Why do you accept the bible as inerrant historical fact?

[nazz]

If it was just my grandfather, I would agree. But I know a couple hundred thousand people who were also told that by their grandfathers too. So, at what point did an entire nation begin telling their children this myth? How does it begin and how does it progress?

The myth: my x-parents and all your other little Israelite friends' x- parents were at Sinai.

The difference between your Cthulhu and my Sinai Revelation, is that you have no one to corroborate your story. I have a lots. And the one who first made up the story and told it to your family was the sole witness, that your family chose to believe. The first one who made up my Sinai Revelation, had to convince all the other people that their families were there too, when that could be easily be contradicted (by asking their parents).

Thing is, the story could have been introduced much later at a time when no one could really verify what really happened. I'm not saying it didn't, it could have, but what you are saying does not convince me. I would need to see some external evidence.

Anyway, I do appreciate your responses and hope that some Christians will also give their two cents.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I've asked this in other forums and never got a satisfactory answer. And please don't just quote II Timothy 3:16. That's problematic for several reasons but it's circular reasoning anyway. Or if you do you use it I would ask why you believe that to be true.

If they were false accounts, God assuredly would have corrected the Book through His Prophets in later Ages and would not leave His people with a corrupted false Book.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

If they were false accounts, God assuredly would have corrected the Book through His Prophets in later Ages and would not leave His people with a corrupted false Book.

Why do you think God needs a book or a prophet to transmit truth?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Why do you think God needs a book or a prophet to transmit truth?

Because what is written can be distributed, studied and taught as it was revealed.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Because what is written can be distributed, studied and taught as it was revealed.

Why not just go to the source itself?

 

[nazz]

If they were false accounts, God assuredly would have corrected the Book through His Prophets in later Ages and would not leave His people with a corrupted false Book.

well actually there are indications of that in the prophets

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Why not just go to the source itself?

If by source you mean God Himself, is He living on earth and His home has address to go to Him? Obviously Not. No one has ever literally seen God. The Prophets had said He is invisible. But Prophets can sit and talk with people and reveal the Word of God.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

If by source you mean God Himself, is He living on earth and His home has address to go to Him? Obviously Not. No one has ever literally seen God. The Prophets had said He is invisible. But Prophets can sit and talk with people and reveal the Word of God.

So I am suppose to take their word for it?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So I am suppose to take their word for it?

No. You need to investigate the truth of their claim. You need to recognize true prophets from false prophets by their Fruits.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

well actually there are indications of that in the prophets

What indications? Do you mean a Prophet came and said Bible history is wrong and the corrected the errors?

 

[nazz]

What indications? Do you mean a Prophet came and said Bible history is wrong and the corrected the errors?

Yes. But I'd rather not get into that tangent here.

 

[Tumah]

Exactly, you choose to hand wave everything professors teach, in every college as higher learning, in favor of faith alone.


Its why you have no real evidence to back your position.

I look at it more as, since their opinions tend to change over time, I don't feel obligated to subscribe to their current opinion. There is enough corroboration between the two, that when things don't line up, I can rely on answers already provided for that. You yourself don't believe that the specific ideas that historians are saying are true. You yourself only have faith in whatever the theory du jour is because it was said by academics. So if today they say camels used to have three humps and they can prove it from the information they have available, you believe that. If tomorrow they say they were mistaken, and camels actually had 7 humps according to the new information, you believe that. So you actually have no belief about camel humps, you have belief in academics.

Thing is, the story could have been introduced much later at a time when no one could really verify what really happened. I'm not saying it didn't, it could have, but what you are saying does not convince me. I would need to see some external evidence.

Anyway, I do appreciate your responses and hope that some Christians will also give their two cents.

My explanation works irrespective of time frame, I think. Let's say 500 BCE the Sinai Revelation is introduced. Some priest/leader comes up with the story and tries to sell it. "Your x-grandparents were at Sinai and Moses brought down this little pamphlet." Naturally, this would be a rather great revelation about our history. Why would we only lose information about the priest/leader who revealed this pivotal moment of our history, while retaining enough information to paint a complete picture (ie. Biblical characters and events in an unbroken chain) from the revelation until today? We have all the revelations of the various prophets, except for the most important one...the one who brought it all to us.

