Accuracy of the Bible

[Commoner]

First of all, sorry for the late responses, I'm a bit swamped by my non-forum (non)life.

My standards on how I view the Bible are based in logic.

Well, logic is a lot better than circular logic.:yes:

That's not necessarily true. I work in Law Enforcement, and I can tell you that a lot of my job is reading stuff for people. I can tell you that countless ignorant people will, day after day, misinterpret clear and understandable information. Common sense is not common.

And it's not that it isn't clear and understandable, it's that one has to work on finding that clarity. One has to study it and put it into practice in order for it to be understandable.

Well, sure, you can't make everyone understand even the simplest things properly (hmm...unless you're god?), but that's not what I'm saying. According to you, 99.75% of the World's population do not understand the Bible correctly (or do not know it at all). It's quite possible, if perhaps a bit...unusual, but many among those who misunderstand spend quite a lot of time studying it, living it, teaching it and preaching it. Do they all lack common sense?

I understand how you could reach that conclusion. And as much as I hate claiming that translation has to do with how you are interpreting it, I have to say that here. If you read the Bible in Hebrew, it really makes no sense. If you want, there is a commentary called Rashi. Rashi is a Torah commentator from about 1300-2000 years ago (I don't know specifically when he lived, I could find out but I'm being lazy). Rashi goes through the Tanakh from the first page to the last page and identifies all the problems in the original Hebrew.

I mean, the very first sentence of the Torah isn't completely understandable. If you read the Torah in Hebrew, it is obvious that a lot is missing.

Comes the translator and says "Well, I can't translate it like this. " and then translators will attempt to translate out the problems.

If you read the Torah, it becomes clear that much is missing because the Torah will often tell the reader to refer to information that is found no where else in the Torah. This link contains some examples.

Interesting article - funnily enough, I agree with most of the sarcastical commentary the author makes, albeit for very different reasons. Unlike the author, I cannot help but consider the obvious conclusion - the contradictions and omissions in the Bible are just that. While I'm sure some things were simply lost in translation (and in history), I would say that fact alone is enough for one to be skeptical of the supposed divine authorship of the Bible. Furthermore, to assert that the "oral tradition" is somehow immune to such decay seems naive to the point of absurdity. If this was part of god's plan, god might have planned people to be skeptical.

This just doesn't seem like god's message to humanity you claim it to be. Next time I expect a signature and some sort of media that would not be so easily...corruptible. You know, something indestructible and self-contained. This just seems so very, very human in every aspect.

In that sense, I do believe it is infallible.

That's what I find so difficult to understand.

Whether or not apostasy is a sin is not really up for you to decide. It is a crime in a society that decides to live by the laws of God. Pure and simple. A person can either leave the society and be an apostate (which people are completely free to do) or they can stay in the society and purposefully rebel against the system of people who want to live by God's laws.

That's just the thing - it is up to me to decide. Especially in a world of competing god concepts, I can choose which god concept to choose (if at all) - just as you chose your religion. You claim your choice was based on reason so I must assume you critically assessed the claims made in the Bible before accepting your current faith - in that respect, you chose what sin is or if it is at all. But that was not what I meant.

I don't believe there's any such thing as sin, I simply borrowed the term to denote something immoral, something "destructive". I find your argument almost self-defeating. In almost the same way one could argue the Nazis had every right to "punish" the jewish people who did not leave Germany. Indeed, you could use it to justify any tyrannical system throught history and every form of discrimination imaginable. Being given the choice to leave your country, your home, your family, your friends, your business, etc... is no choice at all. I wonder if you'd feel the same way if your own beliefs were outlawed. If Obama suddenly decided you simply aren't fit to live in the USA unless you become a christian or a muslim, under penalty of death. These are the kind of images dystopian novels are made out of and you find no fault in them?

I think you're misunderstanding the nature of killing someone for apostasy. All you see is person A being stoned for his apostasy.

How did person A come to be stoned?

1. He committed apostasy.
2. He was warned by two upright witnesses that his behavior is wrong and he committed it anyways. (Now, after being warned, he could have left, he could have gone to another country that shares his apostasy, he could have went home and had his beliefs in private, etc etc).
3. Those witnesses report him.
4. He is tried and convicted.
5. He is stoned.

