How is the Bible the Word of God?

[leibowde84]

I have in fact been saying the exact opposite. Quote any claim I have ever made where I said what you claim I have. I said I have proof but it is personal and subject. I have pointed out over and over that kind of proof is not available for debate. I have even added to that emphatic and clear position that theology and history are never resolved to a certainty or proof. They are always resolved to a probability. That is what I said is available for debate, not what you said I did.

So, you have not provided useful evidence to support your claim then, as subjective evidence is usually only covincing to the person encountering it. The other is asked to "take their word for it," which is an unreasonable request when debating anything. That is part of my frustration. If you had admitted that you had not provided substantive proof for your claim earlier, I wouldn't have reacted the way I did. But, your claim that history and theology is never resolved to a certainty or proof is incredibly misleading. History is not proved with absolute certainty in many respects, but its probability is based on objective evidence, not subjective experience or notions. The comparison is not fair. And, btw, you have not been claiming that the Bible is probably reliable or probably true or most likely an accurate portrayal of Jesus' words. You have used quotes from Jesus in the Bible as proof for your claims, you keep on saying that the reliability of the Bible is not in question, that the historicity should be used to prove points about the nature of God.

My position is that the spirit of Jesus' teachings in the Bible are accurate and appropriate. The specifics, historicity, and quotes almost certainly are not, at least not in their entirety. This has been shown in multiple ways, and can be read about through a simple Google search on the subject, but that isn't important in this discussion. It should be common sense that any book that has been translated so many times, was not meant to be combined as it was, many more texts left out than included, and many inconsistencies present (mainly small, but some large) must be viewed with skepticism. As such, passages should not be used as statements that prove what God's will is. It is certainly the most beneficial book I have ever read, and it has helped to shape my life, but using quotes supposedly uttered by Jesus to "prove" what Jesus wants of us is tantamount to a slap in the face. It's insulting that you keep on spewing Biblical passages at me as if I don't know them already.

I know what the Bible says already, I am interested in what you think and why you think it. If you believe things about God simply because they are stated in the Bible, there is no reason to discuss this topic. But, if you would like to get into your objective reasoning for why you think the way you do about God, I would love to discuss it. I fear that you think there can't be valid objective reasons for belief apart from scripture, but I hope I am wrong.

 

[catch22]

Which has more probability as mythology, and a literary creation, more so then real history.

History dictates he was a man.

History does agree Jesus existed.

Theological bias - probability does not dictate outcome.

Which has more probability as mythology, and a literary creation, more so then real history.

History states, we don't know.

Probability does not dictate outcome.

Just about historical fact, by many scholars.

Indeed.

Which has more probability as mythology, and a literary creation, more so then real history.

Probability does not dictate outcome, thus, theological bias.

Do you play Russian Roulette? By all means, probability suggests you'll likely survive at least one attempt.

However, putting the gun to your head and pulling the trigger -- different story, no? ...do you have faith in your probability?

 

[Domenic]

Those who claim the Bible is not the word of God, and there is no God...have never shown any proof. They never show proof because they have none. All they ever do is come up with theories how everything (universe) came to be.
God says the unbelievers are blinded from the truth. There is no reasoning with them. I do believe when Jesus comes, they will still not believe. Talking to them on the matter is a wast of time. If God is not real, why are the unbelievers spending hours, days, weeks, and years on a religous forum? Their mannar of addressing believers will never turn anybody away from God.

 

[outhouse]

They never show proof because they have none.

Yes true, no theist has proof of any of the man made gods exist. None.

Those who claim the Bible is not the word of God, and there is no God...have never shown any proof.

The burden of proof is on those who make a claim of existence.

Why does your god out of thousands mas has created, get special treatment?

 

[outhouse]

History does agree Jesus existed.

Agreed.

Probability does not dictate outcome

Probability is how history is defined.

If you have extraordinary claims, they flat require extraordinary evidence, of which you have none.


You do have text, written decades after the events by people who were far removed from all aspects of Galilean Aramaic life.

