For the sake of discussion I'll stipulate that it can. How then can you determine which of the competing "truths" is THE TRUTH
The bible is true because it coforms to the reality of Gods existence and His dealings with us as human beings. Truth has to have a match up with what is actual or real. Otherwise it is not true. Let me ask you a question. Do you think reality can be shaped anyway you want?
That's a good question. No I don't. But I think that the way reality is perceived will vary and the interpretation of what it means can also vary
In what way does the bible conform to God's reality? How do you know hat this "reality" is? By your experience, or by the bible? If by your experience, or five senses, then how are they superior to anyone else's? If the bible, then that is circular reasoning.
Interesting take, similar to the atheism = religion argument. I suppose if one were to say "there is no way that your "truth" can be TRUTH, I might agree with you. It goes back for me to theory vs. practice. In theory truth can be determined, in practice I haven't seen it done.
I did say that. To say no one can know God in such a way as to invalidate what someone else beliefs--is wrong. I also said it is a religion unto itself. Now, because you Oakspear have not seen truth determined--means what? It has never been determined?
I base my beliefs on what I can see & hear, not what somebody else had told me that they see and hear. What I said was that in theory truth can be determined, I'll add that it very well may have been done. It's just that I've never seen it done in a non-subjective manner. Am I the standard for truth? Hardly, but I'm only talking about my own perception.
Not at all. All that it presupposes is that no one has come up with an objective verifiable measurament of that "knowing".
You just proved my point. You would have to know all to seriously make this statement--How the universe is wired--the ins and outs of God--if there is a God. . . To make this statement--you would have to know truth--the actual reality that there is no objective verifiable measure--
This may appear to be backpedalling, but I'm just going by what I see & hear; I presuppose or assume that there is no objective verifiable measurement, it wasn't my intention to state that such couldn't exist, but if it does, it hasn't come to my attention, and I am open to see the evidence.
Lindyhopper,
Bingo! Now hold that same standard to yourself. To think that the god that you have faith in, which is based on your own subjective experiences and POV,
This is why I don't engage in apologetics. I never said my faith was based on subjective experiences or POV.
No, you never said that, but it appears to be true nonetheless.
There was a time when the doctrinal forum was a place to exchange ideas, thoughts, beliefs, with friendship and kindness. Where we could disagree without anger and harsh words. Where we could learn from each other.
Contempt breeds contempt in the best of us, and I guess I'm guilty too.
I can't help but wonder if an all powerful God and the son he has seated at his right side really need us to defend them.
What is needed is that we work together to learn how to do what He has called us to do.
I can't help but wonder if accusations towards others of devil spirits truly comes from God and/or His revelation or simply from our own anger and frustration?
jeno--Why would I want to know your Jesus when I see how his affect on you has been? I don't want to be like you and treat people like you do.
We all have a flesh, and we get in it once in a while. If I or Jen-o or anybody else fails to walk in the spiritt from time to time, that is NOT Jesus' effect on us.
In what way does the bible conform to God's reality? How do you know hat this "reality" is? By your experience, or by the bible? If by your experience, or five senses, then how are they superior to anyone else's? If the bible, then that is circular reasoning.
I hope that you will bear with me. I went to school for history. That is my degree and for a time my field. I didn't go to a Christian or bible school. Just a few
secular, well respected Universities. I only tell you this to illustrate a point. I wrote a paper once, and at the time it was all consuming and rather important to me. I
was stuck on a question about the Apostle Paul. I called a Professor who couldn't help me--but did give me the name and phone number of one of the most
respected and published authorities on the life of Paul. Being blonde, bold, and brassy I called him. Do you know what he cited as a reference for me?
The Book of Acts. I in turn, used this reference after working it myself. I was never hauled into the Deans office and quizzed on my bizarre theory that the bible is
an historical reference. I was able to defend that paper successfully. I tell you this to emphasize the importance of the bible as an historical document. I am sure
you know that the historical Jesus is not often disputed with any real credibility.
That being said--your question wasn't about historical fact: it was how I know the bible conforms to God's reality. Very simple. It declares it. Exodus 20:2.
Anticipating your next question--Galatians 1: 8 and 9 Now, given that the bible is a credible historical document---Jesus is a credible historical figure whom we are
still discussing some 2000 years later. Given that Jesus still causes such an emotional and often vitriolic response--pretty amazing for some old, crucified, dead,
Jew, wouldn't you even consider the possibility that the bible is a book about the reality of God and His relationship with man? That is what it declares itself to be.
It declares that it has all things pertaining to life and Godliness. It declares He is evident in creation--a whole big discussion. It declares His existence.
There is nothing circular in that reasoning. Most historical evidence is written. Magna Carta--Declaration of Independence. . . . . . . .
Faith can be believed and lived but it can't be proved, IMO.
Yes, sort of. What we need to focus on is trying to live it. If we are trying to prove it then we are walking in the flesh and not in the spirit. If we simply try to live it, it will prove itself.
What I would hope to do here is to discuss with those who are willing to try to live it the means of doing so.
When it's not recognized for what is, yes.
But if it is seen then it can be avoided by determination.
Contempt breeds contempt in the best of us, and I guess I'm guilty too.
We are all, but you are willing to reveal your soft underbelly and recognize your own imperfections. That makes you pretty okay in my book - FWIW.
What I would hope to do here is to discuss with those who are willing to try to live it the means of doing so.
I think it might be a bit helpful if you explain what you mean by living it. I guess I think most people do to some degree or another, in some ways at least. And most people fail to live it in some ways, to some degree or another.
Personally, I try not to get too caught up in "living it" and try to simply live. Maybe it sounds arrogant, but despite my many imperfections, I believe my heart and intent is generally in the right place. I screw up. Shrug - who doesn't? But I do my best to be my best - some days that best is better than others.
I think, if I get to caught up in focusining on living it, I will twist myself into knots trying to perfect myself - which I will never be able to do anyway.
I really enjoyed your post-truly. My point was--I believe what I believe and that is unchangable. Because of my faith in Christ--FOR ME--He is All.
There is no other way to God--that actually is part of my faith. Perceiveable to many as intolerant. As such a steadfast believer, I can find no common ground on
issues of faith with those that don't accept Him as Savoir. To me, it is not just a belief--it is the fabric of who I now am. Does that make any sense? It is not just a
notion or an excerise in philosophy--it is my heart and my soul. It is how I live.
SNIP
Let my try this from a different direction. I get what you are saying and I respect it. You believe what you believe, you are steadfast, you love people. I don't think I would ever desire to disuade you of your faith. I don't even know that I would call you intolerant, as much as I might be inclined to think you have perhaps closed the door on opportunities for learning and growth. But then, maybe you haven't. Learning and growth are not necessarily the same thing as faith.
Learning and growth can increawse faith, to be sure. But I think head knowledge which may or may not eventually be internalized and become a part of faith, is still disctinct from faith.
So let me ask you think - could you, for instance, discourse with - give and receive information - with people of a different faith, with some degree of openness to the posibility that in doing so you might learn something or grow greater in your own faith?