I don't understand which part "softens" this horror. The choice to leave? The choice to lie about it, to keep quiet? I don't understand?

In essence, what is the Torah saying we can execute people for? Can we execute people for apostasy? (Or for breaking any Torah law?) No, we cannot.

Every execution that might or would take place as a result of transgression of a Torah law is an execution of a person that purposefully rebels against the Torah system in a Torah society.

I agree with you that it is immoral to execute someone for having different beliefs. The Torah does not teach that. The Torah teaches that we execute someone who rebels purposefully against the social structure of Torah while in a Torah society after being warned of the consequences of doing so.

I fail to see how that is immoral.

Fail is the right word. It's completely inexplicable to me, how you fail to see how unjustifiable this is. I can't find any way of putting it without coming across wholly patronizing. Is it not blatantly obvious what happens in societies that adopt this kind of dictatorship? Where personal freedoms are reduced almost to the point of thought-crime?

The means that produce the result He desires. In essence, He considers the outcome, considers how to get there, and obviously He believes that this means of getting there is the best way to do it. Otherwise He would have chosen something else. This system that He set up, accomplishes what He wants. Hence, we have this system.

I don't think he spent much time considering humanity in his plan, if that's the case. Because this has clearly not been a joy-ride for us, has it? I find it contradictory that you keep putting limits on your omnimax god. We are bound by cause and effect, god is not - he creates the cause-effect structure. The whole thing, from start to finish. In that respect, to claim that this is the best way of getting to a desired outcome is kinda absurd. Not only can an omnipotent being simply create the outcome and not bother with any "before the outcome", he can think of an infinite number of perfect paths to the same result.

That is a discussion that should be had when the law is being created. Once the law is in effect it is too late to consider that the law is unreasonable. One should obey the law at that point. (And when I say this I refer to God's law which, if God really did design it, would be perfect).

The world would look a lot different if everyone thought like that. No one would ever rebel against dictatorships, against repression, against discrimination. No one could be justified in doing so.

Is there a problem with that?

It's a tautology, it doesn't really add any value to your argument.

The nature of the action, as in whether or not it is immoral, is a matter of judging it. When courts prosecute people, they set out to judge the nature of the person's action as either legal or illegal. To try and judge the nature of an action in a way that a court would not is not judging the nature of an action. It's speculation of fantasy.

It's how laws are made. And what does the law have to do with the morality of an action? True, laws do reflect things society deems immoral, but not all immoral actions are illegal. Would you then say that you are incapable of judging the ethical nature of an action in a hypothetical situation in which there were no clear way for a court to prove the person's guilt?

How can you establish the nature of an action in a hypothetical situation without judging the action? You can't, unless the judgment is pre-determined.

I don't know what you mean.

 

[Autodidact]

But there was no Adam.

Picky, picky, picky.

 

[mixond]

The accuracy of the bible is not important because it is a story to learn from imperfections and all.

 

[TheKnight]

First of all, sorry for the late responses, I'm a bit swamped by my non-forum (non)life.

No worries bro. Me too.

Well, sure, you can't make everyone understand even the simplest things properly (hmm...unless you're god?), but that's not what I'm saying. According to you, 99.75% of the World's population do not understand the Bible correctly (or do not know it at all). It's quite possible, if perhaps a bit...unusual, but many among those who misunderstand spend quite a lot of time studying it, living it, teaching it and preaching it. Do they all lack common sense?

It's not that they lack common sense. It's that they simply don't spend the time and dedication to take their study to the next level. The Bible is a complex document and different people get different interpretations from it. You have Christians who study the Bible for years and years and reach conclusions and develop theologies etc.

Do they lack common sense? I wouldn't say that it isn't that bad. It's just a matter of being ignorant. Most people simply don't know what the Jewish position is on a lot of things. Most people inaccurately say things like "Judeo-Christain" religion as if Judaism and Christianity are the same. Theologically speaking, they are not the same in...well they'renot the same at all.

