• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Bible - Why Trust It

Neuropteron

Active Member
The preservation of the Bible record is in itself a divine miracle:

"The word of Jehovah endures forever" -1Peter 2:25

Reading the Bible and applying its advice is always comforting and beneficial.

"Jehovah is my strength and my shield. In him my heart has trusted" -Psalm 28:7
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The preservation of the Bible record is in itself a divine miracle:

"The word of Jehovah endures forever" -1Peter 2:25

Reading the Bible and applying its advice is always comforting and beneficial.

"Jehovah is my strength and my shield. In him my heart has trusted" -Psalm 28:7
What evidence? Most theists do not seem to understand the concept.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
The preservation of the Bible record is in itself a divine miracle:

"The word of Jehovah endures forever" -1Peter 2:25

Reading the Bible and applying its advice is always comforting and beneficial.

"Jehovah is my strength and my shield. In him my heart has trusted" -Psalm 28:7

Which Bible? There have been different collections of books in the Bible of different Christian denominations over the centuries. Which collection is the 'divine miracle?'

Would you say it was a divine miracle that the collections of Confucius have been preserved? I bet not.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Part 1 - Historically Accurate

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
Skeptics have attacked the Biblical record using the argument from silence. The fact that for many Biblical characters, there is no mention of them outside of the Biblical record in the findings of archeology or ancient inscriptions or manuscripts, calls their historicity into question.

The argument goes that if such people really lived, one would expect to find some trace of them outside of sacred writings.

Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible


Add one more to the list.
Tattenai, also called Sisinnes, (flourished c. 6th–5th century BCE), Persian governor of the province west of the Euphrates River (eber nāri, “beyond the river”) during the reign of Darius I (522–486 BCE).
According to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) Book of Ezra, Tattenai led an investigation into the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem about 519 BCE. He sent a report to Darius, who responded with instructions to allow the work to proceed. Tattenai is one of the few Persian officials mentioned in the Hebrew Bible for whom there is independent attestation; he is mentioned in a cuneiform tablet dated 502 BCE.


Tattenai
Tattenai (or Tatnai or Sisinnes) was a Biblical character and a Persian governor of the province west of the Euphrates River during the time of Zerubbabel and the reign of Darius I.

He is best known for questioning King Darius in regard to the rebuilding of a temple for the Lord, God of Israel. He was generally friendly to the Jews.The rebuilding was being led by Jeshua, son of Jozadak, and Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, and had been issued by King Cyrus I. Tattenai wrote a letter to King Darius to ask of these statements were true, and then King Darius wrote a letter confirming that the statements were true. In the letter, Darius asked that the people do everything they can to support this rebuilding financially, and that they do nothing to impede it lest they suffer harsh punishment.

Babylonian Cuneiform inscriptions
A number of cuneiform tablets bearing the name Tattenai have survived as part of what may have been a family archive. The tablet that links one member of this family to the Bible character is a promissory note dated to the 20th year of Darius I, 502 BC. It identifies a witness to the transaction as a servant of “Tattannu, governor of Across-the-River”. The clay tablet can be dated to June 5, 502 B.C. exactly.

Name
The Name Tattenai (ושתני), probably derived from the Persian name Ustanu, a word found in Zoroastrian scriptures to mean "teaching" though to the Hebrews it was indistinguishable from an expression of the verb נתן natan, meaning "to give". In 1 Esdras he is called Sisinnes.

Biblical texts
Ezra 1:1-4; 4:4-16; 5:3-7.

Tattenai meaning

Argument from silence DEBUNKED
CONFIRMED
: The Bible - Historically Accurate



Some studies of David have been written: Baruch Halpern has pictured David as a lifelong vassal of Achish, the Philistine king of Gath;[89] Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman have identified as the oldest and most reliable section of Samuel those chapters which describe David as the charismatic leader of a band of outlaws who captures Jerusalem and makes it his capital.[90] Steven McKenzie, Associate Professor of the Hebrew Bible at Rhodes College and author of King David: A Biography, argues that David came from a wealthy family, was "ambitious and ruthless" and a tyrant who murdered his opponents, including his own sons.[72]

Critical Bible scholarship holds that the biblical account of David's rise to power is a political apology—an answer to contemporary charges against him, of his involvement in murders and regicide.[91]

