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.

[Nilloc James]

Nilloc wrote:

More detail does not make something more accurate.

Example,

My dog is black,

VS:

My dog is small and black.

VS:

My small black lab is only a puupy and that is why it is small.

VS:

I own a cute small black dog that eats carrots is a black lab that I have owned for 7 years.

Those statements got more detailed however all of it is hogwash because i own a large brown border collie/ rodishan ridgeback cross that hates carrots and I have owned for eleven years.

Your missing my point Nillac. It's not the detail that I'm talking about. It's the work of making the most accurate compilation of the story as you can. So taking your example lets assume each of those statements were made by different authors about YOU AND YOUR DOG. I’m the critical analyst and translator. I see the discrepancies among the writings of the different authors. So I study the writings, try to get as much biographical information on the authors and the credibility of their reporting. And then make a compilation of the sources attempting to get the most critically accurate translated account of You and Your Dog that I can.

So I preliminarily translate it into Spanish like this:

Tengo un perrito negro que come sanaorias, que he tenido por 7 años y es un Labrador.

Then I find out that last author was a court reporter and took down your statement in court and understanding the accuracy and validity of testimony taken in court by court reporters I throw out the other 4 authors reports and translate the one that is most likely the most accurate in my professional estimation. And it comes out like this:

Hay various autores que han reportado que yo tengo un perro negro Labrador perro en realidad mi perro es grade y castaño de border collie/ rodishan ridgeback que odia sanaorias y lo he tenido por 11 años.

As you can see Nillac the finished product can be quite different based on the analysis of the critical translator/scholar.

Can you see what I'm getting at now? peace my friend.

Regardless of how accurate the translation it can still be fiction.

Regardless of how well a 2000 year old fairy tale was translated it still does not prove the bible as anything but fiction.

[joer]

Howdy Goat. Good to see you my friend.
You write:

When you have many multiple explanations the chances are they are ALL wrong.

I don't agree with this generalization.

Can you show me with any kind of confidence that any of them are right? You give me a specific explanation, I can give you at least a dozen alternate explanations that have been proposed. Since there is no evidence to show any of them wrong, there is no evidence to show any of them RIGHT either. Since that is the case, to use the idea that 'They have a scientific explanation for the Star of Bethlehem' is highly incorrect, since there is no way to choose among that many hypothesis... and there would be an explainable for a phenomena like that for practically every year.

If you can figure out how to sift the chaff from the wheat with all these ideas about which story is true, and actually TEST it, then it will be a reasonable explanation. But to use all these mutually exclusive ideas for evidence that the nativity might have happened is incorrect.

None of Zzy's examples would logically fit the details of the Story. BUT the ONE I presented COULD be interpreted as a possible basis for the Star of Bethlehem stories because of the details of the events contained in the evidence I presented could be seen as supportive of the celestial details in the Story. And the thing is I don't have to tell anybody this, they can see or themselves.

Goat it's very easy. It's not hard you can throw up tons of chaff as you call it but it pails when view against the truth. The truth is not one of the ten events ZZy posted as possible events that could support the Star of Bethlehem story. The truth is not one of them could. the most simple reason is they are occurring this year not 2000 years ago. So you wouldn't need anymore evaluation than that. BUT besides that a meteor shower wouldn't support the star of bethlehem story, A single or even double planetary conjunctions of the same to planets in the same year wouldn't support the Story, A nova wouldn't support the celestial details of the Story.

And your examples were just a mishmash of conflicting opinions of the celestial event. Thrown together so you could say something like, "Since their conflicting NONE could be considered RIGHT! " Which isn't logical at all. Again I don't have to point that out to anyone, they can see it themselves.

So what do you think about Bibles that give a valid standard of critical historical and literary analysis of the Biblical writings before they present the text?

[Zzyzx]

.
Let's try again to learn how:

1) A "star" leads people to a specific place on a rotating planet

2) A "star" STOPS over a specific location

It is immaterial what the storied "Star of Bethlehem" was unless one can show how it is possible for both of the above can occur with ANY celestial object and a rotating spheroid.

