The Bible - Why Trust It

[shunyadragon]

There is no big issue with the flood account. None whatsoever.
In the first place, I will repeat what I said before, the Bible, from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21, is about a supernatural being - God... describing his dealings with the nation of Israel; with his only begotten son, and followers of his anointed, or appointed one - Jesus the Messiah.

The thing about Genesis - particularly creation, and the fall of man... this is a valuable piece of history, which sets the theme for all the scriptures, and the characters (Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Judah, Moses, Ruth, Esther, David, Solomon, Judah, Jesus, John), and events (Passover initiation, Temple arrangement, and hundreds more, leading to Jesus's ministry, death, and resurrection) throughout the Bible.

Therefore, the fact that the Bible is not one book written by one person, or a group living during the same period... but rather, is a collection of historical accounts, penned by some 40 different men, from various backgrounds, and walks of life, over a period of 1600 years, describing supernatural events, and prophecies... is compelling evidence that the Bible is divinely authored, as it claims.

With this one proof alone, one has a solid basis for all the historical evidence, as well as the other evidence - both internal, and external.

There is no proof here, nor external evidence for any of the above.

Regarding the Exodus
Since Exodus continues the sacred story of the divine promise to Israel begun in Genesis, it must be seen as part of a larger literary unit that is variously understood to include the first four, five, or six books of the Bible.
.............Each of these strands preserves materials much older than the time of their incorporation into a written work. Exodus thus conserves extremely old oral and written history.

Although Biblical scholars and archaeologists argue about various aspects of Israel’s Exodus from Egypt, many of them agree that the Exodus occurred in some form or another.

The question “Did the Exodus happen” then becomes “When did the Exodus happen?”
When Did the Exodus Happen?

The most persistent problem facing the field of biblical archaeology is the date of the Israelite exodus from Egypt and the subsequent conquest/settlement of the land of Canaan.

Much of the evidence for the exodus is circumstantial, and could go different directions. However, there is evidence - strong internal evidence, but we have supporting evidence of an external kind also.
Attacking the Pentateuch is no help to you. In the same way the dynasty of king David in 10th century BC caused you to scramble for Genesis and Exodus, I am sure evidence will turn up that will leave you clinging to the flood with just your fingers. Just wait.

Internal evidence is not meaningful, as in ancient stories of Medusa and dragons.

Problem here is a severe arguing from ignorance in the bold, which is not sufficient to justify any thing including Medusa nor dragons.

NO, many scholars do not accept Genesis in one form nor another,

 

[Nimos]

However, they don't realize that by accepting two proofs of his existence, they actually confirm the reliability of the scriptures.
How so? The scriptures are linked and intertwined, so when one accepts Jesus' baptism by John the baptist, and Jesus' crucifixion by Pontius Pilate, then prophecy is confirmed both from the ancient prophets, and those living prior to Jesus' birth.

The same passages where these accounts are found, contain references to events leading up to them, which explains why, how, when, and where they were to take place. So they would be confirmation of the reliability of the entire collection of documents, from Genesis to Revelation. It thus confirms the divine origin of the scriptures.
Just one example of hundreds... Acts 8:26-35 Compare John 1:29, 35, 36

But it does not proof that Jesus was the son of God or did the miracles that he claim to have done. That Jesus were crucified is not unlikely because we know that the Romans did these things.

I do not see, how these passages would be confirmations of the reliability of the rest of the bible? can you elaborate on that?

Which of the morals taught by Jesus, in the Gospels, do you find to be not good?

Luke 6:27
27 "But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you.

Matthew 5:28
28 But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 15:3-4
3 But he answered them, "Why do you also disregard the commandment of God because of your tradition?
4 Because God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.'

These are some of the ones I find to be bad.

You don't know why I find that funny. It's more than funny. It's beyond ridiculously hilarious.
Imagine... Men push off shore in a boat. Then suddenly a storm bears down on them, and the poor men are frantically rowing, not realizing they are actually practically on the sand. How absurd. And that's not even the half of it.
By the way, I took the time to carefully read all of it... except for the last few paragraphs, so perhaps you have a good reason why you assume I didn't. Would you mind sharing that reason?

I understand that you found the stories funny, I did as well. But you made it sound like it was Bart Ehrman who claimed these things, which it weren't. Which were what I reacted to.

Professor John R. Brobeck of the University of Pennsylvania stated: “A scientist is no longer able to say honestly something is impossible. He can only say it is improbable. But he may be able to say something is impossible to explain in terms of our present knowledge. Science cannot say that all properties of matter and all forms of energy are now known. . . . [For a miracle] one thing that needs to be added is a source of energy unknown to us in our biological and physiological sciences. In our Scriptures this source of energy is identified as the power of God.” (Time, July 4, 1955) Since this statement was made, further scientific development has made it more emphatic.

I don't think there is anything especially wrong with what this guy is saying. And no one, as far as I know, is trying to stop anyone from trying to discover this power of God that he refers to.

But there is just no viable data or indications that such energy exist, that would make it interesting in a scientific circle. Where do one observe this energy, how does it express it self? How do we measure it, so we can learn about it? etc.

It seems to use an opposite approach than what science does.

1. We assume that the power of God exists.
2. Now what?

Whereas a scientific approach if we use dark matter as an example, would be something like this:

1. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and that it has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and so it is undetectable by existing astronomical instruments.

2. Primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing that many galaxies would fly apart, or that they would not have formed or would not move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter. Other lines of evidence include observations in gravitational lensing and in the cosmic microwave background, along with astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure, the formation and evolution of galaxies, mass location during galactic collisions, and the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters.
.
3. Therefore we don't assume that dark matter exists, but observations that we have made, that we can't explain, have given rise to the theory of dark matter existing. And therefore we are trying to figure out if that is the case or not. And it might turn out that it doesn't and it is something completely different.

So there is a huge difference in how one approach these things. Because in science you don't start by saying something exist, because you think it ought to and then try to fit evidence into it as best as you can.

In regards to miracles, what are the observations or the unexplained that requires or lead to the power of God being needed? Do you see why its a backwards approach compared to any scientific approach?

By doing this, you would probably destroy most criterion that Biblical scholars can use.
Thankfully you don't get to decide, as you are demonstrating that this is not an area you are very familiar with.
Your guy Bart, uses them.

Its a well known critic of that criterion, nothing wrong with that. Im simply saying that it is not a bulletproof argument.

Matthew and John were eyewitnesses.

I highly doubt John were a eyewitness. Due to how the gospel is written. In fact, I would say that about all the gospels. But to just focus on John.

John 18:33-35
33 So Pilate went back into the governor's headquarters, summoned Jesus, and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
34 Jesus replied, "Are you asking this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about me?"
35 Pilate replied, "I am not a Jew, am I? It is your own nation and high priests who have handed you over to me. What have you done?"
.....
...

There is no way on earth that the Gospel writer would have known what Pilate and Jesus were talking about, yet he write it as if he were a fly on the wall. And especially this Gospel is filled with these types of dialogs, where this writer would not have been present.

So to me at least, the way these gospels are written holds more evidence for them not being eyewitnesses compared to a claim made at the end of the gospel.

What makes you think that Matthew were an eyewitness, in the gospel that is? Did the majority of the modern scholars get the date wrong or did he write it like 50 to 80 years later?
Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view), and although early Christian tradition attributes it to the apostle Matthew, this is rejected by modern scholars.

The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely between AD 30 and 33

Scientists make inferences of things they don't observe. They rely on their experience and previous observations. Do you consider that solid evidence?

Without know what we are talking about I can't really answer that. And even if I did, the chance I would know a lot of details about a given "science" to know it, is fairly slim.

Can you explain what a main scholar is? I don't know of any such thing.

I refer to those that are teaching at universities and other acknowledged schools of education. So Im not referring to PaulTheApostle97 on youtube, or some random person that have an opinion. Just as when Wikipedia write "Most scholars" I do the same. If its good enough for them its good enough for me But maybe I should have used "most" rather than "main". As I can see how that can be misunderstood.

2. When one understands what faith is, they have no problem with a man traveling to the ends of the earth to find a man he heard about, that can not only heal the sick, but raise the dead.

If people knew of one doctor who could do both, they would leave the bedside of their dying relative, in search of that doctor. That is sensible.

Im sorry, but even what you write here makes no sense. But if I should play along with it.

If the person knows that Jesus can raise the dead and his daughter is going to die regardless of him staying with her or not. Why not stay with her until she is dead and give her some comfort and care. And then go find Jesus afterwards?

Nothing could stop God's will from taking place, and man could still exercise his own free will.

So a person couldn't use his free will to kill Jesus when he was a child? If God is going to prevent it, then how is that free will?

Those people all believe in their cause.

Im pretty sure, I wrote that I didn't claim that they were lying. But that they might be so convinced of Jesus being who he was that they ran with it. I don't see a huge different from them doing it, to what people does today that choose to follow Jesus due to a similar conviction as them.

Yet, I might be wrong. But still I think its relevant to again draw attention to terrorists that blow themselves up or go out shooting people for what they believe in. How do you explain that?

 

[nPeace]

Something I think is sort of interesting. From the beginning of the Revolt against Rome to the fall of Massada was seven years. Wonder if that is what the author of Revelation was writing about after the fact when he speaks of a seven year tribulation?

I think you would only be doing what Christians have been accused of - interpreting the text, the way one wants it to be.
Revelation is clearly not about the past, in any shape, form, or fashion. However, skeptics will argue otherwise, but we will see. Some won't like what they see, but it would not be anyone's fault, but theirs.
Revelation is completely prophetic... for the 19th century, and beyond.
Revelation 1:1-3

 

[nPeace]

There is no proof here, nor external evidence for any of the above.


Internal evidence is not meaningful, as in ancient stories of Medusa and dragons.

Problem here is a severe arguing from ignorance in the bold, which is not sufficient to justify any thing including Medusa nor dragons.

NO, many scholars do not accept Genesis in one form nor another,

There is proof... and you can't disprove it,

 

[shunyadragon]

There is proof... and you can't disprove it,

A classic example of logical fallacy. In logic, science, it is up to the one making the positive claim to offer the evidence for their argument. Your horrendous misuse of the concept of 'proof' is epidemic. Proof is only valid in sound logical arguments and that does not mean it is true.

All you have made is subjective anecdotal claims based at best third hand 'personal' testimony, not objective evidence.

