Why do you accept the bible as inerrant historical fact?

[outhouse]

It should be easy to refute the accuracy of a book started some 3,500 years ago,

That is not true.

The oldest parts we have are roughly 2980 ish years old by our best guess.


Israelites did not exist until after 1200 BC.

completed 2,000 years ago

Ish

written by some 40 different writers

Completely unknown amount of writers.

, over a span of 1500 years

NO.

the evidence mounts that the Bible is what it says it is

If you mean mythology, your correct.

If you mean history, you are not correct.

 

[thau]

I'm really not going to debate this here, or anywhere for that matter. It's pointless to debate it with people unwilling to even acknowledge the mountain of evidence that supports the ToE. It was not the purpose of the thread anyway.

Agreed, pointless.

So then I will ask is there any part of the Bible you accept as inerrant historical fact?

Or is the creation story just a red herring used to discount this larger issue of proof of God period?

 

[outhouse]

Agreed, pointless.

So then I will ask is there any part of the Bible you accept as inerrant historical fact?

Or is the creation story just a red herring used to discount this larger issue of proof of God period?

After the monotheistic reforms the bible can get quite accurate in many areas.


It is obvious the authors knew nothing about their own ethnogenesis though.


Before the Babylonian exile, quite a bit gets real dicey historically speaking.

 

[BigRed]

I've asked this in other forums and never got a satisfactory answer. And please don't just quote II Timothy 3:16. That's problematic for several reasons but it's circular reasoning anyway. Or if you do you use it I would ask why you believe that to be true.

View of The Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01191a.htm

The African bishops willingly allowed corrections to be made in a copy of the Sacred Scriptures, or even a reference, when necessary, to the Greek text. With some exceptions, it was the Septuagint text that prevailed, for the Old Testament, until the fourth century. In the case of the New, the manuscripts were of the western type. (See Bible, Canon.) On this basis there arose a variety of translations and interpretations. This well-established fact as to the existence of a number of versions of the Bible in Africa does not imply, however, that there was no one version more widely used and more generally received than the rest, i.e. the version which is found nearly complete in the works of St. Cyprian. Yet even this version was not without rivals. Apart from the discrepancies to be found in two quotations of the same text in the works of two different authors, and sometimes of the same author, we now know that of several books of Scripture there were versions wholly independent of each other. No fewer than three different versions of Daniel are to be found in use in Africa during the third century; in the middle of the fourth, the Donatist Tychonius uses and collates two versions of the Apocalypse.
　
The name, Early African Church, is given to the Christian communities inhabiting the region known politically as Roman Africa, and comprised geographically within the following limits, namely: the Mediterranean littoral between Cyrenaica on the east and the river Ampsaga (now the Rummel) on the west; that part of it which faces the Atlantic Ocean being called Mauretania. These Christian communities, apparently, extended only as far as the neighbourhood of Tangiers (Tangi). The evangelization of Africa followed much the same lines as those traced by Roman civilization. Starting from Carthage, it overran Proconsular Africa and Numidia, and grew less thorough as it drew near to Mauretania.
　
　
　
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: New Testament
No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author--all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited today, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the scared writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence. More than 150,000 different readings have been found in the older witnesses to the text of the New Testament--which in itself is a proof that Scriptures are not the only, nor the principal, means of revelation.

It would appear that the Catholics don't think the Bible is accurate.

BigRed

 

[BigRed]

I've asked this in other forums and never got a satisfactory answer. And please don't just quote II Timothy 3:16. That's problematic for several reasons but it's circular reasoning anyway. Or if you do you use it I would ask why you believe that to be true.

The 4th Century Historian and Theologan Eusebius didn't think the Scriptures were accurate.

Eusebius
The Church History Paul L. Maier (1999)
　
　
They have not been afraid to corrupt divine Scriptures, they have rescinded the rule of ancient faith, they have not known Christ, they ignore Scripture but search for a logic to support their atheism. If anyone challenges them with a passage from Scripture, they examine it to see if it can be turned into a conjunctive or disjunctive syllogism. Abandoning the holy Scripture of God, they study “geometry” [earth measurement], for they are from the earth and speak of the earth and do not know the One who comes from above. Some of them study the geometry of Euclid and revere Aristotle and Theophrastus, and some virtually worship Galen. In using the arts of unbelievers for their heresy, they corrupt the simple faith of the Scriptures and claim to have corrected them.
　
That I am not slandering them anyone will learn who compares their writings, which are in great discord, for those of Asclepiades do not agree with those of Theodotus. Many manuscripts are available because their disciples zealously made copies of their “corrected” –though really corrupted-texts. Nor do these agree with the texts of Hermophilus, while those of Apolloniades are not even consistent among themselves, earlier copies differing greatly from later ones subjected to a second corruption. This sinful impudence can hardly have been unknown to the copyists, who either do not believe the Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit and are unbelievers or deem themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit and are possessed. They cannot deny their crime: the copies are in their own handwriting, they did not receive the Scriptures in this condition from their teachers, and they cannot produce originals from which they made their copies. Some have even found it unnecessary to emend the text but have simply rejected the Law and the Prophets, using a wicked, godless teaching to plunge into the lowest depths of destruction.