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman reject the idea that David ruled over a united monarchy, suggesting instead that he ruled only as a chieftain over the southern kingdom of Judah, much smaller than the northern kingdom of Israel at that time.[92] They posit that Israel and Judah were still polytheistic or henotheistic in the time of David and Solomon, and that much later seventh-century redactors sought to portray a past golden age of a united, monotheistic monarchy in order to serve contemporary needs.[93] They note a lack of archeological evidence for David's military campaigns and a relative underdevelopment of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, compared to a more developed and urbanized Samaria, capital of Israel.[94][95][96]

Jacob L. Wright, Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at Emory University, has written that the most popular legends about David, including his killing of Goliath, his affair with Bathsheba, and his ruling of a United Kingdom of Israel rather than just Judah, are the creation of those who lived generations after him, in particular those living in the late Persian or Hellenistic periods.[97]

History of interpretation in the Abrahamic religions

David - Wikipedia
 

Neuropteron

Active Member
What do you mean the preservation of the Bible record? Can you specify what you mean?

An example or the preservation of Bible records is the reservoir of over 13,000 manuscripts of all 27 canocical books that are available today. These all help in determining the true, original text. Importantly it is the message that God has conveyed to us that is available even if the medium that it was written on is not.
 

Neuropteron

Active Member
Which Bible? There have been different collections of books in the Bible of different Christian denominations over the centuries. Which collection is the 'divine miracle?'

That is a good question, the answer is that no translation of the Bible is inspired. The many thousands of mss that are availble are only copies of God's word as well. The miracle is that after 4000 years we still are capable of determining what God's message is to mankind today.

Would you say it was a divine miracle that the collections of Confucius have been preserved? I bet not.

Since Confucius was alive around 551–479 BC there is no reason to believe that his writtings have been miraculously preserved.
We should also keep in mind that the Bible has endured close to 1700 years of persecution by a Church that used all of it's power to eradicate it from existence and cruelly persecuted and killed translators or anyone owning a Bible.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
An example or the preservation of Bible records is the reservoir of over 13,000 manuscripts of all 27 canocical books that are available today. These all help in determining the true, original text. Importantly it is the message that God has conveyed to us that is available even if the medium that it was written on is not.
The fixation with"manuscripts " is largely meaningless. The vast majority were made CE, not BCE. Even the BCE manuscripts do not tend to be all that old.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
An example or the preservation of Bible records is the reservoir of over 13,000 manuscripts of all 27 canocical books that are available today. These all help in determining the true, original text. Importantly it is the message that God has conveyed to us that is available even if the medium that it was written on is not.

13,000 manuscripts of what? 5600 Greek manuscripts? The original is in Greek right? So the others are translations. So in your words "what God has conveyed" has 5600 plus manuscripts, not 13,000. If you are looking for all the translations maybe there are billions including the KJV, NIV, English french, german translations. Not valid. less than 6,000 Greek manuscripts. So magnifying it with translations is not valid.

Also, this is the New Testament you are speaking of. Not the "Bible".

See, there is a difference between "Preservation of the Bible record" vs "Help determine the true original text".

The question should be "What do you mean by the original text".

Anyway you did answer my question. Your answer is "Preservation means existence of thousands of manuscripts".

Thanks for the clarification.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
13,000 manuscripts of what? 5600 Greek manuscripts? The original is in Greek right? So the others are translations. So in your words "what God has conveyed" has 5600 plus manuscripts, not 13,000. If you are looking for all the translations maybe there are billions including the KJV, NIV, English french, german translations. Not valid. less than 6,000 Greek manuscripts. So magnifying it with translations is not valid.

Also, this is the New Testament you are speaking of. Not the "Bible".

See, there is a difference between "Preservation of the Bible record" vs "Help determine the true original text".

The question should be "What do you mean by the original text".

Anyway you did answer my question. Your answer is "Preservation means existence of thousands of manuscripts".

Thanks for the clarification.
Bible manuscripts are any handwritten potion of the Bible, language does not matter. They were generated until the invention of the printing press made them unnecessary:

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

That there are "manuscripts" is not at all impressive .
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Bible manuscripts are any handwritten potion of the Bible, language does not matter. They were generated until the invention of the printing press made them unnecessary:

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

That there are "manuscripts" is not at all impressive .