 

[nPeace]

Some studies of David have been written: Baruch Halpern has pictured David as a lifelong vassal of Achish, the Philistine king of Gath;[89] Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman have identified as the oldest and most reliable section of Samuel those chapters which describe David as the charismatic leader of a band of outlaws who captures Jerusalem and makes it his capital.[90] Steven McKenzie, Associate Professor of the Hebrew Bible at Rhodes College and author of King David: A Biography, argues that David came from a wealthy family, was "ambitious and ruthless" and a tyrant who murdered his opponents, including his own sons.[72]

Critical Bible scholarship holds that the biblical account of David's rise to power is a political apology—an answer to contemporary charges against him, of his involvement in murders and regicide.[91]

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman reject the idea that David ruled over a united monarchy, suggesting instead that he ruled only as a chieftain over the southern kingdom of Judah, much smaller than the northern kingdom of Israel at that time.[92] They posit that Israel and Judah were still polytheistic or henotheistic in the time of David and Solomon, and that much later seventh-century redactors sought to portray a past golden age of a united, monotheistic monarchy in order to serve contemporary needs.[93] They note a lack of archeological evidence for David's military campaigns and a relative underdevelopment of Jerusalem, the capital of Judah, compared to a more developed and urbanized Samaria, capital of Israel.[94][95][96]

Jacob L. Wright, Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at Emory University, has written that the most popular legends about David, including his killing of Goliath, his affair with Bathsheba, and his ruling of a United Kingdom of Israel rather than just Judah, are the creation of those who lived generations after him, in particular those living in the late Persian or Hellenistic periods.[97]

History of interpretation in the Abrahamic religions


David - Wikipedia

I hope you did note the words you have in bold type.
I'm am sure you know what an interpretation is.
Hopefully you also take note of the number of suggestions offered.
My response therefore is... So?

What suggestion do you offer?
My suggestion is, people can believe whatever they want. Some prefer to believe a bunch of modern day "blokes" who can only guess at best, and "fight" with each other over which opinion is better, rather than accept what was recorded by people who were there, or had access to written records kept by people living a few years later.

For example, written records were kept of the kings that reigned. That is how accurate accounts are reported.
Then there are the external sources.

Timeline showing the kings of Israel and Judah according to the chronology from Edwin R. Thiele. Kings that are known from contemporary extra-biblical sources are highlighted in yellow. Tentatively identified kings are highlighted in orange.

You don't believe those records in the Bible, but you prefer to believe people's conflicting views that they sit down and. "Um... So... I think.... Uh... Perhaps.... Maybe.... It looks like..." LOL

Why would a person exclude a prime character, just because they have very little evidence outside the documents that relate that person's history, especially when characters and events associated with the individual have been confirmed?
List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources - Wikipedia
David, or more accurately his eponymous royal house, is mentioned in the Tel Dan Stele
In my opinion, that only make sense if the person has an opinionated bias against the Bible.

David - Wikipedia
The Tel Dan Stele, an inscribed stone erected by a king of Damascus in the late 9th/early 8th centuries BCE to commemorate his victory over two enemy kings, contains the phrase Hebrew: ביתדוד‎, bytdwd, which most scholars translate as "House of David". Other scholars, such as Anson Rainey have challenged this reading, but it is likely that this is a reference to a dynasty of the Kingdom of Judah which traced its ancestry to a founder named David.
The Mesha Stele from Moab, dating from approximately the same period, may also contain the name David in two places, although this is less certain than the mention in the Tel Dan inscription.

Now that we are here...
It would be nice if honesty was as abundant as water, but we know this is not the case in this world under a curse, with Satan as it's ruler... but it would be refreshing to me if some just admitted, "I hate the Bible. I only pretend to believe some of it, and I really don't believe in God, but I only say I do, to try and keep one foot in the door, just in case, and if not that, to give people an impression that I am godly.... Sort of like Donald Trump... but honestly, my faith is in science, and belief in the religion of theories such as Evolution, promoted by the gods of this materialist paradise, such as Charles Darwin, and Richard Dawkins, and established by the scientific community.

 

[nPeace]

How we know that those who refer to the Pentateuch as mythical, or made up stories, don't really believe the Bible... at all, nor the truth about Jesus Christ.
According to Jesus and his apostles Moses was a real person - a man who was divinely directed, and wrote the things found in the Torah.
All of the following scriptures show this, but the undeniable scriptures bearing this out, are clearly marked.

(Matthew 19:7, 8) 7 They said to him: “Why, then, did Moses direct giving a certificate of dismissal and divorcing her?” 8 He said to them: “Out of regard for your hard-heartedness, Moses made the concession to you of divorcing your wives, but that has not been the case from the beginning.
(Mark 12:26) But concerning the dead being raised up, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account about the thornbush, that God said to him: ‘I am the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob’?
(Luke 2:22-24) 22 Also, when the time came for purifying them according to the Law of Moses, they brought him up to Jerusalem to present him to Jehovah, 23 just as it is written in Jehovah’s Law: “Every firstborn male must be called holy to Jehovah.”
(Luke 20:37) But that the dead are raised up, even Moses made known in the account about the thornbush, when he calls Jehovah ‘the God of Abraham and God of Isaac and God of Jacob.’
(Luke 24:27) And starting with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them things pertaining to himself in all the Scriptures. . .
(Luke 24:44) He then said to them: “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.”
(John 1:14-18) 17 Because the Law was given through Moses, the undeserved kindness and the truth came to be through Jesus Christ. 18 No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him.
(John 1:45) Philip found Nathanael and said to him: “We have found the one of whom Moses, in the Law, and the Prophets wrote: Jesus, the son of Joseph, from Nazareth.”
(John 3:13-15) 13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but the one who descended from heaven, the Son of man. 14 And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up, 15 so that everyone believing in him may have everlasting life.
(John 5:45-47) 45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one who accuses you, Moses, in whom you have put your hope. 46 In fact, if you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe what I say?”
(John 6:30-34) 31 Our forefathers ate the manna in the wilderness, just as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’” 32 Jesus then said to them: “Most truly I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is the one who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.” 34 So they said to him: “Lord, always give us this bread.”
(John 7:19-23) 19 Moses gave you the Law, did he not? But not one of you obeys the Law. Why are you seeking to kill me?” 22 For this reason Moses has given you circumcision - not that it is from Moses, but it is from the forefathers - and you circumcise a man on a sabbath. 23 If a man receives circumcision on a sabbath so that the Law of Moses may not be broken, are you violently angry at me because I made a man completely well on a sabbath?
(John 9:28-33) 28 At this they scornfully told him: “You are a disciple of that man, but we are disciples of Moses. 29 We know that God has spoken to Moses, but as for this man, we do not know where he is from.” 33 If this man were not from God, he could do nothing at all.”
(Acts 3:22-26) 22 In fact, Moses said: ‘Jehovah your God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me. You must listen to whatever he tells you. 23 Indeed, anyone who does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.’ 24 And all the prophets from Samuel and those who followed him, as many as have spoken, have also plainly declared these days.
(Acts 6:8-14) 8 Now Stephen, full of divine favor and power, was performing great wonders and signs among the people. 0 But they could not hold their own against the wisdom and the spirit with which he was speaking. 11 Then they secretly persuaded men to say: “We have heard him speaking blasphemous things against Moses and God.”
(Acts 6:8-7:60) 14 For instance, we have heard him say that this Jesus the Nazareneʹ will throw down this place and change the customs that Moses handed down to us.”
2 Stephen replied: “Men, brothers and fathers, listen. The God of glory appeared to our forefather Abraham while he was in Mesopotamia, before he took up residence in Haran, 3 and he said to him: ‘Go out from your land and from your relatives and come into the land that I will show you.’
6 Moreover, God told him that his offspring would be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people would enslave them and afflict them for 400 years. 7 ‘And that nation for which they will slave I will judge,’ God said, ‘and after these things they will come out and will offer sacred service to me in this place.’
9 And the family heads became jealous of Joseph and sold him into Egypt. But God was with him, 10 and he rescued him out of all his tribulations and gave him favor and wisdom before Pharaoh king of Egypt. And he appointed him to govern Egypt and his whole house.
14 So Joseph sent a message and called his father Jacob and all his relatives from that place, 75 persons in all. 15 So Jacob went down into Egypt, and he died there, and so did our forefathers.
17 “Just as the time was approaching to fulfill the promise that God had announced to Abraham, the people grew and multiplied in Egypt, 18 until there rose a different king over Egypt, one who did not know of Joseph. 19 This one dealt cunningly with our race and wrongfully forced the fathers to abandon their infants so that they would not be kept alive. 20 At that time Moses was born, and he was divinely beautiful. And he was nursed for three months in his father’s home. 22 So Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians. In fact, he was powerful in his words and deeds.
35 This same Moses whom they had disowned, saying: ‘Who appointed you ruler and judge?’ is the very one God sent as both ruler and deliverer by means of the angel who appeared to him in the thornbush. 36 This man led them out, performing wonders and signs in Egypt and at the Red Sea and in the wilderness for 40 years. 37 “This is the Moses who said to the sons of Israel: ‘God will raise up for you from among your brothers a prophet like me.’ 38 This is the one who came to be among the congregation in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai and with our forefathers, and he received living sacred pronouncements to give us.
45 And our forefathers received possession of it and brought it in with Joshua into the land possessed by the nations, whom God drove out from before our forefathers. Here it remained until the days of David. 46 He found favor in the sight of God and asked for the privilege of providing a dwelling place for the God of Jacob. 47 But it was Solomon who built a house for him.
52 Which one of the prophets did your forefathers not persecute? Yes, they killed those who announced in advance the coming of the righteous one, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become, 53 you who received the Law as transmitted by angels but have not kept it.”

So much. i had to split it.

 

[nPeace]

(Acts 13:38-42) 38 “Let it therefore be known to you, brothers, that through this one a forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you, 39 and that from all the things from which you could not be declared guiltless by means of the Law of Moses, everyone who believes is declared guiltless by means of this one. 40 Therefore, watch out that what is said in the Prophets does not come upon you:
(Acts 15:21) For from ancient times Moses has had those who preach him in city after city, because he is read aloud in the synagogues on every sabbath.”
(Acts 26:22, 23) 22 However, because I have experienced the help that is from God, I continue to this day bearing witness to both small and great, saying nothing except what the Prophets as well as Moses stated was going to take place— 23 that the Christ was to suffer and that as the first to be resurrected from the dead, he was going to proclaim light both to this people and to the nations.”
(Acts 28:23-28) 23 They now arranged for a day to meet with him, and they came in even greater numbers to him in his lodging place. And from morning to evening, he explained the matter to them by bearing thorough witness concerning the Kingdom of God, to persuade them about Jesus from both the Law of Moses and the Prophets. 24 Some began to believe the things he said; others would not believe.
(Romans 5:14) Nevertheless, death ruled as king from Adam down to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the same way that Adam transgressed, who bears a resemblance to the one who was to come.
(Romans 10:4, 5) 4 For Christ is the end of the Law, so that everyone exercising faith may have righteousness. 5 For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the Law: “The man who does these things will live by means of them.”
(Romans 10:19) First Moses says: “I will incite you to jealousy through that which is not a nation; I will incite you to violent anger through a foolish nation.”
(1 Corinthians 9:8, 9) 8 Am I saying these things from a human viewpoint? Or does not the Law also say these things? 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “You must not muzzle a bull when it is threshing out the grain.” . . .
(1 Corinthians 10:1-5) 1 Now I want you to know, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea 2 and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock meant the Christ.
(2 Corinthians 3:7-18) 7 Now if the code that administers death and that was engraved in letters on stones came with such glory that the sons of Israel could not gaze at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, a glory that was to be done away with,
11 For if what was to be done away with was brought in with glory, how much greater would be the glory of what remains! 12 Since we have such a hope, we are using great freeness of speech, 13 and not doing what Moses did when he would put a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel might not gaze intently at the end of what was to be done away with. 14 But their minds were dulled. For to this present day, the same veil remains unlifted when the old covenant is read, because it is taken away only by means of Christ. 15 In fact, to this day whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their hearts. 16 But when one turns to Jehovah, the veil is taken away. 17 Now Jehovah is the Spirit, and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.
(2 Timothy 3:1-13) 8 Now in the way that Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these also go on opposing the truth. Such men are completely corrupted in mind, disapproved as regards the faith. 9 Nevertheless, they will make no further progress, for their folly will be very plain to all, as it was with those two men. 12 In fact, all those desiring to live with godly devotion in association with Christ Jesus will also be persecuted. 13 But wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse, misleading and being misled.
(Hebrews 3:1-6) 1 Consequently, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle and high priest whom we acknowledge - Jesus. 2 He was faithful to the One who appointed him, just as Moses also was in all the house of that One. 3 For he is counted worthy of more glory than Moses, since the one who constructs a house has more honor than the house itself. 4 Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God. 5 Now Moses was faithful as an attendant in all the house of that One as a testimony of the things that were to be spoken afterward, 6 but Christ was faithful as a son over God’s house. We are His house if, indeed, we hold on firmly to our freeness of speech and the hope of which we boast down to the end.
(Hebrews 3:16-19) 16 For who heard and yet provoked him to bitter anger? Was it not, in fact, all those who went out of Egypt under Moses? 17 Moreover, with whom did God become disgusted for 40 years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose dead bodies fell in the wilderness?
(Hebrews 7:1-17) 1 For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him, 2 and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name is translated “King of Righteousness,” and then also king of Salem, that is, “King of Peace.”
(Hebrews 8:1-6) 5 These men are offering sacred service in a typical representation and a shadow of the heavenly things; just as Moses, when about to construct the tent, was given the divine command: For He says: “See that you make all things after their pattern that was shown to you in the mountain.” 6 But now Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry because he is also the mediator of a correspondingly better covenant, which has been legally established on better promises.
(Hebrews 9:18-10:4) 18 Consequently, neither was the former covenant put into effect without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every commandment of the Law to all the people, he took the blood of the young bulls and of the goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled the book and all the people, 20 saying: “This is the blood of the covenant that God has commanded you to keep.”
24 For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with hands, which is a copy of the reality, but into heaven itself, so that he now appears before God on our behalf. 25 This was not done to offer himself often, as when the high priest enters into the holy place from year to year with blood that is not his own.
(Hebrews 10:28, 29) 28 Anyone who has disregarded the Law of Moses dies without compassion on the testimony of two or three. 29 How much greater punishment do you think a person will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God and who has regarded as of ordinary value the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and who has outraged the spirit of undeserved kindness with contempt?
(Hebrews 11:23-28; 12:15-29)
(Jude 9) But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”
(Revelation 15:2-4)

Notice the characters, and events considered to be real, are mentioned in practically all of the Greek scriptures... including the Gospels.
@sooda May I suggest then, that since Joshua, David, and I am sure if scholars had not submitted to the evidence of Jesus' existence, all these are fictional to you, based on your own admission that all of the Pentateuch is fiction, may I suggest you - and those with your view - throw away your Bible, or burn it, as it is of no use or benefit to you.
Denying Christ, and his own words of truth, and the prophets, he acknowledged as being sent by God, is the same as saying God and Jesus, are jokes, and the entire Bible is a collection of nonsense.
How sad....

 

[shunyadragon]

I
Now that we are here...
It would be nice if honesty was as abundant as water, but we know this is not the case in this world under a curse, with Satan as it's ruler... but it would be refreshing to me if some just admitted, "I hate the Bible. I only pretend to believe some of it, and I really don't believe in God, but I only say I do, to try and keep one foot in the door, just in case, and if not that, to give people an impression that I am godly.... Sort of like Donald Trump... but honestly, my faith is in science, and belief in the religion of theories such as Evolution, promoted by the gods of this materialist paradise, such as Charles Darwin, and Richard Dawkins, and established by the scientific community.

Your appealing to a religious agenda to justify this view and not reality. The science of evolution, and all of the sciences do not represent religions agenda. Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins are scientists in history that contributes to the advancement of science, and do not in and of themselves represent science as a whole, which does not make any claims or beliefs concerning the existence of God nor any one religion nore another. The knowledge of science is consistent and factual based only on the falsification of hypothesis and theories. On the other hand ancient religious beliefs like yours are based anecdotal and subjective beliefs from ancient perspectives and not consistent and in agreement with the each other nor consistently with the factual knowledge of science. The sciences of abiogenesis and evolution are consistent and factually in agreement with all sciences.

Your bogus statement, "those that hate the Bible" has not meaning, because most that support the validity of the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution, like myself do not 'hate the Bible.'

You may say you believe in science, but it is only a selective belief in science where it agrees with your religious agenda.

Your citation of scripture does reflect what you believe and your interpretation, but it is extremely circular without external evidence that would 'only' selectively justify your belief for the many other interpretations that conflict with your.

 

[nPeace]

There is proof... and you can't disprove it,

@SkepticThinker Just a kindly reminder, in case you are not aware. I was made to understand that what you just did here - rating a post funny, when it is meant to be serious - is against the rules.
Just informing you, so that you will be aware of it in the future.

 

[nPeace]

Your appealing to a religious agenda to justify this view and not reality. The science of evolution, and all of the sciences do not represent religions agenda. Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins are scientists in history that contributes to the advancement of science, and do not in and of themselves represent science as a whole, which does not make any claims or beliefs concerning the existence of God nor any one religion nore another. The knowledge of science is consistent and factual based only on the falsification of hypothesis and theories. On the other hand ancient religious beliefs like yours are based anecdotal and subjective beliefs from ancient perspectives and not consistent and in agreement with the each other nor consistently with the factual knowledge of science. The sciences of abiogenesis and evolution are consistent and factually in agreement with all sciences.

Your bogus statement, "those that hate the Bible" has not meaning, because most that support the validity of the sciences of abiogenesis and evolution, like myself do not 'hate the Bible.'

You may say you believe in science, but it is only a selective belief in science where it agrees with your religious agenda.

Your citation of scripture does reflect what you believe and your interpretation, but it is extremely circular without external evidence that would 'only' selectively justify your belief for the many other interpretations that conflict with your.

These empty words here mean nothing. They do not address anything in the posts.
They just sound like sad complaints.
You haven't demonstrated anything.

 

[shunyadragon]

@SkepticThinker Just a kindly reminder, in case you are not aware. I was made to understand that what you just did here - rating a post funny, when it is meant to be serious - is against the rules.
Just informing you, so that you will be aware of it in the future.

I not only disagree with your statement; 'There is proof... and you can't disprove it,' but also find ridiculously a serious fallacy, misuse of the concept of 'proof,' and very amusing to the point of being ridiculous .

 

[shunyadragon]

These empty words here mean nothing. They do not address anything in the posts.
They just sound like sad complaints.
You haven't demonstrated anything.

No ability to constructively respond. It is a fact that you outrageously misrepresent science. If it was not so tragic, it would be hilariously funny.

 

[nPeace]

I not only disagree with your statement; 'There is proof... and you can't disprove it,' but also find ridiculously a serious fallacy, misuse of the concept of 'proof,' and very amusing to the point of being ridiculous .

More empty words.
It would be nice if your responses were constructed with any... um... meaningful coherency.
I'll be back later to give you another chance to respond with something useful.

No ability to constructively respond.

Yes. That's you.

It is a fact that you outrageously misrepresent science. If it was not so tragic, it would be hilariously funny.

I am not getting sidetracked with your sorrow over things said about your main belief..
This topic is about the Bible.... which you obviously can't demonstrate you regard as having any value.
I will be back to enhance on that fact.

 

[shunyadragon]

More empty words.
It would be nice if your responses were constructed with any... um... meaningful coherency.
I'll be back later to give you another chance to respond with something useful.


Yes. That's you.


I am not getting sidetracked with your sorrow over things said about your main belief..
This topic is about the Bible.... which you obviously can't demonstrate you regard as having any value.
I will be back to enhance on that fact.

Your outrageous misrepresentation of science is based on what you brought up, not me., concerning what you call 'Bible haters,' and slandering the science of evolution and abiogenesis, and misrepresenting scientists such as Charles Darwin and Dawkins.

Still failing to respond on my posts concerning the Bible. I do not 'hate the Bible,' we disagree.

 

[nPeace]

But it does not proof that Jesus was the son of God or did the miracles that he claim to have done. That Jesus were crucified is not unlikely because we know that the Romans did these things.

I do not see, how these passages would be confirmations of the reliability of the rest of the bible? can you elaborate on that?

Once the scriptures are shown to be reliable, and authentic, that proves the truthfulness of Jesus Christ - the son of God.
The baptism of Jesus Christ, by John the Baptist, and the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, give evidence that the scriptures are of divine origin, because they fulfill prophecies uttered, by prophets of God.

According to 2 Peter 1
19 So we have the prophetic word made more sure, and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place (until day dawns and a daystar rises) in your hearts. 20 For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation. 21 For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.

This is the claim in scripture. The fulfillment of these prophecies in exact detail, and on time, prove the claim true. The scriptures are God breathed - divinely inspired. 2 Timothy 3:16

However, I did mention an example, with regard to the year Jesus - the Messiah was put to death.
There are a few other things I will mention, but aside from those - which are all we need to prove these things, there is nothing more to prove. (Matthew 16:13-17)

Luke 6:27
27 "But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies. Do good to those who hate you.

Matthew 5:28
28 But I say to you, anyone who stares at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Matthew 15:3-4
3 But he answered them, "Why do you also disregard the commandment of God because of your tradition?
4 Because God said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses father or mother must certainly be put to death.'

These are some of the ones I find to be bad.

I see. Obviously you create your own standard of morality.

I understand that you found the stories funny, I did as well. But you made it sound like it was Bart Ehrman who claimed these things, which it weren't. Which were what I reacted to.

The reason your guy quoted them seemed clear to me.
To explain how the view worked, I might mention one of the great Enlightenment scholars in the field of biblical studies, a German scholar named Heinrich Paulus, whose most important book was called The Life of Jesus (1828) (German title: Das Leben Jesu). Paulus went story by story through the Gospels in order to show that what the disciples mistakenly thought or described as a miracle was in fact a natural occurrence. Let me illustrate with three examples, just so you can get a feel for how it worked.
This explanation seem to appeal to him, but I am not in his mind, so I can't say. So maybe there are not his thoughts.
I hope we are not here talking about your husband.

I don't think there is anything especially wrong with what this guy is saying. And no one, as far as I know, is trying to stop anyone from trying to discover this power of God that he refers to.

But there is just no viable data or indications that such energy exist, that would make it interesting in a scientific circle. Where do one observe this energy, how does it express it self? How do we measure it, so we can learn about it? etc.

It seems to use an opposite approach than what science does.

1. We assume that the power of God exists.
2. Now what?

Whereas a scientific approach if we use dark matter as an example, would be something like this:

1. Its presence is implied in a variety of astrophysical observations, including gravitational effects that cannot be explained by accepted theories of gravity unless more matter is present than can be seen. For this reason, most experts think that dark matter is abundant in the universe and that it has had a strong influence on its structure and evolution. Dark matter is called dark because it does not appear to interact with observable electromagnetic radiation, such as light, and so it is undetectable by existing astronomical instruments.

2. Primary evidence for dark matter comes from calculations showing that many galaxies would fly apart, or that they would not have formed or would not move as they do, if they did not contain a large amount of unseen matter. Other lines of evidence include observations in gravitational lensing and in the cosmic microwave background, along with astronomical observations of the observable universe's current structure, the formation and evolution of galaxies, mass location during galactic collisions, and the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters.
.
3. Therefore we don't assume that dark matter exists, but observations that we have made, that we can't explain, have given rise to the theory of dark matter existing. And therefore we are trying to figure out if that is the case or not. And it might turn out that it doesn't and it is something completely different.

So there is a huge difference in how one approach these things. Because in science you don't start by saying something exist, because you think it ought to and then try to fit evidence into it as best as you can.

In regards to miracles, what are the observations or the unexplained that requires or lead to the power of God being needed? Do you see why its a backwards approach compared to any scientific approach?

Perhaps you may be able to enlighten me on this.
As far as I know, Biblical archaeology, and Historical research, are not restricted by methodological naturalism.
Are you saying that is the case?
How would they then be able to deal with evidence of ancient practices involving magic, and gods?

Its a well known critic of that criterion, nothing wrong with that. Im simply saying that it is not a bulletproof argument.

Well isn't that the reason you didn't shoot at the argument, because you realize it is indeed "bulletproof"?
Why else did you not address that post?

 

[nPeace]

I highly doubt John were a eyewitness. Due to how the gospel is written. In fact, I would say that about all the gospels. But to just focus on John.

John 18:33-35
33 So Pilate went back into the governor's headquarters, summoned Jesus, and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
34 Jesus replied, "Are you asking this on your own initiative, or did others tell you about me?"
35 Pilate replied, "I am not a Jew, am I? It is your own nation and high priests who have handed you over to me. What have you done?"
.....
...

There is no way on earth that the Gospel writer would have known what Pilate and Jesus were talking about, yet he write it as if he were a fly on the wall. And especially this Gospel is filled with these types of dialogs, where this writer would not have been present.

So to me at least, the way these gospels are written holds more evidence for them not being eyewitnesses compared to a claim made at the end of the gospel.

Nimos, do you really think that an eyewitness only reports everything they saw, and it's a crime to write other details acquired surrounding what they saw.
The Gospels were not written down by a clerk, in a courtroom, and John was not on the witness stand, when he recorded the events surrounding the Messiah.

You are free to have your doubts though. I'm sure this is not the only one.

What makes you think that Matthew were an eyewitness, in the gospel that is? Did the majority of the modern scholars get the date wrong or did he write it like 50 to 80 years later?

Most scholars believe it was composed between AD 80 and 90, with a range of possibility between AD 70 to 110 (a pre-70 date remains a minority view), and although early Christian tradition attributes it to the apostle Matthew, this is rejected by modern scholars.

The crucifixion of Jesus occurred in 1st-century Judea, most likely between AD 30 and 33

Without know what we are talking about I can't really answer that. And even if I did, the chance I would know a lot of details about a given "science" to know it, is fairly slim.

Remember I did offer you the opportunity to discuss the dates.
You can always return there if you want to, at any time.

Matthew was a disciple of Jesus. He was a tax collector who left his secular office, to follow Jesus. (Matthew 9:9-13)
The early church fathers were unanimous in holding that Matthew was the author.
Matthew’s Authorship of a Hebrew and Greek Gospel
There are disagreements, but those are based on beliefs (belief that Matthew borrowed, or copied from Mark's Gospel), not on facts.
In other words, they claim, based on belief, that the Gospel of Matthew is the work of a plagiarist,
So confused they are, they wonder if it might be Mark, who plagiarized Matthew's writings.

I refer to those that are teaching at universities and other acknowledged schools of education. So Im not referring to PaulTheApostle97 on youtube, or some random person that have an opinion. Just as when Wikipedia write "Most scholars" I do the same. If its good enough for them its good enough for me But maybe I should have used "most" rather than "main". As I can see how that can be misunderstood.

So who do you think are the scholars that disagree, and have different opinions... PaulTheApostle97 on youtube, or some random person that have an opinion?

Im sorry, but even what you write here makes no sense. But if I should play along with it.

If the person knows that Jesus can raise the dead and his daughter is going to die regardless of him staying with her or not. Why not stay with her until she is dead and give her some comfort and care. And then go find Jesus afterwards?

Still trying, I see.
Of course, just as you decide for yourself what is morally right and wrong, yet don't believe there is right and wrong... Feel free to decide what is commonsense to you.
The reality is though, your commonsense to someone else, may be far from commonsense. Their decision makes sense to them. Yours makes sense to you.
What makes sense to you, may be pure nonsense to another person.
What you appear to be doing here is putting your opinion on par with fact, or commonsense.

It makes sense to me, that I do not know the future, so because I think someone is dying, I can't predict when they will die. So if there is hope, I can save them from dying, I would take that option, rather than assume that there is no chance of saving them.
That's what I see this man doing. He felt there was a chance, though slim that his daughter might not die. He took that chance. This is what was brought out in Mark's account.
(Mark 5:23) . . .He pleaded with him many times, saying: “My little daughter is extremely ill. Please come and put your hands on her so that she may get well and live.”

What a sensible man. I too would prefer that she not die, but if that did not happen, why would I not be thankful for the hope in the other provision. The man had faith.
Thank God commonsense isn't shared equally and comes from minds in this world.

So a person couldn't use his free will to kill Jesus when he was a child? If God is going to prevent it, then how is that free will?

My dear. My dear.
Free will is not dependent on what someone else does.
If someone exercises their free will to rob a bank, and while the robbery is in progress...
shoots themselves in the groin;
gets clobbered on the head, and knocked out;
gets surrounded by SWAT, and shot in the butt....
it's still free will, the person had.

What do you imagine free will is?

Im pretty sure, I wrote that I didn't claim that they were lying. But that they might be so convinced of Jesus being who he was that they ran with it. I don't see a huge different from them doing it, to what people does today that choose to follow Jesus due to a similar conviction as them.

Yet, I might be wrong. But still I think its relevant to again draw attention to terrorists that blow themselves up or go out shooting people for what they believe in. How do you explain that?

I don't think I understand your argument.
The whole point is about determining if the historical document(s) is trustworthy, and certain criterion must be used to determine if the writer had reason to be biased, or to lie, or if they demonstrate honesty, etc.

It seems you want to also make your own methods of evaluation... which seems to be "Whatever I think is good".
Therefore, I am not the person you should be talking to.
If you have a problem with the methods of historical research, you should talk to the scholars about it... you know, the ones you go by what their opinions are.
Maybe you can contact Bart Ehrman and argue your point with him.

 

[firedragon]

The Gospels were not written down by a clerk, in a courtroom, and John was not on the witness stand, when he recorded the events surrounding the Messiah.

But Gospel of John was written 7 or 8 decades after Jesus. Also, no one knows the author.

Im sure you know this.

 

[McBell]

These empty words here mean nothing. They do not address anything in the posts.
They just sound like sad complaints.
You haven't demonstrated anything.

He has demonstrated more than you have.
And in far less time and space.

 

[firedragon]

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.

The argument goes that if such people really lived, one would expect to find some trace of them outside of sacred writings.

Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible


Add one more to the list.
Tattenai, also called Sisinnes, (flourished c. 6th–5th century BCE), Persian governor of the province west of the Euphrates River (eber nāri, “beyond the river”) during the reign of Darius I (522–486 BCE).
According to the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) Book of Ezra, Tattenai led an investigation into the rebuilding of the Temple in Jerusalem about 519 BCE. He sent a report to Darius, who responded with instructions to allow the work to proceed. Tattenai is one of the few Persian officials mentioned in the Hebrew Bible for whom there is independent attestation; he is mentioned in a cuneiform tablet dated 502 BCE.

Tattenai
Tattenai (or Tatnai or Sisinnes) was a Biblical character and a Persian governor of the province west of the Euphrates River during the time of Zerubbabel and the reign of Darius I.

He is best known for questioning King Darius in regard to the rebuilding of a temple for the Lord, God of Israel. He was generally friendly to the Jews.The rebuilding was being led by Jeshua, son of Jozadak, and Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, and had been issued by King Cyrus I. Tattenai wrote a letter to King Darius to ask of these statements were true, and then King Darius wrote a letter confirming that the statements were true. In the letter, Darius asked that the people do everything they can to support this rebuilding financially, and that they do nothing to impede it lest they suffer harsh punishment.

Babylonian Cuneiform inscriptions
A number of cuneiform tablets bearing the name Tattenai have survived as part of what may have been a family archive. The tablet that links one member of this family to the Bible character is a promissory note dated to the 20th year of Darius I, 502 BC. It identifies a witness to the transaction as a servant of “Tattannu, governor of Across-the-River”. The clay tablet can be dated to June 5, 502 B.C. exactly.

Name
The Name Tattenai (ושתני), probably derived from the Persian name Ustanu, a word found in Zoroastrian scriptures to mean "teaching" though to the Hebrews it was indistinguishable from an expression of the verb נתן natan, meaning "to give". In 1 Esdras he is called Sisinnes.

Biblical texts
Ezra 1:1-4; 4:4-16; 5:3-7.

Tattenai meaning

Argument from silence DEBUNKED
CONFIRMED : The Bible - Historically Accurate

You are right about the "argument from silence". You are correct. Just because there is no archeological evidence currently to an event theorising it was false is false.

But also, having archeological evidences to some characters in the book doesnt mean "CONFIRMED : The Bible - Historically Accurate".


It's a coin of the same fallacy with two sides.