The Bible - Why Trust It

[Subduction Zone]

Actually I have, The preface by Gillian Beer was particularly onerous and must have taken a quarter of the dreary tome, bit of a fan-girl I think. I only read it to see what the fuss was about. Darwin spends a lot of time apologising and theorising doesn't mention humans in his work. The appendices, index and reference take up what must be another fifth of the book. All in all a disappointing, shorter than expected work. I suspect Darwin was more of an agnostic that atheist and not very good at it.

So you simply did not understand the work. That is not unusual. Many Christians won't let themselves do so. And yet. many other Christians do and are not threatened by the fact that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. Since the creation myth is a rather immoral story that paints God as being both inept and unjust the theory of evolution makes their belief stronger.

 

[Audie]

So you simply did not understand the work. That is not unusual. Many Christians won't let themselves do so. And yet. many other Christians do and are not threatened by the fact that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. Since the creation myth is a rather immoral story that paints God as being both inept and unjust the theory of evolution makes their belief stronger.

I guess he missed that the "fuss" is from "Christians"
who could not handle having their fairy tale challenged.
He did not need to read the book to find that out.

For those who learned something from Darwin's work
in the day,the new theory about the development of
life proved to be a wonderfully explanatory tool then,
as it is now.

Should a person be critical of a less-than lively read,
they could try the begets and begats in ye OT.
Literature does not get more dreary than that.
Even the BOM fairly dances with style, by comparison.

ETA take off ten points for my quoting the dictionary but-

fuss

1. an excessive display of anxious attention or activity;
2. needless or useless bustle:
3. an argument or noisy dispute:
4. a complaint or protest,

Yup, that does sound like creoattacks on science.

 

[sojourner]

KJV English does Not always convey the meaning we have today.
Worship was in the sense of doing obeisance which is more like showing respect.
Kind of like in some countries where people 'bow' in respect to elders.

Then you need to be more specific in your terms. Do we not do obeisance to God in worship?

 

[Audie]

Then you need to be more specific in your terms. Do we not do obeisance to God in worship?

Obeisance can be a noun or a verb, and both
meanings are applicable.

 

[nPeace]

That seems unfair slander against Archeology and Scientists. If they were not skeptical than the significance of their discovery would be discredited. Nobody would have reason to believe them about the stele discovered in 1993 or any other. Sciences are not supposed to just make things up or wink at lack of evidence, and lashing Archeologists for skepticism? Would you rather have the lollipop guild?

I wasn't aware that it was the scientists and archaeologists that were being referred to as skeptics. Could you point out where you saw that?

 

[nPeace]

What 'small details' are you referring to? Small details like walking on water or healing with a touch or rising from the dead? I don't consider fantastical supernatural details to be small. Even if every single historical detail was verified with numerous secondary sources it would do absolutely nothing to confirm wildly fantastical claims that have no secondary sources.

As for evolution, no one accepts anything about evolution based on accounts written in ancient texts without secondary sources. So I really don't have a clue why you would mention evolution at all.

History: Primary and Secondary Sources
So there was a Great Storm that struck the coast of England, back in 1703.
During that storm, over 8000 lives were lost.

It was reported that at the time of the storm 500 people of one family were wiped out, as they had arrange for a family gathering during that week.
A news paper article - the Daily Report - featured the event on page 2.
Four of the family members had given details of the terrifying event. Their names - Peter, Andrew, James, and John.

As the years rolled by, this story was told and retold, through the family line of those four.


Years later...
The decendants of Peter, Andrew, James, and John, continued to share that event with their offspring.
Eventually people who heard got interested, since in their lifetime, with advanced technology, the loss of life was not that great. So some began to doubt.

So they checked ...
Because we have a reliable way to research, and document events, places, and people who matter - primary and secondary source, during their research, some of those doubters adamantly refused to accept the primary source - the best information, since it came from people who were actually there.
So to verify the facts, they dug deeper... literally.

Finally, it was confirmed - the storm did happen.
However, the doubters were still not convinced. They say, "Okay. So the storm did happen - But 8000 people? Uh Uh. Even if that number is right, your story is bogus. How could 500 family members perish in a storm? I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life. Baa! Stupidity.

Even though family members had an old photo of the newspaper article, which they kept recopying...
It made no difference.
Those scoffers wanted to see with their own eyes, some video footage perhaps, of the 500 being killed. They probably want to see ever cat that drowned, every tree that was ripped apart, ever car that flew...
They wanted to see every single detail in order to believe what the primary source said.

Meanwhile, those family members get on with their lives - knowing they have the facts.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And I thought that the scriptures warned you not to test them.