I'm mildly familiar with the Documentary Hypothesis. My feeling is that the entire Hypothesis is built on the issue of Biblical inconsistencies, with time frames derived from any source that mentions something related to the scroll itself reinterpreted to refer to sources, editing or redacting instead. Since those original inconsistencies have long ago been dealt with by Rabbis, they don't bother me at all. And so what I see are academics struggling to squeeze the Bible into their understanding of the way things work, and grasping at the smallest straws in that struggle. Why was no information whatsoever retained about any of these sources, editors and redactors? And, if Wikipedia is to be believed, there are at least a few questions left unanswered by [all the various versions of] the DH as to prevent it from being the definitive answer.

 

[Pegg]

I've asked this in other forums and never got a satisfactory answer. And please don't just quote II Timothy 3:16. That's problematic for several reasons but it's circular reasoning anyway. Or if you do you use it I would ask why you believe that to be true.

there are several reasons:

Jesus believed in the bible and referenced the characters in the bible such as Adam and Eve as real people. He believed in those accounts and people and events because he was originally a spirit person who witnessed all those events. So if he believed them, then Im 100% convinced that they must have been true events.

The bible prophecies which have been fulfilled prove Gods writership. No man can accurately foretell the future...but God makes the future, so he can tell us exactly whats going to happen.

Its counsel & wisdom is universal for all people and it actually works for our benefit when we apply it.

Its not a writing based around a particular culture like other writings. The bible speaks a universal language and is applicable in all times and cultures, it applies to young and old, male or female and I think other writings tend to favour a 'particular' gender and become irrelevant as time goes on.

Also, the bible does not present the creation of the universe and earth as a myth where giants fell out of the sky and vomited something from their mouth which became the rivers and when they had the guts ripped out their entrails became something else. The bible doesnt say the earth is held up by elephants riding a tortoise riding somthing else....nor does the bible say the planets are lviing Gods like some other religious myths. The bible presents a very plausible and acceptable account of creation which is in harmony with science.

 

[arcanum]

Personally I no longer look at the bible as a historical book but as a spiritual one, which works for me. It can be read on many different levels depending on one's spiritual understanding and discernment. But taking it literally is certainly a valid way of looking at it, provided one doesn't approach it through a modern left brained oriented lens, dissecting it in order to prove it's accuracy and historicity. Using this method may cause one some problems and make it hard to reconcile, better to just read it as is and don't think too hard about objectively trying to proving it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If by source you mean God Himself, is He living on earth and His home has address to go to Him? Obviously Not. No one has ever literally seen God. The Prophets had said He is invisible. But Prophets can sit and talk with people and reveal the Word of God.

Yes, and anyone can be a Prophet. It's easy.

 

[Hawkins]

I've asked this in other forums and never got a satisfactory answer. And please don't just quote II Timothy 3:16. That's problematic for several reasons but it's circular reasoning anyway. Or if you do you use it I would ask why you believe that to be true.

It is because this is the one way and only way for a human to reach a truth. To put it another way, if God is true then to believe what is said in the Bible is the one and only way to reach such a truth. There's no other way round.

The methodology employed here is called human witnessing. It is the same methodology leading to virtually any truth in human history. The nature of history, under most circumstance if not all, is that you have to rely on what have been written down by other humans to reach a truth. You have to deliver your faith, or else there's no truth for you. That is, you are unable to reach a truth unless you put faith in what have been written down by a small bunch of humans. Most likely, the more witnesses (historians) were writing about the same event/figure, it became more credible for humans to believe (multiple account witnessing).

If God is true, He will choose such a methodology to pass a truth as human witnessing, without man's own awareness, is the most fundamental way of conveying a truth. And that His Word must be accurate (inerrant) to a certain extent for humans along the timeline of history to reach the same God. The same accuracy is demanded if humans are to be judged. If the core information provided is not consistent, humans are not to be blamed when subject to God's judgment, as they received no consistent information.

If a God would like humans to reach Him, He needs a book accurately described about Him and His requirement for humans. Such a book will basically not change along time for humans in different times of history to read the same stuff to reach the same God with the same requirement for His judgment. He also needs to authenticate a human authority as a representative of His book, or else everyone may pop up to say that "my version of the book is the genuine one". The Jews were first assigned to be such a representative. When the Jews became unqualified, the authority was shifted to the Catholics then the Protestants. All of them are maintaining the same core (Canon) of the OT, with the Catholics and Protestants sharing the same NT.

