If There Was No Evidence For Scripture, Would It's Content Still Be True?

[Jacob Samuelson]

This is somewhat indirectly a response to a post I was reading about evidence in belief.

I just want to clarify, most religions have some sort of scripture that supports it's foundation. Many people consider their Scripture the standard of Truth. I am just curious to know how many people would still believe in their scripture if we were to remove every tangible evidence behind it, such as historical documentation of origin, aligning demographical similarities from the text, language comparisons in neighboring texts, etc.

Basically If every part of the physical evidence in history were removed or forgotten in connection with the Bible Quran, and Tanakh, yet every word in it was the same, would they still be scripture?

 

[Rival]

They would still be scripture because they themselves can be counted as historical evidence.

 

[Father Heathen]

They would still be scripture because they themselves can be counted as historical evidence.

Even without corroboration?

 

[Rival]

Even without corroboration?

Yes. The fact that someone took the time out to document all of, say, Israel's and Judah's kings speaks to some kind of historical accuracy. No-one would realistically go to any length to make all that up, especially when it paints many of the monarchs in a disastrously bad way, records a rape by the King's son, recounts a civil war, conspiracy, and other stuff like this. Especially as we have many of these events recorded twice when it comes to the books of Shmuel and Kings and Chronicles. Chronicles is a retelling of Shmuel & Kings, but the fact that they bothered to write these accounts twice is certainly indicative of some level of history. That as well as books corroborating other books and so on.

Basically that they exist is good enough.

 

[syo]

This is somewhat indirectly a response to a post I was reading about evidence in belief.

I just want to clarify, most religions have some sort of scripture that supports it's foundation. Many people consider their Scripture the standard of Truth. I am just curious to know how many people would still believe in their scripture if we were to remove every tangible evidence behind it, such as historical documentation of origin, aligning demographical similarities from the text, language comparisons in neighboring texts, etc.

Basically If every part of the physical evidence in history were removed or forgotten in connection with the Bible Quran, and Tanakh, yet every word in it was the same, would they still be scripture?

Paganism is universal truths. It has nothing to do with scripture or evidence. It doesn't need books or temples, etc.

 

[sun rise]

There are different kinds of content. The OT is full of what purports to be history. There might be elements of accuracy along with a lot of mythology added on. (CF: Crossing the "reed" (not "red") sea), for example. The Mahabharata is the same.

For me the heart of the Bible or Mahabharata is not the claimed history subject to test by archeological evidence but the moral and spiritual parts such as the two greatest commandments.

 

[paarsurrey]

This is somewhat indirectly a response to a post I was reading about evidence in belief.

I just want to clarify, most religions have some sort of scripture that supports it's foundation. Many people consider their Scripture the standard of Truth. I am just curious to know how many people would still believe in their scripture if we were to remove every tangible evidence behind it, such as historical documentation of origin, aligning demographical similarities from the text, language comparisons in neighboring texts, etc.

Basically If every part of the physical evidence in history were removed or forgotten in connection with the Bible Quran, and Tanakh, yet every word in it was the same, would they still be scripture?

" physical evidence in history were removed or forgotten in connection with the Bible Quran"

It will never happen with Quran certainly and undoubtedly, I understand, please.
Right?

Regards

 

[Unveiled Artist]

This is somewhat indirectly a response to a post I was reading about evidence in belief.

I just want to clarify, most religions have some sort of scripture that supports it's foundation. Many people consider their Scripture the standard of Truth. I am just curious to know how many people would still believe in their scripture if we were to remove every tangible evidence behind it, such as historical documentation of origin, aligning demographical similarities from the text, language comparisons in neighboring texts, etc.

Basically If every part of the physical evidence in history were removed or forgotten in connection with the Bible Quran, and Tanakh, yet every word in it was the same, would they still be scripture?

I can see the history true. There's a lot of documentation of various religious beliefs and mythologies. They don't prove the supernatural. I gather most religions know they have mythology in their religion. Fact or fiction in those regards are irrelevant to the experience, belief, and practice.

There's historical evidence the pantheon exist but does it's existence mean gods existed.

