How We Know

[nPeace]

Well, lol. How do you know? Apparently, your requirements are (based on the OP), or the very reason you know, are

1) not a self declared work of fiction. Check
2) provides reliable historical accounts. Check

so, according to your standards, my account of Elvis and Loch Ness are as reliable as the accounts of your Yahweh, Allah, Apollo, or Whomever you believe in.

so, please give me one reason why I should not dismiss your claims as pure mythology, too. And with exactly the same justification.

ciao

- viole

Let me just make sure I follow your argument to the T.
You do not erase any history, so long as you take god out of it right? Otherwise you write it off as myth.
Am I following you perfectly?

 

[viole]

Let me just make sure I follow your argument to the T.
You do not erase any history, so long as you take god out of it right? Otherwise you write it off as myth.
Am I following you perfectly?

Nope. I am making things up, and using the same validation criteria you are using as criteria why you know the Bible is true:

1) i claim that my reports of Elvis alive are not a work of fiction
2) I can support that with extremely detailed historical accounts about me and the society I live in

So, it is obvious that those two criteria alone are not sufficient to infer the truth of any claim. It could be that people lied, like I did, or were just deluded. And the fact that they included historical accounts about them, is not difficult at all. If that was the case, Sherlock Homes would be plausible, since accounts about London at that time are quite accurate.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nPeace]

I'm serious. I know what the word generally means, but I don't know what you mean by the word in this context. If it's so easy and obvious, why not give your definition?
And what is harmonious for you might not be harmonious for me. Therefore my follow up question which you totally ignored: How can we quantify and qualify these properties in an objective way?

Defining harmonious - forming a consistent whole.
How can we quantify and qualify these properties in an objective way?
(Luke 1:1-3) 1 Seeing that many have undertaken to compile an account of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as these were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and attendants of the message, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them to you in logical order, most excellent Theophilus,

Example...
Ahaz - Mentioned in a contemporary Summary Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III which records that he received tribute from "Jehoahaz of Judah". Also identified in royal bullae belonging to Ahaz himsel and his son Hezekiah.

Chronology and genealogy can be traced objectively.

Therefore my questions about the word "harmonious" and therefore my questions about the external evidence like history.

If the internal evidence is the strongest, what is this evidence? If you point to it being "harmonious'' then please answer my questions and make an argument for why this is evidence for the reliabilty of the Bible.

The Bible is a collection of documents (primary source), written by some 40 individuals (some claim more than 50), over a period of 1600 years. Yet it is harmonious from the first dot of ink, to the last, having a message linked by one thread, running through from beginning to end.
Hence, the strongest evidence that the Bible is true, is it's internal evidence... which is then supported by external evidence - historical; scientific... etc.

The Bible has one message or theme running through it from beginning to end.
No one person wrote these books, but some 40 different individuals of diverse walks of life, and backgrounds... and time periods - spanning more than 15 centuries.

There is evidence the writings are inspired of God, as stated at 2 Timothy 3:16, and 2 Peter 1:21

Science is one study, but science does not study the supernatural.
As stated in the OP, "The Bible is a product of a force greater than currently known to the scientific community."
So I fail to grasp the reason for your line of questioning.
Do you hope to scientifically study the supernatural?

 

[nPeace]

Indigo's point, is clearly that science does not agree with the biblical claim, you seem to be agreeing with him, but are still claiming some sort of win, baffling?

Yes the people who wrote the bible were likely ignorant of most scientific facts we have today, this doesn't mean they were "sort of right for the period" though.

They were ignorant of the fact that the hare chewed the cud, or ignorant of what chewing the cud meant?

 

[firedragon]

Really!? I certainly wasn't expecting to read that in this thread... at least in firedragon's post.
Now my curiosity is peaked. What in particular do you find good about it.

It's at least analytical and has something to read about. I dont have to agree with a post to appreciate someones effort in the face of some other posts I have been reading.

 

[nPeace]

It's at least analytical and has something to read about. I dont have to agree with a post to appreciate someones effort in the face of some other posts I have been reading.

Understood. That clears things up for me.

 

[nPeace]

Nope. I am making things up, and using the same validation criteria you are using as criteria why you know the Bible is true:

1) i claim that my reports of Elvis alive are not a work of fiction
2) I can support that with extremely detailed historical accounts about me and the society I live in

So, it is obvious that those two criteria alone are not sufficient to infer the truth of any claim. It could be that people lied, like I did, or were just deluded. And the fact that they included historical accounts about them, is not difficult at all. If that was the case, Sherlock Homes would be plausible, since accounts about London at that time are quite accurate.

Ciao

- viole

Well thanks. I would accept your information as credible, since I can verify it, so your account can be taken as indeed reliable, if... A second hand source gives credence to the first hand source.
The Bible is reliable, where history is concerned. My point.
If you made it up, it would not be supported.
@viole and the information has to be about Elvis, not you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

2) provides reliable historical accounts. Check

Depends on what you mean by reliable. As long as you aren't using the mythological portions as a source for history, and as long as you understand that even the historical sections of the Bible contain errors, you'll be okay. If you are looking for the Bible to be some innerrant work, you are out of luck.

