Why believe the Bible?

[ZackMartin]

Couldn't one conclude an event(s) reported in the Bible happened because it passes a reasonable historical method?

I think a "reasonable historical method" could conclude some events described in the Bible happened. (Although as I mentioned in another thread, I'm a moderate historical sceptic - I think there is truth about the past, and ancient history can discover some of it, but I think historians of that period (biblical scholars included) tend to overestimate their abilities to discover historical truth.) But could a "reasonable historical method" conclude that all of it is true? I think it more likely that a reasonable historical method would conclude some of it is true, but many other parts we simply can't say.

I personally think history can demonstrate that Jesus existed, but not much else about him. But other people think history can demonstrate more about him, and I'm not going to declare these people completely unreasonable. But to claim that history can demonstrate that everything the Gospels claim about him is true? I think that is maybe going a bit beyond is reasonable. "All historical events described by Tacitus happened as Tacitus described them, without any significant errors, biases or distortions" is unlikely to be a reasonable historical conclusion, so why should we think the same conclusion with respect to the Gospels is any more reasonable?

If we take an event reported by Tacitus, let's say the first Jewish-Roman war, we might compare Tacitus to Josephus, and conclude the points they agree on as more likely (although both are pro-Roman sources, so agreement could be a sign of common bias rather than fact), whereas points present in only one are less likely, and the points where they appear to disagree are even less likely. Applying the same logic to the Gospels, we might conclude the elements common to the four Gospels as more likely, those present in only one of them as less likely, and those where they appear to disagree even less likely. (Trying too hard to smooth out the disagreements is historically questionable, just as it would be historically questionable to try too hard to smooth away disagreements between Tacitus and Josephus - if two sources disagree, the most likely explanation is at least one of them is wrong.)

But there is also the aspect of bias - even when Tacitus and Josephus agree about the Jewish-Roman war, we have to ask the question of bias - is their agreement due to fact, or their shared pro-Roman bias? (Not exactly the same bias - both are pro-Roman, but Josephus was Jewish, so he was more sympathetic to the Jewish side, than Tacitus is as a non-Jew.) A good guide, is to ask one's self questions like "Would it serve their bias to say this?" - if one is dealing with a claimed fact that does not serve their bias, or where it would be difficult for them to twist things (e.g. when the Romans lose a battle, it would scarcely serve pro-Roman bias to report that, although it might serve their bias to make the loss less severe than it actually was). So in the same way, even when looking at the parts where all four Gospels agree, we need to be on the lookout for possible shared bias, and a claim which is unlikely to be a product of bias is more certain than one which could be.

So I think the historical method, applied to the Gospels, implies treating them the same as we would in any other source in ancient history. As such, it's mistaken to think they can produce more certain conclusions than these other sources can.

Couldn't one be a Christian because one believes the Bible provides enough evidence to be a Christian even if it contains some errors and was not inspired? Why would inspiration (and inerrancy?) be a necessary belief for one to be a Christian?

That's possible - it depends on what you consider being a "Christian" to be.

For example, I'm agnostic with respect to the Resurrection - I don't say it happened, and I don't say it didn't happen either. I don't think we have enough evidence to conclude one way or the other. If more evidence arose tomorrow (which I think is unlikely but possible), I might based on that evidence be pushed more into the believing or disbelieving corner. I wouldn't be shocked if it was proven it was real, and I wouldn't be shocked if it was proven that it wasn't. I think if God wanted to raise Jesus from the dead, God could have done it; and I can conceive of various reasons why God might want to do that; but I'm not going to definitively conclude he did or didn't.

Is Resurrection agnosticism compatible with Christianity? I guess a lot of conservative Christians would say no, that while you could not believe some things the Bible says and still be a Christian, the Resurrection is so central to Christianity that positive belief in it is required, and denial or agnosticism are incompatible with Christianity. On the other hand, liberal theologians have been known to doubt or even flat out deny the Resurrection, so I guess many of them would think that Resurrection agnosticism is compatible with Christianity, and that if I told them I was a Christian with these beliefs, they'd accept me as one.

This is part of why I don't call myself a "Christian" - because I'm aware of the variety of different definitions of the term, and whether I am one might depend on which definition is right, and I don't claim to know whose definition is the right one.

Zack

[shunyadragon]

Yet that is exactly how historians approach historical texts.

No, for the most part 'religious beliefs' and bias is not involved here. Secular histories resolve these problems over time.

