The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

Please address the topic at hand.

 

[Audie]

The JW's have a very strong weapon that keeps their parishioners in line. It is called dissociation. I posted a video where an almost ex-JW opened up about the pain from that. Think of it how it would be if you loved your family and they all suddenly turned their back on you. And almost all of your friends did the same. The JW's try to keep their cult rather "incestuous". People tend to socialize and befriend other JW's. If a person realizes that what they teach is flapdoodle then they may find that their entire community has turned against them. It is that sort of action by the church that makes the Jehovah's Witnesses a cult and not a sect of Christianity.


People under that sort of pressure can be convinced to believe almost anything.

Powerful carrot n stick, heaven or hell,
all that.

As a child in China, I saw christianity as
a strange exotic cult.

No longer exotic but more weird than I guessed.

 

[sooda]

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

Well explain this post them.

 

[nPeace]

Well explain this post them.

What do you mean by explain it? Are you having trouble reading it? What don't you understand?

 

[Nimos]

@Nimos I was waiting until you returned before posting, any more, but ...

That is fine, I will read through what you have written and get back to you. Can see it is some long posts

 

[sooda]

What do you mean by explain it? Are you having trouble reading it? What don't you understand?

I don't understand it.

 

[nPeace]

That is fine, I will read through what you have written and get back to you. Can see it is some long posts

Welcome back.
You must be refreshed.
Take your time. There is no rush.

 

[nPeace]

I don't understand it.

It's quite straight forward, and simple. What are you having trouble understanding?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You seem to have taken the baton from JF.
May I kindly remind you of rule #3.
You are repeating this...and why.

I do not see any defamation or slander in that post. Was there anything false there? One of the major factors in determining if a religion is a cult or not is how that religion treats its own members. Did I get something wrong about dissociation?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Powerful carrot n stick, heaven or hell,
all that.

As a child in China, I saw christianity as
a strange exotic cult.

No longer exotic but more weird than I guessed.

But they go beyond that. From my understanding you can lose your family on Earth to them as well. I am waiting to see if there is any dispute of that.

 

[Audie]

But they go beyond that. From my understanding you can lose your family on Earth to them as well. I am waiting to see if there is any dispute of that.

 

[nPeace]

I do not see any defamation or slander in that post. Was there anything false there? One of the major factors in determining if a religion is a cult or not is how that religion treats its own members. Did I get something wrong about dissociation?

Read the rules carefully. I'll let the mods decide next time.

 

[Audie]

Read the rules carefully. I'll let the mods decide next time.

Threatening. Tsk.

No turn dat cheek for you!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Read the rules carefully. I'll let the mods decide next time.

I did, but I do not see a violation. Can you tell me what offended you?

 

[nPeace]

I did, but I do not see a violation. Can you tell me what offended you?

Seriously?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Seriously?

Yes. I do not wish to offend.

 

[Nimos]

I don't think a detective using his past years of training and practice, would suddenly be biased because he is investigating the Bible.
He explained that he was an Atheist for 35 years before examining the Bible. Wouldn't an Atheist be more biased against the Bible, than for it, since he could prove that the Christians were deluded, and no God exists, that he would have to answer to.
I would think that would be the perfect opportunity to say "Look. I've done detective work for over a decade, and I have dealt with enough cases to know when "rats are covering each other's tail".

From what I have seen, it appears he has an open mind.
He could be biased by presuming they are biased, but that would be being closed minded.

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.

However him being a detective obviously give him some idea of how to investigate, but at the same time, I also think it is important to keep in mind that this guy is not educated in handling ancient texts, whereas these people (Bart Ehrman and other biblical scholars are.) So I won't spend time on this, but are open to hear varies scholars arguments for why they date specific texts as the do.

I'm just curious. Since you consider Bart' as a leading scholar, what do you think of his views on Jesus?
In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, defending the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely fictitious being.

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.

