point”
Whose the “we”. Is there a bit of delusion at play You represent the minority. The world is still overwhelming occupied by theists. You’ve got a LONG way to go and its dubious you will ever reach the point of being representative for the world’s population
LikeLike
This might seem a little elementary but from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
su·per·nat·u·ral
adjective
: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature : of, relating to, or seeming to come from magic, a god, etc.
Full Definition of SUPERNATURAL
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature
b : attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit)
LikeLike
“I said Stephen when, in fact, it was Matthias. I misspoke. I should have referenced the passage before speaking. It’s been a little while since I read it. Stephen was, in fact, one of the first deacons. ”
Good for you. Finally read up on it. Your excuse might fly among the fellow atheists here but its just good form to actually have all the facts straight when you are trying to trash a religion, That you did not know that or that the twelve was perfectly legit to say since Matthias was an eyewitness also leads to a logical conclusion you don’t know what you are talking about when floating your alleged contradictions. You may think thats harsh but if you decide to swim into the waters of claiming what someone else believes is nonsense and expose your own ignorance then you should be prepared as an adult to take your lumps.
LikeLike
Nope they all accept that abiogenesis happened and demand that theist do to.
I’m not demanding that theists accept anything. I do think a natural explanation will sooner or later be found, but then that will only move things back another step in the process and theists will insist that God was the cause of the preceding step. Whatever. I don’t think that’s going away anytime soon. However, just because science hasn’t explained a particular hypothesis doesn’t mean that it wont. In turn, it also doesn’t mean that science will discover that a particular hypothesis is wrong and change course. That doesn’t happen with [some] theists who maintain that science is bogus and wrong and that it explains nothing that it actually does explain. If it were true that goddidit then the search would be over and there would be not need to continue to investigate.
Whose the “we”.
Well, perhaps you’re right that I’m assuming something I shouldn’t be. I certainly didn’t mean to imply the “we” was the whole of the earth’s populace. I was using “we” as the people in this discussion. Are there any people in this discussion who believe any deities other than Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit exist? Are you saying you believe that other deities exist?
LikeLike
“: unable to be explained by science or the laws of nature :”
I would go with that and have in the past.which is why the bias against the supernatural is illogical. the above definition applies to the entire universe.
LikeLike
mike, what’s your point with extraordinary claims?
if you;re saying that bold claims even in theoretical science need extraordinary evidences, and even in religion then okay – i’m with you there.
but if you’re suggesting that it’s okay for the bible to make bold and basely claims because other people do it to, then i think that’s a weak argument.
i;d just like to make the point that atheism isnt a religion, in that there are no set tenets or beliefs – it’s an absence of belief in deity. So while one atheist may hold to one position – that doesnt mean that they all do.
can you clarify the point you were making in this regard?
LikeLike
“God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance, that gets smaller and smaller as time goes on.”
— Neil Degrasse Tyson —
LikeLike
Good for you. Finally read up on it. Your excuse might fly among the fellow atheists here but its just good form to actually have all the facts straight when you are trying to trash a religion, That you did not know that or that the twelve was perfectly legit to say since Matthias was an eyewitness also leads to a logical conclusion you don’t know what you are talking about when floating your alleged contradictions. You may think thats harsh but if you decide to swim into the waters of claiming what someone else believes is nonsense and expose your own ignorance then you should be prepared as an adult to take your lumps.
Finally?
No, I did know that. I misspoke. But I also said in my mea culpa that I should have referenced the passage instead of going from memory of things I hadn’t read in a while. Mistakes happen. That does not Biblical illiteracy make. Think of me what you will.
I wasn’t floating alleged contradictions. You have a gigantic chip on your shoulder. I wasn’t even alleging that saying “twelve” when Judas had hung himself was a contradiction.
I’m sorry that I have obviously offended you because I don’t believe the same things you believe and have the audacity to say so. And rather than just accept my correction you feel you need to rub my nose in it like a puppy on a pee stain?
LikeLike
” However, just because science hasn’t explained a particular hypothesis doesn’t mean that it wont.”
Thanks you proved my point like I thought you might. You threw the extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof right out the window just as i thought you would. Totally bogus. Now for abiogenesis its “later we will find the evidence”
“If it were true that goddidit then the search would be over and there would be not need to continue to investigate. ‘
Another absolutely rubbish Atheist rhetorical claim destroyed by the fact that every single branch of science was founded by a theist. History rebuts you to the ground, They continued to investigate while being theists
“Well, perhaps you’re right that I’m assuming something I shouldn’t be. I certainly didn’t mean to imply the “we” was the whole of the earth’s populace. I was using “we” as the people in this discussion. ”
SO you were just reminding me I was on an atheist blog with what ? ten other atheists? Cool . what was your point on that again?
LikeLike
😉
LikeLike
“but if you’re suggesting that it’s okay for the bible to make bold and basely claims because other people do it to, then i think that’s a weak argument.”
William its getting to the point where you are sounding like ARkie and Archie. Just totally silly observations in light of the fact I have said good evidence is required. You are boring me now and I am reading less and less of you. “where did I ever make the claim that no evidence is required because other people do it. You are reading like a child that had his toys taken from him trying to find something to accuse of that was never said.
