Historicity of Bible

[Harel13]

I was waiting for that to come up.

It's among the most damming evidence thus far and no one effectively has come up with adequate apologetics to address it.

I'm not sure what side you consider evidence and which is apologetics, though I think you're stepping in the middle of a discussion. Jayhawker brought an article that mentioned a research project by two Israeli archeologists. I brought evidence to the contrary, here. The post you quoted is me asking Jay what he thought about the evidence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm not sure what side you consider evidence and which is apologetics, though I think you're stepping in the middle of a discussion. Jayhawker brought an article that mentioned a research project by two Israeli archeologists. I brought evidence to the contrary, here. The post you quoted is me asking Jay what he thought about the evidence.

Oh. I thought it was in reference to the introduction of camels contrary to scriptural accounts.

 

[lukethethird]

(The No True Scotsman Fallacy raises its silly head.)

Sorry, but the idea that many scholars believe that what they read in the gospels is true rings hollow to me.

 

[lukethethird]

The crucifixión of Jesus

This is an example of a historical event reported in the bible.

As the story goes Jesus had to be executed by the authorities so that He could show them who was really king by rising from the dead in three days.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sorry, but the idea that many scholars believe that what they read in the gospels is true rings hollow to me.

Do you honestly think that is what's being argued? Sad.

 

[alypius]

It's a collection. It's certainly not uniform.

If it is not uniform could some parts be a literary form which does not have a historical character?

 

[rational experiences]

O earth as a planet men in science said formed naturally as presence by cause 0.

Yet it's mass was never 0.

So said 0 owned the presence mass.

Holy mother term M ***. O earth God as a mother's body...mother earth rode as holy form a stone ark in space. Holy mother earth body.

Holy mother body without a husband. Holy mother earth a self body creator.

Holy mother gave birth to her owned spirit it's heavens or veils of gases.

Multi gas forms. Many colours.

All said by human men in science living inside oxygenated holy water life by garden nature oxygenating holy water holy life.

Mother earth never had a husband and mother earth owned it's own veils.

No men ownership inferred.

Stories.

Men in egotism said God was defined by men of science and men in egotism said they owned the spirit gases as scientific terms equated by their psyche for satanism...conversion sciences.

Actually.

As men who claimed earth was a mother and holy.

To men who burnt the veils created man's fall as evil radiation fallout.

The true reasoning holy mother earth was first to God man in science life's destruction.

 

[Brian2]

And this is typical of what I expect from apologists, an article that actually does nothing to confirm what you want it to but enough to fool the believer.

It is enough for a believer to know that claims that there were no Philistines around Canaan in the days of Abraham are grossly overstated and that the evidence shows that.

 

[PearlSeeker]

If it is not uniform could some parts be a literary form which does not have a historical character?

Yes.

 

[alypius]

Yes.

If some parts of the bible are of a literary form which does not have a historical character, then what is the meaning of asking whether the bible is historical (start of thread)?

 

[PearlSeeker]

If some parts of the bible are of a literary form which does not have a historical character, then what is the meaning of asking whether the bible is historical (start of thread)?

I was asking about parts that are regarded as historical: lives of patriarchs and so on...

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I would consider the Bible to be a very poor resource for hard evidence about anything. That would certainly include both history and Science.
However it seems to be reasonable evidence about what some ancient people though to be true. at the time the various books were written.
It does not provide any sustainable proof of the existence of anyone or any particular happening.
However somethings that appear in the bible are mentioned in other sources. but it is impossible to say if they simply rely on each other as confirmation, or possibly have an unknown common source. there is little hard evidence for anything. Even an inscription on a stone maybe inaccurate. propaganda or wishful thinking.

However the books of the Bible are those collations of texts that the people of the time found to be compatible with their beliefs. Those that were not, were discarded or destroyed. The Christian bible as we know it, very much reflects the beliefs of the winners who agreed the Trinitarian statement of Faith or Creed devised at Nicene. however it was not ratified in the present form until the 4th and 5th centuries by the Catholic church.