History has its place.

 

[Kenny]

This is somewhat indirectly a response to a post I was reading about evidence in belief.

I just want to clarify, most religions have some sort of scripture that supports it's foundation. Many people consider their Scripture the standard of Truth. I am just curious to know how many people would still believe in their scripture if we were to remove every tangible evidence behind it, such as historical documentation of origin, aligning demographical similarities from the text, language comparisons in neighboring texts, etc.

Basically If every part of the physical evidence in history were removed or forgotten in connection with the Bible Quran, and Tanakh, yet every word in it was the same, would they still be scripture?

There are many things we still don't have archaeological evidence but we still believe it is true or, for that matter, when there was still no evidence for a dark hole, people still believed it.

In this very hypothetical and impossible position, I would rely on the three things that I based it on in the beginning,

1) My life is going from bad to worse, I might as well try something new.
2) I am going to start with the position that the Bible is true, and then I will test the sucker. I will find out soon enough if it is true or false
3) It won't hurt me if I confess Jesus as my Lord.

(Please note that it wasn't based on tangible evidence or archaeological discoveries, that came after). In 24 hours our marriage was completely turned around and miracles began to happen.

(I remember years earlier staring into a Tom Collins wondering "where are all the miracles that I heard of from the Bible?" i guess a drink wasn't the place to look for them

 

[stvdv]

Basically If every part of the physical evidence in history were removed or forgotten in connection with the Bible Quran, and Tanakh, yet every word in it was the same, would they still be scripture?

Nice poll. There are 2 choices that are clearly false, and only one makes total sense. Easy choice today

That would be miraculous, that every word was the same in all Scriptures, as Scriptures are tailored specifically for people living in that area at that time, though some parts are useful for all

 

[Brickjectivity]

I just want to clarify, most religions have some sort of scripture that supports it's foundation.

...but not scripture that is true versus false historically. The OP presumes incorrectly that scripture is intended to be either true or false. For example some scripture stories can be intended to be similar but not the same as history, and there is a reason for this which is hinted at in the foward of the Roman historian. History is viewed as cyclical by many Historians and also a similar experience, and some historians rather than pursuing precision about local History instead report an averaged, generalized History.

I think Jewish scripture often diverges from this not by pursuing more accuracy but by telling the story from the perspective that it is an evil. The History of the nations is that of oppression.

In either Jewish or most other ancient History the stories are not intended to be depictions of single events but of generalized ones, specific events being dissolved in.

Therefore the question is not whether the story is true but whether you are moved to oppose the deadly order of a corrupt world. The scripture directs you to choose the relevant History: the one praised by Greeks and Romans or the one which recogmizes their kingdoms as oppressive, unstable and doomed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They would still be scripture because they themselves can be counted as historical evidence.

I think that historians would disagree quite strongly with this claim. Can you support it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personally I think that the question in the OP is poorly formed. The question should not be " . . . would it content still be true?" The question should be " . . . could its content still be true?" There are quite a few different scriptures out there so they all cannot be true. One of them could be. And it could be true even without evidence. It is highly unlikely, but it is still a possibility.

 

[1213]

...I am just curious to know how many people would still believe in their scripture if we were to remove every tangible evidence behind it, such as historical documentation of origin, ...

I think Bible is strongly tied to events in the world. So, if there would not be anything showing the connection, it could be a problem. However, for me Bible is mainly a book of what is good and right. For example, it is good to love your neighbor as yourself. I think that is a matter of right understanding, not about believing history. I think such things are correct even without any connection to history.

 

[nPeace]

This is somewhat indirectly a response to a post I was reading about evidence in belief.

I just want to clarify, most religions have some sort of scripture that supports it's foundation. Many people consider their Scripture the standard of Truth. I am just curious to know how many people would still believe in their scripture if we were to remove every tangible evidence behind it, such as historical documentation of origin, aligning demographical similarities from the text, language comparisons in neighboring texts, etc.

Basically If every part of the physical evidence in history were removed or forgotten in connection with the Bible Quran, and Tanakh, yet every word in it was the same, would they still be scripture?