It did, but Gideon put God through hoops like He was a contestant on Ninja Warrior and Gideon wasn't fried for it.

Map = Bible & creation.
Treasure = God.
Dig dig...

*finishes digging and finds a note* Congratulations, you have won a season pass to a game that was over 1000 years ago. Have fun!

Well I am no god, so I don't consider my mind above the limits of mortals and their machines, but the day man knows everything, is the day I'll take your words seriously.

The day the God of the bible knows everything, I'll take its words seriously.

God: Pffbt. I know everything. I have the best knowledge. No one has a bigger brain than Me.
John the Baptist: A little help here? I seem to have lost my head. You say you can heal anything.
Random biblical hooker: Oh, you poor little snowflake. I was raped and chopped up into little bitty pieces.
God: Uh...
King Hiram: Why does the wisest man on earth need me and my people to build a large rectangle with bricks? Don't you educate your citizens?
God: Math is hard.
Eve: Why am I not made out of dirt?
God: *sighs* Look, the trial version expired and I wasn't about to pay 50 bucks to buy it.
Jesus: Aren't I You? Why am I shocked that gentiles can have faith? Shouldn't I know that instinctively?
God: You guys are just victims of fake news! You just don't understand how good my big brain is.

How would you know that's not a deceiver deceiving you?

You don't even hear from the biblical authors directly (in other words, you read what was supposedly written by them, not interviewing them in person). How do YOU know what they are saying is not deception?

Nevertheless, someone can perfectly impersonate her - so you'll need some kind of secret code which no one else knows.

If someone died with dementia, that they know anything at all would be a red flag, I would think.

All of the Israelites had evidence of God's presence in miracles directly.

At what point? Most biblical miracles only happened to a few people if not just one particular person. "All of the Israelites" didn't see squat.

The apostles had Jesus, and his works, and teachings.

And Jesus berates them for not understanding him at all, but we are supposed to trust their every word.

Whereas I could identify a treasure if I found a real one.

Still subjective, though. Treasure could be just a rock.

Do you have in mind that there is only one such being, and that there are not millions - some good, some bad, some looking to deceive, and very good at doing so.

I'm leaning more towards henotheism nowadays. I just realized I had as much evidence for other Gods as I do my "own". Even if Yahweh were the "correct" One, if you've read the Ba'al Cycle, you realize that which God is the villain depends on who's writing the story down. In the Ba'al Cycle, it is Ba'al, not Yah(weh), who is King of Kings and it is Yah(weh) who is the chaos serpent of the sea who must be destroyed.

Do you see direct miracles - like the sea end rivers parting?

Did the Hebrews, is the actual question.

The Bible has enemies from both without and within.

The bible is not a sentient being. I don't understand why this is honestly believed, this idea that the bible has emotions and desires. There are people who scoff at animists for believing a rock spirit exists, but is perfectly okay with assuming God is the Bible.

Since Adam's downfall, like Adam, we all die.

Things died during Adam's life as well, if he ate anything.

We don't need anyone (a go between) to address God, but since God provided Jesus as ransom for us we ask God for everything through Jesus' name.

But the ransom must not have been paid or we wouldn't need a return visit.

I mean, if I have to call a contractor to fix what was supposed to be done right the first time, I don't want to pay for the bill because the mistake was on the contractor's end.

So, I find that besides God, His Holy Scripture will be left and never be obsolete.

The New Testament exists. Why have it if scripture cannot be made obsolete?

The ^ above ^ reminds me about the people of Acts of the Apostles 17:11 because daily they searched or researched the Scripture to see if what they were learning, what they were hearing, was really found in Scripture.

And it's full of crap because hardly anyone could read and it's not like they all had copies in their bedroom or office even if they COULD.

Idols can be distroyed (say the hold calf)

The funny thing is, while researching for my book, I learned that El and His (male) family were typically represented by bulls. So, essentially, God got angry with the Hebrews for worshiping HIM, forgetting that He was called The Bull. They even put bulls up in the Temple later on. Somehow that time it was okay because "reasons".

BS, someone might say? Keep in mind that tweets of the Declaration of Independence got flagged for hate speech. Clearly, we are dealing with people who don't know their own history, much less anyone else's.

For example: God promised father Abraham that ALL families and ALL nations of Earth will be blessed.

What about all the families and all the nations He cursed instead? The only way it can be said God keeps His promises is if we allow that God has a very short attention span.

You take the Bible in ensemble. One part informs the other...

Star Wars fans seem to disagree with this concept to an alarming detail.

