TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
If 99.999% of the claims in a book are accurate, that doesn't say anything at all about the claims in the remaining 0.001%
-
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
- Thread starter nPeace
- Start date
If 99.999% of the claims in a book are accurate, that doesn't say anything at all about the claims in the remaining 0.001%
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Why? Saying it a billion times, in a billion years won't make it true.
I could do the same thing. "There is evidence for / of God."
Where does that get us?
Then we could ask "what is that evidence", and you could then present that evidence.
But you can't, can you? Likely because there is no such evidence.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
It is though.
As demonstrated by the founders of modern geology, who were christians that went on to find evidence in the world to demonstrate that the biblical flood occured, and instead only found evidence against it.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Where did I misquote, or misrepresent you?
I asked questions. Questions are made to be answered. You don't answer them. Maybe that's the problem.
Still you did not answer the questions.
You said... No, the Bible is NOT totally about the supernatural.
I'm trying to understand what you mean by that.
The Bible is not about [a supernatural] God, and his dealings with mankind?
Can you please point out one account in the Bible that is not related to God? Or is your argument, that the God mentioned in the Bible is not supernatural because it's made up by those characters involved?
nPeace
Veteran Member
Sorry Nimos. I came on with the intention of looking at this with you, but made the mistake of looking at other comments and responding to them, so I don't have the time this requires to go through it now.
However, I promise, God's will, you will have my undivided attention, the next time I log on. Hope you are well.
Yes, you did take citations of Einstein out of context.
Again . . .
I have addressed everything. If you fell specifically something that I did not respond to be specific.
Still waiting . . .
Last edited:
You stated that I believed the authors 'made up' or lied when they wrote the books of the Bible and I never said that.
I cannot word this any more clearly nor specifically. The Bible is about God, but not totally about God.
The factual accounts of the Bible concerning Creation, the flood, Exodus, and the life of Jesus Christ are indeed historical 'dealings of humanity' described in the Bible. The Bible is set in history, and describes historical accounts of the 'dealings of humanity.' and these accounts are not necessarily factual, because the most of the books are of unknown authorship, written from an ancient cultural perspective,and not first hand accounts, by the facts of the 'objective evidence.'
Last edited:
Nimos
Well-Known Member
Sure no problem. Going on vacation, so probably wont reply the next week or so anyway
Merry Christmas
Audie said:
I believe that yes 'There is plenty of evidence for the being an account of actual people and place,' but this does not mean the entire historical account recorded is true, because of their ancient perspective, and the fact that it is not a first person account.
I would like to hear from @Audie concerning if she believes the ;account of actual people and place' is historically true. I believe her statement is incomplete and needs clarification.
I do not share her view of God, because she is an atheist and I am a theist.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Oh great! That will give me enough time to respond to everything then, because I was just about to break the post into sections.Sure no problem. Going on vacation, so probably wont reply the next week or so anyway
Merry Christmas
Don't extent your energy baking up a storm, and house cleaning, to then return to work, complaining about how you need a vacation.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Okay. You have my undivided attention. This will be long, so I will take it in sections.
#1
Opinions on the dates vary. I think the questions needed to be considered are...Are they based on beliefs or facts? What are those facts?
Here are dates accepted by scholars, and the reasons for accepting these dates.
Matthew
Date - 50 CE
Reason -
Fact : Its Jewish characteristics
...indicate it was more likely written during the early church period, when the church was largely Jewish and the Gospel was preached to Jews only (Ac 11:19).
Other opinions
Date - Late 50s - 70 CE
Reason -
Belief : The assumption that Matthew drew extensively from Mark's Gospel (assumed to be written between 65 and 70 CE, after it had been in circulation for a period of time.
Some others feel that Matthew would have been written in the late 50s or in the 60s
There is not enough evidence to dogmatically claim one view is correct. However, I don't think any reasonable person would consider that a belief is better than using facts to reach a conclusion.
Here is the date I more accept though.
Date - 41 CE
Reason - Fact : 1) Its Jewish characteristics 2) Originally written in Hebrew (Testimony of first and second century writing, which have not been opposed by early opponents)
However, the opinions of scholars are of not so importance to me. They can debate this till death do them part. It's not a problem for believers.
If they could prove the Gospel was not written early, that would interest me. There is evidence it was written early - just about a decade after the death of the Messiah.
Was Matthew’s Gospel First Written in Aramaic or Hebrew?
I think the issue has come about due to Matthew 24:15-22, in particular. Hence why a later date up to 70 CE.