No historian will accept that everything Caesar wrote in the Gallic War has to be true. They will take the position, that while he probably got many things right, he probably also got some things wrong (either unintentionally through ignorance or misunderstanding, or more intentionally through a desire to slant the facts to his personal and political advantage.) So, each claim made by Caesar in the text, they will look at and ask - do we have any reasons to suppose this isn't true? Different historians will come to different conclusions about the veracity of what he writes - some will believe him on some points while others will doubt the same points - but none will suppose there is anything invalid or improper in supposing that the text contains some degree of error. If the Gospels are a work of history, as so often claimed, why not treat them in the same way in which we treat all other works of history?

Zack

i will address this first, and take a closer look at the rest.


I stated that, 'I would not justify my belief, based on a selective reading of the texts.' There is an important distinction between how historians evaluate ancient texts for the purposes of understanding history, and those who are 'believers' and use the text to form their religious beliefs. Your example of Caesar's writings there is not motive of justifying one's religious world view when evaluating the factual nature of these texts. There is clearly no parallel here. Roman military records are in general fairly accurate, but there is always warranted skepticism in all accounts until other corroborating evidence such as archeological evidence is available.

In the other hand, Josephus's accounts of the wars he was familiar with are found to be in places questionable, due to exaggerating as window dressing to make him look good.

There may be a parallel for how some historians who have a strong emotional vested interest in historical events like the study of the 'Civil War' in the past, but over time historians do and have for the most part resolved the bias in the recording of history

[ZackMartin]

I think the issue is a tad over-simplified by stating in terms of 'believing the Bible' or not. Different Christians will read the same passage of text and arrive at different interpretations of the same passage (Genesis as read by YEC's and TE proponents is an obvious example.) Both can at least make arguments that they 'believe' the text but take it to mean quite different things. There is no central committee that decides these issues and Christianity covers a broad range of opinion even within denominations never mind across them.

Even though they can widely disagree about the interpretation of a passage, most Christians will agree that the passage is true, even if they take it to mean very different things. Only the more liberal ones will say "This passage doesn't come from God" - and even they'll only ever do that as a last option, preferring reinterpretation to rejection whenever they can. Take for example Biblical passages against homosexuality - I'm sure some liberal Christians just straight out reject these passages as in error and uninspired, but the more common approach among liberals seems to be to keep the passage but interpret it so it does not apply to the modern practice of homosexuality.

Christianity is also fuzzy around the edges and different people will give different opinions as to whether Roman Catholics, Orthodox and then JW or Mormon are 'real' Christians. One may be as inclusive or exclusive as one wants but in the end there is no single right answer.

Entirely correct. But my question was really addressed to those on this forum who think they know who the real Christians are (however they might draw those boundaries), as opposed to those of us who doubt whether the question "Who is a Christian?" has a definite answer.

Zack

[headheart]

Repeat: At the time 2 Timothy was written there was no written or at least complete NT. The text most likely refers to the Jewish scriptures.

Written by Paul it probably refers to those writings which he regards as scripture. As to their inspiration that is not the main point of the text which is about the function of "all" scripture. One might want to look elsewhere for passages which instruct us as to what exactly is supremely authoritative. I'd think that one might be better off studying John 1 NIV < Listen or Read > John 1 ESV , though that has problems of its own. It's a pretty deep subject you know and proof texts like this seldom deliver much more than a vague nibble or two.

Q: What is the "Word of God"?

Here's something I found particularly interesting by Prof. Ben Witherington:

'.... and frankly a written scripture is just the literary residue of the orally proclaimed living Word of God ....' Professor Ben Witherington III ( Jesus, Canon and Authority @ 35 minutes and 10 seconds, referencing Paul's words in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 ) Listen: 1 Thessalonians 2

The video: (around about 28 minutes in)

Information: Speakers Darrell L. Bock, Daniel B. Wallace, and Ben Witherington discuss various controversies and misunderstandings made on the canon of scripture. They also deal with Dr. Bart Ehrman's books (such as Misquoting Jesus).

Peace,
HH'Eric

ps. Zack, there are a couple of good studies in this regard. I recommend 'Sacred and Sure' (4 part lecture) by Dr. DA Carson at bethinking.org or if you can get hold of a copy (I'm still searching for it) 'Biblical Authority' by Dr. DA Carson and John D. Woodbridge.
ps. 2 - I'm not sure if the comments section is still open on Prof. Ben Witherington's blog - Bible and Culture ( Jesus, Canon and Authority - http://www.patheos.com/blogs/biblean...and-authority/ ), but I've found him to be reasonable and helpful should you decide to take the plunge instead of looking for answers down in Babylon.