If both cannot be demonstrated to be possible the story is strongly suspect at best.

Attempting to speculate about "what it was" is nothing more than diversion from the critical issues.

What does the Urantia Book teach about the "Star"?

[joer]

Zzy wrote:

If you think otherwise DESCRIBE exactly, point by point, how any astronomical condition could "lead" anyone anywhere OR how such an event would "point to" any place.

I already did that Zzy. Here’s one place in Post 260 from 3 days ago:

Post 260: Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:25 pm
McCulloch, I’m not saying there is a Star of Bethlehem. I present evidence for an extraordinary occurrence of a conjunction of planets that occurred at the time and place of Jesus birth. And I’m stating that that evidence COULD BE what was witnessed by those at the time and it COULD BE the basis for The Star of Bethlehem story. It logically could very well be the basis for the story. The conjunction would have looked like a Star to the people of that time and it would have appeared to have moved because of the closeness and positions of the planets during the three conjunctions that year.

I presented enough evidence to make that case already. I don’t need to present anymore. But if you or a friend have an avid interest in astronomy, here’s more details from one of many studies conducted concerning the astronomically extraordinary event that occurred when Christ was born.

So what do you think Zzy about Bibles that give a valid standard of critical historical and literary analysis of the Biblical writings it's about to present?

[joer]

Nilloc wrote:

Regardless of how accurate the translation it can still be fiction.

Regardless of how well a 2000 year old fairy tale was translated it still does not prove the bible as anything but fiction.

I can see you're not much interested in weather something is valid or not. Are You?

I can say April 7th 1941 Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, and you can say that’s a fantasy. Right? How do we know it’s true. Just because history books say it’s true? Because there are picture of the attack? That doesn’t mean it occurred that day of that it’s even that place that’s being attacked in the pictures. Because eye-witnesses say it’s true? What it they are making it up? Because government records say it’s true? What if they we’re trying to manipulate public perspective. So if you say, April 7th 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, and I say, “a 47 year old fairy-tail still doesn’t prove that story is anything but fiction.�

What’s a proper response to my statement, Nilloc?

[Nilloc James]

Nilloc wrote:

Regardless of how accurate the translation it can still be fiction.

Regardless of how well a 2000 year old fairy tale was translated it still does not prove the bible as anything but fiction.

I can see you're not much interested in weather something is valid or not. Are You?

I can say April 7th 1941 Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, and you can say that’s a fantasy. Right? How do we know it’s true. Just because history books say it’s true? Because there are picture of the attack? That doesn’t mean it occurred that day of that it’s even that place that’s being attacked in the pictures. Because eye-witnesses say it’s true? What it they are making it up? Because government records say it’s true? What if they we’re trying to manipulate public perspective. So if you say, April 7th 1941, Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese, and I say, “a 47 year old fairy-tail still doesn’t prove that story is anything but fiction.�

What’s a proper response to my statement, Nilloc?

Multiple decent refrences and eye witnessess?

Now please give evidence to everything in the bible, other wise you can not say it is true.

Also pearl harbour does not depend on magical occurences and people rising from the dead.

[Zzyzx]

.

If you think otherwise DESCRIBE exactly, point by point, how any astronomical condition could "lead" anyone anywhere OR how such an event would "point to" any place.

I already did that Zzy. Here’s one place in Post 260 from 3 days ago:

Post 260 page 26 says NOTHING about how any astronomical condition can lead anyone anywhere or point to a place – as any reader can verify quickly and easily.

It talks ONLY about "what it could have been" NOT about how ANY celestial object can LEAD and STOP.

Post 260: Thu Jan 01, 2009 6:25 pm
McCulloch, I’m not saying there is a Star of Bethlehem. I present evidence for an extraordinary occurrence of a conjunction of planets that occurred at the time and place of Jesus birth. And I’m stating that that evidence COULD BE what was witnessed by those at the time and it COULD BE the basis for The Star of Bethlehem story. It logically could very well be the basis for the story. The conjunction would have looked like a Star to the people of that time and it would have appeared to have moved because of the closeness and positions of the planets during the three conjunctions that year.