BigRed

 

[thau]

No. Much longer than 50,000 years. It's more in the range of 100 my. And it evolved from a dinosaur, not lizard. Besides, we do have quite a bit of fossil record of this. Also, birds still carry the gene for the teeth they share with the archaeopteryx.


They've not. They've changed. There are many observed changes in many different species. They're not in their "complete" state.


Every individual is the middle of the change to the next. You are the "missing" link between your parents and your children. And there's no "higher" species. There are just species of different kinds. One is "higher" for a given context, but the context changes. The environmental niche is that context.


If you think it's nice and tidy, then you're thinking wrong. Biology is not nice and tidy, and the classification of species is very, very difficult just because of so many shared traits. And on top of that hybrids and mosaic parts of it just makes it hared.


It's not that noticeable most of the time. The changes tend to be very small, but many over time. It's like how you would make a morphing character in an animation. Or what they call "tweening" in Flash. Small changes over a time span results in a big change between first and last frame.



Where did dalmatians come from? When were they created?

I went to a Bible school /seminary for a year. We studied the historicity of Christianity and the evidence for Jesus' existence.

I also went to college and took anthropology classes, much more recent, and I learned about the evidence for evolution.

The result from those two experiences show very clearly to me that the evidence for evolution is thousands, if not millions of times stronger and complete than any so called evidence for Jesus.

---

I will give you just some simple examples of evolution. Today we drink a lot of beer. Beer is made by using grains, yeast, and hops (and water). The yeast and hops give a lot of the flavor to the beer. The yeast and hops we use today didn't exist 10, 20, 100 years ago. It has been cultivated through letting it grow and mutate(!) and we pick the best ones. This is how it works. The selection part for beer hops and yeast were made by humans, but the random mutation to give us the options were not made by humans. We can't control that yet. So... mutation and selection works. New things (and good and tasty things) come about through mutations even if you don't believe it or not. It is a fact of nature.

Thanks for taking the time, but I would still disagree with you on a number of points.

However, Nazz already reminded me this thread is not about an evolution debate so I am going to try and abide by that. Perhaps it will surface on another post?

But I could not help but notice that you state you went to seminary school for a time (catholic?) and also took anthropology classes in college. And then you say "The result from those two experiences show very clearly to me that the evidence for evolution is thousands, if not millions of times stronger and complete than any so called evidence for Jesus."

This suggests to me an indomitable abyss between our two ways of thinking. Really.

 

[nazz]

Agreed, pointless.

So then I will ask is there any part of the Bible you accept as inerrant historical fact?

I certainly believe the Bible contains historical fact but I would not claim inerrancy about any specific account.

Or is the creation story just a red herring used to discount this larger issue of proof of God period?

Not sure what you mean by that. Are you under the mistaken impression I am an atheist?

 

[thau]

I certainly believe the Bible contains historical fact but I would not claim inerrancy about any specific account.

Well claiming nothing specific in Scripture as being necessarily true leaves a wide scope for interpretation then. It doesn’t put you or anyone on the hook for anything. It more or less allows for the believer or quasi-believer a convenient justification for being able to continue on as one pleases, does it not?

[me: Or is the creation story just a red herring used to discount this larger issue of proof of God period?] Not sure what you mean by that. Are you under the mistaken impression I am an atheist?

No, not at all. I was only trying to guess what your prime motivation was for asking your top post question “Why do you accept the bible as inerrant historical fact?”

It just struck me that you were trying to trip up the literalist inerrant believers on one point to use as evidence they could not be trusted on any points or claims?

Maybe I overreached in my assumptions?

 

[Ouroboros]

Thanks for taking the time, but I would still disagree with you on a number of points.

However, Nazz already reminded me this thread is not about an evolution debate so I am going to try and abide by that. Perhaps it will surface on another post?

Agree.

But I could not help but notice that you state you went to seminary school for a time (catholic?) and also took anthropology classes in college. And then you say "The result from those two experiences show very clearly to me that the evidence for evolution is thousands, if not millions of times stronger and complete than any so called evidence for Jesus."

Yes. The "seminary" school wasn't an accredited school. It was called "Bible School" and the purpose was to produce more preachers/teachers/evangelicals etc. It was a full time school for 10 months. We studied everything from Genesis to Revelations. One of the classes (a month long) was focused only on the evidence for the historicity of Jesus. This was about 20 years ago.