Any manuscript is a manuscript. Anyone understands that. But all other manuscripts are translations of Greek Manuscripts. Do you not accept that? So quoting translations is completely inauthentic for this kind of discussion. And if you want to count the manuscripts in so many lannguages then it would be 25000 catalogued. And we dont know how many fragments are not catalogued. NT was in Greek.

Tell me. Which latin Bible manuscript has the Epistle of Barnabas in the canon?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Any manuscript is a manuscript. Anyone understands that. But all other manuscripts are translations of Greek Manuscripts. Do you not accept that? So quoting translations is completely inauthentic for this kind of discussion. And if you want to count the manuscripts in so many lannguages then it would be 25000 catalogued. And we dont know how many fragments are not catalogued. NT was in Greek.

Tell me. Which latin Bible manuscript has the Epistle of Barnabas in the canon?
Okay, I did make an error, but my point stands. A "manuscript" is simply a copy of an older work. It does not have to be complete and most do not appear to be. A piece that was copied over several times is not impressive.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Okay, I did make an error, but my point stands. A "manuscript" is simply a copy of an older work. It does not have to be complete and most do not appear to be. A piece that was copied over several times is not impressive.

True. Even if a fragment exists of a book, that is a manuscript.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Im going to be honest and leave the dating of the texts to the scholars as it is outside of my domain to start argue for or against these dates. I just wanted to point out that the dates this detective used did not seem to be the same as what to me seem to be what the main scholars think about the dating of the texts. So im not saying he is wrong, simply that he doesn't really explain how he got those dates and why they are earlier than what others say they are.
.
main scholars? What's a main scholar?
There are no main scholars in this field.
All scholars use the same criteria, in examining historical documents.
The detective used the same. He is actually in line with the scholars who are using facts, rather than belief.
You and I can do the same. All one has to do is read...
Historical method - Wikipedia
Historical method is the collection of techniques and guidelines that historians use to research and write histories of the past. Primary sources and other evidence including those from archaeology are used.

Procedures for contradictory sources
Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) proposed a seven-step procedure for source criticism in history:
1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event proved. :star:
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible similarly to confirm the entire text. :star:
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the source with most "authority" — that is the source created by the expert or by the eyewitness.
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by most contemporaries. :star:
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of each is measurably enhanced. :star:
7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
Subsequent descriptions of historical method, outlined below, have attempted to overcome the credulity built into the first step formulated by the nineteenth century historiographers by stating principles not merely by which different reports can be harmonized but instead by which a statement found in a source may be considered to be unreliable or reliable as it stands on its own.

Core principles for determining reliability
The following core principles of source criticism were formulated by two Scandinavian historians, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997):
:smallbluediamond: Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.
:smallbluediamond: Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.
:smallbluediamond: The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened. :star:
:smallbluediamond: An eyewitness is more reliable than testimony at second hand, which is more reliable than hearsay at further remove, and so on. :star:
:smallbluediamond: If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased. :star:
:smallbluediamond: The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
:smallbluediamond: If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased. :star:

Eyewitness evidence
R. J. Shafer offers this checklist for evaluating eyewitness testimony:
1. Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?
2. How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe: did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law, military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police? :star:
3. How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?
:smallorangediamond: Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments? :star:
:smallorangediamond: When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.
:smallorangediamond: What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author? :star:
:smallorangediamond: Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead? :star:
4. Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?
5. Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and report on than others.
6. Are there inner contradictions in the document?
.
Then apply what we learn.
I gave a star to the ones where the documents under consideration do well.
The ones in blue can be tricky... To demonstrate...
Some problems with scholars' views
Contradictions?
Abijah of Judah - Wikipedia
Some scholars believe the biblical accounts of Abijam's family to be contradictory; however, a study of Hebrew linguistics removes any seeming contradictions.

One of the alleged contradictions is that Maacah is sometimes described as the daughter of Absalom, and elsewhere the daughter of Uriel. Absalom is described as only having one daughter, Tamar. In Hebrew, "daughter" and "granddaughter" are the same word, removing any contradiction there. Similarly, Maacah is initially described as Abijah's mother, but subsequently described as the mother of his son Asa. However, in Hebrew, "mother" and "grandmother" are the same word, once again removing any contradiction. Abijah married fourteen wives, and had 22 sons and 16 daughters.

#1 : What can be misunderstood, or misinterpreted, can seem to be contradiction, or taken to be such, when they really are not.