[siliconwafer]

6] Fulfilment of prophecies - it is said that numerous Biblical prophecies have been fulfilled. I think for a claimed fulfilment of prophecy to be convincing, it has to be clear that (1) the event actually happened as described [as opposed to the event being made up completely, or an account of a real event which vaguely matched the prophecy being embellished until it matches it more accurately]; (2) that the prophecy pre-existed the event [as opposed to either the prophecy being made up after the event, or the words of a prophecy which vaguely matched some event being adjusted later to match the event more closely]; (3) that the prophecy was precise [if a prophecy is sufficiently vague, it's not hard to find things to fulfil it]; (4) that the prophecy is not a foreseeable inevitability ("The King will die" is not a good prophecy, because it's obvious to everyone it is true.... "The King will die tomorrow" is much better, assuming there are no known reasons to think he will, such as illness, assassination plots, enemy armies at the gates, etc.); (5) that the event was not intentionally (or unconsciously) brought about people who knew about the prophecy and wanted it to come true. Considering all those criteria, I'm not convinced that any biblical prophecy meets them all.

I have used this argument before when telling non-Christians about Jesus Christ and they told me that this is circular reasoning. Saying that the Bible teaches that there has been fulfilled prophecy assumes that the Bible is the word of God. Hence, you are assuming that the Bible is the word of God in order to prove that the Bible is the word of God. You are using the Bible in order to prove the Bible. How would you respond to this?

How would you respond to presuppositionalists who say that if extra-biblical evidence gives support to the claim that the Bible is the word of God, then there is something that has more authority than the Bible?

[ZackMartin]

I have used this argument before when telling non-Christians about Jesus Christ and they told me that this is circular reasoning. Saying that the Bible teaches that there has been fulfilled prophecy assumes that the Bible is the word of God. Hence, you are assuming that the Bible is the word of God in order to prove that the Bible is the word of God. You are using the Bible in order to prove the Bible. How would you respond to this?

I see the element of circularity - you are relying on the Bible for both (1) the fact that the prophecy, in its exact wording (or close enough to that), predates the prophesied event, and (2) the fact that the prophesied event actually happened. In all cases, the Bible is the only source for (1), and in many cases it is the only source for (2) also. If the Bible contains errors, couldn't it be in error about the claim the prophesy was made? (e.g. maybe it was made after the event? maybe the prophecy came before the event, but was vague and only vaguely applied to the event, but the wording was adjusted after the event to make it fit better?) Couldn't it be in error about the claimed event? (when the event prophesied is something like the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem, we can have no doubt it actually took place, since we have Babylonian records to confirm it - but when it is some detail of Jesus' life which is claimed to fulfil some prophecy, the Bible itself is the only evidence the claimed event happened.) But then if the Bible could be in error about the prophecy and its fulfilment, then claims of fulfilled prophecies are no argument for it being free from error.

How would you respond to presuppositionalists who say that if extra-biblical evidence gives support to the claim that the Bible is the word of God, then there is something that has more authority than the Bible?

Certainly some points of it have extra-biblical confirmation. But I'd say this: no serious scholar would deny that much of the Bible is based on real events. No one claims the Bible is completely in error, it almost certainly gets many things right. The question really is, is it 100% free of error, or say only 50% free of error? I don't see how finding external confirmation for its claims decides the issue, since externally confirming many of its claims is compatible with the conclusion that it gets many things wrong, just not everything wrong. It's easy to defeat the strawman position that "The Bible is a complete work of fiction, nothing it says is true", but much harder to defeat the more nuanced positions of those who accept the Bible as a valid historical resource, but don't assume that it is a completely accurate one. (Although, my calling this position "nuanced" is maybe a bit too much, given that is the way we treat every other historical resource.)

It's not entirely a strawman position though, because some people really do believe that the Bible is a complete utter work of fiction that is entirely false - I know people who think that - but I think you'll find these people are historically naive and have never considered the issue thoughtfully. I imagine on a practical level, this apologetic might sometimes be quite successful on these people, due to the phenomena of the pendulum swinging too far the other way (one extreme being followed by the opposite). Some people don't realise that there is a middle ground between the extreme positions of "everything the Bible says is completely false" and "everything the Bible says is completely true".

Zack

[pancreasman]

The problem with using fulfilled prophecies to validate the Bible is that Jews do not consider that Jesus fulfilled any OT prophecies. They can argue this position with a reasonable level of scholarship. You can disagree with their arguments but it does mean that prophecies are not nearly so clear cut a 'gotcha' argument as you might expect.