That does NOT address the issues I raised. The proposed conjunction would have appeared to people over a wide area of the Earth. Correct?

It may have looked like it moved – to people over a wide area of the Earth. Correct?

HOW does that LEAD anyone to any place?

If you see a conjunction of planets from your home and I see the same thing from mine 1000 miles away, Which way do we head? HOW exactly does the object (whatever it was) LEAD us somewhere?

How does the object (whatever it was) STOP over a given location?

I presented enough evidence to make that case already.

You have presented absolutely NOTHING that describes how a celestial object LEADS people or STOPS over a location.

I don’t need to present anymore.

Of course you need not honestly and openly address the issues of LEAD and STOP that I raise. It is your prerogative to duck the issues. And, I might add that it is probably the best you can do since there is no rational way to "explain" those parts of the bible tale that directly contradict modern knowledge.

The tale may not be farfetched for people who considered the Earth to be flat with celestial objects moving around the Earth. However, the tale does NOT fit at all with a rotating spherical planet.

I trust that readers understand that your talking around the issue and using diversion is NOT addressing the issue.

Why do so many apologists I debate seem to think that hiding from critical questions is ethical debate? If I could not honestly and openly answer questions I would change my positions or retire from debate.

So what do you think Zzy about Bibles that give a valid standard of critical historical and literary analysis of the Biblical writings it's about to present?

I have seen no evidence that any of the bibles or other "holy" books give "critical historical and literary analysis" of anything. Can you present such evidence?

Again, what does the Urantia Book teach about the "Star"?

[Beto]

What’s a proper response to my statement, Nilloc?

That it's a weak or false analogy. Each piece of evidence for Pearl Harbor is available separately. They're not all in a single document, revised and translated ad nauseam.

[Zzyzx]

Joer,

Since you seem reluctant to answer my question about what the Urantia Book teaches about the "Star of Bethlehem" I will help you.

These wise men saw no star to guide them to Bethlehem. The beautiful legend of the star of Bethlehem originated in this way: Jesus was born August 21 at noon, 7 B.C. On May 29, 7 B.C., there occurred an extraordinary conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces. And it is a remarkable astronomic fact that similar conjunctions occurred on September 29 and December 5 of the same year. Upon the basis of these extraordinary but wholly natural events the well-meaning zealots of the succeeding generation constructed the appealing legend of the star of Bethlehem and the adoring Magi led thereby to the manger, where they beheld and worshiped the newborn babe. Oriental and near-Oriental minds delight in fairy stories, and they are continually spinning such beautiful myths about the lives of their religious leaders and political heroes. In the absence of printing, when most human knowledge was passed by word of mouth from one generation to another, it was very easy for myths to become traditions and for traditions eventually to become accepted as facts.

Urantia Book part #4 page 351
http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper122.html

Do I remember correctly that you have indicated in the past that you are a proponent of the UB?

[joer]

Nilloc wrote:

Multiple decent refrences and eye witnessess? ....
Also pearl harbour does not depend on magical occurences and people rising from the dead.

Nilloc it would seem you do require “magical occurences and people rising from the dead.� If your requirements of validity are to be met. If eye witnesses are required for the validity of something what happens after the last eye-witness to an event dies? Is the evnt no longer valid unless the eye-witness rises “from the dead�?

Or can something be valid after the eye-witness have long ago died off and passed away into the dust of the earth?

You also write:

Now please give evidence to everything in the bible, other wise you can not say it is true.

Well actually my friend the OP doesn’t call for me to present evidence for “everything in the Bible�. As you can see here it doesn’t call for anything more than I’ve already presented.

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.

Well the scientific physical evidence supports the part of the occurance of "the Star" in matt 2;1-11. It's "outside of scripture."

So that's it Nilloc. I meet the prerequisites of the OP. You can start another thread for someone silly enough to presume they can prove the Whole Bible is true to you.

And in regards to this statement of yours, Beto came up with a suggestion as to how one might respond to this type of statement:

Regardless of how well a 2000 year old fairy tale was translated it still does not prove the bible as anything but fiction.

…it's a weak or false analogy..