Mark
Date - Late 50s or early 60s CE
Reason -
Uncertain. (I have to research this more) Or...
Belief : Just based on the content.
Some say 65 CE, or shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE
Other opinions
Date - 65–73 CE
Reason -
Belief : Interpretation of textual content. References to persecution and to war in Judea suggest that its context was either Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt.
Luke
Date - (56-58 CE)? | 59-63 CE
Reason -
Facts : Associations with Paul.
Lucius Junius Gallio Annaeanus - Wikipedia
Gallio's tenure can be fairly accurately dated to between 51-52 AD. Therefore, the events of Acts 18 can be dated to this period. This is significant because it is the most accurately known date in the life of Paul.
Gallio seems to have committed suicide, perhaps under instruction in 65 AD at the age of 64.
Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia
In 57 [CE], upon completion of his third missionary journey, Paul arrived in Jerusalem for his fifth and final visit ...
He was seized and dragged out of the temple by an angry mob. He narrowly escaped being killed by surrendering to a group of Roman centurions, who arrested him, put him in chains and took him to the tribune.
...he was transported by night to Caesarea Maritima. He was held as a prisoner there for two years by Marcus Antonius Felix, until a new governor, Porcius Festus, reopened his case in 59 [CE].
Finally, Paul and his companions sailed for Rome where Paul was to stand trial for his alleged crimes.
He finally arrived in Rome around 60 [CE], where he spent another two years under house arrest. The narrative of Acts ends with Paul preaching in Rome for two years from his rented home while awaiting trial
The date of Paul's death is believed to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 [CE]. According to several Church Fathers and apocryphal books, Paul was beheaded in Rome by orders of Nero.
He was seized and dragged out of the temple by an angry mob. He narrowly escaped being killed by surrendering to a group of Roman centurions, who arrested him, put him in chains and took him to the tribune.
...he was transported by night to Caesarea Maritima. He was held as a prisoner there for two years by Marcus Antonius Felix, until a new governor, Porcius Festus, reopened his case in 59 [CE].
Finally, Paul and his companions sailed for Rome where Paul was to stand trial for his alleged crimes.
He finally arrived in Rome around 60 [CE], where he spent another two years under house arrest. The narrative of Acts ends with Paul preaching in Rome for two years from his rented home while awaiting trial
The date of Paul's death is believed to have occurred after the Great Fire of Rome in July 64, but before the last year of Nero's reign, in 68 [CE]. According to several Church Fathers and apocryphal books, Paul was beheaded in Rome by orders of Nero.
Claudius' expulsion of Jews from Rome - Wikipedia
References to an expulsion of Jews from Rome by the Roman Emperor Claudius, who was in office AD 41-54, appear in the Acts of the Apostles (18:2), and in the writings of Roman historians Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122), Cassius Dio (c. AD 150 – c. 235) and fifth-century Christian author Paulus Orosius. Scholars generally agree that these references refer to the same incident.
Acts 18:2 And he found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla (because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to depart from Rome); and he came to them.
Colossians 4:14 Luke, the beloved physician, sends you his greetings, and so does Demas.
2 Timothy 4:11 Only Luke is with me. Bring Mark along with you, for he is helpful to me in the ministry.
Luke was a later first century disciple, who was a companion of Paul, some time after Paul's conversion. Hence an eyewitness to some of the events before and after Paul's ministry.
About 60% of Luke's Gospel is unique.
As one example, Luke alone records the event of Jesus's experience at the age of twelve... indicating that he traced all things - he got reliable information from various sources. Luke Chapter 3 supports this fact.
Using the facts, Luke, considered the writer of Acts, more likely wrote his Gospel, when Paul was in prison - around 58 CE. Luke is actually the forerunner of Acts.
Other opinions
Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia
Date - 85-130 CE.
Reason -
Belief : Interpretation based on textual content, and later doctrine.
Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia
The eclipse of the traditional attribution to Luke the companion of Paul has meant that an early date for the gospel is now rarely put forward. Some experts date the composition of the combined work to around 80–90 AD, although some others suggest 90–110, and there is textual evidence (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) that Luke–Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.
Dating the Bible - Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
There is evidence, both textual (the conflicts between Western and Alexandrian manuscript families) and from the Marcionite controversy (Marcion was a 2nd-century heretic who produced his own version of Christian scripture based on Luke's gospel and Paul's epistles) that Luke-Acts was still being substantially revised well into the 2nd century.
Marcionism - Wikipedia
Luke also contains Jesus' prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem, so it's quite clear why later dates are being pushed.