If there was no evidence that the Bible can be trusted as true, or reliable, I would see no benefit in it really.
To me, it would be just like listening to the politicians, priests, scientists, and other "experts", and not knowing whom you can trust.
For example, the Bible says that obeying the commands of God, recorded in the Bible, serve as a protection, and provides benefits both now and future.
If I did not see the evidence for this, why would I pay attention to it. The Bible would become nothing more than another novel, that gives "a good read". After that, it goes where all the other novels go.

Certainly though, that's not the case. The Bible is read, and reread thousands of times.
Why don't people do that with novels?
Simply because it involves our very lives - things that concern or matter to us, and besides that, millions realize the beneficial results it brings.

The Bible is the world's most read, published, and translated book - available to over 90% of the world's population, in their mother tongue.
There's no novel, or book, that comes close. In fact, not even expert advice matches it.

That in itself is more evidence, evidently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If there was no evidence that the Bible can be trusted as true, or reliable, I would see no benefit in it really.
To me, it would be just like listening to the politicians, priests, scientists, and other "experts", and not knowing whom you can trust.
For example, the Bible says that obeying the commands of God, recorded in the Bible, serve as a protection, and provides benefits both now and future.
If I did not see the evidence for this, why would I pay attention to it. The Bible would become nothing more than another novel, that gives "a good read". After that, it goes where all the other novels go.

Certainly though, that's not the case. The Bible is read, and reread thousands of times.
Why don't people do that with novels?
Simply because it involves our very lives - things that concern or matter to us, and besides that, millions realize the beneficial results it brings.

The Bible is the world's most read, published, and translated book - available to over 90% of the world's population, in their mother tongue.
There's no novel, or book, that comes close. In fact, not even expert advice matches it.

That in itself is more evidence, evidently.

That is very low quality evidence and should not convince a rational thinker. And there are people that reread favorite novels countless times. There is some serious psychology behind how the Bible is used and abused. People were brought up with endless threats and endless promises of rewards drilled into them from an early age. Don't you think that some people might react rather strongly to those psychological pressures?

 

[paarsurrey]

" physical evidence in history were removed or forgotten in connection with the Bible Quran"
It will never happen with Quran certainly and undoubtedly, I understand, please.
Right?

G-d/Allah/YHVH has taken the responsibility of the security of the text of Quran:

15:10
اِنَّا نَحۡنُ نَزَّلۡنَا الذِّکۡرَ وَ اِنَّا لَہٗ لَحٰفِظُوۡنَ ﴿۱۰﴾
Verily, We Ourself have sent down this Exhortation, and most surely We will be its Guardian.
Holy Quran: Read, Listen and Search
Right?

Regards

 

[sayak83]

This is somewhat indirectly a response to a post I was reading about evidence in belief.

I just want to clarify, most religions have some sort of scripture that supports it's foundation. Many people consider their Scripture the standard of Truth. I am just curious to know how many people would still believe in their scripture if we were to remove every tangible evidence behind it, such as historical documentation of origin, aligning demographical similarities from the text, language comparisons in neighboring texts, etc.

Basically If every part of the physical evidence in history were removed or forgotten in connection with the Bible Quran, and Tanakh, yet every word in it was the same, would they still be scripture?

For most Hindu and Buddhists scriptures... yes.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Jacob Samuelson

I couldn't take your poll, since it didn't have an option for my view.

What possible evidence is there that any piece of writing is the Word of God? We can believe this or not, but it is a thing of faith, not evidence.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

@Jacob Samuelson

I couldn't take your poll, since it didn't have an option for my view.

What possible evidence is there that any piece of writing is the Word of God? We can believe this or not, but it is a thing of faith, not evidence.

What I'm trying to understand better is how much of that belief is based on evidence or faith. For example, suppose archeologist discover undeniable evidence that a flood occurred at the exact time Noah supposedly built an arc. That scientific proof gives support to the bible's claim. I just want to see how many people would need that scientific support to believe the Bible, or how many would believe the words in Genesis because they were written by a trustworthy Person or God. The cause of belief is what I'm interested in.