It's not a matter of lacking common sense, it's a matter of people simply not knowing.

Next time I expect a signature and some sort of media that would not be so easily...corruptible. You know, something indestructible and self-contained. This just seems so very, very human in every aspect.

Why? Judaism doesn't ask so much of a person that they need absolute proof. In essence, Judaism asks that people be good people. That's about it. It asks that we try our hardest to be good people. And if our natural sensibilities lead us to other moral conclusions than that of the Torah, even though that doesn't make it moral, no one's going to condemn you for that.

After all, how can we condemn people for believing what, to them, is obvious? I would not and I think that any Orthodox Rabbi would not want you to abandon your sense of reason and logic in order for you to be "on the right path." Why? Because you don't need to convert to Judaism to be good. You don't need to believe all the things the Torah teaches to live by Torah precepts. All you need to do, to be right in God's eyes, is do good.

Is it good to obey the Torah? Yes. Is it required that we obey the Torah? Yes. Is God going to send you to hell because everything in your natural world and in your senses tells you that the Torah is false? No. He won't. If anything, He'll be lenient on you because of that.

That's what I find so difficult to understand.

Of course. If you understood it as I do, you'd believe it.

That's just the thing - it is up to me to decide. Especially in a world of competing god concepts, I can choose which god concept to choose (if at all) - just as you chose your religion. You claim your choice was based on reason so I must assume you critically assessed the claims made in the Bible before accepting your current faith - in that respect, you chose what sin is or if it is at all. But that was not what I meant.

I agree. It's totally up to you to choose your God concept. However, if I and a group of people who believe as I do want to go off and have our own separate community apart from people who believe as you do. Then it is our "right" to do so. If someone decides to come to our society (or not leave our society) when they are given the option to and decides to live in contrast to the society, then they should be disciplined.

I wonder if you'd feel the same way if your own beliefs were outlawed. If Obama suddenly decided you simply aren't fit to live in the USA unless you become a christian or a muslim, under penalty of death. These are the kind of images dystopian novels are made out of and you find no fault in them?

That's entirely different. American society is not made up of people who want to live by certain beliefs.

As I said, if a society of religious people decides "OK, we're going to establish a society and a government that will be run under the theocratic methods that we desire" and someone says "I don't agree". Then that dissenter can either leave and not be with that society, or conform to that society.

I mean, that's how social contracts work. If you really want to live in a certain society, you'll conform to the standards of that society.

I don't understand which part "softens" this horror. The choice to leave? The choice to lie about it, to keep quiet? I don't understand?

It's not a horror is what I'm trying to say. If I disobey the law, and am given the option to go elsewhere, but decide to stay and disobey, then I deserve to be dealt with by society.

I don't believe that people should have the right to force society to accept them. If a group or entity wants to hold itself to a certain standard, then we cannot force them to accept people who are not of that standard. If I want to start a group of vegetarians, it would be wrong for you (or anyone) to tell me that I have to allow meat eaters to join the group.

Similarly, if I and some friends start a religious community and hold ourselves to a religious standard. We do not have to accept someone that does not want to live by that standard.

Fail is the right word. It's completely inexplicable to me, how you fail to see how unjustifiable this is. I can't find any way of putting it without coming across wholly patronizing. Is it not blatantly obvious what happens in societies that adopt this kind of dictatorship? Where personal freedoms are reduced almost to the point of thought-crime?

Personal freedoms? I don't even think that way. You and I are looking through two separate sets of lenses. You see that individual freedom should be protected. I agree. Individuals should be free to believe as they want.


BUT

I do not agree or support the idea of making people who don't believe that way, accept those people into said groups. If you want to join a vegetarian club but are not vegetarian, then too bad for you. If you want to play football but don't know how and don't care, then too bad for you if you want to join our team. If you want to be an apostate but want to live in a religious community, then too bad for you.

I don't believe that the individual's freedoms should come before that of the society's. Don't get me wrong, society is obligated to ensure certain individual "rights". But not at the expense of the standards of the society.