We have theological text with known mythology and written in rhetorical prose. We have events that contradict each other, and we have heavy plagiarisms that changed original core material.

So im sorry but we know more then you may think we do.

 

[metis]

I'm not sure I understand you here. It seems again like some confusion between establishing the correct text and establishing that what the text says is true. If by 95% you refer to the modern understanding of the biblical texts being about 95% accurate in comparison to what the originals were, that figure seems reasonable enough to me...

But I have to take some issue with you here on the above. As I posted in response to 1robin, one simply cannot establish that the "N.T.", or the Bible as a whole, is 95% accurate unless one were to know with certainty exactly what the truth was, and this is literally impossible for us to do today, some 2000 years later. Even secular events that far back in time are generally just about as impossible to establish as accurate history simply because of the issues of subjectivity and "grape-vining" (with the latter, the idea being that many events may have been passed on by word of mouth or by someone hearing or reading someone else's account of whatever).

But to put this into a broader context, we today cannot even establish through any objectively-derived evidence that there even is a God, let alone what the details of what God supposedly did and wants. Probably most will agree that if one believes in God, they do not so much based on evidence but more as an issue of faith.

Now, what I am not saying is that the scriptures are trash and should be disregarded. Some things happened or people wouldn't have spent the time writing about them. For example, if Jesus didn't exist, then why did all these people write about him?

Joseph Campbell had an expression that's pretty much become a classic, and it's that "the myth became the reality", namely that whatever was believed to have happen was acted upon as the driving force for each religion-- thus "the power of myth". Therefore, with this approach, all religious texts are 100% valid, if you know what I mean.

 

[1robin]

What I think about exceptions to determinism is irrelevant, for the moment, since we are analyzing what other people think, namely compatibilists. You said that this view is pretty common, so maybe they see something I do not.

My thesis, from what I read about them and from them, is that THEY do not see any exception to determinism whatsoever. Not even a little bit. With or without intentional agents. They think determinism and freedom of choice can cohexist, not that determinism is momentarily suspended when someone exercises her free will.

If you think otherwise, then I suggest you really try understanding their position. Or, alternatively, prove me wrong by providing some links or articles that define compatibilism as a position that accepts exceptions, any exception, to the rules of determinism in the world. I could not find any.

Where is this philosophical definition or evidence that goes beyond your (biased) personal opinion about compatibilism?

Ciao

- viole

I just do not get it. Freewill is free from what exactly? Free-will implies it is not determined, it is free from being determined. It is freely chosen.

Definitions again:

Compatibilism is the belief that free will and determinism are compatible ideas, and that it is possible to believe both without being logically inconsistent. Compatibilists believe freedom can be present or absent in situations for reasons that have nothing to do with metaphysics.

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unimpeded by certain prevailing factors. Such prevailing factors that have been studied in the past have included metaphysical constraints (such as logical, nomological, or theological determinism),[1] physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions). The principle of free will has religious, legal, ethical, and scientific implications.[2] For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent, omniscient divinity that raises certain injunctions or moral obligations for man. In the law, it affects considerations of punishment and rehabilitation. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions.
Free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compatibilism offers a solution to the free will problem. This philosophical problem concerns a disputed incompatibility between free will and determinism. Compatibilism is the thesis that free will is compatible with determinism. Because free will is typically taken to be a necessary condition of moral responsibility, compatibilism is sometimes expressed in terms of a compatibility between moral responsibility and determinism.
Compatibilism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I think this discussion is getting way of track. The issue was whether pure determinism was true, not what compatibilists believe. The former is easy, the latter confusing. There are all manner of flavors of positions to be had, Hard determinists, libertarian compatibilists, incompatabalists, classical compatibilists, etc....

 

[lovemuffin]

metis: I think I was unclear and you misunderstood me. I agree with you re: the establishment of whether or not the text is an accurate history. I was referring to the fidelity of the texts to the original. That is, I think we have a remarkably good idea what the authors of the N.T actually wrote as well as a reasonable idea about other religious texts during those times which did not become canonical. In other words, there are two questions

1. Do our reconstructions of these texts accurately reflect what the authors wrote
2. Do the text give an historically valid account of the happenings they convey. For example, did Jesus say what the gospel authors report him as saying?

