MrWhy wrote:Goose wrote: 1. There is good evidence to show the Bible is not simply a book of myths. There is a very good degree of accurate historicity in the Bible. There is also a high degree of spiritual wisdom and truth combined with prophecies fulfilled. Despite the diverse nature of writers, topics, geography, literary styles, and lengthy spans of time over which it was written there are significant commonalities in the core of the Bible despite the apparent inconsistencies in secondary and fringe details.
Why does accurate historicity lend credibility to the Bible? Revelation from a god is not necessary for a person to tell or write stories. Accurate or not, the only accounts that would require god revelation are those that could not have been known otherwise. An example of history that only a god could know would be some specific detail about early earth history that is confirmed by current geological or paleontology.
that's why my view of inspriatino embodies a diversity of sources. To me the Bible is a collection of works that demonstrate the nature of divine/human encoutners, not a memo from the big cheese upstairs. Althoug part of that diversity includes verbal plenary inspiriation in some sources.
The most important historical element for Christianty comes into play around the curcification and resurrection. Since Christian theology centers upon those aspects we want to know that they really happened. And also to a lesser exent upon the moral teachings, we want to know that what is recorded of Jesus' teachers are really what he said. But that's a seperate issue form inspiration.
Verifying the accuracy of any ancient story is a challenge. Accepting any historical account as accurate usually requires corroboration by other witnesses. This depends on how extraordinary the account is. Accounts of trivial events may not warrant much skeptical energy, but as the accounts go up the extraordinary and significant scale, then more corroboration should be necessary.
Right! I agree with you there. I think tht's one of the mistakes atheits make is in thinking that it's all about the mircles, so they try to focuss on disproving them or proving that they can't be proven. For me the mircles are only garnish, they are not the focus or the point of any of it.
Corroboration from the same source, group, or book is not very reliable. For significant, extraordinary claims, we should require corroboration from multiple sources that are uninvolved eyewitness observers.
Yes, except there is an important aspect to the idea of internal consistancy.
How much evidence would we need to confirm the story about a recent resurrection of a person that's been dead for days? It's much more evidence than can be gleaned from an ancient scripture. Too much opportunity for error during translation, creativity during interpretation, and editing of what to include and delete.
the bible is not a monolyth but a collection of sources. The four gospels are not one independent source but four sources that back each other up. The Pauline works and othe epistles also add some to the crorboration.
Whether you call it spiritual or not, wisdom and truth is also not evidence that a god was involved in the Bible. People alone can originate these.
true, but then we should also discuss the whole cooncpet of needing proof. why isn't the effects upon people's lives the point of religion? why does it have to be proven historically at all?
Fulfilled prophecies in the Bible cannot be validated, so they also are not evidence of revelation. Claims that do not qualify as prophesy:
1. Claims of prophecies and scientific facts in scripture that don’t have enough detail to permit verification. Broad general statements are not useful.
partly true, but partly a fallacy. you are making the fallacious assumption again that the Bible coutns as one big source. So Jesus being named Jesus in fulfillment of Zak 4 is a verified fulfillment it is not form one source but five different soruces. Zak plus the four gospels.
2. Scripture verse that result in long debates about when it was written and by whom. Complex date and interval calculation. If the message is not clear and simple it is not reliable.
IF it is importnat when it was written and by whom then textual criticism furshines these answers. I think one area in which skpetics are extremly ignorant and need tons of education is the area of textual cirticism, its' scientific basis and what it can do.
3. Where creative interpretation is necessary to match the prophecy with any current event or knowledge. If multiple interpretations are easily derived then the prophecy has little credibility.
at least 18 of them are stairght forward. but I never argue fulfillmetns as proof of anything. I agree that this is cheap apologetics. I only aruge it when the issue comes up that Jesus didn't fufill any messianich claims.
4. A prophecy written after the event occurred is not a prophecy.
yes but show me an example of this
5. A prophecy date that has not arrived (future dated) is not a prophecy
.
of course it is a prophesy but one that hasn't been fufilled.
6. Simple testimony about miracles are not evidence of divine revelation because people can, and do create stories about miracles.
no one thinks it is and no one cares. this is the worng end of the stick. Mircles are not they point of christianty, they are garnish.
7. Scripture verse that supports other verse is not prophecy verification.
it could be just depends, give me an example
8. Accounts of miracles that are not corroborated by written history from objective eyewitnesses who were not involved in the religion.
Resurrection argumens are derived from the artifacts of the text. not merely from the direct statements of the text.