LikeLike
Look, Mike, I’d like to converse in a constructive manner here. You might be swapping barbs with folks here “all in good fun”, but it’s getting pretty tiresome. You twist what people say or either completely misunderstand it. If someone makes a misstep you come out swinging, but when you’re shown to have made your own you’d rather go down with the ship than admit it.
While “… every single branch of science was founded by a theist.” that doesn’t hold true today because the very research and findings led them to other conclusions. When “every single branch of science was founded by a theist” these scientists were theists because that was the best explanation at that time. With each new finding, it seems, it backs a deity farther down the chain of events.
I never once said science would prove abiogenesis. I don’t know enough about abiogenesis to make that claim. What I said was:
However, just because science hasn’t explained a particular hypothesis doesn’t mean that it wont. In turn, it also doesn’t mean that science will discover that a particular hypothesis is wrong and change course.
If you’re going to quote me please quote me correctly. Science could disprove abiogenesis. That’s what I said.
LikeLike
SO you were just reminding me I was on an atheist blog with what ? ten other atheists? Cool . what was your point on that again?
No, I’m also on a blog with an apparent theist. Not only a theist, but a Christian theist. Am I wrong about that? What God or gods do you believe in?
LikeLike
“twinsting nothing at all. The other names paul mentions, fine. we;re all talking about the 500 nameless individuals the paul speaks of after the few other names. ”
Sigh twisting everything. No apologist uses the 500 in isolation. every single link that Nate provided mentions far more than the 500. he just pretended as if it didn’t. So who cares what you are talking about? Argue all day over your strawman. You still lose by doing nothing else but quote mining. Like you said before you don’t care about ettiquete and you sure as a blue sky on a clear day don’t care about what the actual point of the blogger was or any apologist since you are quite willing to slice the 500 our of all context in the NT or in any of links Nate provides
Total fail. Officially bored. theres you and Nate quote mining and begging against the passage itself that only the 500 matter to your argument and then theres Ruth barfing extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence but ooops not for abiogenesis we can have delayed evidence for that and swallow it whole. so essentially a evidence rain check? lol
LOL …You should all take a bow. Yep you certainly have proven you are the group that goes anywhere the evidence leads (as long as you figure it leads where you want it to go and slice out the evidence when it deviates from your own dogma).
.
LikeLike
“Another absolutely rubbish Atheist rhetorical claim destroyed by the fact that every single branch of science was founded by a theist.”
if this is a good point, it’s also worth noting that most of these theist scientists changed their view on religion while working their science. additionally, the father of biology, was no christian, so should we subscribe to greek mythology?
It’s cool to say, i guess, but doesnt really lend support to anything, and is probably better left unsaid.
And I dont worry about scientific theory. It’s unlike the claims of religion in that over time science is self correcting. They find a better fit and adjust or find themselves wrong and adjust or find themselves right and move forward. I try not to take a firm hold an anything until it’s solidified.
with religious claims, there’s not self correction – it’s all dismissed or ushered in with “god can do anything.” well that’s neat and all, but then you cant dismiss any religion outside of your own without those believers saying, “well, god(s) made it known to those who want to see the truth” and walk away feeling justified somehow as if that statements solves it.
then when they’re called on it, say “well science doesnt know everything but you follow that,” as if it’s at all the same.
I dont care if you believe in science or any of the prevailing theories – I dont know that i do. we dont have to and our eternal souls dont depend on it.
you can say they’re the same, but they’re just not. making ignorant claims just makes you look ignorant – again, it fails to make me questions my own position – just yours.
LikeLike
“While “… every single branch of science was founded by a theist.” that doesn’t hold true today because the very research and findings led them to other conclusions. ”
Try to move the goal posts all you want . we both know what you wrote
““If it were true that goddidit then the search would be over and there would be not need to continue to investigate.”
The God did it people went on continuing to investigate so your point on that is dead. Plus if you think that every scientist is now an atheist (“to other conclusions”) you have been reading too many slanted polls. there are still thousands of Christian, Hindu , Moslem practicing scientists. Get a grip.
“With each new finding, it seems, it backs a deity farther down the chain of events.”
And where was the deity before that allegedly was pushed down the alleged chain of events? You cant be talking about a biblical God right? Because the biblical God creates by Law. So you have some explanation for the laws of nature? Wow a new finding that explains that? Do tell. shoot. Either that or your claim (another rhetoric device from atheists) fails again.
“If you’re going to quote me please quote me correctly.”
I did. Can’t read your own post?
“. I do think a natural explanation will sooner or later be found, but then that will only move things back another step in the process and theists will insist that God was the cause of the preceding step”
Is that not you declaring your faith without evidence and even projecting ahead what will happen when the non existent proof is found. If I said the proof of the resurrection will be found and you will all know it when Jesus returns (sooner or later as you even said). you would laugh your head s off but that beautiful post above reads EXACTLY as that kind of argument
down the drain goes the extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence… umm no proof now? ……..we can just take a rain check. Materiaism is good for it. Easy credit.
“No, I’m also on a blog with an apparent theist. Not only a theist, but a Christian theist. Am I wrong about that? ”
aaah I get you so the “we” was me. Ok carry on.
LikeLike