Case in point A side by side apparent contradiction to make you think
Proverbs 26:4-5
4 Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes.

you don't stoop to his level
you correct him with love and help him see the error of his way

So this author AND Jesus AND Paul AND various others are going straight to hell, don't pass Go, don't collect 200 dollars.

Even God, actually:

Luke 12:20 But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?'

Matthew 5:22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, 'You good-for-nothing,' shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

Hell is starting to get rather crowded with biblical characters....

Of course we would Not know about Christ without Scripture.

Why not? Can't Jesus, who supposedly still exists in some fashion, speak for himself?

Jesus can read minds of those around him but can't "upload" the information directly to his audience? He needs people he himself admits don't listen to him to do the news spreading for him? Did Jesus and God go to Trump University?

Yes, there are Jews today in the Soncino which speaks of their disparaging of Christ.

The bible gives critics tons of ammo.

Right. We take literacy for granted. In Jesus’ time (and before), most people couldn’t read, and most writing took place on soft clay tablets. Most things weren’t written down, but transmitted orally. The written word is a comparatively recent development in Christendom.

Yes, it's weird to "justify" the bible as true saying people looked it up, but Christianity brags endlessly that the learned, the only ones who would be able to even DO that, didn't buy the product.

Yet, Disciples fell at Jesus’ feet and worshiped him, and he didn’t correct them...

Jesus is portrayed as being full of himself ever since being a child.

Finally, it was confirmed - the storm did happen.
However, the doubters were still not convinced. They say, "Okay. So the storm did happen - But 8000 people? Uh Uh. Even if that number is right, your story is bogus. How could 500 family members perish in a storm? I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life. Baa! Stupidity.

What happens is more like when you say your ancestry is pure and you take a DNA test and THAT WAS A LIE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

History: Primary and Secondary Sources
So there was a Great Storm that struck the coast of England, back in 1703.
During that storm, over 8000 lives were lost.

It was reported that at the time of the storm 500 people of one family were wiped out, as they had arrange for a family gathering during that week.
A news paper article - the Daily Report - featured the event on page 2.
Four of the family members had given details of the terrifying event. Their names - Peter, Andrew, James, and John.

As the years rolled by, this story was told and retold, through the family line of those four.


Years later...
The decendants of Peter, Andrew, James, and John, continued to share that event with their offspring.
Eventually people who heard got interested, since in their lifetime, with advanced technology, the loss of life was not that great. So some began to doubt.

So they checked ...
Because we have a reliable way to research, and document events, places, and people who matter - primary and secondary source, during their research, some of those doubters adamantly refused to accept the primary source - the best information, since it came from people who were actually there.
So to verify the facts, they dug deeper... literally.

Finally, it was confirmed - the storm did happen.
However, the doubters were still not convinced. They say, "Okay. So the storm did happen - But 8000 people? Uh Uh. Even if that number is right, your story is bogus. How could 500 family members perish in a storm? I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life. Baa! Stupidity.

Even though family members had an old photo of the newspaper article, which they kept recopying...
It made no difference.
Those scoffers wanted to see with their own eyes, some video footage perhaps, of the 500 being killed. They probably want to see ever cat that drowned, every tree that was ripped apart, ever car that flew...
They wanted to see every single detail in order to believe what the primary source said.

Meanwhile, those family members get on with their lives - knowing they have the facts.

I could not find your anecdote in the linked source. Why use that source if it does not confirm your anecdote?

 

[Brickjectivity]

I wasn't aware that it was the scientists and archaeologists that were being referred to as skeptics. Could you point out where you saw that?

Its in the video posted in the OP. The speaker makes several comments against archeology criticizing archeologists for not believing in the existence of king David. Its their job and an important one not to leap to conclusions. Also skepticism is put forward by your post as an attack upon the Bible. This sets up a dynamic in which the Bible is treated as under attack with the attackers as the archeologists in the video. Archeologists may well believe in the existence of the house of David personally but without evidence they ought not declare it as verified. Its not how archeological progress happens. Its Science and therefore is a process of verification and reconsideration. The OP is so hard on Archeology and treats it as a conspiracy against us.

 

[Hawkins]

Part 1 - Historically Accurate

ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE
Skeptics have attacked the Biblical record using the argument from silence. The fact that for many Biblical characters, there is no mention of them outside of the Biblical record in the findings of archeology or ancient inscriptions or manuscripts, calls their historicity into question.

Let me randomly fetch a piece of history for you:

Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, book 2 chapter 2 section 1:
Archelaus went down now to the sea-side, with his mother and his friends, Poplas, and Ptolemy, and Nicolaus, and left behind him Philip, to be his steward in the palace, and to take care of his domestic affairs. Salome went also along with him with her sons, as did also the king's brethren and sons-in-law.