What a stretch though - 80–130 CE. That's a 50 year difference of opinions. It appears desperate.
John
Date - Late 85 CE, or later. (Some have suggested no later than 70 CE)
Reason -
Fact / Belief ? : Reference to the statement of Clement of Alexandria (died between 211 and 216) that John wrote to supplement the accounts found in the other Gospels (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6.14.7), and thus his Gospel is later than the first three.
John wrote as if Jerusalem had not been destroyed as yet, by the Romans. John 5:2 Now in Jerusalem at the Sheep Gate is a pool called in Hebrew Bethzatha, with five colonnades.
Other opinions
Date - 90–110 CE
Reason -
Fact / Belief ? : the upper date based on textual evidence that the gospel was known in the early 2nd century, and the lower on an internal reference to the expulsion of Christians from the synagogues
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.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Oh good. For a moment there, I thought you were going to be biased.
Thanks, but all you have done is given me the reverse of J. Warner Wallace - from Atheist to Christian, after examining the Bible.
Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia
During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:
I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years … I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text … If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?
He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.
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.
However, I decided to read the entire article, and was glad I did.
Mr. Ehrman started off with a negative, but then he said this...
Let me say here at the outset that I consider the Gospels of the New Testament to be four of the most beautiful, powerful, moving, and inspiring books ever written. I love the Gospels. Their stories of Jesus’s words and deeds have always been and always will be near and dear to me. Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life, and I encourage others to do likewise. For me they are the most important books in our civilization and for my own life.
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.
Then Bart says this...
That does not mean that I think they are always historically accurate. On the contrary, even though they do contain valuable historical information about Jesus’s life and death, they also contain a good deal of material that is non-historical. It is my task in this writing assignment to show why I think that is.
Let's see how much of that material is non-historical, and what it is.
Stage 1
The Gospels are obviously full of supernatural stories. And for scholars prior to the Enlightenment, these stories were actual events of history. They really happened.
Stage 2
The second stage in this history of the study of the Gospels happened during the Enlightenment, when scholars began to think about and look at the world very differently. In the Enlightenment thinkers in Europe began to break free of the authority imposed by the Christian church and to develop new, rational ways of engaging in intellectual activity. The sciences were on the rise, and scholars began to realize that one does not need to appeal to the activities of God to explain the events of the world.
[Modern science - enter he naturalistic view]
This decision to use human reason to understand the world was applied by biblical scholars to the accounts of Scripture. If we no longer needed to appeal to “miracle” to explain why we got over the flu, or why it finally rained last week, or why the solar system was formed, do we need to appeal to miracle to understand the Gospels?
Some scholars of the Enlightenment thought that the answer was No. In their view, the Gospels do not contain Supernatural Histories, but what we might call “natural histories.”
[Natural events misinterpreted as miracles]
...the events narrated in the Gospels were non-miraculous, “natural” events that were simply misinterpreted by the followers of Jesus (who were obviously not influenced by the Enlightenment) to have been miraculous, supernatural events.
]Feeding of the 5,000]
...what actually happened was this: The disciples tell Jesus to allow the multitudes to go home to eat. Jesus instead tells them to have every one sit and to bring him what little food they themselves have on hand. They do so and he breaks the bread and fish and starts handing it out. When he does this, everyone else looking on sees that it’s time for lunch. And so they break out their own picnic baskets and start sharing their food with one another. By the time it’s all over, there is more than enough food to go around.
Seriously. I mean... Seriously?
I read on, but I think this guy has just demonstrated that Biblical / textual critics, for the most part, are more interested in critiquing the Bible from a worldly perspective, and it has nothing to do with the Bible itself... as to whether it is reliable or not. It's more about how it is viewed by Atheist or Bible bashers.
I think I agree with the assessment here.
The Bible has been under attack in the western world for over 200 years but never more intensely than today. These attacks have taken different forms and have come from many different corners of the academic world, from philosophers, to scientists, to textual critics. In the specialized world of archaeology the attacks have increased dramatically in the past 50 years. Once a specialization filled with Bible believing individuals, the field of archaeology is now overrun with atheists and skeptics, agnostics and those committed to the destruction of the Bible as a source of true historical information.
These attacks on the Bible are a part of a sweeping movement in western culture. Spearheaded by academic elitists in the university and the public educational system, the news and popular media, and the entertainment industry, these revisionists cloak themselves with supposed objectivity, purity of motives, and the superiority of science over the "uninformed", "unscientific", religious community.
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.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
I think though, this source, has a better perspective on textural criticism.