 

[Sheldon]

They were ignorant of the fact that the hare chewed the cud, or ignorant of what chewing the cud meant?

You already had this explained to you, why would you backtrack?

 

[nPeace]

You already had this explained to you, why would you backtrack?

I asked you a question. Why do you sidestep?

 

[nPeace]

@IndigoChild5559 I'll answer the question I asked.
We know the Bible makes us a better person, because of sin.

The Bible at Romans 7:14-20 says,
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. For I do not understand what I am doing. For I do not practice what I wish, but I do what I hate. However, if I do what I do not wish, I agree that the Law is fine. But now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that resides in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for I have the desire to do what is fine but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good that I wish, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice. If, then, I do what I do not wish, I am no longer the one carrying it out, but it is the sin dwelling in me.

Mankind practices things they are normally not "proud" of.
For example, drunkenness, drug abuse, abusive speech... etc. Things that are not welcomed in general public settings.

The "law" restricts these... actually condemns the individual who practices them... something no one likes for themselves - to be condemned.
However, the proud nature of man, does not allow him to welcome correction. Rather, he kicks/bucks against it. Thus he hates the law, giving birth to many isms.

The ones who humbles themselves, on the other hand, welcomes the correction, and so appreciates the law.

That sin is in every man, working out in him what is against him, is evident all around us.
The results of sin, after it has been accomplished, do not result in good.

Example

 

[nPeace]

@IndigoChild5559 you say the scriptures are not harmonious.
4. The Bible is not one book, but a collection of books by many different authors, who don't always agree with each other. For example, Matthew Mark and Luke have Jesus crucified on Passover (the Last Supper being a Passover Seder) whereas John has Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation for Passover, when the lambs are sacrificed, because it is his theology that Jesus is the Passover Sacrifice.

(Leviticus 23:5, 6) 5 In the first month, on the 14th day of the month, at twilight is the Passover to Jehovah. 6 “‘On the 15th day of this month is the Festival of Unleavened Bread to Jehovah. Seven days you should eat unleavened bread.

(Luke 22:1) Now the Festival of the Unleavened Bread, which is called Passover, was getting near.

No. You are wrong... again.
John referred to the Festival of Unleavened Bread which is also called Passover, as Luke makes clear.

 

[nPeace]

@IndigoChild5559 you said...
5. While the Tanakh, or what Christians call the Old Testament, can stand on its own, the New Testament requires the existence of the Tanakh (OT). Thus you do have Jews who do just fine without the New Testament.

You just clarified that the Bible is harmonious. Thanks
That's why we have the Greek scriptures... to complete things.
If you want to get into details, I'll go first.
To start, give me the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37:24, 25.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 I'll answer the question I asked.
We know the Bible makes us a better person, because of sin.

The Bible at Romans 7:14-20 says,
For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am fleshly, sold under sin. For I do not understand what I am doing. For I do not practice what I wish, but I do what I hate. However, if I do what I do not wish, I agree that the Law is fine. But now I am no longer the one doing it, but it is the sin that resides in me. For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, there dwells nothing good; for I have the desire to do what is fine but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good that I wish, but the bad that I do not wish is what I practice. If, then, I do what I do not wish, I am no longer the one carrying it out, but it is the sin dwelling in me.

Mankind practices things they are normally not "proud" of.
For example, drunkenness, drug abuse, abusive speech... etc. Things that are not welcomed in general public settings.

The "law" restricts these... actually condemns the individual who practices them... something no one likes for themselves - to be condemned.
However, the proud nature of man, does not allow him to welcome correction. Rather, he kicks/bucks against it. Thus he hates the law, giving birth to many isms.

The ones who humbles themselves, on the other hand, welcomes the correction, and so appreciates the law.

That sin is in every man, working out in him what is against him, is evident all around us.
The results of sin, after it has been accomplished, do not result in good.

Example

Just a comment before I reply. As a Jew, the New Testament is not scripture to me. You might as well quote the Quran or the Vedas or the Book of Mormon or Harry Potter. I don't want to order you around as to what you can and can't wirte, but at the same time I'd like to suggest that if you really want to make a point with me, choose verses from the Tanakh (Old Testament).

God demands that we keep his commandments, yes. To break them is sin, of course. But God is ALSO a God of mercy and grace and forgiveness.

"As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us." Psalm 103:12

"Who is a God like unto Thee, that pardoneth the iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of His heritage? He retaineth not His anger for ever, because He delighteth in mercy. Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea." Micah 7:18-19

What God asks from us is repentance -- he will forgive us when we turn away from our sin and turn back to his ways.

Psalm 51:19 "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise."

 

[nPeace]

@IndigoChild5559 you said...
6. There is a significant change of message between the Tanakh (OT) and the New Testament. The Tanakh's main message is "Obey God." The New Testament's main message is "believe these things." We could have a whole thread on this topic.