The anthropology classes I took were more recent, and one of the classes was a more hands-on. We studied skeletons and skulls and other fun things like the codons for protein synthesis etc. We also did some field trips and such.

In the Bible class the only evidence was people's words. The evidence in the anthropology class was actual artifacts, observations, animals, etc, and comparing and concluding yourself what it meant. Also, we did some math. Imagine that. Math in evolution.

This suggests to me an indomitable abyss between our two ways of thinking. Really.

Yup. It is a huge difference between them, and anthropology wins big time.

Also, it might be interesting to you that I was Christian for 30 years, born into a Christian family, but only non-Christian for about 10.

 

[nazz]

Well claiming nothing specific in Scripture as being necessarily true leaves a wide scope for interpretation then. It doesn’t put you or anyone on the hook for anything. It more or less allows for the believer or quasi-believer a convenient justification for being able to continue on as one pleases, does it not?

Not necessarily. First off there is a difference between the Bible presenting spiritual truth and being an inerrant account of history. Spiritual truth can be conveyed in many ways like fables and myths. For another thing people don't have to be dependent on a book to act ethically. And for Christians we have the Holy Spirit that informs us of right and wrong. Yet I know many Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy who would say they are free to act anyway they want because they are not under law but grace and all their sins are forgiven.

No, not at all. I was only trying to guess what your prime motivation was for asking your top post question “Why do you accept the bible as inerrant historical fact?”

It just struck me that you were trying to trip up the literalist inerrant believers on one point to use as evidence they could not be trusted on any points or claims?

Maybe I overreached in my assumptions?

As I explained I was genuinely curious.

 

[Windwalker]

Scholars and historians formulate theories based on the evidence that they have available to them. That doesn't mean they are right. That means that if all the information that was available to them was all the information to be had about a given subject, then they would be right.

No. If the evidence they have contradicts a previously held view, and that evidence is solid, then it is safe to say that that previously held view is safely contradicted by the evidence. They don't need to know everything that happened to safely say that previous view is incorrect. And if more data comes along in time, which does happen, it would have to not only invalidate all the current evidence as being an illusion, false, planted by ruse, etc, but then support with actual evidence that the original idea has teeth. That is highly unlikely to happen since the evidence continues to mount supporting all the evidence that is being uncovered which contradicts the original idea.

The key to this is not to try to deny the evidence, twist and distort it with pseduoscience and illogical arguments which the actual scholars themselves who are qualified to say so, reject. The key is to expand ones ideas to include the evidence, to allow it to shape how one understands their previously held notions. This takes work. This takes effort. To simply dismiss and deny the evidence is laziness.

I have something I wish to say about oral transmission and its valid purposes, and why it is not nor should be understood as a transmission of historical facts, but I'm going to save that for a subsequent post to this.

So their credibility only extends as far as the current information. Their interpretations of the information are not objective facts.

Which is great. They credibly show that the current information disproves the previously held views, which have no evidence themselves. Then you should now be ready to accept these as credible. Unless there is some other reason to not accept these, reasons that have nothing to do with evidence?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Prophets are not special people. In fact, if they really and truly believe they have a special pipeline to God, they may actually be people with mental issues.

Or they just might be correct, a possibility you appear to overlook. Further, their speciality is typically notable in their lives and the fruits they produce....

And those who believe in magic should not be leading us.

I wouldn't particularly term it "magic." And the ones I know of usually endeavor to serve and guide us rather than lead us.

BTW, who claimed we accept the Bible as "inerrant" in any case? No Baha'i I know of has made any such claim, though I'm aware that certain other groups do so.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[thau]

Not necessarily. First off there is a difference between the Bible presenting spiritual truth and being an inerrant account of history. Spiritual truth can be conveyed in many ways like fables and myths.

Yes, agreed. But in most cases I think it is fairly apparent what is intended as historical accounts, what is intended as allegory and what is intended as parables. It is only in certain passages (Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, and Noah for examples) where the Catholic Church is not dogmatic on its historical authenticity or as a representative of a moral message. But that still is not the main point here.

When you said “I would not claim inerrancy about any specific account” that is still a loaded statement that I suggest demands more clarification than you are offering.

For another thing people don't have to be dependent on a book to act ethically.

Who is suggesting they did? Surely that is how many or most “unchurched” people live their lives. But what if they violate their personal code of ethics? What then? Do they fall down in repentence? Do they worry about consequences? Do they amend their lives? What I am getting at is a strong belief in God, heaven and hell does alter behavior in many or most cases. It is a preventative measure from greater sin and it is a catalyst to be even more kind and caring towards our neighbor. So maybe it is a very important piece of the puzzle in keeping this nation sane or just?