I appreciate you taking the time to engage me in discussion in a friendly way. I appreciate it, I really do.
When I ask questions, it is not to disparage or put down, but to spur dialog, and frankly, to get answers. So, thanks for keeping it civil.
In what way does the bible conform to God's reality? How do you know hat this "reality" is? By your experience, or by the bible? If by your experience, or five senses, then how are they superior to anyone else's? If the bible, then that is circular reasoning.
(I snipped out the main part of your response here)...The Book of Acts. I in turn, used this reference after working it myself. I was never hauled into the Deans office and quizzed on my bizarre theory that the bible is an historical reference. I was able to defend that paper successfully. I tell you this to emphasize the importance of the bible as an historical document. I am sure you know that the historical Jesus is not often disputed with any real credibility.
Well, the bible was written about historical times, and it was written by people quite a long time ago. From a secular point of view the bible, or parts of it, is our only reference to certain individuals or events, for others there is complementary records. (For example, Roman government references to Pilate, Moabite references to Omri King of Israel etc.)Paul? I think that the bible is the only contemporary mention of him, so it would make sense for a secular institution to refer to the bible for information about him.
However, the bible's purpose is to promote its god, and as such is subject to the biases and point of view of its authors. This does not mean that it's all a fake, hardly! But from a secular or neutral POV, it must be assessed for what it is, a document who's authors had an agenda. Other historical documents contained their authors' agendas as well. The geneology of Darius on the plains of Behustan (sp?) is viewed with suspicion and some think it contains a fake list of ancestors to make Darius' bloodline look better than it was. Herodotus, Josephus, American history, Soviet history...they all contain biases, and these must be accounted for when reading them.
The same is true for the bible when viewed from a secular perspective.
That being said--your question wasn't about historical fact: it was how I know the bible conforms to God's reality. Very simple. It declares it. Exodus 20:2. No, my question wasn't about history, but your long answer claifies your point and is appreciated.
Basically what you're saying bis that the bible conforms to God's reality because it says it does. That is a textbook example of circular reasoning.
Anticipating your next question--Galatians 1: 8 and 9 Now, given that the bible is a credible historical document---
Whoa! Your example of your professors accepting the bible as a source in a paper about Paul is not the same as the bible being a credible histrical document.
Jesus is a credible historical figure whom we are still discussing some 2000 years later. Given that Jesus still causes such an emotional and often vitriolic response--pretty amazing for some old, crucified, dead, Jew,...
I personally believe that there was an historical Jesus on whom the gospel accounts are based.
...wouldn't you even consider the possibility that the bible is a book about the reality of God and His relationship with man?
Sure I consider it. I'm just not convinced.
That is what it declares itself to be.
Other books make that same claim based on just as little external evidense.
There is nothing circular in that reasoning. Most historical evidence is written. Magna Carta--Declaration of Independence. . . . . . . .
Just because it is written down somewhere does not make it true.
And regarding the Declaration...there are things in there that were argued, like whether a people actually hadthe right to throw off their King, and the Magna Carta asserted the rights of nobles against those of the King.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that theer aren't true things in the bible, that historical events and personages are not described therein, or that it's worthless as a source, just that I see no evidense that it is the ultimate source of truth; and citing the bible as proof that the bible is what the bible says it is is classic circular reasoning.
So let me ask you think - could you, for instance, discourse with - give and receive information - with people of a different faith, with some degree of openness to the posibility that in doing so you might learn something or grow greater in your own faith?
The first part of your question is a definite yes. I have and do discuss issues of faith with people of differing faith. And to a degree-but not in perhaps the way you
might think--it does influence my faith in Jesus.
Did you know that no other faith but Christianity teaches salvation by grace? This is amazing to me. Some other religions teach a need for salvation--but by works.
I recently spent some time with a Buddhist. We had a great discussion, and I learned a great deal. It didn't change my heart or my faith, it only served to affirm
it. I have examined most faiths at one time or another. Which is PART of the reason I am a Christian. Since I think that most of the worlds faith's have less in
common than more--it would be hard for another religion to cause me to grow in my own faith. I do love to hear what people believe and why. How commited they
are and how able or willing they are to defend their beliefs.
However, the bible's purpose is to promote its god, and as such is subject to the biases and point of view of its authors. This does not mean that it's all a fake, hardly! But from a secular or neutral POV, it must be assessed for what it is, a document who's authors had an agenda. Other historical documents contained their authors' agendas as well.
Hi Oakspear,
I actually respect your questions. If I were to say to you -- I just take it on faith--that would mean what?? NOTHING!! It would mean that I don't know why I believe
as I do. It would mean that I was assuming a whole lot with what is potentially the most important decision of my eternity. There was a process I went through in
coming to Christ. It included weighing the evidence concerning the verasity of the bible, creation, intellegent design and historical accuracy. I was rather quick this
morning--this is a big discussion. Happy to have it, but it is not something I can articulate in a paragraph. So, I apologize. I turned in a paper --the bible is
historically accurate--therefor true. Is not the answer your worthy questions deserve.
I would like to look at the assertion that the authors of the bible had an agenda. I chuckled as Peter immediatley sprung to mind. I am sure you have heard this,
but please consider it again. If you were Peter, and you had a say about what went into the bible, would you have included---get thee behind me Satan? Or the fact
that you denied the Lord not once -- not twice -- but THREE times? Yeah, I would NOT want that info front and center. How about cutting off that Roman soldiers ear
only to have the Lord heal it. Or having Jesus rebuking you for not having enough faith? I don't know about you, but I like to be portrayed in a better light than
having God call me Satan. But here is the thing that helps convince me that any supposed agenda was true. 11 of those 12 apostles died a martyrs death. All they
had to do was to recant. I like my neck attached to my body(We are funny that way). I don't know about you, but I am not dying for a lie. Not one of them
recanted. None of the 11 died peacefully.
There are so many things that make me believe the bible. Historical accuracy--supported by archeology. Intellegent design, and the scientific evidence of a
creation. The thing that really intrigued me though, was the history. The evidence to support the accounts of the OT. You should look into it sometime.
Come at from a skeptical viewpoint as I did. For me, the evidence was powerful.
If it is accurate in its history. Then it is AMAZING in its prophecy. Ancient documents written about this man who would come claiming to be God. Born of a certain
bloodline--in a certain town--live a certain way--die--and raise from the dead. How did they know this? There are over 500 eyewitness accounts of his resurrection.
You do believe that the prophecies of His comming were written long before He was born? Like I said--it was not one thing, but for me an overwhelming amount of
evidence which lead me to consider the bible as true. Truth has to have a corresponding object. For me the truth of the bible and its corresponding God are now
obvious, but I have to remember--they once were not.
So, I apologize. I turned in a paper --the bible is historically accurate--therefor true. Is not the answer your worthy questions deserve.
Agreed, the whole question of the historical accuracy of the bible deserves more than what either one of us can devote to it.