How can this claim be possibly evidenced by archaeology or in anyway? You tell me.

 

[nPeace]

Its in the video posted in the OP. The speaker makes several comments against archeology criticizing archeologists for not believing in the existence of king David. Its their job and an important one not to leap to conclusions. Also skepticism is put forward by your post as an attack upon the Bible. This sets up a dynamic in which the Bible is treated as under attack with the attackers as the archeologists in the video. Archeologists may well believe in the existence of the house of David personally but without evidence they ought not declare it as verified. Its not how archeological progress happens. Its Science and therefore is a process of verification and reconsideration. The OP is so hard on Archeology and treats it as a conspiracy against us.

Sorry about that.
I didn't pay attention to that, in the video.

I always thought of skeptics, as those who disregarded the writings because they doubted its authenticity, at times, despite there being evidence to support some of it.

I actually never thought of the Bible, as a book that needed to be scrutinized in that way, since I grew up just thinking, 'Well it's a religious book, which people chose to base their life, faith, etc. on."

In that light, I never thought it needed any secular inspector checking to see if it were true or not.
I though that would be up to people - the general public - to decide if they wanted to believe it and live by it, or not,
So skeptics in my mind was always 'Biblical scholars' - those who were examining it for themselves, but questioning and challenging various things in it.

Even though I see the Bible as a book like no other, and I firmly believe it in truth contains writings inspired by a supreme intelligence, I saw the Bible in a category sort of like philosophical books, or even magazines containing and presenting expert advice.
Do you know if those usually get scrutinized in the same way, I'm not sure they do. I thought people just picked them up and read them, and decided on the information.

I am learning now though, for the first time that it's bigger than I thought. I guess there are always surprises around some corners.
So in doing some research, I came across these
Historical criticism, also known as the historical-critical method or higher criticism, is a branch of criticism that investigates the origins of ancient texts in order to understand "the world behind the text". While often discussed in terms of Jewish and Christian writings from ancient times, historical criticism has also been applied to other religious writings from various parts of the world and periods of history.

Biblical criticism is a philosophical and methodological approach to studying the Bible, using neutral non-sectarian judgment that began in the mid-eighteenth century in Germany. Leading thinkers were committed to scientific methodology, the importance of history, and skepticism toward tradition. This led philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, and Richard Simon to begin asking questions concerning the origins of the Hebrew Bible.

So now I am getting... the bigger picture.
So in future, I will be using a different approach. I'll be saying, 'Even though rigorously tested...'

Sorry for the offense, and thanks for the heads-up.

 

[nPeace]

Let me randomly fetch a piece of history for you:

Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, book 2 chapter 2 section 1:
Archelaus went down now to the sea-side, with his mother and his friends, Poplas, and Ptolemy, and Nicolaus, and left behind him Philip, to be his steward in the palace, and to take care of his domestic affairs. Salome went also along with him with her sons, as did also the king's brethren and sons-in-law.

How can this claim be possibly evidenced by archaeology or in anyway? You tell me.

I'm trying to understand what you are asking, but not succeeding.
Could you elaborate a bit on it?

 

[QuestioningMind]

History: Primary and Secondary Sources
So there was a Great Storm that struck the coast of England, back in 1703.
During that storm, over 8000 lives were lost.

It was reported that at the time of the storm 500 people of one family were wiped out, as they had arrange for a family gathering during that week.
A news paper article - the Daily Report - featured the event on page 2.
Four of the family members had given details of the terrifying event. Their names - Peter, Andrew, James, and John.

As the years rolled by, this story was told and retold, through the family line of those four.


Years later...
The decendants of Peter, Andrew, James, and John, continued to share that event with their offspring.
Eventually people who heard got interested, since in their lifetime, with advanced technology, the loss of life was not that great. So some began to doubt.

So they checked ...
Because we have a reliable way to research, and document events, places, and people who matter - primary and secondary source, during their research, some of those doubters adamantly refused to accept the primary source - the best information, since it came from people who were actually there.
So to verify the facts, they dug deeper... literally.

Finally, it was confirmed - the storm did happen.
However, the doubters were still not convinced. They say, "Okay. So the storm did happen - But 8000 people? Uh Uh. Even if that number is right, your story is bogus. How could 500 family members perish in a storm? I've never heard of anything more ridiculous in my life. Baa! Stupidity.

