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1) We should treat the Bible like any other historical document.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 That’s the standard we would expect from any other historical document, and it’s the same thing we should expect from the Bible.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 
“Total fail. Officially bored.”
I think you keep missing the issue, mike. If you’re so bored, then why do you keep going on about the 500? I didnt even thing you were saying that paul’s 500 proved anything.
I really think we all agree paul’s 500 doesnt prove the resurrection, correct? or is that your position?
I dont know how to state it any simpler. Paul’s 500 doesnt prove the resurrection, period. that’s it. that;s the only point being made about. it;s an objection to anyone lending paul’s 500 as proof for anything other than 1 Cor 15:6 has the number 500 in it.
so unless you’re claiming that the 500 proves the resurrection or is even good evidence for the resurrection, then we dont have anything to argue over.
this is far more tedious and exhausting than boring.
LikeLike
Mike, Nate has been a gracious host of this site. I have been following him for over a year. I have YET to see Nate call anyone a derogatory name. I have YET to see him dismiss other’s opinions .
I have also seen people like you come and go. I refer to them as Christianazis . They swoop in , dismiss everyone’s opinions who aren’t like theirs, tell everyone how stupid they are and that they were never really christians in the first place. And then they leave, never to be heard from again.
Your goal was never to have a civil, open and honest debate. Yes, this is my personal opinion. But it is also based on the dozens of “Mikes” who have visited this site in the past.
There is nothing further to be gained here.
LikeLike
Mike, you wrote:
“Argue all day over your strawman. You still lose by doing nothing else but quote mining”
But Mike, perhaps its not about “winning or “losing”.
I mean, Is this discussion a debating game? Is this a “us” versus. “them” thing?
What if… the closer we all come to understanding what is real and true, the better off we all will be. What do these exchanges between people mean to you?
What if these discussions are geared toward benefiting people, and helped readers and participants understand different points and considerations,
Perhaps its not about beating other people?
being critical of individuals is the very thing I am keen to avoid on the internet, there is already too much of it, particularly when most of us only know each other through these words we type.
Lets not assume we know how another person thinks beyond what they type. But I am just as guilty of jumping to assumptions.
I don’t know, these are just some thoughts I have.
LikeLike
it’s a shame too, proverbs 15:1 and gal 6:1 are both good passages to live by. you’d think a christian would especially think so.
LikeLike
William its official. I am bored with you now so I may not read much of you anymore. I did see the last paragraph of your last post and it pretty much told me you have no good point to make but hand waving. So please if you think have shown my ignorance what ever makes you feel good. Continue to believe apologists or any blogger nate refers to without linking to uses 1 corinthians 15 just for the 500 reference.
it will make you feel safe, warm and cuddly at night. its all good.
bye.
LikeLike
aaah I get you so the “we” was me. Ok carry on.
Are you arguing over the definition of “we”? I told you what I meant by that, but for some reason that isn’t enough for you.
Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. Abiogenesis is no different. There would/will have to be an enormous amount of evidence – verifiable, testable, evidence – for it to be claimed as fact. I never claimed any differently and even stated it could be proven false.
You may exaggerate my statements all you like, but I know what I said.
Do you believe that science will continue to discover things that we don’t currently know? About anything?
I’m well aware that not all scientists are atheists. I did not make that claim, though I can see where it came across that way. Again, an exaggeration on your part. Apparently you can only deal in the grandiose?
At any rate, Nate, this is an excellent post and could have been the jumping off point for some very interesting, very constructive discussion. I’m sorry if I’ve been a hindrance rather than a help.
LikeLike
Mike, Your boredom does not actually validate or invalidate another persons case.
You are a enigma to me 🙂
LikeLike
mike, it’s official, you;re dodging again – which is most of what you do. I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
because i care, and although i dont believe it’s from god anymore, I do relish many of the teachings of christ, so I want to reiterate that you’re still missing the point – or maybe I am.
No one has said that 1 cor 15 only says there were 500 witnesses – we’re only saying that the 500 add nothing to validate paul’s claim.
is that what you’re saying? that the 500 validate (even in part) paul’s claim?
it’s a simple question, but if you dont want to answer it…
LikeLike
mike, you should probably try to live by that book you’re trying so hard to defend. just friendly advise. It may actually help you win more of those debates you’re so concerned with.
and then you wont have to just arbitrarily run around shouting “i’ve won! I’ve smashed it! I’ve blown that out of the water!” hoping someone, anyone hears you or cares.
i’ll give you some points if it makes you feel better. how’s 500 sound?
LikeLike
“it’s a shame too, proverbs 15:1 and gal 6:1 are both good passages to live by. you’d think a christian would especially think so.”
If you think you can appeal to Christian virtues while at the same time claiming as Nate does that morality is achievable without the theism you have shot yourself in the foot again. As for Galatians 6:1 it applies to someone who wishes to be restored not someone apostasizing or encouraging others to. IF you wish to appeal to scripture then show me where any christian is commanded to only have soft gentle answers and not point out glaring weaknesses in your points.
Its a common atheist claim that no matter how much vitriol and fraudulent claims they pour that Christians must always give a soft answer. When the wrath is already apparent there is no such command. Jesus had some very stern things to say to people and so did apostles. Now if you catch me cursing as you did by calling me an asshole then you might have a point.
If I call a spade a spade you have nothing.
LikeLike
Mike there is a difference between pointing out what you see as fallacy and being rude.
LikeLike
The teachings of Jesus are direct in places, but it seems like your assuming certain things about people that you could not possible know, like the research they have done, there intentions…
unless you have some insiders knowledge?
