Reality Check: What Must Be the Case if Christianity is True?
8) That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David, Luke's reported world-wide census, etc) the Biblical stories are disconfirmed by evidence to the contrary as fairy tales, but when it comes to supernatural claims of miracles that cannot be verified like a virgin birth and resurrection from the grave, the Bible reports true historical facts.
16 comments:
History is subject to the verification principal? Since when?
(i) John, with the historical examples that you name, or at least the first two (the Exodus and the extent of King David's realm), the Bible stories do not merely lack evidence but are ruled out of all probability by the evidence that we have got. (I've been reading The Bible Unearthed.) So you can make a stronger claim on that point.
(ii) On the other hand, to say that such "stories" "can be dismissed as fairly [sic] tales," which I take to mean "fairy tales," is excessive. Surely it all depends on what you are trying to get out of them. If you are looking at them solely as a factual account of those events narrated in them, then you may dismiss them. But even secular biblical historians do not read them that way: they use them as sources of evidence concerning the later era in which they were written. And, of course, there are loads of Christians who regard them as having significance regardless of whether they are historically true—in contrast to anything that could be called a fairy tale.
(iii) Wes, I am familiar with the verification principle (not "principal"), but I have no idea what you mean by your remark.
John is right!
Many christians feel that, because certain events and places in the bible have been historically or archeologically verified (at least they claim), then this also verifies all the claims the bible makes.
This is false, we cannot accept uncorroborated claims like (resurrections,miracle healings, angels, demons, parting of sea's, etc.....), as history just because the bible might offer some corroborated evidence!
History is subject to confirmation Wes. Where did I refer to the VP?
MKR, yes, I'll revise my statement.
Winston.
Tit for tat, are you just here to gripe or actually to offer an argument against ours?
I prefer to stop just short of "fairy tale" in the pseudo-historical narratives. Often there is a kernel of reality behind the fish story. In "Studies in Ancient Yahwistic Poetry", Frank Moore Cross Jr. and David Noel Freedman analyze the "Song of the Sea" from Exodus, a very old bit of poetry that goes back centuries further (probably orally) than the surrounding prose, and interestingly, in this poem there is no parting of the sea.
Rather, we can discern a small group of fugitives who are being pursued across the Sea of Reeds in a boat, and apparently the pursuers' boat capsizes in the turbulent sea. That doesn't seem especially problematic as a historical core for what is to become a gigantic million+ person exodus. Supposing a handful of people fled Egypt and integrated into the proto-Israelite civilization, and this escape continued to be remembered and celebrated and embellished, we'd have the Exodus story and a good explanation for some of the quirky Egyptian cultural influences. Maybe this same bunch also brought some of the other Egyptian stories such as Joseph's hijinks in the royal court which were probably originally bona fide Egyptian stories but later appropriated by the Israelites.
Often a historical kernel is at the heart of a story, even if the later rendition bears very little resemblance to the original. For that reason I think another word than "fairy tale" could be in order where blatant embellishment is as likely or more so than wholesale invention. For the record, I think that the vast majority of Genesis, with the exception of POSSIBLY the mere existence of SOME of the patriarchs, actually IS wholesale invention / folk tale. That, and the whole "Yahweh" bit.
Shane said,
"John is right!
Many christians feel that, because certain events and places in the bible have been historically or archeologically verified (at least they claim), then this also verifies all the claims the bible makes."
Which concept, if logically extended to cover ALL literature, means that the claims made in "the DaVinci Code" are all absolutely true, because the setting of the story includes real places we can all visit.
"Imprecise language" THAT, Breckmin.
Christians claim the bible is as historically reliable as any other historical source.
If we are to accept the bible as authentic history including its supernatural aspects, because the bible apparently fulfills all criteria for authentic eyewitness testimony (or whatever christians use to show this).....................then it follows that christians should apply this same reasoning to other religious text.
That must also mean the Book Of Mormon's claims must also be true, the Hindu "Vedas" must also be true, the Quran must also be true.
Why should we consider the supernatural claims of the bible to be factual history, yet the claims of these other books are to be considered false????
I would really like to know, on what grounds do christians assert we take the wacky claims of their own faith as literally true..........but we should view other holy books and faiths as pure inventions that any intelligent adult should laugh at????
That when it comes to verifiable matters of historical fact (like the Exodus, the extent of the reign of David,)
How are these being "verified?" Using historical induction, perhaps? What about inductions which counter these? Question everything.
cont...Luke's reported world-wide census, etc)
Clearly employing hyper technicality regarding the use of "oikoumenEn" It could have easily been a tax within the Roman empire and Josephus didn't record it.
The other things you could point to, but these are weak accusations.
"Why should we consider the supernatural claims of the bible to be factual history, yet the claims of these other books are to be considered false????"
Those who know that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and therefore agree with His view of the O.T. believe in these miracles.
Clearly this is faith based - but the clear difference is the specific claims of Christ and His unique claim to Deity.
Also, there is an issue of manuscript credibility. This is historical evidence as well (when you process information correctly and don't rule out sources that corroborate these manuscripts).
In all fairness, however, this does not address your point regarding supernatural claims - just historical record/evidence.
When it comes to believing all of the miracles in the bible... it often comes down to orthodoxy and the belief that God was specially active at times with delivering Israel and delivering people in the N.T. from their sicknesses,etc.
For the Christian it is really accumulative case argument..starting with evidence that leads to orthodox monotheism and then moving toward comparative religion analysis and the testimony of tradition, etc.
This is corroborated with God's Spirit that convicts you that the scriptures are true. You can never ignore the spiritual aspect of truth.
Which concept, if logically extended to cover ALL literature, means that the claims made in "the DaVinci Code" are all absolutely true, because the setting of the story includes real places we can all visit.
"Imprecise language" THAT, Breckmin."
I personally know of no Christians who would over simplify their argument and isolate on historical accuracy as the only reason for believing in miracles.
As far as the DaVinci Code goes
you can't come along hundreds of years later and try and rewrite history.... nor can you change the way in which history used to be recorded. Orthodoxy carries the greater weight.
"I personally know of no Christians who would over simplify their argument and isolate on historical accuracy as the only reason for believing in miracles.
As far as the DaVinci Code goes
you can't come along hundreds of years later and try and rewrite history.... nor can you change the way in which history used to be recorded. Orthodoxy carries the greater weight."
All of which is beside the point you knew I was making.
My point was that there are lots of people who claim that because you can actually visit places like Bethlehem, the Western Wall, etc., that THAT is somehow extended as proof to cover the obviously fabricated parts.
It WASN'T about any specific claims from The DaVinci Code. EVERYONE understands that Dan Brown wrote a story using some popular conjectures as source material, that uses REAL LOCATIONS as a setting.
What I'm saying is that the Bible is a story using some popular conjectures as source material, that uses REAL LOCATIONS as a setting.
If we hang our hat on one, we should hang our hat on the rest.
Oz is a real place if we can visit Kansas.
I define "orthodoxy" in the context of Rpoman Cathiolicism as
"agreement upon principle, enforced at the point of a sword"
For over a thousand years, to disagree with Catholic "orthodoxy" was to be invited to a barbecue with yourself as the main course.
"You can never ignore the spiritual aspect of truth."
Sure I can. I do it every day.
It's kind of like devotions...
Post a Comment