Re: (1) I don't know a realistic figure but I wouldn't immediately dismiss the idea that the text of (for example) the Nestle-Aland greek N.T. is 90+% accurate as a reflection of the original texts of those books. (2) is much harder to establish

 

[outhouse]

1. Do our reconstructions of these texts accurately reflect what the authors wrote

For the most part they do. Less aspects like the ending of Mark that was added later.

2. Do the text give an historically valid account of the happenings they convey.

No. Not in any sense. The actually contradict each other in many places.

For example, did Jesus say what the gospel authors report him as saying?

No, they did not, nor could they have.

The books were written by Hellenist writing to a Roman and gentile audience. These were not he followers of Jesus writing Aramaic Judaism.

Even the books known as Matthew and Luke, had to plagiarize the book known as Mark, because they did not know these details. And what they did add later on top of the original story, is stated to be fiction in some cases, and mythological in others as well as changed theology from the gospel known as Mark.

Your a pretty smart guy, I think you understand Jesus was fighting Hellenistic corruption in the temple when he was crucified. Then why cant you understand the books were written by what amounts to Jesus enemies.

 

[metis]

metis: I think I was unclear and you misunderstood me. I agree with you re: the establishment of whether or not the text is an accurate history. I was referring to the fidelity of the texts to the original. That is, I think we have a remarkably good idea what the authors of the N.T actually wrote as well as a reasonable idea about other religious texts during those times which did not become canonical. In other words, there are two questions

1. Do our reconstructions of these texts accurately reflect what the authors wrote
2. Do the text give an historically valid account of the happenings they convey. For example, did Jesus say what the gospel authors report him as saying?

Re: (1) I don't know a realistic figure but I wouldn't immediately dismiss the idea that the text of (for example) the Nestle-Aland greek N.T. is 90+% accurate as a reflection of the original texts of those books. (2) is much harder to establish

Thanks for your clarification, but I am extremely reluctant to attach any kind of per cent or fraction on such an unknown.

OTOH, because there was a Jewish tradition that scribes needed to copy things accurately, plus what we've seen with the overall accuracy of the DSS as compared to more recent texts, I can very much agree that most of what's found in the "N.T." is likely to be quite accurate as far as the "passing down" is concerned.

 

[lovemuffin]

I think referring to the fact that Matthew and Luke use Mark, or "Q", as "plagiarism" has a connotation that's not very useful. In the same way as it would be dubious to refer to pseudonymous authors of ancient texts as intending some deception, like Pseudo-Dionysius. It's hard to know the intention, but the fact that the practices were in wide use matters. The fact that the gospel authors used more ancient common sources doesn't seem particularly scandalous to me. It contradicts a certain theory of the authority of scripture that depends on the texts being written only explicitly by apostolic authors, but I think that ship has sailed anyway.

I think you might overdramatize the hellenistic influence on early Christianity by referring to the gospel authors as enemies of Jesus, but it's a bit of a subjective question. I'm rather fond of much of the hellenistic influence in Christianity, so I'm not without my own bias. I'm familiar with (for example) Ehrman's take on Jesus as apocalyptic Jewish prophet, and I think it's a reasonable classification as far as the history, but there also seems to be enough concrete evidence to think that some of the sayings of Jesus reported by the gospels are likely historical. And in general, it doesn't seem to me that the tension between Jesus in a jewish context and the early church's hellenism is enough to establish any strong conclusion that the gospel authors entirely misrepresent him. The Jesus of the gospels doesn't seem inexplicably hellenistic to me.

 

[lovemuffin]

I can very much agree that most of what's found in the "N.T." is likely to be quite accurate as far as the "passing down" is concerned.

That's basically all I would say.