I don't think he spent much time considering humanity in his plan, if that's the case. Because this has clearly not been a joy-ride for us, has it? I find it contradictory that you keep putting limits on your omnimax god. We are bound by cause and effect, god is not - he creates the cause-effect structure. The whole thing, from start to finish. In that respect, to claim that this is the best way of getting to a desired outcome is kinda absurd. Not only can an omnipotent being simply create the outcome and not bother with any "before the outcome", he can think of an infinite number of perfect paths to the same result.

A joy ride is obviously not what He wanted. So many people that life would be so much better without pain and suffering. And I agree that it would be to an extent. The way I see it, pain and suffering have benefits for us. That's why they exist. It's not like God didn't think things through. Perhaps, the way things are is the best way for them to be.

The world would look a lot different if everyone thought like that. No one would ever rebel against dictatorships, against repression, against discrimination. No one could be justified in doing so.

Sure they could.

It's how laws are made. And what does the law have to do with the morality of an action? True, laws do reflect things society deems immoral, but not all immoral actions are illegal. Would you then say that you are incapable of judging the ethical nature of an action in a hypothetical situation in which there were no clear way for a court to prove the person's guilt?

I don't believe that there should be a separation between law and morality. Just as I don't believe there should be a separation between logic and morality.

I don't know what you mean.

How can you say that something is immoral without judging the action as such? And if you are judging it as such, by what standard do you make that judgment?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Picky, picky, picky.

I guess....To me it sounds as though they're making it all up as they go along.

I see you got bored with the Jellyfish. You're new avatar is funny....

 

[Shamuwn]

Is the accuracy of the Bible important? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: Is the accuracy of the Bible important in some areas moreso than others, such as, for example, science over history? Which areas do you think are most important, and why?

Science and Religion can not go hand and hand , because one dealing with belief / faith the other fact's .

 

[Spiritone]

Science and Religion can not go hand and hand , because one dealing with belief / faith the other fact's .

I think that Religion and Science will eventually have to come together. Both making compromises, of course.

 

[Commoner]

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to do this in parts.

It's not that they lack common sense. It's that they simply don't spend the time and dedication to take their study to the next level. The Bible is a complex document and different people get different interpretations from it. You have Christians who study the Bible for years and years and reach conclusions and develop theologies etc.

Do they lack common sense? I wouldn't say that it isn't that bad. It's just a matter of being ignorant. Most people simply don't know what the Jewish position is on a lot of things. Most people inaccurately say things like "Judeo-Christain" religion as if Judaism and Christianity are the same. Theologically speaking, they are not the same in...well they'renot the same at all.

It's not a matter of lacking common sense, it's a matter of people simply not knowing.

Your stance is incredibly ironic, to say the least. I don't really know what else to say in answer to such a condescending viewpoint. I can understand how you might accuse someone like me of being ignorant on the subject, but those who have devoted their entire lives in an attempt to understand the Bible? And even if they did fail to understand it properly, along with the other 99,7% of the World, that still isn't an argument in favor of your position. Nor is it an argument for the Bible being "clear and understandable", which was the whole point anyway. Clearly that's not the case, unless you're willing to say that basically everyone is being completely disingenuous and intentionally misinterpret it. Or, on the other hand, it might be completely clear and you are simply superimposing a hidden meaning where none exists.

Why? Judaism doesn't ask so much of a person that they need absolute proof. In essence, Judaism asks that people be good people. That's about it. It asks that we try our hardest to be good people. And if our natural sensibilities lead us to other moral conclusions than that of the Torah, even though that doesn't make it moral, no one's going to condemn you for that.

Oh, come on now, are you being serious? First of all, I completely disagree with that "feel-good" description of judaism. Promoting and condoning incest, genocide, slavery, abuse of slaves, women and children, racism, etc... don't seem to fit the "try our hardest to be good people" motto. And while I'm sure most, if not all, simply disregard those..."shady parts", push them aside as if not a part of their religion, that is unquestionably the essence of the OT. And when you take any commandment from the Torah and claim it as "divine justification", you should consider all the other things that were commanded and make sure you agree with them all, because the only way you can claim your actions are justified on the basis of scripture is if it is infallible. I don't really believe you can do that and I don't believe anyone, barring a few exceptions, could. But even if you were right, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Believing in Santa Claus, Underpants Gnomes or UFOs require no serious life altering commitment either, so why are we not satisfied with Mulder's claims. When did reality stop being a priority?

