Is the Bible Really True?

[Brandywine]

I'd like to see scientific proof that Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. You don't use science to answer these kinds of questions. You use history.

Can I ask if you have scientific proof that Moses parted the Red Sea? Do you have scientific proof that the walls of Jericho actually fell because of Joshua? Do you have scientific proof that Jonah spent three days in the belly of a whale? Or that Daniel spent time in a lion's den? Or that Jesus raised Lazarus? Or that Jesus walked on water?

I'd love to see scientific proof of any one of these stories.

 

[Brandywine]

The camel was not "introduced." It was domesticated. It probably took place in different places at different times, and was no doubt rare for a very long time after it was first domesticated. All archaeology can tell us is when it became common, not when it first happened. We wouldn't expect to find evidence of it until it was a fairly common practice.

True. The Bible was effectivaly debunked ever since there was mention of camals during a period prior to the actual introduction of the animals. Christians have been in denial ever since that evidence was revealed. It leaves little doubt that eyewitness testimony was fabricated.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The camel was not "introduced." It was domesticated. It probably took place in different places at different times, and was no doubt rare for a very long time after it was first domesticated. All archaeology can tell us is when it became common, not when it first happened. We wouldn't expect to find evidence of it until it was a fairly common practice.

No. Introduced.

Domestication already occured in other parts of the world by which there was no actual introduction of the animals in Israel as the Bible alledges for which is why it's effectively debunked based on the findings.

Camel archaeology contradicts the Bible | The Times of Israel

 

[roger1440]

And finally, do you believe the Bible to be true? If so what proof do you have?

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31) What type of proof would demonstrate that is a way to go?

 

[maggie2]

myth

noun
noun: myth; plural noun: myths

1. 1.
   a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

Not sure what point you are trying to make? I realize what a myth is, so are you saying the Bible is myth or it is not myth? Or are you saying something else entirely?

 

[maggie2]

“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31) What type of proof would demonstrate that is a way to go?

I don't think you can prove that to be true, although I think it is a great truth. However, for me, that does not prove that the Bible is true in every word.

 

[maggie2]

I'd like to see scientific proof that Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. You don't use science to answer these kinds of questions. You use history.

I asked that question about scientific proof of another poster who had said

I've always found the Bible to be scientifically accurate.

I do not expect there to be any scientific proof, but I was making the point that I also don't think that the Bible is scientifically accurate. And you are right, I guess there is no scientific proof that Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. As to using history, I agree. However, the history of the early years of Christianity is very varied, particularly when it comes to what Jesus said and did. So I'm not convinced that the history is totally accurate.

 

[roger1440]

I don't think you can prove that to be true, although I think it is a great truth. However, for me, that does not prove that the Bible is true in every word.

How can something not be “true”, yet be a ”great truth”? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

 

[maggie2]

How can something not be “true”, yet be a ”great truth”? Wouldn’t that be a contradiction?

No, it isn't necessarily a contradiction. If, for example, Jesus was a myth and not a real human, that makes the Bible not true. However, there were many sayings of Jesus that have value and hold great truth, for example, "love your neighbor as yourself." So while that, to me, is a great truth, the Bible may not factually be true.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., the Bible may not factually be true.

The 'Bible' is a multi-layered mosaic. Unless you're polemicizing against literalism, your yes/no question is essential worthless.

 

[roger1440]

Jesus was a myth and not a real human

The Bible also says Samson beat up 1,000 Philistines with a jaw bone. I find it unlikely that actually happened. But I’m not saying I believe Samson is a myth. There is a huge difference. If we read between the lines of the Samson story we will find Samson got his strength not from his hair, but by putting his trust in God.

 

[roger1440]

Jesus was a myth and not a real human

How do you know this? There isn’t enough evidence to prove or disprove his existence. The most I can say is that there is a likelihood he existed. I’m not saying he walked around with a bag of magic tricks, that’s another story in itself.

 

[leibowde84]

I'd like to see scientific proof that Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. You don't use science to answer these kinds of questions. You use history.

We have 1st person testimony of Lincoln's speeches from people who actualy heard them. When it comes to the Bible, all we have is hearsay, which doesn't provide nearly as much evidence.

 

[Kolibri]

We have 1st person testimony of Lincoln's speeches from people who actualy heard them. When it comes to the Bible, all we have is hearsay, which doesn't provide nearly as much evidence.

In 2000 years we may very well call Lincoln's eyewitnesses unverifiable. But then again maybe not. Perhaps the very reason why the Bible is doubted so very much is because it is a work of religious history and not a work of secular history?

Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, or so-called New Testament, Bible scholar F. F. Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He also said: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.” - A3 How the Bible Came to Us — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

 

[leibowde84]

In 2000 years we may very well call Lincoln's eyewitnesses unverifiable. But then again maybe not. Perhaps the very reason why the Bible is doubted so very much is because it is a work of religious history and not a work of secular history?

Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, or so-called New Testament, Bible scholar F. F. Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He also said: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.” - A3 How the Bible Came to Us — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

FF Bruce wrote that over 70 years ago, so I would take a look at more more modern accounts, as Biblical Skeptics have gained quite a bit of ground since then. Not to mention, I believe Bruce is a Christian, so it might be beneficial to look at some secular skeptics as well.

 

[leibowde84]

In 2000 years we may very well call Lincoln's eyewitnesses unverifiable. But then again maybe not. Perhaps the very reason why the Bible is doubted so very much is because it is a work of religious history and not a work of secular history?

Regarding the Christian Greek Scriptures, or so-called New Testament, Bible scholar F. F. Bruce wrote: “The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning.” He also said: “If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.” - A3 How the Bible Came to Us — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

But, all in all, Lincoln wrote down things. Jesus did not. All we have in regards to Jesus is what people claim he said. No matter how you reconcile this, it is pretty unstable.

 

[maggie2]

The Bible also says Samson beat up 1,000 Philistines with a jaw bone. I find it unlikely that actually happened. But I’m not saying I believe Samson is a myth. There is a huge difference. If we read between the lines of the Samson story we will find Samson got his strength not from his hair, but by putting his trust in God.

You completely quoted me out of context. What I actually said was: If, for example, Jesus was a myth and not a real human. I did not say Jesus was a myth at all so please don't misquote me.

 

[maggie2]

How do you know this? There isn’t enough evidence to prove or disprove his existence. The most I can say is that there is a likelihood he existed. I’m not saying he walked around with a bag of magic tricks, that’s another story in itself.

Again, you have misquoted me. However, as to your question, I agree that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove his existence. That's why I said earlier, somewhere in these pages of this thread that I'm on the fence as to whether or not he existed.

 

[outhouse]

Jesus was a myth and not a real human

he should have used this "" If, for example, "" in his quote he did misquote you

BUT

He was a real human being and there is almost near consensus among scholars that he existed.


It is stated as fact as can be he was crucified, and baptized by John.


Most of what you stated is based of lack of education in the field, there is only a small handful of mythicist that actually have any biblical training.

Most are crack pots with no credible education in the field they discuss.

 

[outhouse]

I agree that there isn't enough evidence to prove or disprove his existence

Plenty to prove his existence, none that can disprove.

Not one of his enemies or the movements enemies stated, he never existed.

And the lack of a credible replacement hypothesis that explains the evidence we do have, even if the evidence is weak, is still required, and to date some sharp people have tried and failed at doing this.