 

[1robin]

1robin: what does textual accuracy mean to you? Does it mean accurate in terms of transmission from ancient to modern times, i.e that we know what the original text was? Or does it mean accurate in the sense of conveying beliefs that are correct or historical accounts which are true? Part of my confusion is that when you use the word "textual" to me it implies textual criticism, which is about determining the original text, but you also say "core doctrine", and doctrine to me is a matter of certain beliefs, and the two are not equivalent and I'm not sure what you mean or how you've arrived at the conclusion, or in what way it is "settled"

Textual accuracy as far as the 95% number comes from the oldest extant manuscripts compared with a modern bible. It is the textual integrity of the textual tradition between those approximate dates. Textual accuracy can also mean accuracy with the originals but I have no firm percentages on that period of time. However much can be said about it, we have every ingredient needed and then quite a bit beyond in every category by which to have confidence about the reliability of the biblical tradition to have accurately followed from the originals. That is what I mean by textual accuracy, and there are two phases to it as described. We do not know for certain what the originals said but we can have great confidence it was transcribed with high accuracy. Let me give what the bible's most popular living critic says about this:


Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the

changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple— slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the "original" text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching.

The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]

Before I answer your next question let me causation you about a mistake I find made many times in this respect. Either assumed from the confidence I have in the bible's core claims or for some unjustifiable reasons critics approach the bible like this. The bible should be perfect yet it is not so it fails the test, when that is not the test at all. Given the promise that only the original revelation was free of error, I am left to compare the bible to other works of it's time frame to gain any reasonable expectation of it's textual reliability. No other work in ancient history even comes close, it beats every other text by wide margins in every category, so it passes the true academic test. The theological tests vary by person but the actual burden of faith is only the lack of a defeater. I raise my burden to best explanation but I actually do not have it. So the bible fails to be perfect but it passes every test for reliability that faith can reasonably demand.

That being said whether it records factual history is a little tricky. Literary styles of that time did not stress perfect accuracy of detail. They stressed conveying a central message or point. Despite this I find the bible to be highly accurate in it's historicity where it can be verified. So I do not hold the bible to a standard of historical perfection because it was not intended to meet that criteria, I hold it to the standard of reliably transmitting the central ideas it meant to convey. I do not worry if there were 2 or 3 angels at the tomb, I care whether Christ's body was in it, I do not obsess with what hour he died, I care about what his death means, etc....... That is not to say that even the secondary inconsistencies have unresolvable problems with harmony. I have easily harmonized hundreds of claimed errors and inconsistencies, I am saying that perfection of secondary details is not necessary.

Your last question. I make claims about the accuracy of the textual tradition, about the reliability of the traditions reflecting accurately the originals, the historical accuracy, the philosophic consistency, the scientific accuracy, the doctrinal coherence. It can get confusing at times but I believe I have kept the data in the same context as the claim.

Let me explain my one point above again. My confidence comes from finding what the bible promised, all the data that shows each detail of the road map that got me there is just icing on the cake, not what inspires my confidence. I found what it lead to, I know the map is true, but I cannot debate from the point of view of my being born again, it is not objectively available, I must use data and academic arguments in a debate but they are not where my faith comes from, they simply add to it. This may explain why I have complete confidence in doctrines that may not have been copied with perfection.

 

[outhouse]

I think you might overdramatize the hellenistic influence on early Christianity by referring to the gospel authors as enemies of Jesus

Yes and no. Think about it. Aramaic Galilean who was fighting the Hellenistic corruption in the temple. You also had the extreme and factual socioeconomic division of Aramaic Jews in Nazareth and those Hellenist in Sepphoris who were more or less landlords who placed terrible economic burderns on the Aramaic villagers like Jesus.

So it is really safe to say Jesus as a pious Galilean Jew, would have viewed Hellenist as his enemies. Remember Jesus was oppressed by Hellenist more so then Romans. Thus Hellenist were his enemies, and we have the author of Mark writing to and for a Roman audience.

Not exactly who Jesus would have taught. Had that ben the case, we would have tales of him teaching in Sepphoris and Tiberius. Instead we see him in poor Aramaic villages, teaching to the poor oppressed and hungry.

question. I'm rather fond of much of the hellenistic influence in Christianity

As I see it as factually true from its start.

