Evidence to support the Christian Bible.

[Confused]

This is simple:

What evidence exists to support the truth of the OT and NT. By evidence, I mean something outside of scripture. What evidence supports the stories of the OT and the NT?
I am not looking for evidence of the supernatural per se. But what about it gives it authenticity? Such as archeological evidence to support the existence of a place and the person who lived there. Perhaps some of the events that are physical in nature as well.

[The Duke of Vandals]

To those who believe, No Evidence is Necessary!

To those who don't, No Evidence will Suffice.

It's as simple as that! Ain't it my friends?

See, the problem here is that you're either...

A) Using the special pleading fallacy. You've decided that it's okay to believe a specific set of claims without evidence. You wouldn't do this ANYWHERE ELSE in your day to day life. You'd require evidence for anything and would reject something so flimsy and unsupported as Christianity. "Buy my used car. Even though it has no engine and no tires, you'll be able to drive it off the lot. you just have to believe." This is idiocy and we'd both agree it to be so. So why can't you apply that honesty to the claims of Christianity?

B) Deliberately using the special pleading fallacy. This is like option A, only you're aware of it and unconcerned. This option is absolutely no different from lying.

C) Stupid. Obviously, it's not this one. I find Christians to be very smart. Many, far smarter than myself. However, that doesn't rule out the fact that many use bad logic. Still, there are a handfull that believe in "Jay-ZUS!" who aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

I'm going with A. Which do you think?

[The Duke of Vandals]

How does the Bible, in your eyes, having to be perfectly historically accurate have anything to do with its philosophical, spiritual and poetic integrity?

It is a rather odd question to ask "Wheres the evidence for the Bible?" when it a selection of Judeo-Christian texts gathered over thousands of years by many different authors who barely knew each other or had little implication of trying to prove their spiritual experience or historical accuracy. The Bible is not a thoery, it is what people felt prompted to write in the circumstances of their times and is, in my view, the philosophical and spiritual masterpiece of humanity's literate ability.

Many of the biblical authors were simply trying to write their spiritual experience of the world and beyond in the simplest way they could describe it.... what exactly do you want evidence for? Whether David killed Golieth? Whether Moses parted the Red Sea? What are you really questioning; some Hebrew's spiritual feelings about his world or the global institution[s] which has founded its[them]self upon its teachings?

Its actually ridiculous to ask for evidence for the Bible, as it isn't trying to prove anything.

If what you said is true, than Christianity would be a lot more like Buddism. A quiet and introspective religion where we're ordered to look inward... a religion that makes almost no claims about the outside world.

We both know that's simply not the case. Not by a long shot.

The bible makes real world claims that either happened or didn't happen. That you would say that evidence isn't important when giant swaths of world population are somehow SURE that they did happen is high dishonest on your part. Though I'm not sure you meant it this way, your argument comes out sounding like, "Well, since the stuff in the bible is OBVIOUSLY untrue and could NEVER happen, then it must be figurative... yeah. That's it."

It's not.

It was written as being literal.

And if it is metaphorical. If it is meant to give us some life lesson, then what the F*** is it? The morality of the OT is vile in the extreme. You kill your wife for talking back. You kill your kids for disobeying you. You kill your neighbors for worshiping other gods. The killing never ends. Why on Earth would you want to study something so horrid... let alone base one's life on it???

[OnceConvinced]

To those who don't, No Evidence will Suffice.

It's as simple as that! Ain't it my friends?

Hi Joer. Great to see your friendly face back again.

The comment above I see Christians throw out from time to time and it seems to me to be a real lack of faith in God. Now I don't really believe you have a lack of faith Joer, but if God is all knowing and all powerful, then he will know exactly what little it would take for even the hardest sceptic to believe, don't you agree? So to say that no evidence will suffice is saying that God is unable to prove his existance... or in the case of this thread, unable to prove the bible to be true. I personally believe (if God is real) that he can prove himself to anyone he wishes. He can convince anyone of anything he wants to. Don't you?

[joer]

The Duke wrote:

I'm going with A. Which do you think?

I'm going with "D" which you failed to acknowledge as an option:

"D.": To those who don't [believe], No Evidence will Suffice.

[bernee51]

The Duke wrote:

I'm going with A. Which do you think?