Need I say more. He just said it all.
This is what we would expect, from someone who really was taught by a divine being. Why? The teaching is of the highest standard. The morals are the highest - excellent. Moreover, Jesus not only taught them.. he lived them.
So Bart just saved me the trouble of highlighting this as one of the evidences, the Bible is authentic, and reliably from a divine being.

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.

Bye Bart. I would encourage all my fellow brothers to read up on the natural explanation on this page. Don't miss the natural explanation for seeing Jesus walk on water... please. Oh, my head. Ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. My. I never laughed so hard.
Thanks for the laugh Nimos.

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.

I find it interesting that Bart should say that, yet many scholars claim that they invented myths, and fairy tales.
Bart just thinks they were mistaken. Stupidly so. LOL.
Who wants to be an oddball though. I think any scholar with the courage to admit they do believe in miracles would have to be a real giant. That will happen, only if that scholar has no intention of remaining in the community. I think that's the deal here.
Also, your name is removed from Wikipedia... unless you are a "top dog"... imo.

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.

The criterion of embarrassment is actually another strong piece of evidence for the reliability of the scriptures.

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.

Then there is the criterion of multiple attestation which says that when two or more independent sources present similar or consistent accounts, it is more likely that the accounts are accurate reports of events or that they are reporting a tradition which pre-dates the sources themselves. This is often used to note that the four gospels attest to most of the same events, but that Paul's epistles often attest to these events as well, as do the writings of the early church, and to a limited degree non-Christian ancient writings.

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.

So the only evidence would be the eyewitness accounts, which for the most part, appear to be reliable.

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
.

 

[Wandering Monk]

What evidence supports that Jesus told them? Various Messianic figures were foretelling an apocalypse of sorts to inspire some to leave Jeruselem and seek refuge, and it is possible they were following their own leadership to seek refuge at Massada. There was trouble brewing and ripe for rebellion on many corners. Agreed the tribulation was local..I just wished they took more scrolls and buried them at Massada.

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?

 

[Nimos]

For "what" to be useful as evidence?

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.

Also, as you mentioned, our own observations, so experience, may need to be used, to form our conclusion. Do you consider that solid evidence, or just evidence?

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.

"We" is such a broad term. It's only two letters, but quite broad. Some scholars can find differences, which other scholars don't see as differences, which should really be an eyeopener for anyone who has such confidence in these experts.
Why not try this...
Take all the texts that your guy Bart Ehrman finds contradictory, and if all scholars agree with him on every one of those texts, you come back and restate your argument.

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.

So any good Biblical scholar, would know that when this ruler left his daughter, she was alive, but he knew she was dying, and had little time left. So he obviously believe that by the time he found Jesus, his daughter would be dead. So there was a probability. "She's gravely ill. She must be dead now."
A good scholar would know too, that the daughter did not live a stone's throw away from where Jesus was, so they had to travel.
All these facts (language, situation, etc.) are important for good textual criticism. So not surprisingly, your guy is not as good as you credit him for.

Im sorry but that is absolutely bullocks

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?

Now, you have lost me. What are we discussing here? Is it not whether what Jesus said did indeed come to past, providing evidence that he is whom he claimed to be? I don't want to get sidetracked.

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 .

It's not a matter of opposite.
God does not interfere with your decision - it's your free will to exercise it.
So if God has a purpose, or will, and you decide something against it, it does not change God's will, and purpose.
It may alter how he gets it done. In other words, he may make an adjustment in what he does, but it will be done. What he said, will take place. (Isaiah 55:9-11)
Your free will is yours. God's will is his... if that makes sense.

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?

Understood. So basically the entire Bible... except perhaps the parts Bart Ehrman loves. Is that right?

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.

 

[Nimos]

The difference between terrorist groups and the followers of Christ, is that, there is nothing at all to be gained by being a martyr for a lie, or myth.

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.

So, in other words, the Bible gives us a complete picture of every aspect of life, without any gaps... unlike the picture painted by the secular worldview.

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?