LikeLike
“Extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. Abiogenesis is no different. There would/will have to be an enormous amount of evidence – verifiable, testable, evidence – for it to be claimed as fact. I never claimed any differently and even stated it could be proven false. ”
Ruth you can back pedal all you want you have already expressed your belief in absence of the facts that abiogenesis is right and will be proven to be such even going as far as to project what theists will do when they evidence is found. Your position is no big difference to any of the other atheist that accept without evidence that evidence will be found. That you won’t admit that many popluarizers of atheism accept abiogenesis as a fact just awaiting the evidence doesn’t change its a fact.
LikeLike
“Its a common atheist claim that no matter how much vitriol and fraudulent claims they pour that Christians must always give a soft answer.”
funny, it’s also a common christian claim.
and there you are complaining about vitriol, when you’ve spewed more than your fair share. I dont care that you dont believe i was ever a christian, because I dont think you’re one now.
LikeLike
“As for Galatians 6:1 it applies to someone who wishes to be restored not someone apostasizing or encouraging others to.”
you’re adding to the words, sir. It simply says restore such a one in meekness considering yourself. But if you feel justified in being a prick to people by this verse, then okay.
i always took it as a passage on compassion and humility – but you;re probably right. jesus is fine with you being a jerk. And why wouldnt he be? you’re only talking to non-believers. I dont see hwo that helps in winning souls, but i suppose god and mike move in mysterious ways.
LikeLike
ahhh, typos galore in that last post 🙂
and lumping everyone into one camp as “these atheists” is probably not a fair representation. lots of different people here, and I do not think they are collectively trying to destroy Christendom, I don’t think
and I wouldn’t appreciate it is someone said to me, “all you Christians claim, or its a common Christian claim that…” ect. ect.
LikeLike
I was referring to my last post btw 🙂
LikeLike
Mike, one last question,
It seems like last time you were on this blog you debated, got offended ( and bored?) and left.
This seems to be be what is unfolding here again. I actually enjoy reading some of your thoughts, when your not claiming atheists of this or that…
all the best.
LikeLike
and I’d be happy to read any thoughts you have regarding the questions I asked you
LikeLike
“Mike there is a difference between pointing out what you see as fallacy and being rude”
Portal I find your comments rude. Where do you wish to go from there? Nowhere because you know perfectly well I have neither cursed nor name called. I have stated what I see as you and others have said of me. I have based all my assessments based on what you have written just as you are doing.
“I mean, Is this discussion a debating game? Is this a “us” versus. “them” thing?
What if… the closer we all come to understanding what is real and true, the better off we all will be. What do these exchanges between people mean to you?”
Portal exactly what total and absolute nonsense are you trying to float here? Practically every post of Nate’s is critical of Christians and their reasoning and certainly in EVERY SINGLE COMMENT SECTION there is an us the escapees from the evil clutches of Christianity against them those who are still ensnared and too gullible and foolish to see.
If you think this blog and your collective comments are somehow some meeting ground for unbiased and non attacking dialogue that is just testament to your rather deep delusion. You have Christians coming and going and as far as I can see no active Christian on this blog for a simple rather obvious reason. No matter How nate tries to spin it (and has fooled a few ). He and you all are totally hostile to Christianity not seeking a real exchange.
Pretty obvious and funny that you can’t see that but are trying to spin this as some place of unbiased exchange.
WOW! thats some DEEP delusions there. I must admit I didn’t realize it ran THAT Deep.
So I bid thee farewell. If you and others can actually believe that nonsense about yourselves there is no point discussing anything thats actually real.
LikeLike
“So I bid thee farewell.”
fare thee well. you’ll be missed.
LikeLike
@Ruth,
At this point this post has devolved so I might as well just share with you my own feelings on all this which don’t amount to anything but useless conversation.
I agree with you here on your first sentence. Considering the circumstances I think you’ve done well, have had some very good points and have not been a hindrance. I don’t see how we can have a constructive discussion with Mike’s personality. As KC and Ryan (and Ryan is a Christian) have both said, Nate is one of the most gracious bloggers and I’ve also seen him have some very constructive discussions with people like Unklee, Josh, and other Christians. And Unklee can certainly be very strong in his opinions for Christianity, so it’s not about strong opinions.
My wife and I have just decided we will buy a puppy later this summer – a few days ago she told me about the fact that to train it we will have to put it’s nose in it’s pee – I felt horrible. Your analogy before to that hit home for me because what Mike did to you conjured up similar feelings when I read it. But I’m sure Mike thinks doing that kind of thing to humans is justified though because of what he thinks is at stake – but shouldn’t people come to believe what he does because it’s convincing rather than because they have had their noses rubbed in their pee?
LikeLike
Mark, Nice…
I’m not hostile to Christianity 🙂 If I am then you seem to know more about me than I do.
I have a hard time understanding you based on some of the things you have written.
If I am deluded then I would like to be pointed to the truth. I really can’t understand why you seem to get so offended?
I can’t work out when you call people deluded if arguing to you is just for kicks… or your trying to get a rise out of someone maybe?
I honestly don’t know hey 🙂
But if you honestly think these things about people you have never met and only briefly exchanged words with then you are either incredibly insightful or very quick to determine who is deluded…
have a nice day man
LikeLike
“He and you all are totally hostile to Christianity not seeking a real exchange.”
mike, let’s be perfectly honest here, nate isnt the one who’s hostile. It’s you. and when people get hostile toward you, dont convince yourself it’s because you’re being persecuted like a christian, it’s simply because you’re just a jerk. You’re no more a Christian than i am. I’m just more honest.
and dont be a Saul, excusing your sins because others made you do it. it’s childish and weak.
LikeLike
and if you really actually thought I was rude, then I apologise. I was assuming some things about you.
LikeLike