I would like to look at the assertion that the authors of the bible had an agenda. I chuckled as Peter immediatley sprung to mind. I am sure you have heard this, but please consider it again. If you were Peter, and you had a say about what went into the bible, would you have included---get thee behind me Satan? Or the fact that you denied the Lord not once -- not twice -- but THREE times? Yeah, I would NOT want that info front and center. How about cutting off that Roman soldiers ear only to have the Lord heal it. Or having Jesus rebuking you for not having enough faith? I don't know about you, but I like to be portrayed in a better light than
having God call me Satan. But here is the thing that helps convince me that any supposed agenda was true.
Well, the parts that you refer to are not ascribed to Peter. The agenda, as I put it, wasn't to make themselves look good or bad, but to make Jesus look good. Most of it was written decades or a century after the events that it describes, the agenda of which I speak was partly to get Christians unified under one doctrne, one view of Jesus, which was hardly the case when the canon of scripture was being compiled. An agenda isn't necessarily bad, but it is biased.
11 of those 12 apostles died a martyrs death. All they had to do was to recant. I like my neck attached to my body(We are funny that way). I don't know about you, but I am not dying for a lie. Not one of them recanted. None of the 11 died peacefully.
Me neither, no dying for a lie for me either. But people do do it. Islamists die for what you would consider a lie every day.
The evidence to support the accounts of the OT. You should look into it sometime.
Actually I have. I believe that archeology supports some of the PT and NT. The bible wasn't written in a vacuum, nor do I believe it is straight fiction. But finding evidence, even if 100% verified, of a person or place mentioned in the bible is a long way from verifying what a spirit was doing or telling people.
There are over 500 eyewitness accounts of his resurrection.
Well, there is a letter claiming that, sure.
You do believe that the prophecies of His comming were written long before He was born?
Sure, that's not really arguable, but the accounts of where he was born, what he did to fullfil those prophesies etc were written long after he died.
But your posts about how you came to believe is very enlightening, and makes sense to me and is internally consistant, even though I disagree with a number of the premises that you utilize to come to your conclusions.
I have been so long reading I forget who said it sounded like I was involved in a ministry run by some dude named Bob. Never heard of him. I do not subscribe to anybody's "ministry." What I stated is attributed to the ministry of Jesus Christ.
There is a well known man in our community who is a self proclaimed atheist. He, his wife and daughters are very good friends of mine. I asked one of his daughters, who lives across the street from me, why her dad believes as he does.
Back in the early seventies he was very involved in his church. His mission was to help all teenagers. He told the church it was their responsibility to do whatever possible to help these children. He organized a teen night on the weekend with the blessings of the church. They had a cook out, played basketball, ping pong, etc. and just hung out. This got out in the community and kids were coming from everywhere. One weekend some black kids came. And as they were playing basketball the deacons arrived and told him that he had to make the black kids leave because it was not a black church. He argued his point about the purpose of Christianity. His daughter told me that he even quoted John 3:16 to them and he asked them if that did not include everybody...black, white, whomever. He was told that if he did not make them leave he would be asked to leave the church. And so he did.
A while ago I mentioned to him that Father is not to blame and that he can declare he is an atheist all he wants but he still a member of the Body of Christ. That can not be undone. Even though we may speak a different "doctrine" we still be brethren. When I say that he does not argue. I have to say that I have learned an enourmous amount from this man concerning how to love and care about people. He will literally give the last shirt off his back if someone needs it with no questions asked. He is still actively involved in the community with helping people. As a matter of fact he is quite a fireball. He is inspiring. His example walks truer in the footsteps of the Lord than the majority of the religious churchy folks I know.
A woman in the community wrote a book about him and how he helped a neighborhood. She went before the county council to have him recognized as a hero for all his work. Citizens were ravenous that a self proclaimed atheist would receive recognition. Heck a roonie, he has done more to help our county than the folks reviling him and the local government. Oooh, what a surprise, considering we live in the Bible belt. I was talking to him just a few weeks ago in a restaurant. Someone came up to me later and asked, "What were you doing talking to ....don't you know he is an atheist?" I gave him a piece of my mind.
Reading some posts here made me think of the story of this man. We may differ in "doctrine" but if we be members of the Body of Christ we be brethren. He suffered abuse from an organization. I am not going to tell him because he was not in twi his is less. Yet, he has never allowed how he was abused to call him away from what he believes he is meant to do. He carries on and brilliantly so without belonging to an organization or adhering to any "ministry." He has an intense dislike for religion, organized or not. On that account, I think we are in the same footsteps with the Lord.
I guess I just expected people to figure this out. The statement was a response to a quote that I quoted from Bramble who said "Faith can be believed and lived." It = faith.
I'd kind of hoped to get back to the topic, but it looks like I'm going to be gone for a while. I need to get ahead if schedule in my work because we are taking the week of the 16th off to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary.
Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).
The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.
Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.
I read your article, and have read many like them in the past. I have 10 books in storage that have a much different perspective. I gotta tell ya, I spent 6 years of
my life in the pursuit of a history degree. I have heard it all. Within the same department I have heard differing opinions on the same evidence. Historians said,
well one said, that Christmas wasn't celebrated in the town of Old Deerfield, MA. Some nosey little undergrad came along--found one tiny little document that blew
the whole theory out of the water. All she got was a "Mention"in the back of his revised book!
But, as evidence mounts and things come to light---conclusions have to be drawn. Oakspear, I know for a fact the bible is used OFTEN as an historical reference
Historians write books that cite the bible. It is by its very nature a history. It is not laughed out of Academia. I had an atheist proffesor(A tough one) who used the
bible constanly in class. I corrected him on his Greek once.(Thanks to TWI) He called me into his office, where he had shelves lined with bibles, to quiz me on how I
knew that. If he only knew--right?
I looked at the evidence. I weighed the probability and to me it was "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." We could go back and forth with examples. I could cite you
recent finds, but we are NOT going to be able to prove every account in the bible as historically accurate. I will give you that. So
what? For me, there is enough evidence to lend GREAT credibility to the bible as history. But, I have to tell you it is that way with MANY historical conclusions. We
look at the evidence, try to find corrobaorating sources, and try to draw an unbiased picture. I once used a diary for an independent project. I had ONE outside
source. I was able to paint a very accurate picture of a long dead women, her life and loves. Her words were my source. She could have sat in her house and
made the whole thing up. Not likely, it was written over years and it painted a picture of her life. The bible goes beyond that. Many men tell the same story over
many years, Think about that? Without predjudice consider that phenomenon. 40 authors--3 continents-1405BC-95AD-Same underlining story!!
The bible paints you a picture--it tells a story--a paticular story. Weigh the evidence. Challenge yourself to prove it wrong. Be intellectually
honest(I don't think that is a problem for you) Not only for the history of the bible, but for the existence of God. What evidence points in His direction? What
evidence points away? There is both. Don't dismiss the bible because of some article you found on the internet. I heard your interview---you are a smarter guy
than that. Weigh the evidence for yourself. It is what I did. But, if you don't want to be accountable to some god, your pursuit may be halfhearted at best. I must
say, if you think the God of TWI and the God of the bible are remotely similar--You might have good reason to hesitate. I have come to the conclusion that God
is not the cosmic waiter I once imagined Him to be. But then, to create such an vast yet intricate universe with His words--well think about it.