 

[footprints]

Is the accuracy of the Bible important? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: Is the accuracy of the Bible important in some areas moreso than others, such as, for example, science over history? Which areas do you think are most important, and why?

The bible is the written word. It is written in the perception of the original authors which may or may not align with the perception of the people who developed the word of mouth legends. The one thing you can say for the bible is that down the lines of sociology it could be the beginning of any culture on earth as it moved from hunter and gatherer stage to built populations of cities and trade and the psychological value which is still very much existent today. In essence it could be called a book of life.

Is the accuracy of the Bible important? This generally depends on a persons perspective. For those on a spiritual journey, it is of little significance, for those who are trying to prove right or wrong, it is of great significance.

Is the accuracy of the bible important in some areas more so than others? This depends on the association patterns used to build a persons perception. For the person on a spiritual journey, again this will hold no significance. However for a person trying to prove the bible right or wrong, each section will have association value, some areas will hold more value than others depending on how the belief pattern relates and associates to the knowledge being read at the time. As an example the hard lined theist will have direct opposite association patterns to a hard lined atheist, and each will herald their own belief correct for the simple reason it proves their own personal belief correct.

 

[TheKnight]

Your stance is incredibly ironic, to say the least. I don't really know what else to say in answer to such a condescending viewpoint. I can understand how you might accuse someone like me of being ignorant on the subject, but those who have devoted their entire lives in an attempt to understand the Bible? And even if they did fail to understand it properly, along with the other 99,7% of the World, that still isn't an argument in favor of your position. Nor is it an argument for the Bible being "clear and understandable", which was the whole point anyway. Clearly that's not the case, unless you're willing to say that basically everyone is being completely disingenuous and intentionally misinterpret it. Or, on the other hand, it might be completely clear and you are simply superimposing a hidden meaning where none exists.

The fact is that Judaism does not use the Bible by itself to develop the opinions it has. The Bible is, as I said already, like the written notes to a lecture that contains much more content.

A person who spends their whole life studying the Bible isn't going to go anywhere if they start off with the wrong methods of interpreting it or the wrong information about it. Just like someone who studies mathematics their whole life will not get anywhere with it if he/she continues to think that 2+2=5.


My point is, the content of the Bible is clear and understandable. A person simply needs to study it correctly in order to learn the message that it teaches.

Oh, come on now, are you being serious? First of all, I completely disagree with that "feel-good" description of judaism. Promoting and condoning incest, genocide, slavery, abuse of slaves, women and children, racism, etc... don't seem to fit the "try our hardest to be good people" motto.

Judaism does not promote or condone incest, abuse of anyone, or racism in any way. It does not promote genocide. Genocide is seen as a negative consequence of a particular flow of events. Slavery is not "beat your slave because you feel like it" slavery. Slavery in Judaism is much more like servant-hood. Indeed, the word for slave and servant is the same word. The word for servant hood and slavery is the same word. And, as with any, a person is obligated to treat his slave/servant with respect.

And while I'm sure most, if not all, simply disregard those..."shady parts", push them aside as if not a part of their religion, that is unquestionably the essence of the OT.

The essence of the OT? Have you ever read the OT in it's entirety?

And when you take any commandment from the Torah and claim it as "divine justification", you should consider all the other things that were commanded and make sure you agree with them all, because the only way you can claim your actions are justified on the basis of scripture is if it is infallible.

That last part isn't true. I do believe that Torah is infallible, BUT even if it isn't, I can still base my actions on it. People base their actions on man-made laws all the time. And I doubt you'd say that man-made law is infallible.

I don't really believe you can do that and I don't believe anyone, barring a few exceptions, could. But even if you were right, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Believing in Santa Claus, Underpants Gnomes or UFOs require no serious life altering commitment either, so why are we not satisfied with Mulder's claims. When did reality stop being a priority?