Even though family members had an old photo of the newspaper article, which they kept recopying...
It made no difference.
Those scoffers wanted to see with their own eyes, some video footage perhaps, of the 500 being killed. They probably want to see ever cat that drowned, every tree that was ripped apart, ever car that flew...
They wanted to see every single detail in order to believe what the primary source said.

Meanwhile, those family members get on with their lives - knowing they have the facts.

Thanks for sharing your little story. Now, care to tell me what it has to do with what I wrote? It does NOTHING to address the fantastical claims made in the bible. Nor does it answer why you felt compelled to mention evolution.

 

[nPeace]

Thanks for sharing your little story. Now, care to tell me what it has to do with what I wrote? It does NOTHING to address the fantastical claims made in the bible. Nor does it answer why you felt compelled to mention evolution.

I don't know what more I can say to help you with that. This is your second repeat of your first, and this would make the second time I try to simplify it. Sorry.

Concerning why I mentioned evolution. There are many huge unfilled gaps, missing links, in the evolution theory. For example, a primary one - Universal Common Ancestor. No one can explain how it could have happened - they just speculate on the many possibilities. No one is aware of any tested method that show how life could originate on its own. Yet, it's readily accepted.

On the other hand those same individuals are asking for details on supernatural and miraculous events, when there are many simple answers given to the origin of life among other things - things which really do not contradict science.

I hope that's clear.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I don't know what more I can say to help you with that. This is your second repeat of your first, and this would make the second time I try to simplify it. Sorry.

Concerning why I mentioned evolution. There are many huge unfilled gaps, missing links, in the evolution theory. For example, a primary one - Universal Common Ancestor. No one can explain how it could have happened - they just speculate on the many possibilities. No one is aware of any tested method that show how life could originate on its own. Yet, it's readily accepted.

On the other hand those same individuals are asking for details on supernatural and miraculous events, when there are many simple answers given to the origin of life among other things - things which really do not contradict science.

I hope that's clear.

Sadly, it's not. First off, evolution has NOTHING to do with how life originated. It's simply the process by which less complex lifeforms develop into more complex lifeforms over time. And are you somehow surprised that there remain gaps in the fossil records? Do you have any clue how rare it is for an animal's bones to fossilize in the first place? It's actually remarkable that we've been able to find and track the evolution of the number of species that we have via fossil records.

As for simplifying your response, posting a story about a family that got killed in a flood without attempting to clarify what it has to do with my original post is NOT simplifying. In fact, it appears to be an attempt to distract from the original question.

Why would you think that an HISTORICAL event that is mentioned in the bible getting verified by historians in any way shape or form suggests that the FANTASTICAL claims of walking on water and rising from the dead are accurate as well?

 

[nPeace]

Sadly, it's not. First off, evolution has NOTHING to do with how life originated. It's simply the process by which less complex lifeforms develop into more complex lifeforms over time. And are you somehow surprised that there remain gaps in the fossil records? Do you have any clue how rare it is for an animal's bones to fossilize in the first place? It's actually remarkable that we've been able to find and track the evolution of the number of species that we have via fossil records.

As for simplifying your response, posting a story about a family that got killed in a flood without attempting to clarify what it has to do with my original post is NOT simplifying. In fact, it appears to be an attempt to distract from the original question.

Why would you think that an HISTORICAL event that is mentioned in the bible getting verified by historians in any way shape or form suggests that the FANTASTICAL claims of walking on water and rising from the dead are accurate as well?

Sorry. I don't have the energy.
Not meaning to sound blunt either.
Feel free to view it as you wish.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Sorry. I don't have the energy.
Not meaning to sound blunt either.
Feel free to view it as you wish.

I'll keep that in mind. You like to make OP's, but it's too exhausting for you to have to answer responses to your Ops.

 

[nPeace]

I'll keep that in mind. You like to make OP's, but it's too exhausting for you to have to answer responses to your Ops.

I answered you twice. Why don't you understand?
Why don't you start then by telling me what you do understand.

 

[whirlingmerc]

It did, but Gideon put God through hoops like He was a contestant on Ninja Warrior and Gideon wasn't fried for it

God looks on the heart ... if his motives were disrespectful he might have been toast

Jesus answered all sincere questions. Tricks and traps... not so much

 

[Thaif]

So you simply did not understand the work. That is not unusual. Many Christians won't let themselves do so. And yet. many other Christians do and are not threatened by the fact that the Adam and Eve story is a myth. Since the creation myth is a rather immoral story that paints God as being both inept and unjust the theory of evolution makes their belief stronger.

I guess I'm not one of those guys then. I like to think I can read English even the kind that was written a couple of hundred years ago. I think you are mistaking "understand" with "accept as truth", if that is the case, then sure, you have me spot on.