And for Christians we have the Holy Spirit that informs us of right and wrong.

Is that an inerrant part of the Bible that told you that?

Actually, I think you are referring to a well formed conscience here if it is morals or matters of right and wrong. But is the Holy Spirit telling you it is Ok to pray to the Virgin Mary or not? I doubt it. I think that is why Jesus established His Church instead of letting every believer decide for themselves what seems right or wrong.

Yet I know many Christians who believe in biblical inerrancy who would say they are free to act anyway they want because they are not under law but grace and all their sins are forgiven.

This I would agree with you for an interpretation of how many of them might believe or act. Of course those are not my beliefs.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Or they just might be correct, a possibility you appear to overlook.

All I know is that Baha'ullah and Smith had no better connection to God than I have. That's all I know for sure.

Further, their speciality is typically notable in their lives and the fruits they produce....

Maybe so. But I've known many folks who've impressed me moreso than Baha'u'llah and Smith.

I wouldn't particularly term it "magic."

OK, but I would. Inerrant foretelling of the future? I don't believe the gypsies and their crystal balls, and I don't believe prophets who claim they can do it. And their claims of such abilities make them -- at least in my view -- less likely to have much to tell me about God.

BTW, who claimed we accept the Bible as "inerrant" in any case? No Baha'i I know of has made any such claim, though I'm aware that certain other groups do so.

I don't know. You may have to study the thread.

 

[outhouse]

Or they just might be correct,

About what exactly.


We know much more about their deity and the mythological creation of those deities then they did.


One thing is obvious. Only people wrote the books being worshipped.

 

[nazz]

Yes, agreed. But in most cases I think it is fairly apparent what is intended as historical accounts, what is intended as allegory and what is intended as parables.

I agree. I'm not suggesting the original writers were intending to not be literal.

It is only in certain passages (Adam and Eve, Cain and Able, and Noah for examples) where the Catholic Church is not dogmatic on its historical authenticity or as a representative of a moral message. But that still is not the main point here.

But this seems to contradict what you said above. If the original writers intended for those things to be taken literally why does the RCC not do so?

When you said “I would not claim inerrancy about any specific account” that is still a loaded statement that I suggest demands more clarification than you are offering.

What I mean is that I don't approach Scripture with the idea of inerrancy at all. There are things that probably do reflect actual history and things that probably don't. For some things it is just impossible to say but the historicity is irrelevant to me anyway.

Who is suggesting they did? Surely that is how many or most “unchurched” people live their lives. But what if they violate their personal code of ethics? What then? Do they fall down in repentence? Do they worry about consequences? Do they amend their lives?

Some might, others not.

What I am getting at is a strong belief in God, heaven and hell does alter behavior in many or most cases. It is a preventative measure from greater sin and it is a catalyst to be even more kind and caring towards our neighbor. So maybe it is a very important piece of the puzzle in keeping this nation sane or just?

It might have that effect but in my view this is not the best means to achieve the goal.

Is that an inerrant part of the Bible that told you that?

No, it's my own experience aligning with what the Bible says is true.

Actually, I think you are referring to a well formed conscience here if it is morals or matters of right and wrong. But is the Holy Spirit telling you it is Ok to pray to the Virgin Mary or not? I doubt it. I think that is why Jesus established His Church instead of letting every believer decide for themselves what seems right or wrong.

Ok, we disagree

 

[BruceDLimber]

Inerrant foretelling of the future? I don't believe the gypsies and their crystal balls, and I don't believe prophets who claim they can do it.

Then you still have to explain away the many fulfilled prophecies of Baha'u'llah (which have been detailed and listed in several books).

Meaning no offense, but failing that, your statement is reduced to mere hot air.

Bruce

 

[BruceDLimber]

We know much more about their deity and the mythological creation of those deities then they did.

Not that I've noticed!

One thing is obvious. Only people wrote the books being worshipped.

Then you have no idea what you're talking about: Baha'u'llah is in no way worshipped; and both He and we would consider it sacreligious to do so.

Just the facts.


Bruce

 

[outhouse]

Not that I've noticed!

Well if you read up you would know the Abrahamic one god concept was born from deities used in Canaanite mythology, prior to Israelites ever existing.

You would also know Israelites combined two gods into one, long before Christians combined 3 gods into one.

My opinion. We pretty much have a historical clear track record, of ancient men creating deities to meet their own needs, and changing them, whenever their cultural needs change.

Then you have no idea what you're talking about: Baha'u'llah is in no way worshipped; and both He and we would consider it sacreligious to do so.

Just the facts.

Well he is a founder and not a deity.



I like many aspect of what you follow, so don't confuse me wanting truth for anti theism.


I look through a historical lenses, not one of theology.


By the way I like a lot of what your religion offers.

 

[Mycroft]