The difference between the two is the fact that there is extraordinary evidence. If you are interested, Dr. Dovid Gottlieb outlines it in his work entitled "Living Up To The Truth" (pdf) HTML Version

 

[Commoner]

I mean, that's how social contracts work. If you really want to live in a certain society, you'll conform to the standards of that society.

I just can't deal with your arguments, because I simply can't get around the fact that you're arguing that stoning someone to death could be considered an appropriate response to rejecting Judaism. Not just exiling them from your society but killing them in the most agonizing way imaginable. For choosing another religion.

Why you would choose to defend this absurdity is beyond me.

 

[Katzpur]

If the Bible is wrong, did Jesus raise from the dead? Do I need to be born again? Did God create the world? Did Jesus die for my sins? See if the Bible is in error my whole faith is in vain.

But these are major points of faith. They are not trivialities. I would say that virtually all Christians believe these essential truths. Most of us, however, recognize that (a) some parts of the Bible were never intended to be literal, but figurative, that (b) different people telling the same story will tell it somewhat differently and even appear to contradict each other at times and (c) human beings make mistakes. Try to handcopy the Bible yourself. No matter how hard you may try to do so perfectly, you will undoubtedly miss a word here and there, if not worse. Relying on the Bible as an important directive from God does not mean that we need to relinquish our common sense.

 

[TheKnight]

Not just exiling them from your society but killing them in the most agonizing way imaginable. F.

A person who does not want to be Jewish, could leave the society. They only get stoned if they stay and deliberately break Jewish law after being warned (by two people separately) that they should stop. Does such a person really want to just be exiled? No. Because anyone that is content with leaving would leave. Such a person wants to deliberately rebel against the social structure (in the case of a Jewish society). I don't know about you, but I agree that capital punishment is necessary at certain times. Death is death. There is no such way as an "agonizing" death in my eyes. All death is horrible to me.

Why you would choose to defend this absurdity is beyond me.

I defend it because I recognize that there are times when people must be killed. Not everyone is going to play nice, and sometimes it's best for a society to remove people for not living according to the rules. I'm sure you'd agree that someone who is constantly breaking laws, and will continue to break laws, deserves to be exiled. If they won't accept that, then they deserve to be executed. Of course, I would much rather not have anyone be killed. Death is abhorrent to me. Why else would I want to become a homicide detective to put people that murder other people in jail?

Am I biased? Perhaps. I've seen way too many unrepentant killers to be content with letting such people go out and stay in our society (pr be supported by society). People who deliberately go against a society that doesn't want to change are people that said society has a right to defend itself against.

 

[Autodidact]

Am I biased? Perhaps. I've seen way too many unrepentant killers to be content with letting such people go out and stay in our society (pr be supported by society). .

You mean like people who obeyed God's commandment to kill people from other tribes--that kind of unrepentant killer? Or do people of other tribes not enjoy the same rights as you?

 

[TheKnight]

You mean like people who obeyed God's commandment to kill people from other tribes--that kind of unrepentant killer? Or do people of other tribes not enjoy the same rights as you?

People repent when they do wrong.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have yet to meet a "biblical inaccuracy" that "impressed" me as important or theologically devastating.

I have yet to hear a Christian state a logical argument against deism.

Well, the ICR (Institute for Creation Research), and AIG (Answers in Genesis) insist that believing that the book of Genesis is literally true is very important. On the other hand, some conservative Christian geologists, Davis Young, for instance, does not believe that a global flood occured, and he basically says that the claim immediately causes some people to reject the Bible since the claim is so obviously false.

When people who are seaching for a worldview read the two contradictory versions of the death of Judas, some of them wonder how much more of the Bible is false. Once parts of the Bible are compromised, where do the false claims end? Inerrancy is of course absurd, but it would also be absurd for anyone to claim that it is not important whether or not a global flood occured. If the Bible is not inerrant, how can we be reasonably certain what Jesus said?

In the NIV, 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." How are two different versions of the death of Judas useful?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I have yet to hear a Christian state a logical argument against deism.