By far, the only God who can achieve the above is the Christian God. And martyrdom is used as an enhancement for the multiple account witnessing. By the covenants man is bound to, He won't show up to all humans (or else humans cannot be saved by faith, there's no faith required if He shows up to everyone). He showed up only to His dedicated witnesses to allow them to write down the Bible for other humans to believe to reach the truth.


Isaiah 6:9
Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Yes, and anyone can be a Prophet. It's easy.

No, that is not the case.
The World of Creation may be divided into 5 creatures:

1. minerals
2. Plants
3. Animals
4. human
5. Prophets or Manifestations of God

This is the hierarchy in which each has more power in comparison to previous level. For example the plants have power of growth but minerals do not. The animals have power of senses such as sight and hearing, but plants do not. Human has power of discovery but the animals do not. The Prophets and Manifestations of God have access to the knowledge and Will of God and can reveal His Words and Attributes into the world and act as an 'intermediately' between God and mankind. The regular man cannot do this!

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Personally I no longer look at the bible as a historical book but as a spiritual one, which works for me. It can be read on many different levels depending on one's spiritual understanding and discernment. But taking it literally is certainly a valid way of looking at it, provided one doesn't approach it through a modern left brained oriented lens, dissecting it in order to prove it's accuracy and historicity. Using this method may cause one some problems and make it hard to reconcile, better to just read it as is and don't think too hard about objectively trying to proving it.

The Bible has historical accounts and this is a fact, but these historical accounts are written with symbolic and metaphors. They are not literal history as one would find in a regular history book, therefore the mistake is to interpret the Bible literally. So, for example it is written the Body of Christ rose after crucifixion, but this is not a literal history. In another words, His Body rose, but not literally. His disciples represent the Body of Christ, and 'they rose' to continue His mission after His crucifixion. This was expressed with a symbolic expression "Christ rose after crucifixion".

 

[viole]

Jesus believed in the bible and referenced the characters in the bible such as Adam and Eve as real people. He believed in those accounts and people and events because he was originally a spirit person who witnessed all those events. So if he believed them, then Im 100% convinced that they must have been true events.

I agree. I don't see anything in the narrative that suggests metaphorical or symbolic language.

Alas, I do not come to same conclusion as yours.

The bible prophecies which have been fulfilled prove Gods writership. No man can accurately foretell the future...but God makes the future, so he can tell us exactly whats going to happen.

The only prophecy which I consider correct is the one concerning the mocking that believers will experience. Although, that was not difficult to anticipate

Its counsel & wisdom is universal for all people and it actually works for our benefit when we apply it.

Example?

Its not a writing based around a particular culture like other writings. The bible speaks a universal language and is applicable in all times and cultures, it applies to young and old, male or female and I think other writings tend to favour a 'particular' gender and become irrelevant as time goes on.

Does this gender neutrality include women not to be allowed to speak in churches?

Also, the bible does not present the creation of the universe and earth as a myth where giants fell out of the sky and vomited something from their mouth which became the rivers and when they had the guts ripped out their entrails became something else.

Well, the believers in those myth might say the same: our creation account does not include talking snakes or women originating from ribs.

Or do you think that rib women and talking snakes are somehow more plausible than vomiting giants?

The bible doesnt say the earth is held up by elephants riding a tortoise riding somthing else....nor does the bible say the planets are lviing Gods like some other religious myths. The bible presents a very plausible and acceptable account of creation which is in harmony with science.

Sure. With the possible exception of deviating from science by several orders of magnitude in basically everything.

Ciao

- viole

 

[nazz]

My explanation works irrespective of time frame, I think. Let's say 500 BCE the Sinai Revelation is introduced. Some priest/leader comes up with the story and tries to sell it. "Your x-grandparents were at Sinai and Moses brought down this little pamphlet." Naturally, this would be a rather great revelation about our history. Why would we only lose information about the priest/leader who revealed this pivotal moment of our history, while retaining enough information to paint a complete picture (ie. Biblical characters and events in an unbroken chain) from the revelation until today? We have all the revelations of the various prophets, except for the most important one...the one who brought it all to us.

I probably should not have used the word "introduced" as it suggests the story was simply made up. What I really meant was codified in written form. But it seems likely to me it is based on some historical event. But as time went by the story was embellished and expanded.