 

[PearlSeeker]

However the books of the Bible are those collations of texts that the people of the time found to be compatible with their beliefs. Those that were not, were discarded or destroyed. The Christian bible as we know it, very much reflects the beliefs of the winners who agreed the Trinitarian statement of Faith or Creed devised at Nicene. however it was not ratified in the present form until the 4th and 5th centuries by the Catholic church.

The four gospels were written, borrowed and redacted by people with their beliefs. It's based on narratives that were circulating in communities of believers. It's not something that came from outside of community.

Can you give an example of books that were discarded and destroyed? Or any evidence about this?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The four gospels were written, borrowed and redacted by people with their beliefs. It's based on narratives that were circulating in communities of believers. It's not something that came from outside of community.

Can you give an example of books that were discarded and destroyed? Or any evidence about this?

Some of them are
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
The rest of Esther
The Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus
Baruch with the epistle Jeremiah
The Songs of the 3 Holy children
The history of Susana
bel and the dragon
The prayer for Manasses
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

However I have a bible that includes the Books of the Apocrypha
The Ethiopian and Coptic bibles also have a different set of Books included in their bible canons.
We know there were other texts rejected in the earlies bibles because some were mentioned in other documents.
And they hardly set up a Synod to do nothing. they were selective what they included.
As was the catholic Cull in the 4th and 5th centuries.

The Bible canon has changed over time.
most of the changes are well documented if you care to look into it further.
You will find that all the Gnostic Gospels and writings have been excluded such as the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Thomas.

There is more stuff excluded that ever found its way into the Bible.

 

[Augustus]

However the books of the Bible are those collations of texts that the people of the time found to be compatible with their beliefs. Those that were not, were discarded or destroyed.

No books were 'destroyed' as no Empire had the capacity to do such a thing in the ancient world, let alone the Church.

You can destroy a copy, but not eradicate any text that has disseminated widely.

 

[pearl]

There is more stuff excluded that ever found its way into the Bible.

Most on your list is in the Bible, unless you are using a Protestant canon.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

No books were 'destroyed' as no Empire had the capacity to do such a thing in the ancient world, let alone the Church.

You can destroy a copy, but not eradicate any text that has disseminated widely.

They did a pretty good Job. of it.
Books were individually hand written, and copies were few and far between.
But more importantly Books deteriorate and have to be copied regularly to keep them in circulation.
The Church only copied Books that were approved.
Gnostic scripture was destroyed whenever it was found. Only fragments remain.

It was only by chance that a single complete copy of the Didache was found, it had been copied and bound in with another document.
And the Didache had been used for teaching, continuously for over 300 years, by many early churches, prior to the Bible. it was never discredited.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Most on your list is in the Bible, unless you are using a Protestant canon.

It is very much pick and mix.

 

[Augustus]

They did a pretty good Job. of it.
Books were individually hand written, and copies were few and far between.
But more importantly Books deteriorate and have to be copied regularly to keep them in circulation.
The Church only copied Books that were approved.
Gnostic scripture was destroyed whenever it was found. Only fragments remain.

It was only by chance that a single complete copy of the Didache was found, it had been copied and bound in with another document.
And the Didache had been used for teaching, continuously for over 300 years, by many early churches, prior to the Bible. it was never discredited.

The reason texts don't exist relates to what you mentioned: no one went to the great effort and expense to copy them in perpetuity.

This is very different from 'destroying' them.

Most 'orthodox' theological texts (as opposed to scripture) don't exist any more for exactly the same reason. Most ancient texts of any kind don't exist any more.

A modern parallel: churches in Europe are being converted into flats, bars, etc because they are not viable economically as churches.

We don't say "Modern secular nations have engaged in a mass destruction of churches" simply because they are not being preserved as churches by people who don't value them as churches.

 

[pearl]

It is very much pick and mix.

For the Catholic Bible most on your list are found with explanatory notes provided.
Books of the Bible | USCCB