We haven't even begun to build a case of probabilities yet. I know you may find this difficult to believe given my profession of Faith, but I understand your
perspective. Been there--still have the tee-shirt. I just don't wear it anymore.
I worked with my hubby today--guess what I did? THE GRUNT WORK!!!! I shoveled mulch all day while the "Master Gardener" made things pretty! I am TIRED, but I
really wanted to answer you. It was important to me.
By the way, I found several articles that made the opposite point than the one that I copied and cited did. I'm sure that I haven't read everyting that there is to read on the subject.
You find that the archeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the bible which in turn supports the doctrinal accuracy. Okay, makes sense to me. I can see where you might find that the evidence of archeology is enough. Got it. I know that you haven't attributed this attitude to me, but I don't feel that you're stupid or superstitious for accepting the evidence that you have and coming to the conclusions that you do.
However, I don't find the "evidence" nearly as compelling as you do. And even if every character's existance as well as every reference to towns, cities and rivers was supported by archeology and third-party historical documents, that, in my opinion, does not guarantee that what these characters said and believed about their God is true or applicable.
Anyway, you've done a fine job of explaining your position and helping me understand it. You haven't persuaded me however
I'd be willing to agree to disagree and stop badgering you
Badgering me? I hardly see your discussion as such!! I had better be able to tell you WHY I believe the bible is true, and correct in
its declarations of God. That it is His declaration of self. His relationship to man. If I am unable to defend my position to, beyond a reasonable doubt,
to you---than why would I myself believe it. As I said--taking it on faith? I can take on faith that the clouds are made of cotton candy. After all, they look like it!
It took me a few years to search these things out. and to honestly consider all the variables. To build faith.
THEN I come to find out---there is a whole bunch of people who do this all the time---defend the bible as true and the exsistence of God. To quote Adam Sandler
"INFORMATION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL YESTERDAY" History is one small part of the why--but for me--one of the fascinating
ones.
If you are interested I will happily consider your arguments. I don't shy away from a defense of the Gospel. I embrace it. Like you, time is a luxury, but I will
do my best. Be patient. One post will not get you to genuinley consider the probabilities. 100 may never get you to, but they may influence some of your
perspective. They may give you insight into the heart and mind of a Christian. Most information if viable-is useful for something. Lucky me. I get to work the
Just wanted to add--after a second cup of coffee, that you are going to find lots of info out there in cyber world. I would challenge you to not immediatley
embrace the perspective that you feel most comfortable with. It is interesting that you posted an article, which on the surface, refutes my claim of historical
supported evidence for tthe bible. You did say you found other POV. Look at both arguments as equal in merit for a time. Why not put aside any preconcieved
ideas; formed in the wake of a destructive and painful experience, surrounding our times with Joe Blow wack-job who thumped a bible. And let yourself with, a
degree of detachment, consider the arguments.
Think about this. There are atheist who are going to adamantly tell you there is no God. Truth cannot be known!!! I alway picture these declarations with
accompaning foot stomping. That statement is self-defeating in nature. You can hear them ring out like a loud bell. If truth can't be known--how can they say
this is true? With a straight face--how can they make such a proclamation. So, I just challenge you not to gravitate to your most comfortable position.
That is being intellectually honest. Not to shore up your point of view, but to weigh and seriously consider the opposing perspective. Just a thought. It is a difficult
I know Oak has been through this thoroughly and like me and many others here has looked at the evidence, weighted the probability and possibilities, worked the Bible, worked other material (online, in books and in person) viewed it from more perspectives than just TWI eyes, challenged ourselves on every angle we come across and have come up with little other than doubt. Personally I feel, my view as an atheistic agnostic, is the most honest view I can have. That is not a religious POV. It is more fluid than that. In fact, it has changed since I first started posting here a number of years ago. I know Oak's has changed considerably as well.
You seem to be relatively new here and probably don't know those things about us. Quite frankly, though, your recommendations come off as a little condescending, IMO. I realize you didn't intend them to be such, but I'm just being honest. Be assured, though, our road to our current world view was not without twists and turns and our decisions were not made lightly or out of ignorance or naively and were not reactionary.
I know for a fact the bible is used OFTEN as an historical reference. Historians write books that cite the bible. It is by its very nature a history....
...For me, there is enough evidence to lend GREAT credibility to the bible as history.
I realize that as well. As you must know, though, there has been and is much debate over what constitutes "a history", whether any one document is wholly historically accurate, whether history itself is true or truth, concepts like mythistory, the methods of historiography, whether history is a science or a liberal art etc. etc.. There can be, to varying degrees, a faith in History. IMO, one should always look at the evidence, both sides of the coin, or each side of the die as the case usually is, and make their own decisions while staying open to, but critical of, future discoveries and viewpoints. This is what I have done and still do with my view on religion and God.
But, if you don't want to be accountable to some god, your pursuit may be halfhearted at best.
In my experience with atheists and agnostics this is virtually never a factor in their pursuit of... whatever they are pursuing. In fact, I can't think of anyone who has had this attitude. For most of us, doubt has accumulated over time and a lack of sufficient answers to those doubts eventually outweighs the former beliefs. It is not a simplistic journey as I'm sure you must know.
As to your last post to me, I have no ill will towards you. I'm sure we can relate and empathize on many levels and maybe we might like each other in person... maybe not. This is the doctrinal forum though, and I come here to debate and discuss and to learn and at times be amazed and not necessarily to make friends. That being said, I am not perfect, I may offend at times, and my tone seems to be in the ear of the beholder, but most of the time my responses and comments are not "heated" or out of anger or disdain and I never stomp my feet or shake my fist in the air.
I would welcome a debate on the Bible's historicity as part of the proof of it's doctrines and it's more fantastic claims. Although, we have been down this road quite a few times here over the years and it always seems to end in the same place. This is why many of us just tend to let things lie, instead of exhausting everything down to subjectivity and faith (which is slightly redundant). The other reason is that it usually gets a little heated and nice people like yourself tend to get upset with nice people like myself and Oak and many others here. I'm not sure of the existence of the "good ol' doctrinal forum days" that Oak and Abi have spoken of.
If I am unable to defend my position to, beyond a reasonable doubt, to you---than why would I myself believe it. As I said--taking it on faith?
This seems to be worth exploring to me. Because if you or anyone is as good as this in the religious community it would seem that the rest of us non-believers are either missing something, blind, or just stubbornly unaccepting of the obvious. OR People are believing for other reasons other than objective proof and reason. That has not been my experience, maybe you are different.
"I'm not sure of the existence of the "good ol' doctrinal forum days" that Oak and Abi have spoken of."
Indeed, I think that era slipped by me as well.
And if I may elabortate on Lindy's comments a bit more,
uh, we're not all ignorant, knuckle-dragging, unwashed heathens here. I think even Oakie takes a shower every so often.