After all he was never the messiah in Judaism. But Hellenist perverting Judaism, had no problem creating a messiah.

but there also seems to be enough concrete evidence to think that some of the sayings of Jesus reported by the gospels are likely historical

But let me ask you this. How much were typical Galilean parables learned from local Aramaic villages?

How much were John the Baptist teachings Jesus learned from him?

How much was learned at different Passovers before the temple fell that possible witnesses retold from oral traditions. Of course which leaves them open for growth in the decades before the gospels were written.

 

[1robin]

I have long learned that debating someone who cites his opinions, or the opinions of carefully-selected others, as facts, is pretty much impossible. The "95%" figure, for just one example, is literally impossible to justify academically, because one would have to know what the 100% is in order to come up with the 95%. This isn't exactly rocket science, and yet you seemingly just ignore the fact that it cannot in any way be verified, and you just keep on repeating it ad nauseum.

But you're right about one thing, namely that I've had more than enough of your bigoted approach of demeaning of other religions and the fabrication of all your imaginary "facts".

Then by all means quit talking to me, you are carrying on enough debates against me by proxy to satisfy yourself.

 

[outhouse]

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant;

No one is arguing this with you. All scholars agree with this.

Its how the gospels were written is where you run into trouble. Not how they were copied and translated.

 

[1robin]

One of the questions I have is: to what extent does their methodology rely on subjectively gauging the reliability of supposed eyewitnesses? Greenleaf and Lyndhurst were writing over 100 years ago, and just in the most recent few decades the vast increase in sophistication of forensic science, including DNA, have made clearer how problematic eyewitness testimony often is. This is a consideration they could not have made. Do you take this into account?

What makes a witness credible has not changed in thousands of years. As far as it being subjective, I would imagine any criteria in this context to be somewhat subjective but some kind of criteria had to be developed and these men had a large hand in what those criteria are. I know of no way to show what they cite is objective, but I also know of no way to fault them or their qualifications. IOW all such claims will be less than certainties, all I can do is provide the most qualified opinions. You can get more recent than those I use at times but I do not see how you can do better. There is no doubt eye witness testimony can be wrong but methods have been devised to limit the chances of it being wrong as much as possible.

Since you mentioned forensic coroners here is a well qualified one that confirms every detail of the crucifixion given by men who would not have had the knowledge to know what to make up.
The Medical Evidence: Was Jesus’ Death a Sham?

Also, it's certainly not a question of deciding a priori what methodologies may be used or that only certain scholars have a say, but it is possible to evaluate methodologies and decide that some seem more promising than others.

I did not do so. I provided scholars in many fields. You asked about one in a particular field so I have discussed him. I did limit or restrict any approach to the bible. I was only attempting to stop the a priori dismissal of a category of claim without justification. Pick any relevant subject, I can provide scholarship from heavyweights experts in it.

I'm not sure I understand you here. It seems again like some confusion between establishing the correct text and establishing that what the text says is true. If by 95% you refer to the modern understanding of the biblical texts being about 95% accurate in comparison to what the originals were, that figure seems reasonable enough to me. When I wrote that the reliability of the texts in general were difficult to establish, I meant their reliability as historical accounts of (for example) the life of Jesus, not their reliability in reflecting what the original authors wrote. The disconnect between the two is the possibility that what the authors wrote is not what actually happened. It is true that the body of manuscripts we have to work with has vastly improved in the last 100 years, but that doesn't establish the reliability of texts as historical accounts.

The 95% number I have exclusively associated with textual accuracy (translational accuracy), I even limited it further by stating it was only the accuracy from extant to modern texts not from the original. I believe and can demonstrate the bible has a high reliability in other approaches but I have no hard percentages for historical accuracy, scientific accuracy, etc....... Where I used 95% I am only talking about textual accuracy. In any approach to biblical reliability the accuracy of the transmission is the first stop so that is where I began.