I'm going with "D" which you failed to acknowledge as an option:

"D.": To those who don't [believe], No Evidence will Suffice.

This is so sad.

What you are essentially saying is that the default state MUST be belief. As has been correctly pointed out there is little if anything else in life where this modus operandi would be acceptable EXCEPT god belief. Ergo it is a special plead and essentilly a dishonest position.

And by dishonest Joer I don't mean to me or the rest of the universe but dishonest to YOURSELF.

[Fallibleone]

The Duke wrote:

I'm going with A. Which do you think?

I'm going with "D" which you failed to acknowledge as an option:

"D.": To those who don't [believe], No Evidence will Suffice.

No, joer, I have to object here. That's not true. If I see enough evidence, I'll change my mind. What would be the point of not doing so? The idea that all atheists are just wilfully ignoring a plethora of evidence is wrong, and should not be perpetuated. Why would someone do that? Especially those who prize observable evidence so highly. It simply doesn't make sense that in this one area, suddenly no evidence will make them change their minds.

[joer]

Once Convinced!!! So good to see you too my friend. I like your new (to me) Avatar. Let me answer your question in parts.

First you say:

The comment above I see Christians throw out from time to time and it seems to me to be a real lack of faith in God.

I don't think I see it the same as you. It Does show a "lack of Faith" BUT not on the part of the Christian it's on the part of the non-believer, that's why "no evidence will suffice" for them.
Then you say:

Now I don't really believe you have a lack of faith Joer, but if God is all knowing and all powerful, then he will know exactly what little it would take for even the hardest skeptic to believe, don't you agree?

I do agree Once, God does know "what little it would take", but to different ends than you I believe.
You continue with:

So to say that no evidence will suffice is saying that God is unable to prove his existence... or in the case of this thread, unable to prove the bible to be true.

Here's where we begin to diverge Once. To say "no evidence will suffice" is NOT "saying that God is unable to prove his existence". It's saying that YOU, Once, and those like you WILL NOT accept that any evidence PROVES God's existence. I wrote it Once. I know what I meant when I did write it. And that's what it means my brother. It's not about God proving Himself to us. It's about us accepting the Natural Proof of His Existence that exists all around us By Faith.

You conclude with:

I personally believe (if God is real) that he can prove himself to anyone he wishes. He can convince anyone of anything he wants to. Don't you?

Yes I do believe, "He could convince ANYONE"BUT and this is a BIG BUT Once, He won't do that because it would be denying us a divine right he has given us THAT NOBODY AND NO THING can violate. Sovereign Free Will.

That's part of the deal of our creation Once. The way we are made. If we choose not to "SEE" God that's up to us. If we choose to "SEE" Him, that's up to us too. We have ample opportunity in a lifetime to make the choice.

If we choose "NOT TO SEE" God, we're not going to Hell or anything like that. Te part of us that came from God goes back. The part that is material goes back to the earth. It's as simple as that.

If we choose "TO SEE GOD" than that's a different story. The part of us from God, Our unique God -given personality moves on in the ascension of an infinite Universe. Getting to know God better and better along each step of the way. This is actually not a choice for slackers. You will be FOREVER doing service for your mates at every level of ascension. On your way to becoming One with God.

[joer]

Bernee my brother, it's OK. No need to be SAD.

And by dishonest Joer I don't mean to me or the rest of the universe but dishonest to YOURSELF.

I don't think I’m am being dishonest to myself because I believe in the Evidence presented. If YOU don't believe it, It doesn't mean I'm WRONG. It only means we have a different POV.

You touch my heart brother with your compassion and sincerity.

Good Will be with You and all here.

[joer]

The Duke wrote:

I'm going with A. Which do you think?

I'm going with "D" which you failed to acknowledge as an option:

"D.": To those who don't [believe], No Evidence will Suffice.

No, joer, I have to object here. That's not true. If I see enough evidence, I'll change my mind. What would be the point of not doing so? The idea that all atheists are just wilfully ignoring a plethora of evidence is wrong, and should not be perpetuated. Why would someone do that? Especially those who prize observable evidence so highly. It simply doesn't make sense that in this one area, suddenly no evidence will make them change their minds.