[headheart]

The problem with using fulfilled prophecies to validate the Bible is that Jews do not consider that Jesus fulfilled any OT prophecies. They can argue this position with a reasonable level of scholarship. You can disagree with their arguments but it does mean that prophecies are not nearly so clear cut a 'gotcha' argument as you might expect.

Of course, nevertheless well said. Studying the prophecies is really hard work!

[shunyadragon]

The problem with using fulfilled prophecies to validate the Bible is that Jews do not consider that Jesus fulfilled any OT prophecies. They can argue this position with a reasonable level of scholarship. You can disagree with their arguments but it does mean that prophecies are not nearly so clear cut a 'gotcha' argument as you might expect.

some prophecies have a reasonable foundation, but others are simply an unreasonable stretch of any reasonable interpretation of the OT scripture.

[headheart]

some prophecies have a reasonable foundation, but others are simply an unreasonable stretch of any reasonable interpretation of the OT scripture.

That's partly true. The study of prophecy requires considerable work and is not for the faint hearts. I could illustrate the difficulty involved if you like but it's going to take a lot of writing and explaining. ;)

[headheart]

some prophecies have a reasonable foundation, but others are simply an unreasonable stretch of any reasonable interpretation of the OT scripture.

For example how about this passage in Matthew 12: It's a quote from The New International Version (as it is on biblegateway.com ) Listen

The Sign of Jonah

38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.

43 “When an impure spirit comes out of a person, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to the house I left.’ When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45 Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that person is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation.”

I don't pretend to know where to begin with such a passage but it's clearly one that has given interpreters their fair share of hair knots.

Peace,
Eric

[shunyadragon]

Written by Paul it probably refers to those writings which he regards as scripture. As to their inspiration that is not the main point of the text which is about the function of "all" scripture. One might want to look elsewhere for passages which instruct us as to what exactly is supremely authoritative. I'd think that one might be better off studying John 1 NIV < Listen or Read > John 1 ESV , though that has problems of its own. It's a pretty deep subject you know and proof texts like this seldom deliver much more than a vague nibble or two.

Q: What is the "Word of God"?

A three letter word in English. In Spanish a four letter word. In Arabic a five letter word.

[headheart]

A three letter word in English. In Spanish a four letter word. In Arabic a five letter word.

Pay attention you evil land lubber!!!!

[headheart]

Hi Zack,
I think that something your wrote about the Bible on another thread might belong here:

Whatever the Bible might have to say about the topic, I don't accept the Bible as the Word of God, so what it might say, or what it might mean by what it says, has limited relevance to me.

Granted.
However, I'd like you to think about the following.

The Bible is (a) a collection of sacred writings that (b) go back to earlier times when (c) people used their wisdom to (d) figure out how best to live. Hence, though the writings may not be as inspired as you think they are still (e) a very useful collection of sacred writings which (f) chart the history of how (g) people survived using their collective wisdom to (h) leave behind a record upon which we might be able to build. That being said I do not deny the possibility that even in their present state they are in spite of representing times of confusion nonetheless part of the giant mind map of all literature that we must retain if we are to keep our little ship on course.
(2 Timothy 3:14-16)

Peace,
Eric

[ZackMartin]

The Bible is (a) a collection of sacred writings that (b) go back to earlier times when (c) people used their wisdom to (d) figure out how best to live. Hence, though the writings may not be as inspired as you think they are still (e) a very useful collection of sacred writings which (f) chart the history of how (g) people survived using their collective wisdom to (h) leave behind a record upon which we might be able to build. That being said I do not deny the possibility that even in their present state they are in spite of representing times of confusion nonetheless part of the giant mind map of all literature that we must retain if we are to keep our little ship on course.
(2 Timothy 3:14-16)

I think there is material of value in the Bible, no doubt about that. I think it is a record of people's attempts to communicate with God, and I don't think they were completely successful, but they weren't completely unsuccessful either. So I don't think the Bible is fully the Word of God, but I think parts of it reflect God's Word, while other parts may not. I think, if we fail in our attempts to communicate with God, that is because God doesn't want to reveal everything to people all at once. He reveals things slowly and gradually, so at the beginning there is a lot of error mixed-in, and even now there still is a lot of error in the beliefs of the people of the world, but slowly he is turning up the volume on truth and turning down the volume on error. I think part of why he does this, is he wants humans to struggle through the darkness of ignorance a bit, rather than have all goodness and truth handed to them on a platter. If that is God wanted, he would have never created the earth, we would have all been born in heaven.

Zack