I agree that establishing historical reliability is a more complex issue. Textual accuracy between extant manuscripts and modern bibles is an exact thing, historical claims are never certain. If you wanted to discuss them it would depend on which you mean whether I would hold that it is reliable and how I came to believe that or not. I regard it's prehistorically claims as to be unknowable for instance, but it's gospel claims as reliable as history can make them for another. However again the 95% applies on to textual integrity regarding transmission from the extant copies to modern bibles.

Unless you are forming the set "NT historians" in a very particular way, I doubt that this claim is true as to what the majority of historians believe can be demonstrated as a matter of history. To be clear, I recognize in Jesus a divine authority, his crucifixion and resurrection. I am not sure who you are referring to when you say that his enemies claimed to have met him post-mortem. So this shouldn't be a question of bias on my part, but I do not consider those claims to be demonstrated historically and doubt that most historians do. And the "historically" is very operative, I don't doubt that there are Christian historians who believe these things, the question is whether they can be demonstrated with much probability using historical methods.

I am defining them in a general way. For example:

Most historians who have studied the New Testament period agree that, even by the demanding standards of secular historical study, we can be confident that Jesus was a real person (contrary to the views of some extreme skeptics – see The Jesus myth theory), and of many details of Jesus’ life. For example, E P Sanders, a respected and agnostic secular scholar, concluded:

“Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died.” and “the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism.”

Most historians would agree with this, a few would be more skeptical and a larger number would be more positive about how much we can know. The information below represents a summary of careful and respected scholars who represent the broad consensus of New Testament scholarship, not the highly skeptical or strongly Christian scholars.

What most historians are confident of
The following summary of what can be confidently asserted historically is drawn from E P Sanders (an agnostic), N T Wright (a christian) and Michael Grant (a non-believer), though others give similar lists:

• Jesus’s time of birth, location of childhood, and baptism;
• he called disciples (probably 12 of them) and associated with outcasts (uncommon for a Rabbi in his day);
• he effected cures and exorcisms (G Stanton: “Few doubt that Jesus possessed unusual gifts as a healer, though of course varied explanations are offered.”; E P Sanders: “I think we can be fairly certain that initially Jesus’ fame came as a result of healing, especially exorcism.”);
• he preached “the kingdom of God” in Galilee and called people to repent – he believed he was the Messiah, inaugurating the Kingdom of God and that repentent sinners were eligible for the kingdom (P J Tomson: “Although he apparently considered himself the heavenly ‘Son of Man’ and ‘the beloved son’ of God and cherished far-reaching Messianic ambitions, Jesus was equally reticent about these convictions. Even so, the fact that, after his death and resurrection, his disciples proclaimed him as the Messiah can be understood as a direct development from his own teachings.”);
• welcoming ‘sinners’ was part of his teaching and he claimed to be able to forgive people’s sins (M Grant: “Jesus introduced a very singular innovation. For he also claimed that he himself could forgive sins.”);
• he believed his death would be redemptive (M Grant: “Jesus lived his last days, and died, in the belief that his death was destined to save the human race.”);
• he created a disturbance in the temple in Jerusalem, had a final meal with his friends, was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities and was executed by the Roman Governor, Pilate
• his tomb was really empty and his disciples ‘saw’ him (in what sense is debated) after his death (E P Sanders: “That Jesus’ followers (and later Paul) had resurrection experiences is, in my judgment, a fact. What the reality was that gave rise to the experiences I do not know”).

Jesus and the Historians | the Way?

 

[1robin]

Hearsay.

Which Robin is forced to ignore out of desperation

Oh, I am ignoring out of desperation all right. But you got what I am ignoring incorrect. Why re you trying to debate my by proxy, BTW?

 

[outhouse]

I did not do so. I provided scholars in many fields.

Yes a minority of apologetic scholars.

Your under the false assumption a scholar determines what is or is not historical. One does not. Nor does two or three or four.

A consensus helps determine the proper context of a question.

 

[outhouse]

I am ignoring out of desperation

In light of providing a minority of scholars on one particular subject you quote mined, I agree.

Jesus and the Historians | the Way?

That is not a credible source.


It is quote mined apologetics.


Its quite obvious you have not read E.P. Sanders in full.