Oh Fallibleone!!!! My heart sings in seeing you again.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be offensive. BUT while you hold up the ideal, "Especially those who prize observable evidence so highly." In practice I have seen this ideal bashed even on this site. There often seems to be more effort spent at ignoring or discrediting, "observable evidence" on technicalities and other whimsical protests than there has been a willigness to consider very valuable "observable evidence".

But I agree with you in principle Fallibleone. Did you find ANY of the "observable evidence" I've presented of ANY value?

I've presented at least eight or nine links of evidence that I believe might meet Confused’s requirement of the OP.

[OnceConvinced]

Once Convinced!!! So good to see you too my friend. I like your new (to me) Avatar. Let me answer your question in parts.

I decided it was time for a change. A couple of people said the previous one was very distracting.

I don't think I see it the same as you. It Does show a "lack of Faith" BUT not on the part of the Christian it's on the part of the non-believer, that's why "no evidence will suffice" for them.

I certainly agree that the unbeliever does not have faith. There has to be a very good reason to have faith, which I'm sure God gave you before you became a Christian, surely?

Here's where we begin to diverge Once. To say "no evidence will suffice" is NOT "saying that God is unable to prove his existence". It's saying that YOU, Once, and those like you WILL NOT accept that any evidence PROVES God's existence. I wrote it Once. I know what I meant when I did write it. And that's what it means my brother. It's not about God proving Himself to us. It's about us accepting the Natural Proof of His Existence that exists all around us By Faith.

Ah, ok, I see where you are coming from. So you are assuming that atheists are so darn stubborn (and dare I say stupid) that if God met with them face to face and performed a whole heap of amazing feits, they still wouldn't beleive he was God. I personally cannot believe that anyone would be that stubborn (or stupid... at least not the majority of humans). I don't see how you can make such an assumption. You're saying that their stubborness is too great for even God to break through. That still seems to show a lack of faith in your God's abilities and shows him as not being all-powerful.

See there, I think you are trying to put all unbelievers into a box based on your own perceptions of the world. What you see as fantastic evidence of God's existance, you think should be more than enough for everyone else and it is staggering to you that others don't see things the way you do. However we all have different personalities. What will be convincing for one personality type will not be convincing for others. Studying up on personality types was a real eye opener for me and I recommend it to everyone. You will then be able to see why people think and view the world differently to you.

BUT and this is a BIG BUT Once, He won't do that because it would be denying us a divine right he has given us THAT NOBODY AND NO THING can violate. Sovereign Free Will.

Ah, now here is another common fallacy amongst Christians that knowledge is a violation of freewill. It's not. Facts do not violate anyone's freewill. Facts are just facts and we have these forced upon us all the time, but do we consider that a violation of free will? Of course not. We know oxygen exists because we have to breathe it. But do we say that oxygen is forced upon us, that breathing it is a violation of our freewill?

Absolute knowledge of God does not violate our freewill. We can still chose to accept or reject him. That there is where the freewill comes into it. Many will still refuse to worship God if he proves his existance because many see him as evil and hypocritical. Many will still want to do their own thing and rebel. At least they will have no excuse. They will not be able to say "I couldn't believe in you because I couldn't see any proof of your existance".

Think back to when you became a Christian. Some where then you came into the belief that the God of the bible was real. You really believed this, somehow God showed himself to you and proved his existance, didn't he? No one becomes a Christian who doesn't believe. So did God force himself upon you? Did he violate your freewill? Did he twist your arm to become a Christian? Of course not. You had complete freewill, but no doubt the proof of his existance was very plain to you at the time, right?

(BTW, God will quite happily violate freewill, there are plenty of examples in the bible, so if you'd like to do a one-on-one debate on that topic, I'd be happy to challenge you)

That's part of the deal of our creation Once. The way we are made. If we choose not to "SEE" God that's up to us. If we choose to "SEE" Him, that's up to us too. We have ample opportunity in a lifetime to make the choice.

This is another common fallacy I see brought up by Christians. It's not a choice to "see" God. You either see him or your don't. I can not choose to see God, just as I cannot choose to believe there are fairies in my garden. It is based on conclusions. If all it took was choosing to "see" God then I would still be a Christian today. Did you "choose" to "see" God when you gave your life to Christ or had you already seen God first before you did? Did you say to yourself "Hey, I don't believe in Jesus, but what the hell, I'll become a Christian anyway and hope that he proves himself to me?"

I very much doubt it.