Some of us even read now and then. And not only the Soap Opera Digest either. Lotsa times I read books with really big words and not many pictures at all...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
24
30
42
21
Popular Days
Jun 28
23
Jun 27
18
Jun 30
17
Jul 1
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 24 posts
Caveman 30 posts
geisha779 42 posts
cman 21 posts
Popular Days
Jun 28 2008
23 posts
Jun 27 2008
18 posts
Jun 30 2008
17 posts
Jul 1 2008
17 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hi Invisible Dan You said "When you gather all the citations from the gospels of such cases, it presents us a rather unsettling depiction. Unsettling in the fact that it's all too familiar." I have
geisha779
Hi Oakspear, Badgering me? I hardly see your discussion as such!! I had better be able to tell you WHY I believe the bible is true, and correct in its declarations of God. That it is His declaration
geisha779
Again--missing my point. I truly understand why. I could once show you scholarship for The Myth of the 6 Million. I bet you, that at one time, if not believed it-----you seriously considered it.
Oakspear
In what way does the bible conform to God's reality? How do you know hat this "reality" is? By your experience, or by the bible? If by your experience, or five senses, then how are they superior to anyone else's? If the bible, then that is circular reasoning.
I base my beliefs on what I can see & hear, not what somebody else had told me that they see and hear. What I said was that in theory truth can be determined, I'll add that it very well may have been done. It's just that I've never seen it done in a non-subjective manner. Am I the standard for truth? Hardly, but I'm only talking about my own perception. This may appear to be backpedalling, but I'm just going by what I see & hear; I presuppose or assume that there is no objective verifiable measurement, it wasn't my intention to state that such couldn't exist, but if it does, it hasn't come to my attention, and I am open to see the evidence. No, you never said that, but it appears to be true nonetheless.If not, what is the objective evidence?
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
Caveman
Contempt breeds contempt in the best of us, and I guess I'm guilty too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caveman
What is needed is that we work together to learn how to do what He has called us to do.
Frustration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
When it's not recognized for what is, yes.
But if it is seen then it can be avoided by determination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caveman
We all have a flesh, and we get in it once in a while. If I or Jen-o or anybody else fails to walk in the spiritt from time to time, that is NOT Jesus' effect on us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Oakspear,
In what way does the bible conform to God's reality? How do you know hat this "reality" is? By your experience, or by the bible? If by your experience, or five senses, then how are they superior to anyone else's? If the bible, then that is circular reasoning.
I hope that you will bear with me. I went to school for history. That is my degree and for a time my field. I didn't go to a Christian or bible school. Just a few
secular, well respected Universities. I only tell you this to illustrate a point. I wrote a paper once, and at the time it was all consuming and rather important to me. I
was stuck on a question about the Apostle Paul. I called a Professor who couldn't help me--but did give me the name and phone number of one of the most
respected and published authorities on the life of Paul. Being blonde, bold, and brassy I called him. Do you know what he cited as a reference for me?
The Book of Acts. I in turn, used this reference after working it myself. I was never hauled into the Deans office and quizzed on my bizarre theory that the bible is
an historical reference. I was able to defend that paper successfully. I tell you this to emphasize the importance of the bible as an historical document. I am sure
you know that the historical Jesus is not often disputed with any real credibility.
That being said--your question wasn't about historical fact: it was how I know the bible conforms to God's reality. Very simple. It declares it. Exodus 20:2.
Anticipating your next question--Galatians 1: 8 and 9 Now, given that the bible is a credible historical document---Jesus is a credible historical figure whom we are
still discussing some 2000 years later. Given that Jesus still causes such an emotional and often vitriolic response--pretty amazing for some old, crucified, dead,
Jew, wouldn't you even consider the possibility that the bible is a book about the reality of God and His relationship with man? That is what it declares itself to be.
It declares that it has all things pertaining to life and Godliness. It declares He is evident in creation--a whole big discussion. It declares His existence.
There is nothing circular in that reasoning. Most historical evidence is written. Magna Carta--Declaration of Independence. . . . . . . .
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caveman
Yes, sort of. What we need to focus on is trying to live it. If we are trying to prove it then we are walking in the flesh and not in the spirit. If we simply try to live it, it will prove itself.
What I would hope to do here is to discuss with those who are willing to try to live it the means of doing so.
At those times when determination exists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Prove it to yourself, honestly.
What do mean by living 'it'.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
We are all, but you are willing to reveal your soft underbelly and recognize your own imperfections. That makes you pretty okay in my book - FWIW.
I think it might be a bit helpful if you explain what you mean by living it. I guess I think most people do to some degree or another, in some ways at least. And most people fail to live it in some ways, to some degree or another.
Personally, I try not to get too caught up in "living it" and try to simply live. Maybe it sounds arrogant, but despite my many imperfections, I believe my heart and intent is generally in the right place. I screw up. Shrug - who doesn't? But I do my best to be my best - some days that best is better than others.
I think, if I get to caught up in focusining on living it, I will twist myself into knots trying to perfect myself - which I will never be able to do anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Let my try this from a different direction. I get what you are saying and I respect it. You believe what you believe, you are steadfast, you love people. I don't think I would ever desire to disuade you of your faith. I don't even know that I would call you intolerant, as much as I might be inclined to think you have perhaps closed the door on opportunities for learning and growth. But then, maybe you haven't. Learning and growth are not necessarily the same thing as faith.
Learning and growth can increawse faith, to be sure. But I think head knowledge which may or may not eventually be internalized and become a part of faith, is still disctinct from faith.
So let me ask you think - could you, for instance, discourse with - give and receive information - with people of a different faith, with some degree of openness to the posibility that in doing so you might learn something or grow greater in your own faith?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Hiya Geish.
I appreciate you taking the time to engage me in discussion in a friendly way. I appreciate it, I really do.
When I ask questions, it is not to disparage or put down, but to spur dialog, and frankly, to get answers. So, thanks for keeping it civil.
Well, the bible was written about historical times, and it was written by people quite a long time ago. From a secular point of view the bible, or parts of it, is our only reference to certain individuals or events, for others there is complementary records. (For example, Roman government references to Pilate, Moabite references to Omri King of Israel etc.)Paul? I think that the bible is the only contemporary mention of him, so it would make sense for a secular institution to refer to the bible for information about him.
However, the bible's purpose is to promote its god, and as such is subject to the biases and point of view of its authors. This does not mean that it's all a fake, hardly! But from a secular or neutral POV, it must be assessed for what it is, a document who's authors had an agenda. Other historical documents contained their authors' agendas as well. The geneology of Darius on the plains of Behustan (sp?) is viewed with suspicion and some think it contains a fake list of ancestors to make Darius' bloodline look better than it was. Herodotus, Josephus, American history, Soviet history...they all contain biases, and these must be accounted for when reading them.
The same is true for the bible when viewed from a secular perspective.
Basically what you're saying bis that the bible conforms to God's reality because it says it does. That is a textbook example of circular reasoning.Whoa! Your example of your professors accepting the bible as a source in a paper about Paul is not the same as the bible being a credible histrical document. I personally believe that there was an historical Jesus on whom the gospel accounts are based. Sure I consider it. I'm just not convinced.Other books make that same claim based on just as little external evidense.Just because it is written down somewhere does not make it true.