You would notice from this that some of the criteria used, are similar to the ones J. Warner Wallace used in his video.
For example, the criterion of embarrassment holds that the authors of the gospels had no reason to invent embarrassing incidents such as the denial of Jesus by Peter, or the fleeing of Jesus' followers after his arrest, and therefore such details would likely not have been included unless they were true. Bart Ehrman, using the criterion of dissimilarity to judge the historical reliability of the claim Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, notes that "it is hard to imagine a Christian inventing the story of Jesus' baptism since this could be taken to mean that he was John's subordinate."
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.
The criterion of embarrassment is actually another strong piece of evidence for the reliability of the scriptures.
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.
In conclusion, though scholars disagree, there is both internal, and external evidence for the reliability of the Gospels. There is obviously no physical evidence for miracles, as would be expected, since we cannot dig in the earth and pull out a miracle. So the only evidence would be the eyewitness accounts, which for the most part, appear to be reliable.
Hence why there is an all out attempt to discredit these.
I will get back to you on this.
The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Some believe that all four canonical gospels meet the five criteria for historical reliability; and others say that little in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable. Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus, and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate. Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.
Methodology
When judging the historical reliability of the gospels, scholars ask if the accounts in the gospels are, when judged using normal standards that historians use on other ancient writings, reliable or not. The main issues are what are the 'original' gospels, whether the original gospel works were accurate eyewitness accounts, and whether those original versions have been transmitted accurately through the ages to us.
Critical scholars have developed a number of criteria to evaluate the probability, or historical authenticity, of an attested event or saying represented in the gospels. These criteria are applied to the gospels in order to help scholars in reconstructions of the Historical Jesus.
Methodology
When judging the historical reliability of the gospels, scholars ask if the accounts in the gospels are, when judged using normal standards that historians use on other ancient writings, reliable or not. The main issues are what are the 'original' gospels, whether the original gospel works were accurate eyewitness accounts, and whether those original versions have been transmitted accurately through the ages to us.
Critical scholars have developed a number of criteria to evaluate the probability, or historical authenticity, of an attested event or saying represented in the gospels. These criteria are applied to the gospels in order to help scholars in reconstructions of the Historical Jesus.
For example, the criterion of embarrassment holds that the authors of the gospels had no reason to invent embarrassing incidents such as the denial of Jesus by Peter, or the fleeing of Jesus' followers after his arrest, and therefore such details would likely not have been included unless they were true. Bart Ehrman, using the criterion of dissimilarity to judge the historical reliability of the claim Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, notes that "it is hard to imagine a Christian inventing the story of Jesus' baptism since this could be taken to mean that he was John's subordinate."
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.
The criterion of embarrassment is actually another strong piece of evidence for the reliability of the scriptures.
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.
In conclusion, though scholars disagree, there is both internal, and external evidence for the reliability of the Gospels. There is obviously no physical evidence for miracles, as would be expected, since we cannot dig in the earth and pull out a miracle. So the only evidence would be the eyewitness accounts, which for the most part, appear to be reliable.
Hence why there is an all out attempt to discredit these.
Ha. Interesting argument.
I will get back to you on this.
I'll also consider this a little later.
nPeace
Veteran Member
She did confirm that.
You and her appear to be in the same boat with most Biblical critics.Audie said:
I think knowing where you stand on the supernatural bit, is what seems unclear... at least to me.
You seem deliberately vague, seemingly evasive about your position on the supernatural.
If one doesn't believe in the supernatural, one does not believe in miracles.
If one does not believe in miracles, one does not believe in the supernatural.
It's that simple.
True, one can believe that the Israelites believed in God, and believed God spoke to them, and did things for them, but that doesn't mean one believes God is supernatural.
So you see how the way you are responding is not really addressing my questions.
I don't know if you believe in a supernatural God.
I think I heard you say - though not directly - you don't believe in miracles, so I can only conclude you don't believe in the supernatural.
...because you are not saying directly.
Are you evading the questions? Are you afraid it will reveal something you don't want revealed?
Let me be direct... see what happens.
Do you believe in the supernatural? Do you believe in miracles?
sooda
Veteran Member
Oh good. For a moment there, I thought you were going to be biased.
Thanks, but all you have done is given me the reverse of J. Warner Wallace - from Atheist to Christian, after examining the Bible.
Bart D. Ehrman - Wikipedia
During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:
I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years … I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text … If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?
He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.
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.
However, I decided to read the entire article, and was glad I did.
Mr. Ehrman started off with a negative, but then he said this...