You had better go ahead and start a thread on that, because it's strongly opinionated, and has no solid backing... at all.

(Exodus 4:5) . . .God then said: “This is so that they may believe. . .

(Acts 5:29) . . .We must obey God . . .

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 you say the scriptures are not harmonious.
4. The Bible is not one book, but a collection of books by many different authors, who don't always agree with each other. For example, Matthew Mark and Luke have Jesus crucified on Passover (the Last Supper being a Passover Seder) whereas John has Jesus crucified on the Day of Preparation for Passover, when the lambs are sacrificed, because it is his theology that Jesus is the Passover Sacrifice.

(Leviticus 23:5, 6) 5 In the first month, on the 14th day of the month, at twilight is the Passover to Jehovah. 6 “‘On the 15th day of this month is the Festival of Unleavened Bread to Jehovah. Seven days you should eat unleavened bread.

(Luke 22:1) Now the Festival of the Unleavened Bread, which is called Passover, was getting near.

No. You are wrong... again.
John referred to the Festival of Unleavened Bread which is also called Passover, as Luke makes clear.

I am not incorrect. In Matthew Mark and Luke, the Last supper is a passover seder, which puts the crucifixion on Passover. In John, it quite specifically states that Jesus was put to death on the "day of preparation" -- the day before Passover when the lambs are sacrificed.

Matthew 26:17 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

Mark 14:12 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

Luke 22:7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”

In other words, In Matthew Mark and Luke, the Last Supper is on the Passover, making it the Seder meal. Remember that Jewish days start at SUNSET. So just as the evening of the meal is Passover, the whole night where Jesus was arrested and the morning where he was tried, and the afternoon when he died, was also the Passover.

Now let's look at John.

John 19:14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon. “Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

So in John, Jesus is not crucified on Passover, but the day before, the day of preparation, when the lambs were sacrificed. This is because John presents a certain theology -- to John, Jesus is the passover sacrifice. Thus it is important to John theologically that Jesus be executed on the same day as the sacrifice of the lambs.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 you said...
5. While the Tanakh, or what Christians call the Old Testament, can stand on its own, the New Testament requires the existence of the Tanakh (OT). Thus you do have Jews who do just fine without the New Testament.

You just clarified that the Bible is harmonious. Thanks
That's why we have the Greek scriptures... to complete things.
If you want to get into details, I'll go first.
To start, give me the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37:24, 25.

No, not really. Saying that the New Testament cannot stand without the Tanakh is not the same as saying they have the same message.

 

[nPeace]

@IndigoChild5559 you said...
7. Despite all these problems, the error, the contradictions, the moral difficulties... One can still read the Bible and become a more ethical person and draw closer to God. We can say that God does indeed speak through the Bible. For Jews in particular, the Tanakh remains our legacy -- the Torah is what binds the Jewish people together; it tells us who we are and how we should live.

You'll have to present the errors, the contradictions, the moral difficulties, for me to examine them, since you are stating an opinion from your "lens".
This thread is open to any challenge to prove the Bible is not true. So go right ahead, and give it your best shot.

Don't go too fast though. Remember I am on a go slow.
One shot at a time please.
Remember your cud challenge got chewed.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@IndigoChild5559 you said...
6. There is a significant change of message between the Tanakh (OT) and the New Testament. The Tanakh's main message is "Obey God." The New Testament's main message is "believe these things." We could have a whole thread on this topic.

You had better go ahead and start a thread on that, because it's strongly opinionated, and has no solid backing... at all.

(Exodus 4:5) . . .God then said: “This is so that they may believe. . .

(Acts 5:29) . . .We must obey God . . .

You can cherry pick verses. But the Tanakh and NT both have one idea they present over an dover and over. For the Tanakh the idea is "obey God." For the New Testament the idea is "believe these things."

 

[nPeace]

I am not incorrect. In Matthew Mark and Luke, the Last supper is a passover seder, which puts the crucifixion on Passover. In John, it quite specifically states that Jesus was put to death on the "day of preparation" -- the day before Passover when the lambs are sacrificed.

Matthew 26:17 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

Mark 14:12 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”

Luke 22:7 Then came the day of Unleavened Bread on which the Passover lamb had to be sacrificed. 8 Jesus sent Peter and John, saying, “Go and make preparations for us to eat the Passover.”

In other words, In Matthew Mark and Luke, the Last Supper is on the Passover, making it the Seder meal. Remember that Jewish days start at SUNSET. So just as the evening of the meal is Passover, the whole night where Jesus was arrested and the morning where he was tried, and the afternoon when he died, was also the Passover.

Now let's look at John.

John 19:14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon. “Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

So in John, Jesus is not crucified on Passover, but the day before, the day of preparation, when the lambs were sacrificed. This is because John presents a certain theology -- to John, Jesus is the passover sacrifice. Thus it is important to John theologically that Jesus be executed on the same day as the sacrifice of the lambs.

You must not have read my post. Read it again.
John does not refer to the Passover as mentioned by the others, but the Passover which the Festival of Unleavened Bread is called.
I thought you posted to quick to have read.