And regarding the Declaration...there are things in there that were argued, like whether a people actually hadthe right to throw off their King, and the Magna Carta asserted the rights of nobles against those of the King.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that theer aren't true things in the bible, that historical events and personages are not described therein, or that it's worthless as a source, just that I see no evidense that it is the ultimate source of truth; and citing the bible as proof that the bible is what the bible says it is is classic circular reasoning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Abigail,
The first part of your question is a definite yes. I have and do discuss issues of faith with people of differing faith. And to a degree-but not in perhaps the way you
might think--it does influence my faith in Jesus.
Did you know that no other faith but Christianity teaches salvation by grace? This is amazing to me. Some other religions teach a need for salvation--but by works.
I recently spent some time with a Buddhist. We had a great discussion, and I learned a great deal. It didn't change my heart or my faith, it only served to affirm
it. I have examined most faiths at one time or another. Which is PART of the reason I am a Christian. Since I think that most of the worlds faith's have less in
common than more--it would be hard for another religion to cause me to grow in my own faith. I do love to hear what people believe and why. How commited they
are and how able or willing they are to defend their beliefs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Oakspear,
I actually respect your questions. If I were to say to you -- I just take it on faith--that would mean what?? NOTHING!! It would mean that I don't know why I believe
as I do. It would mean that I was assuming a whole lot with what is potentially the most important decision of my eternity. There was a process I went through in
coming to Christ. It included weighing the evidence concerning the verasity of the bible, creation, intellegent design and historical accuracy. I was rather quick this
morning--this is a big discussion. Happy to have it, but it is not something I can articulate in a paragraph. So, I apologize. I turned in a paper --the bible is
historically accurate--therefor true. Is not the answer your worthy questions deserve.
I would like to look at the assertion that the authors of the bible had an agenda. I chuckled as Peter immediatley sprung to mind. I am sure you have heard this,
but please consider it again. If you were Peter, and you had a say about what went into the bible, would you have included---get thee behind me Satan? Or the fact
that you denied the Lord not once -- not twice -- but THREE times? Yeah, I would NOT want that info front and center. How about cutting off that Roman soldiers ear
only to have the Lord heal it. Or having Jesus rebuking you for not having enough faith? I don't know about you, but I like to be portrayed in a better light than
having God call me Satan. But here is the thing that helps convince me that any supposed agenda was true. 11 of those 12 apostles died a martyrs death. All they
had to do was to recant. I like my neck attached to my body(We are funny that way). I don't know about you, but I am not dying for a lie. Not one of them
recanted. None of the 11 died peacefully.
There are so many things that make me believe the bible. Historical accuracy--supported by archeology. Intellegent design, and the scientific evidence of a
creation. The thing that really intrigued me though, was the history. The evidence to support the accounts of the OT. You should look into it sometime.
Come at from a skeptical viewpoint as I did. For me, the evidence was powerful.
If it is accurate in its history. Then it is AMAZING in its prophecy. Ancient documents written about this man who would come claiming to be God. Born of a certain
bloodline--in a certain town--live a certain way--die--and raise from the dead. How did they know this? There are over 500 eyewitness accounts of his resurrection.
You do believe that the prophecies of His comming were written long before He was born? Like I said--it was not one thing, but for me an overwhelming amount of
evidence which lead me to consider the bible as true. Truth has to have a corresponding object. For me the truth of the bible and its corresponding God are now
obvious, but I have to remember--they once were not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
But your posts about how you came to believe is very enlightening, and makes sense to me and is internally consistant, even though I disagree with a number of the premises that you utilize to come to your conclusions.
Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
I have been so long reading I forget who said it sounded like I was involved in a ministry run by some dude named Bob. Never heard of him. I do not subscribe to anybody's "ministry." What I stated is attributed to the ministry of Jesus Christ.
There is a well known man in our community who is a self proclaimed atheist. He, his wife and daughters are very good friends of mine. I asked one of his daughters, who lives across the street from me, why her dad believes as he does.
Back in the early seventies he was very involved in his church. His mission was to help all teenagers. He told the church it was their responsibility to do whatever possible to help these children. He organized a teen night on the weekend with the blessings of the church. They had a cook out, played basketball, ping pong, etc. and just hung out. This got out in the community and kids were coming from everywhere. One weekend some black kids came. And as they were playing basketball the deacons arrived and told him that he had to make the black kids leave because it was not a black church. He argued his point about the purpose of Christianity. His daughter told me that he even quoted John 3:16 to them and he asked them if that did not include everybody...black, white, whomever. He was told that if he did not make them leave he would be asked to leave the church. And so he did.
A while ago I mentioned to him that Father is not to blame and that he can declare he is an atheist all he wants but he still a member of the Body of Christ. That can not be undone. Even though we may speak a different "doctrine" we still be brethren. When I say that he does not argue. I have to say that I have learned an enourmous amount from this man concerning how to love and care about people. He will literally give the last shirt off his back if someone needs it with no questions asked. He is still actively involved in the community with helping people. As a matter of fact he is quite a fireball. He is inspiring. His example walks truer in the footsteps of the Lord than the majority of the religious churchy folks I know.
A woman in the community wrote a book about him and how he helped a neighborhood. She went before the county council to have him recognized as a hero for all his work. Citizens were ravenous that a self proclaimed atheist would receive recognition. Heck a roonie, he has done more to help our county than the folks reviling him and the local government. Oooh, what a surprise, considering we live in the Bible belt. I was talking to him just a few weeks ago in a restaurant. Someone came up to me later and asked, "What were you doing talking to ....don't you know he is an atheist?" I gave him a piece of my mind.
Reading some posts here made me think of the story of this man. We may differ in "doctrine" but if we be members of the Body of Christ we be brethren. He suffered abuse from an organization. I am not going to tell him because he was not in twi his is less. Yet, he has never allowed how he was abused to call him away from what he believes he is meant to do. He carries on and brilliantly so without belonging to an organization or adhering to any "ministry." He has an intense dislike for religion, organized or not. On that account, I think we are in the same footsteps with the Lord.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Caveman
I guess I just expected people to figure this out. The statement was a response to a quote that I quoted from Bramble who said "Faith can be believed and lived." It = faith.
I'd kind of hoped to get back to the topic, but it looks like I'm going to be gone for a while. I need to get ahead if schedule in my work because we are taking the week of the 16th off to celebrate our 25th wedding anniversary.
Edited by CavemanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
One view of the bible as an historical document (obviously not the only POV)
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
Has archaeology proven the historical accuracy of the Bible? If you listened only to biblical inerrantists, you would certainly think so. Amateur apologists have spread this claim all over the internet, and in a letter published in this issue, Everett Hatcher even asserted that archaeology supports that "the Bible is the inerrant word of God." Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.