Well, the ICR (Institute for Creation Research), and AIG (Answers in Genesis) insist that believing that the book of Genesis is literally true is very important. On the other hand, some conservative Christian geologists, Davis Young, for instance, does not believe that a global flood occured, and he basically says that the claim immediately causes some people to reject the Bible since the claim is so obviously false.

When people who are seaching for a worldview read the two contradictory versions of the death of Judas, some of them wonder how much more of the Bible is false. Once parts of the Bible are compromised, where do the false claims end? Inerrancy is of course absurd, but it would also be absurd for anyone to claim that it is not important whether or not a global flood occured. If the Bible is not inerrant, how can we be reasonably certain what Jesus said?

In the NIV, 2 Timothy 3:16 says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."

Right.....The OT and NT contain stories of people and wars that when lined up side by side they differ. The NT is even worse because it's obvious the stories told about the biblical Yeshua are strikingly different with Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We can't even truly agree on "if" the man actually existed let alone words attributed to him actually parted his lips.

 

[rusra02]

Really, such as what?

For example, what do ancient historians say about the sojourn of the Jews in Egypt?
What about the Israelite conquest of Canaan?
Tower of Babel?
Noah's flood?
Destruction of Tyre?
What about the census during the reign of Herod?

example one:
According to the book of Daniel, the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persians was named Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30) Since there appeared to be no mention of Belshazzar outside the Bible, the charge was made that the Bible was wrong and that this man never existed. But during the 19th century, several small cylinders inscribed in cuneiform were discovered in some ruins in southern Iraq. They were found to include a prayer for the health of the eldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. The name of this son? Belshazzar.:yes:

 

[rusra02]

In his time, there was no "The Bible" for him to believe in.




In his time, there was no "The Bible" for him to equate to God's Word.



There was no "The Bible" in Timothy's time either.



Only with a concerted effort to see it as such by the reader.



Yes, his view of Jewish history was the same as that of all the Jewish people of his time and place. He was Jewish. Mystery solved.



The people(s), places, and events mentioned in Gone With The Wind existed and some still exist. Doesn't mean Scarlett O'Hara or Rhet Butler were real people.



How about a cpl examples?

In the meantime, here's one for you; it's well accepted now, due to archeological discoveries in the last century, that Troy existed. No one's claiming this proves the existence of Zeus, Athena, Appolo, existed, or that the IIlyad is meant to be read as history.

Of course there was a Bible or sacred scriptures, inspired by God. No one alive today can prove, other than through the historical record, that George Washington ever existed, or Napoleon. Yet no serious person refutes their existence. Funny how common sense doesn't seem to apply when it comes to the historical facts in the Bible.

Example 2: At one time Moab, under King Mesha, revolted, and Israel formed an alliance with Judah and the neighboring kingdom of Edom to war against Moab. (2 Kings 3:4-27) Remarkably, in 1868 in Jordan, a stela (a carved stone slab) was discovered that was inscribed in the Moabite language with Mesha’s own account of this conflict.
:yes:

 

[rusra02]

example one:
According to the book of Daniel, the last ruler in Babylon before it fell to the Persians was named Belshazzar. (Daniel 5:1-30) Since there appeared to be no mention of Belshazzar outside the Bible, the charge was made that the Bible was wrong and that this man never existed. But during the 19th century, several small cylinders inscribed in cuneiform were discovered in some ruins in southern Iraq. They were found to include a prayer for the health of the eldest son of Nabonidus, king of Babylon. The name of this son? Belshazzar.:yes:

example 3:
In the year 740 B.C.E., God allowed the rebellious northern kingdom of Israel to be destroyed by the Assyrians. (2 Kings 17:6-18) Speaking of the Bible account of this event, archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon comments: “One might have a suspicion that some of this is hyperbole.” But is it? She adds: “The archaeological evidence of the fall of the kingdom of Israel is almost more vivid than that of the Biblical record. . . . The complete obliteration of the Israelite towns of Samaria and Hazor and the accompanying destruction of Megiddo is the factual archaeological evidence that the [Bible] writer was not exaggerating.”:yes: