The Bible - Why Trust It

[Unveiled Artist]

This would explain why one feels they are talking to God directly.

I guess. Christianity and quite recent on here bahai are the only ones I know that have "necessary" intermediaries to god. Its as if, in my opinion, you dont trust your own senses when god speaks. Yet, prophets are human. Bahaullah and muhammad are quite recent. Joseph smith too. The first pope from the apostles arent that far back. The Church still stands. Yet, you all treat prophets and scripture as if It have been around since the beginning of time.

I mean, I love Bob Ross's paintings but if I had a chance to meet him (if he were alive) Id rather him teach me how to paint not the free PRIME package on amazon where all his tv shows are free.

 

[nPeace]

But you made a specific claim in the OP, and now you seem to be saying the reason I haven't heard of it is that it doesn't really happen. That's ─ ahm ─ peculiar.

Are you asking about the term 'argument from silence'?
This is what some use to refer to those who say that there is silence from secular sources on characters, places, and events used in the Bible, or other historical documents.

For historical purposes, the books of the bible are each to be examined like any other ancient text: where and when, by whom, for what reason, was it written? How close in time is it to the events it reports? Is the text authentic? Complete? Added to or otherwise edited or changed? What influences and traditions does it show? Is there independent verification of any of its claims? How credible should we think it is in the light of what we presently know otherwise? (And so on.)

Reasonable enough way to proceed, don't you think?

That's happening all the time. Who do you think is responsible for doing that, and why do you think it's reasonable?

 

[nPeace]

I guess. Christianity and quite recent on here bahai are the only ones I know that have "necessary" intermediaries to god. Its as if, in my opinion, you dont trust your own senses when god speaks. Yet, prophets are human. Bahaullah and muhammad are quite recent. Joseph smith too. The first pope from the apostles arent that far back. The Church still stands. Yet, you all treat prophets and scripture as if It have been around since the beginning of time.

I mean, I love Bob Ross's paintings but if I had a chance to meet him (if he were alive) Id rather him teach me how to paint not the free PRIME package on amazon where all his tv shows are free.

I think the question, 'Who tells us - and perhaps has convinced us - that we can talk to God directly?' is a good one to ask. After all, some person(s) must have said it.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think the question, 'Who tells us - and perhaps has convinced us - that we can talk to God directly?' is a good one to ask. After all, some person(s) must have said it.

Isnt that like questioning gods ability to speak to you rather than vis versa?

 

[blü 2]

Are you asking about the term 'argument from silence'?
This is what some use to refer to those who say that there is silence from secular sources on characters, places, and events used in the Bible, or other historical documents.

Yes, but I asked you for real life examples of such claims ─ especially from sources one might take seriously.

That's happening all the time.

Yes, serious work is being done by historians around the world as I write this.

Who do you think is responsible for doing that, and why do you think it's reasonable?

The academic study of the relevant issues ─ textual assessment and criticism (as here), archaelogy, ancient languages, and many related skills and specializations.

It's one thing to use an ancient text as a religious guide. It's quite another to deal with it dispassionately and to analyze it so as to understand it and the times that generated it.

 

[nPeace]

Isnt that like questioning gods ability to speak to you rather than vis versa?

How is it questioning God? Why do you say it's God, when a man, or men are the ones that tell you these things?

 

[Kartari]

Hi nPeace,

You seem to be asserting that, given the historical accuracy of Biblical accounts, its claims about God, Jesus, etc., are therefore to be regarded as more trustworthy.

Assuming your premise of historical accuracy is true (it's not entirely true, to my knowledge; but for the sake of argument, lets assume it is), I see a fatal flaw in your logic. According to the dictionary, the supernatural is "unexplainable by natural law or phenomena" (emphasis added). Yet you are arguing that the accuracy of historical accounts (or accounts of natural phenomena) in the Bible is relevant to the accuracy of the miraculous, divine, and theistic claims of the Bible (which are supernatural claims). And so, regardless of how historically accurate the Biblical accounts can be shown to be, even if they were 100% historically accurate, there would still be no way to discern the accuracy of its supernatural claims from its historical accuracy. One has no bearing whatsoever on the other, and therefore the Bible is no more or less trustworthy based on the historical accuracy of its passages alone.

Furthermore, as at least one other poster that I noticed pointed out, there are other books that exist which both contain historically accurate information while simultaneously portraying fictitious events and persons. The two are not mutually exclusive characteristics. The James Bond series was mentioned as a clear example, among others. To throw an ancient book out there as another example, the Odyssey contains its share of historically accurate information as well. If the historical accuracy of the Bible stories did indicate accuracy about God and Jesus, then it would be logically consistent to suggest that the Greek gods are real beings too, given the Odyssey's historical accuracy. It's the same faulty logic that leads to both conclusions, I'm afraid.

I am of the opinion that a religion like Christianity really comes down to faith as its foundation, and not evidence.

Peace.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

How is it questioning God? Why do you say it's God, when a man, or men are the ones that tell you these things?

Who convinced you (man) that you can talk to god....is that a rethorical question?

If you mean it that way, no one convinced you that god does because he ideally has the ability to do so without scripture. If not (if you need scripture), wouldnt that be questioning gods ability to speak with you directly?

In other words, are you saying he cant?

 

[nPeace]

Yes, but I asked you for real life examples of such claims ─ especially from sources one might take seriously.
Yes, serious work is being done by historians around the world as I write this.
The academic study of the relevant issues ─ textual assessment and criticism (as here), archaelogy, ancient languages, and many related skills and specializations.

It's one thing to use an ancient text as a religious guide. It's quite another to deal with it dispassionately and to analyze it so as to understand it and the times that generated it.

You'll have to take the word as it is given by those who experienced it.
I got the first quote from here http://holylandguru.com/1717/are-the-characters-mentioned-in-the-bible-rooted-in-history/
... and the guy in the video probably experienced it.
It's the first time I am hearing it.

I believe that everyone has a right and responsibility to question and examine things, but I also believe in honesty. So, if one really believe they see truth in something, or one believes there is error in something - then go with what one believes.

I believe there is clear evidence in the Bible that is is inspired by a divine being, and not a product of man's will. I think the evidence is clear.
I have presented what I consider to be one piece of evidence, but there is more. There probably will be four or five pieces of evidence, I will be presenting here.

Did you notice what was said of the last archaeological find I provided? Did you note the dates? It's irrefutable.

Tattenai is one of the few Persian officials mentioned in the Hebrew Bible for whom there is independent attestation

 

[nPeace]

Who convinced you (man) that you can talk to god....is that a rethorical question?

If you mean it that way, no one convinced you that god does because he ideally has the ability to do so without scripture. If not (if you need scripture), wouldnt that be questioning gods ability to speak with you directly?

In other words, are you saying he cant?

I'm not talking about the Bible. Recall you referred to
Sutra or sutta? What's the origin?
Consider...
All of us were born into a world where millions walked before us, so all of us have been influence by one teaching or another, through our "forefathers".

So, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, etc, are all western religions that have their roots somewhere. The path to enlightenment - with it's various practices - yoga, etc, are all rooted.
Can anyone claim to have direct communication with God - without question?

So what I am basically saying is, question where our belief is rooted.
If we search deep enough, it may surprise us where our belief is really rooted.
We may be surprised to realize that while we are condemning writings, what we are believing is really just another form of writing - only not in ink.

I think, "How do we know what God is doing?" is more the question we should be asking, rather than whether he can or can't.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'm not talking about the Bible. Recall you referred to
Sutra or sutta? What's the origin?
Consider...
All of us were born into a world where millions walked before us, so all of us have been influence by one teaching or another, through our "forefathers".

So, Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, etc, are all western religions that have their roots somewhere. The path to enlightenment - with it's various practices - yoga, etc, are all rooted.
Can anyone claim to have direct communication with God - without question?

So what I am basically saying is, question where our belief is rooted.
If we search deep enough, it may surprise us where our belief is really rooted.
We may be surprised to realize that while we are condemning writings, what we are believing is really just another form of writing - only not in ink.

I think, "How do we know what God is doing?" is more the question we should be asking, rather than whether he can or can't.

Hmm. I didnt want to get into samantics, but buddhism is sn overarching term that refers to Dharma practices originated in the east. The Buddha lived before christ but the origins have no place in the western god jewish nor greek god.

But, yes, communication has been around since the beginning of time. Writtings came later. People still transfered beliefs orally and by ritual. Things like statues were/are part of this transmission.

If moses, zoraster, bahaullah, and joseph did, why not people thousands of years later?

I mean, I disagree that gods communication is messures by time, but then I never saw the logic in placing history as a validity of faith.

We can communicate without scripture. It just means are we open to listen or are our egos or ignorance keeping us from hearing gods voice?

Nothing wrong with written text. History originated orally. If anything, if ideal for todays techno period, gods scripture would remain oral. Its with the jews both oral and written. Catholocs too. I think the "sola scriptura" of any religious text is pretty new. Even in buddhism. We rèad from athe Dharma but wisdom comes from meditation and listening.

 

[nPeace]

Hi nPeace,

You seem to be asserting that, given the historical accuracy of Biblical accounts, its claims about God, Jesus, etc., are therefore to be regarded as more trustworthy.

Assuming your premise of historical accuracy is true (it's not entirely true, to my knowledge; but for the sake of argument, lets assume it is), I see a fatal flaw in your logic. According to the dictionary, the supernatural is "unexplainable by natural law or phenomena" (emphasis added). Yet you are arguing that the accuracy of historical accounts (or accounts of natural phenomena) in the Bible is relevant to the accuracy of the miraculous, divine, and theistic claims of the Bible (which are supernatural claims). And so, regardless of how historically accurate the Biblical accounts can be shown to be, even if they were 100% historically accurate, there would still be no way to discern the accuracy of its supernatural claims from its historical accuracy. One has no bearing whatsoever on the other, and therefore the Bible is no more or less trustworthy based on the historical accuracy of its passages alone.

Furthermore, as at least one other poster that I noticed pointed out, there are other books that exist which both contain historically accurate information while simultaneously portraying fictitious events and persons. The two are not mutually exclusive characteristics. The James Bond series was mentioned as a clear example, among others. To throw an ancient book out there as another example, the Odyssey contains its share of historically accurate information as well. If the historical accuracy of the Bible stories did indicate accuracy about God and Jesus, then it would be logically consistent to suggest that the Greek gods are real beings too, given the Odyssey's historical accuracy. It's the same faulty logic that leads to both conclusions, I'm afraid.

I am of the opinion that a religion like Christianity really comes down to faith as its foundation, and not evidence.

Peace.

I understand your reasoning.
However, one or two pieces of evidence doesn't necessarily prove anything - nor disprove it. Sometimes it may take a few pieces of evidence to establish truth. One corroborates the other. Sort of like what Jesus said. "At the mouth of two or three witnesses a thing is established."
If one contradicts the other, then that evidence could be considered void - unless other pieces of evidence can be found.
That's one key reason I think the Bible is in truth accurate (more on that later).

For example, with regard to miracles, for one to dismiss them simply on the basis of the fact that they have not seen one performed - like raising the dead, is not a reasonable stance to take, imo.
Likewise, to dismiss the possibility or probability of a creator God simply because one see no visible manifestation of that being is the same.
It's like saying, I see no trace or trail of a ship sailing across the ocean. Therefore no ship crossed the ocean. Ridiculous right?

We have seen that evidence sometimes don't surface until later.
Law enforcement sometimes find themselves in a wait-it-out situation. While the criminal runs free.
The situation is similar with the Bible. Skeptics sit and wait while believes run free.
Like you said, I believe it takes faith, but that doesn't mean the faith is empty either.


So, to answer your question, No, I don't think the historical accuracy alone establishes the truthfulness of the Bible. That's why I specifically said...

Part 1 - Historically Accurate
CONFIRMED : The Bible - Historically Accurate

 

[nPeace]

We can communicate without scripture. It just means are we open to listen or are our egos or ignorance keeping us from hearing gods voice?
.

Don't get me wrong on that. I really do believe people communicate with gods, and hear gods' voice.
They is a saying, "Be carefully what you hear."

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Don't get me wrong on that. I really do believe people communicate with gods, and hear gods' voice.
They is a saying, "Be carefully what you hear."

Thank you. Thats informative. It does support my point, though: not trusting what you hear is from god, as though god cannot talk in a way that differentiates his "good words" from mans words. I dont put man down for not being god; but, I do find it a comfort zone as to not "go up the mountain" yourselves. Others can do it for you.

If god speaks the same orally as well as written (oral words incarnated) how would you say what you read is true when you can be fooled by man regardless if god speaks to you directly or he does by paper?

In other words, how is whats written a better source than whats said -when coming from god?

 

[blü 2]

I also believe in honesty. So, if one really believe they see truth in something, or one believes there is error in something - then go with what one believes.

Or better still, check for ways to determine whether one's view is an accurate reflection of reality or not.

I believe there is clear evidence in the Bible that is is inspired by a divine being, and not a product of man's will. I think the evidence is clear.

You're well ahead of me. I have no problems with imaginary divine beings, but I have no idea what a real one could be.

I have presented what I consider to be one piece of evidence, but there is more.

First, the use of correct names and places in the bible doesn't demonstrate that any particular part of the bible is overall an accurate source of history, any more than James Bond books are overall an accurate source of history.

Second, no matter what the bible says about the supernatural, either the supernatural has objective existence and therefore we can examine it like anything else with objective existence, independently of books and reports; or it's imaginary, which as far as I can tell is the case.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

If a person trusts god, they dont Need scripture.

Is this related to what you were asking me the other day? Something about, ‘believing in God, apart from the Bible’?

If so, one thing I can ask is, “Don’t you think belief in a God should have some basis to it? Some support?”

Like, something to base your faith on?
As JW’s, our study of the Scriptures provides this basis: 40+ writers spanning over 1600 years, and yet complete harmony within its pages is read when adhering to an accurate interpretation of death, free will, Jehovah’s omniscience, the importance and meaning of Jesus’ sacrifice, etc., etc.

But then, apart from the Scriptures, we also see the design evident in living organisms and also design within this Earth, with its cycles of nitrogen, water, waste, and more....all working in harmony to aid life to flourish, and keeping perfect balance.

It’s actually, for us, too much evidence to ever refute an Intelligent Source behind it all!

 

[Twilight Hue]

...... I really do believe people communicate with gods, and hear gods' voice.
They is a saying, "Be carefully what you hear."

I'd be hellava lot more impressed if a consensus went throughout the entirety of a givin religion. That would raise an eyebrow.

Given all religions don't have that, it's telling that there in fact is no actual communication going on, much less any communicating deity upon which a religion is based.

 

[Thaif]

Its a mix of stuff and withal, the most overrated and
overstudied book ever, unless its the koran takes
that sorry prize.

I think "On the Origin of Species" takes that sorry prize.

 

[whirlingmerc]

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

As you read the Bible you can 'taste and see the Lord is good' Ps 34

How do you tell honey is sweet? you put it on your tongue and try it.

 

[Audie]

Another

Hmm. Not sure if you follow comparisons and examples in conversation that support a topic without it being the subject of discussion.

You guys refers to more than one person. You have an idea that the bible is less of a history book and more supernatural. Some nonbelievers (some -nonbelievers- not specifically you) tend to have a literal view of scripture. Believers do as well.

Both of you-guys tend to make the supernatural important when discussing the nature of scripture. History and mythology books dont work that way.

Another who thinks he somehow needs to give me
lessons in how to read literature, and feels free to make up things to say about me.