Let me say here at the outset that I consider the Gospels of the New Testament to be four of the most beautiful, powerful, moving, and inspiring books ever written. I love the Gospels. Their stories of Jesus’s words and deeds have always been and always will be near and dear to me. Among other things, I have always strived to make the values they promote and the ethics they teach the center of my moral life, and I encourage others to do likewise. For me they are the most important books in our civilization and for my own life.
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.
Then Bart says this...
That does not mean that I think they are always historically accurate. On the contrary, even though they do contain valuable historical information about Jesus’s life and death, they also contain a good deal of material that is non-historical. It is my task in this writing assignment to show why I think that is.
Let's see how much of that material is non-historical, and what it is.
Stage 1
The Gospels are obviously full of supernatural stories. And for scholars prior to the Enlightenment, these stories were actual events of history. They really happened.
Stage 2
The second stage in this history of the study of the Gospels happened during the Enlightenment, when scholars began to think about and look at the world very differently. In the Enlightenment thinkers in Europe began to break free of the authority imposed by the Christian church and to develop new, rational ways of engaging in intellectual activity. The sciences were on the rise, and scholars began to realize that one does not need to appeal to the activities of God to explain the events of the world.
[Modern science - enter he naturalistic view]
This decision to use human reason to understand the world was applied by biblical scholars to the accounts of Scripture. If we no longer needed to appeal to “miracle” to explain why we got over the flu, or why it finally rained last week, or why the solar system was formed, do we need to appeal to miracle to understand the Gospels?
Some scholars of the Enlightenment thought that the answer was No. In their view, the Gospels do not contain Supernatural Histories, but what we might call “natural histories.”
[Natural events misinterpreted as miracles]
...the events narrated in the Gospels were non-miraculous, “natural” events that were simply misinterpreted by the followers of Jesus (who were obviously not influenced by the Enlightenment) to have been miraculous, supernatural events.
]Feeding of the 5,000]
...what actually happened was this: The disciples tell Jesus to allow the multitudes to go home to eat. Jesus instead tells them to have every one sit and to bring him what little food they themselves have on hand. They do so and he breaks the bread and fish and starts handing it out. When he does this, everyone else looking on sees that it’s time for lunch. And so they break out their own picnic baskets and start sharing their food with one another. By the time it’s all over, there is more than enough food to go around.
Seriously. I mean... Seriously?
I read on, but I think this guy has just demonstrated that Biblical / textual critics, for the most part, are more interested in critiquing the Bible from a worldly perspective, and it has nothing to do with the Bible itself... as to whether it is reliable or not. It's more about how it is viewed by Atheist or Bible bashers.
I think I agree with the assessment here.
The Bible has been under attack in the western world for over 200 years but never more intensely than today. These attacks have taken different forms and have come from many different corners of the academic world, from philosophers, to scientists, to textual critics. In the specialized world of archaeology the attacks have increased dramatically in the past 50 years. Once a specialization filled with Bible believing individuals, the field of archaeology is now overrun with atheists and skeptics, agnostics and those committed to the destruction of the Bible as a source of true historical information.
These attacks on the Bible are a part of a sweeping movement in western culture. Spearheaded by academic elitists in the university and the public educational system, the news and popular media, and the entertainment industry, these revisionists cloak themselves with supposed objectivity, purity of motives, and the superiority of science over the "uninformed", "unscientific", religious community.
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.
Thanks for the laugh Nimos.
Archaeology before 1970 was all about proving the Bible.. Now Archaeology has to stand on its own..
In fairness.. the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi library, the Ugaritic tablets and tablets at Dilmun have opened up Bible study only recently. .. starting I think with Samuel Kramer's translations and his work on History Begins at Sumer.
I do not believe @Audie has responded to my question concerning what she said was incomplete.
No.
I believe in God, and yes miracles, but I do not believe that all claims of miracles are necessarily true. This is not an issue here as to my questions as to whether the Bible is a literal historical record. The Bible is both about God and history. The main elephant in the room is the question concerning whether the Bible represent a literal history.
I do not believe this post is meaningful as to this dialogue and in response to my posts.
Last edited:
I do not believe this is accurate as a specific date. Beginning in the 20th century archaeology began to be progressively divided over time between those wanting to prove the Bible, and those that worked to seperate religion from archaeology.
OK
sooda
Veteran Member
Do you remember the horrific scandal about Masada and Yigal Yadin?
Yes. So what?!?!?!
sooda
Veteran Member
Excavation dates: 1963–1965 .. Yadin's covered up his findings..
No reputable archaeologist would do that today.