Has archaeology confirmed the historical accuracy of some information in the Bible? Indeed it has, but I know of no person who has ever tried to deny that some biblical history is accurate. The inscription on the Moabite Stone, for example, provides disinterested, nonbiblical confirmation that king Mesha of the Moabites, mentioned in 2 Kings 3:4-27, was probably an actual historical character. The Black Obelisk provides a record of the payment of tribute to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III by Jehu, king of the Israelites (2 Kings 9-10; 2 Chron. 22:7-9). Likewise, the Babylonian Chronicle attests to the historicity of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and his conquest of Jerusalem as recorded in 2 Kings 25. Other examples could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that archaeology has corroborated some information in the Bible.
What biblicists who get so excited over archaeological discoveries like these apparently can't understand is that extrabiblical confirmation of some of the Bible does not constitute confirmation of all if the Bible. For example, the fact that archaeological evidence confirms that Jehu was an actual historical character confirms only that he was an actual historical character. It does not confirm the historical accuracy of everything that the Bible attributed to him. Did a "son of the prophets" go to Ramoth-gilead and anoint Jehu king of Israel while the reigning king was home in Jezreel recovering from battle wounds (2 Kings 9:1-10)? Did Jehu then ride to Jezreel in a chariot and massacre the Israelite royal family and usurp the throne (2 Kings 9:16 ff)? We simply cannot determine this from an Assyrian inscription that claimed Jehu paid tribute to Shalmaneser, so in the absence of disinterested, nonbiblical records that attest to these events, it is hardly accurate to say that archaeology has proven the historicity of what the Bible recorded about Jehu. Likewise, extrabiblical references to Nebuchadnezzar may confirm his historical existence, but they do not corroborate the accuracy of such biblical claims as his dream that Daniel interpreted (Dan. 2) or his seven-year period of insanity (Dan. 4:4-37). To so argue is to read entirely too much into the archaeological records.
The fact is that some archaeological discoveries in confirming part of the Bible simultaneously cast doubt on the accuracy of other parts. The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.
Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.
The evidence from Ai was mainly negative. There was a great walled city there beginning about 3000 B. C., more than 1,800 years before Israel's emergence in Canaan. But this city was destroyed about 2400 B. C., after which the site was abandoned.
Despite extensive excavation, no evidence of a Late Bronze Age (1500-1200 B. C.) Canaanite city was found. In short, there was no Canaanite city here for Joshua to conquer (Biblical Archaeology Review, "Joseph A. Callaway: 1920-1988," November/December 1988, p. 24, emphasis added).
This same article quoted what Callaway had earlier said when announcing the results of his nine-year excavation of Ai.
Archaeology has wiped out the historical credibility of the conquest of Ai as reported in Joshua 7-8. The Joint Expedition to Ai worked nine seasons between 1964 and 1976... only to eliminate the historical underpinning of the Ai account in the Bible (Ibid., p. 24).
The work of Kathleen Kenyon produced similar results in her excavation of the city of Jericho. Her conclusion was that the walls of Jericho were destroyed around 2300 B. C., about the same time that Ai was destroyed. Apparently, then, legends developed to explain the ruins of ancient cities, and biblical writers recorded them as tales of Joshua's conquests. Information like this, however, is never mentioned by inerrantists when they talk about archaeological confirmation of biblical records.
Archaeological silence is another problem that biblical inerrantists don't like to talk about. According to the Bible, the Israelite tribes were united into one nation that had a glorious history during the reigns of king David and his son Solomon, yet the archaeological record is completely silent about these two kings except for two disputed inscriptions that some think are references to "the house of David." This is strange indeed considering that references to Hebrew kings of much less biblical importance (Omri, Ahab, Jehu, Zedekiah, etc.) have been found in extrabiblical records. This archaeological silence doesn't prove that David and Solomon did not exist, but it certainly gives all but biblical inerrantists pause to wonder.
Another case in point is the biblical record of the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their subsequent 40-year wandering in the Sinai wilderness. According to census figures in the book of Numbers, the Israelite population would have been between 2.5 to 3 million people, all of whom died in the wilderness for their disobedience, yet extensive archaeological work by Israeli archaeologist Eliezer Oren over a period of 10 years "failed to provide a single shred of evidence that the biblical account of the Exodus from Egypt ever happened" (Barry Brown, "Israeli Archaeologist Reports No Evidence to Back Exodus Story," News Toronto Bureau, Feb. 27, 1988). Oren reported that although he found papyrus notes that reported the sighting of two runaway slaves, no records were found that mentioned a horde of millions: "They were spotted and the biblical account of 2.5 million people with 600,000 of military age weren't?" Oren asked in a speech at the Royal Ontario Museum. That is certainly a legitimate question. Up to 3 million Israelites camped in a wilderness for 40 years, but no traces of their camps, burials, and millions of animal sacrifices could be found in ten years of excavations. This may be an argument from silence, but it is a silence that screams.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Oakspear,
I read your article, and have read many like them in the past. I have 10 books in storage that have a much different perspective. I gotta tell ya, I spent 6 years of
my life in the pursuit of a history degree. I have heard it all. Within the same department I have heard differing opinions on the same evidence. Historians said,
well one said, that Christmas wasn't celebrated in the town of Old Deerfield, MA. Some nosey little undergrad came along--found one tiny little document that blew
the whole theory out of the water. All she got was a "Mention"in the back of his revised book!
But, as evidence mounts and things come to light---conclusions have to be drawn. Oakspear, I know for a fact the bible is used OFTEN as an historical reference
Historians write books that cite the bible. It is by its very nature a history. It is not laughed out of Academia. I had an atheist proffesor(A tough one) who used the
bible constanly in class. I corrected him on his Greek once.(Thanks to TWI) He called me into his office, where he had shelves lined with bibles, to quiz me on how I
knew that. If he only knew--right?
I looked at the evidence. I weighed the probability and to me it was "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." We could go back and forth with examples. I could cite you
recent finds, but we are NOT going to be able to prove every account in the bible as historically accurate. I will give you that. So
what? For me, there is enough evidence to lend GREAT credibility to the bible as history. But, I have to tell you it is that way with MANY historical conclusions. We
look at the evidence, try to find corrobaorating sources, and try to draw an unbiased picture. I once used a diary for an independent project. I had ONE outside
source. I was able to paint a very accurate picture of a long dead women, her life and loves. Her words were my source. She could have sat in her house and
made the whole thing up. Not likely, it was written over years and it painted a picture of her life. The bible goes beyond that. Many men tell the same story over
many years, Think about that? Without predjudice consider that phenomenon. 40 authors--3 continents-1405BC-95AD-Same underlining story!!
The bible paints you a picture--it tells a story--a paticular story. Weigh the evidence. Challenge yourself to prove it wrong. Be intellectually
honest(I don't think that is a problem for you) Not only for the history of the bible, but for the existence of God. What evidence points in His direction? What
evidence points away? There is both. Don't dismiss the bible because of some article you found on the internet. I heard your interview---you are a smarter guy
than that. Weigh the evidence for yourself. It is what I did. But, if you don't want to be accountable to some god, your pursuit may be halfhearted at best. I must
say, if you think the God of TWI and the God of the bible are remotely similar--You might have good reason to hesitate. I have come to the conclusion that God
is not the cosmic waiter I once imagined Him to be. But then, to create such an vast yet intricate universe with His words--well think about it.
We haven't even begun to build a case of probabilities yet. I know you may find this difficult to believe given my profession of Faith, but I understand your
perspective. Been there--still have the tee-shirt. I just don't wear it anymore.
I worked with my hubby today--guess what I did? THE GRUNT WORK!!!! I shoveled mulch all day while the "Master Gardener" made things pretty! I am TIRED, but I
really wanted to answer you. It was important to me.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
By the way, I found several articles that made the opposite point than the one that I copied and cited did. I'm sure that I haven't read everyting that there is to read on the subject.
You find that the archeological evidence supports the historical accuracy of the bible which in turn supports the doctrinal accuracy. Okay, makes sense to me. I can see where you might find that the evidence of archeology is enough. Got it. I know that you haven't attributed this attitude to me, but I don't feel that you're stupid or superstitious for accepting the evidence that you have and coming to the conclusions that you do.
However, I don't find the "evidence" nearly as compelling as you do. And even if every character's existance as well as every reference to towns, cities and rivers was supported by archeology and third-party historical documents, that, in my opinion, does not guarantee that what these characters said and believed about their God is true or applicable.
Anyway, you've done a fine job of explaining your position and helping me understand it. You haven't persuaded me however
I'd be willing to agree to disagree and stop badgering you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Oakspear,
Badgering me? I hardly see your discussion as such!! I had better be able to tell you WHY I believe the bible is true, and correct in
its declarations of God. That it is His declaration of self. His relationship to man. If I am unable to defend my position to, beyond a reasonable doubt,
to you---than why would I myself believe it. As I said--taking it on faith? I can take on faith that the clouds are made of cotton candy. After all, they look like it!
It took me a few years to search these things out. and to honestly consider all the variables. To build faith.
THEN I come to find out---there is a whole bunch of people who do this all the time---defend the bible as true and the exsistence of God. To quote Adam Sandler
"INFORMATION THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL YESTERDAY" History is one small part of the why--but for me--one of the fascinating
ones.
If you are interested I will happily consider your arguments. I don't shy away from a defense of the Gospel. I embrace it. Like you, time is a luxury, but I will
do my best. Be patient. One post will not get you to genuinley consider the probabilities. 100 may never get you to, but they may influence some of your
perspective. They may give you insight into the heart and mind of a Christian. Most information if viable-is useful for something. Lucky me. I get to work the
holiday today. Day and night. Back at ya soon.
Geisha
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Oakspear,
Just wanted to add--after a second cup of coffee, that you are going to find lots of info out there in cyber world. I would challenge you to not immediatley
embrace the perspective that you feel most comfortable with. It is interesting that you posted an article, which on the surface, refutes my claim of historical
supported evidence for tthe bible. You did say you found other POV. Look at both arguments as equal in merit for a time. Why not put aside any preconcieved
ideas; formed in the wake of a destructive and painful experience, surrounding our times with Joe Blow wack-job who thumped a bible. And let yourself with, a
degree of detachment, consider the arguments.
Think about this. There are atheist who are going to adamantly tell you there is no God. Truth cannot be known!!! I alway picture these declarations with
accompaning foot stomping. That statement is self-defeating in nature. You can hear them ring out like a loud bell. If truth can't be known--how can they say
this is true? With a straight face--how can they make such a proclamation. So, I just challenge you not to gravitate to your most comfortable position.
That is being intellectually honest. Not to shore up your point of view, but to weigh and seriously consider the opposing perspective. Just a thought. It is a difficult
challenge.
I have confidence you are more than able.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I know Oak has been through this thoroughly and like me and many others here has looked at the evidence, weighted the probability and possibilities, worked the Bible, worked other material (online, in books and in person) viewed it from more perspectives than just TWI eyes, challenged ourselves on every angle we come across and have come up with little other than doubt. Personally I feel, my view as an atheistic agnostic, is the most honest view I can have. That is not a religious POV. It is more fluid than that. In fact, it has changed since I first started posting here a number of years ago. I know Oak's has changed considerably as well.
You seem to be relatively new here and probably don't know those things about us. Quite frankly, though, your recommendations come off as a little condescending, IMO. I realize you didn't intend them to be such, but I'm just being honest. Be assured, though, our road to our current world view was not without twists and turns and our decisions were not made lightly or out of ignorance or naively and were not reactionary.
I realize that as well. As you must know, though, there has been and is much debate over what constitutes "a history", whether any one document is wholly historically accurate, whether history itself is true or truth, concepts like mythistory, the methods of historiography, whether history is a science or a liberal art etc. etc.. There can be, to varying degrees, a faith in History. IMO, one should always look at the evidence, both sides of the coin, or each side of the die as the case usually is, and make their own decisions while staying open to, but critical of, future discoveries and viewpoints. This is what I have done and still do with my view on religion and God.In my experience with atheists and agnostics this is virtually never a factor in their pursuit of... whatever they are pursuing. In fact, I can't think of anyone who has had this attitude. For most of us, doubt has accumulated over time and a lack of sufficient answers to those doubts eventually outweighs the former beliefs. It is not a simplistic journey as I'm sure you must know.
As to your last post to me, I have no ill will towards you. I'm sure we can relate and empathize on many levels and maybe we might like each other in person... maybe not. This is the doctrinal forum though, and I come here to debate and discuss and to learn and at times be amazed
and not necessarily to make friends. That being said, I am not perfect, I may offend at times, and my tone seems to be in the ear of the beholder, but most of the time my responses and comments are not "heated" or out of anger or disdain and I never stomp my feet or shake my fist in the air.
I would welcome a debate on the Bible's historicity as part of the proof of it's doctrines and it's more fantastic claims. Although, we have been down this road quite a few times here over the years and it always seems to end in the same place. This is why many of us just tend to let things lie, instead of exhausting everything down to subjectivity and faith (which is slightly redundant). The other reason is that it usually gets a little heated and nice people like yourself tend to get upset with nice people like myself and Oak and many others here. I'm not sure of the existence of the "good ol' doctrinal forum days" that Oak and Abi have spoken of.
This seems to be worth exploring to me. Because if you or anyone is as good as this in the religious community it would seem that the rest of us non-believers are either missing something, blind, or just stubbornly unaccepting of the obvious. OR People are believing for other reasons other than objective proof and reason. That has not been my experience, maybe you are different.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Geisha:
For the most part, Lindy speaks for me as well as himself.
While I'm aware that I don't know it all, there are some categories in which it is unlikely that I'm going to see any new startling information.
I'm always seeking, but my seeking these days is in other directions besides Christianity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"I'm not sure of the existence of the "good ol' doctrinal forum days" that Oak and Abi have spoken of."
Indeed, I think that era slipped by me as well.
And if I may elabortate on Lindy's comments a bit more,
uh, we're not all ignorant, knuckle-dragging, unwashed heathens here. I think even Oakie takes a shower every so often.
Some of us even read now and then. And not only the Soap Opera Digest either. Lotsa times I read books with really big words and not many pictures at all...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.