When two sources differ.
The Bible precisely names characters, events, and places, which are later confirmed
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources - Wikipedia
Example... (2 Kings 9:1-3)
The names of some of these characters are after their God.

1200px-Jehu-Obelisk-cropped.jpg

The tribute of "Jehu of the people of the land of Omri" (Akkadian: ) as depicted on the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III

The author of the Tel Dan Stele (found in 1993 and 1994) claimed to have slain both Ahaziah of Judah and Jehoram of Israel (whom Ahaziah was visiting). The most likely author of this monument is Hazael of the Arameans.

Hazael was an Aramean king who is mentioned in the Bible. Under his reign,

930px-JRSLM_300116_Tel_Dan_Stele_01.jpg

Tel Dan Stele
A monumental Aramaic inscription discovered at Tel Dan is seen by most scholars as having been erected by Hazael, after he defeated the Kings of Israel and Judah.

According to the book of Kings (2 Kings 8:25-29), King Jehoram returned to Jezreel to recover from the wounds that the Syrians had inflicted on him at Ramah when he fought against King Hazael of Syria. Ahaziah the son of Jehoram the king of Judah went down to Jezreel to see Jehoram the son of Ahab, because he had been wounded.

#2 : Of the two conflicting sources, which is telling the truth? Both can be biased. Also, scholars can be biased, in deciding which source they accept as reliable. This would be a difficult issue to settle. Unless... it can be demonstrated that the Biblical historical account is accurate. We have no way of asking dead Hazael. He might lie anyway, if he were alive.

I red flagged the red flags :) - the ones obviously problematic for the texts under consideration.
We can discuss all these, if you like.

I'll start the ball rolling, on the red flags.
Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?
Of course the Biblical text entirely involves supernatural "stuff", so this would automatically disqualifies the texts with supernatural elements, in the opinion of those not open to those possibilities,
That's problem number one.

Problem number two - Are there inner contradictions in the document? - is covered in the above section... The ones in blue.

Bart Erhman is just one of many scholars, and he is not the best of them, only the most opposed to scripture (from what I have seen, and heard). Based on his background, and current affiliation, it's easy to understand why.
 
Last edited:

nPeace

Veteran Member
I haven't read it, but have heard him debate with Richard Carrier about that topic, so based on that limited knowledge from that, and the Yale courses, I would probably agree with Bart Ehrman on this. As it was not uncommon with people like Jesus at the time. So to me its not unlikely that a person like him went around and spoke with people, however there is a long way, from a historical Jesus to Jesus as the Messiah.

And im pretty sure that Bart Ehrman is talking about the historical Jesus.
I found it interesting that the historicity of Jesus became undeniable, after the clamor to deny his existence, but then I realized, that they reluctantly were force to accept that Jesus existed. The evidence could not be honestly denied.

Virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain, and standard historical criteria has aided in reconstructing his life.
...very few scholars have argued for non-historicity and have not succeeded due to abundance of evidence to the contrary.*


Baptism of Jesus
Historicity

Most modern scholars believe that John the Baptist performed a baptism on Jesus, and view it as a historical event to which a high degree of certainty can be assigned. James Dunn states that the historicity of the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus "command almost universal assent". Dunn states that these two facts "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus. John Dominic Crossan states that it is historically certain that Jesus was baptised by John in the Jordan.

Crucifixion of Jesus
The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely between AD 30 and 33. Jesus' crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources, although there is no consensus among historians on the exact details.

The crucifixion
There is no consensus regarding the exact date of the crucifixion of Jesus, although it is generally agreed by biblical scholars that it was on a Friday on or near Passover (Nisan 14), during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (who ruled AD 26–36). Scholars have provided estimates for the year of crucifixion in the range 30–33 AD, with Rainer Riesner stating that "the fourteenth of Nisan (7 April) of the year A.D. 30 is, apparently in the opinion of the majority of contemporary scholars as well, far and away the most likely date of the crucifixion of Jesus." Another preferred date among scholars is Friday, April 3, 33 AD.

However, they don't realize that by accepting two proofs of his existence, they actually confirm the reliability of the scriptures.
How so? The scriptures are linked and intertwined, so when one accepts Jesus' baptism by John the baptist, and Jesus' crucifixion by Pontius Pilate, then prophecy is confirmed both from the ancient prophets, and those living prior to Jesus' birth.

The same passages where these accounts are found, contain references to events leading up to them, which explains why, how, when, and where they were to take place. So they would be confirmation of the reliability of the entire collection of documents, from Genesis to Revelation. It thus confirms the divine origin of the scriptures.
Just one example of hundreds... Acts 8:26-35 Compare John 1:29, 35, 36

I think you misunderstand what he means, because I would also not deny the important of the bible when it comes to our history and shaping of our civilization. I would however disagree with the ethics and moral taught in the bible as being something good, I see very little of that.
Which of the morals taught by Jesus, in the Gospels, do you find to be not good?

I don't know why you would find that funny, this is not what Bart Ehrman is saying, he is explaining how people throughout time have looked at the bible, and give some examples of what these people said, like the stories you are quoting. So from a "scientific" point of view, he is defending it and simply explain some of these former views, that through studying and examining evidence have been shown to be wrong. So I would agree that they are funny, but you should have read it a bit more careful, I think. Before rushing on here encouraging everyone to go read and laugh at it, as if Bart Ehrman had said it, as you unfortunately misunderstood it.
You don't know why I find that funny. It's more than funny. It's beyond ridiculously hilarious.
Imagine... Men push off shore in a boat. Then suddenly a storm bears down on them, and the poor men are frantically rowing, not realizing they are actually practically on the sand. How absurd. And that's not even the half of it.
By the way, I took the time to carefully read all of it... except for the last few paragraphs, so perhaps you have a good reason why you assume I didn't. Would you mind sharing that reason?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I think you are wrong here. Any scholar can go out and say that they believe in miracles, but that wouldn't be a very good approach, neither for the one that makes the statement or for anyone else. The reason being that you cant use such statement for anything in a study or paper, Unless you can supply evidence, so a person doing such thing is not an oddball in a personal sense, but from a academical point of view they would be. Because it would clearly show that they had no idea of what they were doing.

Imagine I wrote a paper on the bible:

"Based on 10 years of research of the bible and other religious texts, I can now demonstrate that Jesus were real. As my first argument, we can read about him in the bible. The second most compelling evidence, is that I believe in miracles, so nothing that Jesus is claimed to have done, seems unreasonable."

Now you do not agree with me. So you want to argue against it. How would you argue against my second argument? From a scientific point of view, there is no way that you would/ought to even consider it as being a serious argument.

We could have a talk about whether we believe miracles to be true or not, but that is it. Simply a way to share personal opinions about it. So it would be a complete suicide for any scholar to put forward such argument, if they want to be taken serious.
Some do have the same opinion you do. However, some also disagree.
Capable scientists are becoming increasingly cautious about saying that a certain thing is impossible. Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated: “A scientist is no longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say it is improbable. But he may be able to say something is impossible to explain in terms of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are now known. . . . [For a miracle] one thing that needs to be added is a source of energy unknown to us in our biological and physiological sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.” (Time, July 4, 1955) Since this statement was made, further scientific development has made it more emphatic.

However, I do agree with your last statement there. That was exactly the point I was making.

I think it depends, as you could also make an argument that by adding what could be considered "embarrassing" content, could also add credibility, where you might lack some. Just like you considering it a strong piece of evidence, because you are certain that they would not add anything like that, if it weren't true.
By doing this, you would probably destroy most criterion that Biblical scholars can use.
Thankfully you don't get to decide, as you are demonstrating that this is not an area you are very familiar with.
Your guy Bart, uses them.

But bible scholars do this as well. However finding one story in Mark and then finding it in Luke slightly different, I don't think I would consider strong evidence in regards to this, because again there seem to be quite wide agreement between scholars that the others gospels uses each other as source. So what you want to have is independent sources for them to be considered good, I think.


Eyewitness accounts are some of the worst evidence that exists :)

Eyewitness testimony is historically among the most convincing forms of evidence in criminal trials (e.g. Benton, Ross, Bradshaw, Thomas, & Bradshaw, 2006). Probably only a suspect’s signed confession can further convince a jury about that individual’s guilt....
But being convincing isn’t the same as being accurate. Eyewitness testimony is more fallible than many people assume...
According to the Innocence Project , 358 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death since 1989 have been exonerated through DNA evidence. Of these, 71% had been convicted through eyewitness misidentification and had served an average of 14 years in prison before exoneration. Of those false identifications, 41% involved cross-racial misidentifications (221 of the 358 people were African American). And 28% of the cases involved a false confession.

The claim that eyewitness testimony is reliable and accurate is testable, and the research is clear that eyewitness identification is vulnerable to distortion without the witness’s awareness. More specifically, the assumption that memory provides an accurate recording of experience, much like a video camera, is incorrect. Memory evolved to give us a personal sense of identity and to guide our actions. We are biased to notice and exaggerate some experiences and to minimize or overlook others. Memory is malleable.

The Reality
Memory doesn’t record our experiences like a video camera. It creates stories based on those experiences. The stories are sometimes uncannily accurate, sometimes completely fictional, and often a mixture of the two; and they can change to suit the situation. Eyewitness testimony is a potent form of evidence for convicting the accused, but it is subject to unconscious memory distortions and biases even among the most confident of witnesses. So memory can be remarkably accurate or remarkably inaccurate. Without objective evidence, the two are indistinguishable.

Myth: Eyewitness Testimony is the Best Kind of Evidence
.
Again, this is a case of one opinion against another. Disagreement on how to do things, and even what works.
The fact is though, your opinion is not true when considering historical documents. Primary source, and eyewitnesses, are actually the best evidence... That's not an opinion. See Historical Method.

That's why they are unimportant to me.
I don't let men think for me... especially agnostic atheists, and other skeptics.
Quest for the historical Jesus - Wikipedia

For example, before the 1900s the followers of Christ knew that Jesus was both baptized and crucified, with the exact details. We also know the exact date. We don't have to guess that it is 33 CE. We know.... and how do we know? Prophecy... written long before (actually more than 1000 years) the Messiah arrived.
We didn't have to wait for archaeologist to find Hezekiah seal, and tunnel, in order to know what he was, and what he did. Nor did we have to wait for them to inform us that David was real. Wait. What? Really?

No. The followers of Christ, know that they hold in their hand, the truth... from a divine source.
It contains a reliable collection of historical writings, which evidently is of divine origin, as claimed by eyewitnesses.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
The whole of the Pentateuch is fiction as. There was no Joshua.

I am reluctant to say the Pentateuch the entire Pentateuch is fiction. It is set in history and not accurately factual.
Yes, the accounts of Joshua are considered added and not historically accurate.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Jesus followers. Before we can consider them being eyewitnesses we have to first establish that they actually were. Yet as far as I know, none of Gospel writers claim to have been eyewitnesses or even suggest that they have spoken to some.

Luke 1:1-4
1 Since many people have attempted to write an orderly account of the events that have transpired among us,
2 just as they were passed down to us by those who had been eyewitnesses and servants of the word from the beginning,

3 I, too, have carefully investigated everything from the beginning and have decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


Its pretty clear that Luke at least, does not consider those before him to have been able to do this. And that these were not written by eyewitnesses but rather passed down to them, by those that were.
Luke. How many Gospel writers were they again?
I think everyone knows that Luke never claimed to be an actual eyewitness to Jesus activities. He became a disciple some time after Jesus' death, and before Paul's conversion. So likely 34/35.
Matthew and John were eyewitnesses.
(John 21:24) This is the disciple who gives this witness about these things and who wrote these things, and we know that his witness is true.
Mark was not, but his information was apparently gathered mostly from Peter.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is evident that Matthew did not copy, or borrow from Mark. Nor vice versa.
An examination of Matthew’s account shows that more than 40 percent of his record, is not found in the other three Gospels.

Not 100% sure I understand what you mean. But if I do, I would consider the lack of observation and experience of something as being evidence for it not being possible. And would consider that a reasonable standpoint until proven differently.
Scientists make inferences of things they don't observe. They rely on their experience and previous observations. Do you consider that solid evidence?

When I write "we" I refer to what the main scholars seem to agree on. Obviously you will always have someone that disagree.

From the article:
I should stress that the views I lay out here are not unique to me, as if I’m the one who thought all this up. On the contrary, the views I will be laying out here are those held by virtually every professor of biblical studies who teaches at every major liberal arts college or research university in North America. Take your pick: Yale, Harvard, Princeton, Berkeley, University of Chicago, University of Kansas, University of Nebraska, University of Minnesota, University of Florida, Amherst, Middlebury, Oberlin — literally, pick any top liberal arts college or state university in North America, and the views that I will be sketching here are pretty much the sorts of things you will find taught there.
Can you explain what a main scholar is? I don't know of any such thing.

Im sorry but that is absolutely bullocks :)
Whatever that means to people who use it. I haven't a clue.

Try to read what you are claiming:
1. when this ruler left his daughter, she was alive, but he knew she was dying, and had little time left.
2. So he obviously believe that by the time he found Jesus, his daughter would be dead.
3. the daughter did not live a stone's throw away from where Jesus was, so they had to travel.


Just from a logical point of view, if you read the above 3 sentences as if it were a real story.

A person whos knows his daughter is about to die, chooses to travel a long time to reach Jesus, knowing that his daughter will die in the meantime, Yet he still does, so he can't be with his daughter when she dies? Are you really suggesting that this explain the differences in the story and that they are in fact the same?
And you called it what?
Obviously you don't understand much about the life of Jesus. I wish you did though. At least I would feel better if you knew what you were talking about. Sorry. That was a swift uppercut in response to the bull...ox? :D

Go learn your Bible and come back. Oops. Sorry. Couldn't help a second. :D
Actually, you went away from the point, but no problem, it just means I can help you in two areas.
1. The accounts compliment each other. That's important to emphasize.
2. When one understands what faith is, they have no problem with a man traveling to the ends of the earth to find a man he heard about, that can not only heal the sick, but raise the dead.

If people knew of one doctor who could do both, they would leave the bedside of their dying relative, in search of that doctor. That is sensible.

Its been so long so not sure, I think you referred to this guy in Acts as speaking wise words, which to me didn't sound all that wise. Anyway not sure if it was about that :D.
I could remind you, but that's chicken feed, compared to what I am about to throw at you. :D

So it would have been possible for Jesus to have been killed by a random person when he were a young boy, so we would never have heard of him? And in that case God would just have made a new Jesus?
No. You are speculating, big time... and you have nothing substantial.
Any action made to stop the fulfillment of God's purpose would be met with God's intervention. That did occur. Matthew 2.
Nothing could stop God's will from taking place, and man could still exercise his own free will.

I believe I already answered this before. But basically I think the bible hold some historical accounts that are exaggerated to serve a purpose for the Jewish people at the time. So you will find city names, battles, some people that have existed, but mixed with a lot of supernatural and religious stuff that I think is made up.
Sorry. I just wanted to be doubly sure. Thanks.

But you could claim the same for the terrorists? Obviously those people wouldn't do it if it were a lie. The issue is not whether its a lie or not, but whether a person is convinced that what they believe is true.

So I wouldn't compare the apostles with that of terrorists, when it comes to motive, because there doesn't seem to be any historical support (At least as far as I know) that Paul or any of the other writers would see killing as an option to make their case. The punishment and suffering of nonbelievers seems to be handed over to God in the NT, compared to the OT where a lot of people that God do not like or that is considered to have false God, should be killed. So as far as I can see, there is a shift between the OT and NT. And it is first later in history that we have all the inquisitions, conversion, crusades, witch hunting etc.

However none of this prevent the followers to be committed to what they believe in and therefore have a motive, you have evidence of this from cults, but also established religions.

You have examples of JWs not wanting to take blood, because of this conviction in what they believe. You have that guy that travelled to the Andaman Islands trying to spread the word of Jesus to the Sentinelese people and ending up being killed by them. People do not do this if they are not committed to what they believe in. So there are lots of examples of people doing things that have nothing to do with them becoming martyrs, but purely due to faith.
I think you missed the point.
Secondly, you are assuming that anything someone believes contrary to what you accept, is a lie.
Those people all believe in their cause.
(John 16:2) . . .Men will expel you from the synagogue. In fact, the hour is coming when everyone who kills you will think he has offered a sacred service to God.

The point being made, is that they would not have taken such a course for something they believed to be a lie.
If you could demonstrate an ulterior motive, then you would be making a valid argument.

Just for clarification.
What do you mean that it gives us a complete picture of every aspect of life?
What do you mean by, secular worldviews being filled with gaps, in what way do you see this?
That will be a long post, so I will return to this later.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Something I think is sort of interesting. From the beginning of the Revolt against Rome to the fall of Massada was seven years. Wonder if that is what the author of Revelation was writing about after the fact when he speaks of a seven year tribulation?

It is possible.
 
Top