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.

[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.

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

Hi, joer.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to be offensive.

That's OK, I was not offended. It's much harder to offend me since I worked out why we tend to feel offence.

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.

I haven't. I've seen lots of people explain how what is offered is not evidence.

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".

I understand you term them 'whimsical protests', but I have to disagree. You have made the subjective call that what you have is 'observable evidence', and it has been found not to be so by others who do not share your pre-existing beliefs.

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

The way I see it, joer, is like this. If I were to claim that a girl named Sabriel can enter into the underworld by ringing a series of bells, as it states in the books about her, you would rightly ask for evidence. If I then went on to post 100 links, all showing that bells exist, would you class that as observable evidence of the claim I had made?

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

The fact that you believe it to be evidence is not in dispute. This does not make it observable evidence. My question remains - if there is so much evidence, what would non-believers gain from ignoring it?

I've heard the argument that non-believers are afraid of God and don't want him proven because they know they'll be 'for the high jump, and I don't mean in the Olympic games', as my dear old dad would say.

I've heard the argument that non-believers are hedonistic and don't want to see the evidence because they would be forced to live morally.

I have heard the argument that non-believers are deceived.

I've heard all sorts of arguments which don't describe me at all.

What I am saying is that these arguments don't apply to me, and yet I have found none of the supposed 'evidence' offered so far by theists to be anything of the sort. So what's my reason for ignoring it? Could it be that I am in denial, and lying to you about my reasons for not accepting it, or could it be (just this simple) that it's not evidence?

[Zzyzx]

.

Bernee my friend, I haven't seen anybody prove the evidence false.

Joer my friend, do you believe EVERY claim for which the "evidence" has not been proved false?

[Fallibleone]

McCulloch wrote:

Maybe I missed the point. Why are you here on a debating site if you feel that debate is pointless?

Because I'm not the one ignoring the evidence.

A is no one else - remeber what you said...differing opinions.

Nobody's immune to the truth.

Except Joer?

They may suppress it now, they may suppress it for hundreds of years. But sooner or later it will become self-evident. And at that point they can no longer hide it or hide from it.

Plain and Simple.

And you believe you have found the 'truth'. It is us for whom 'no evidence is enough' are in the business of suppression, not you.

Why would we do that? What's in it for us? What's in it for you?

Bernee my friend, I haven't seen anybody prove the evidence false.

That is because it isn't evidence.

[The Duke of Vandals]

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.

If you were trying to sound dishonest, you have succeeded spectacularly.

Would you care to address the question again? Honestly this time?

[The Duke of Vandals]

Why don't you tell me why it's not good enough for you.

Because it's a dishonest and terrible excuse for evidence, Joer. The stuff that Christians put forward in attempt to prove their religous claims is an insult to the intelligence of rational & honest individuals. We're sick to death of you grinning while you demand that we accept the same nonsensical rules that you have. There isn't a single shred of evidence you've listed here that we haven't already all seen before. The truth is that if we presented your same arguments to you for another religion, such as scientology, you'd reject them outright... because you and I can both be honest about that.

Why aren't you willing to extend that same honesty to Christiam claims?

[Goat]

McCulloch wrote:

Maybe I missed the point. Why are you here on a debating site if you feel that debate is pointless?

Because I'm not the one ignoring the evidence.

A is no one else - remeber what you said...differing opinions.

Nobody's immune to the truth.

Except Joer?

They may suppress it now, they may suppress it for hundreds of years. But sooner or later it will become self-evident. And at that point they can no longer hide it or hide from it.

Plain and Simple.

And you believe you have found the 'truth'. It is us for whom 'no evidence is enough' are in the business of suppression, not you.

Why would we do that? What's in it for us? What's in it for you?

Bernee my friend, I haven't seen anybody prove the evidence false.

Ah, but have you shown anybody who has shown David Pride's interpretation TRUE either? For example.. I don't see ANY information about the actual excavation, the age of the structure, the expert's opinion about it. I see one person's claim.

[cnorman18]

....The fact that you believe it to be evidence is not in dispute. This does not make it observable evidence. My question remains - if there is so much evidence, what would non-believers gain from ignoring it?

I've heard the argument that non-believers are afraid of God and don't want him proven because they know they'll be 'for the high jump, and I don't mean in the Olympic games', as my dear old dad would say.

I've heard the argument that non-believers are hedonistic and don't want to see the evidence because they would be forced to live morally.

I have heard the argument that non-believers are deceived.

I've heard all sorts of arguments which don't describe me at all.

What I am saying is that these arguments don't apply to me, and yet I have found none of the supposed 'evidence' offered so far by theists to be anything of the sort. So what's my reason for ignoring it? Could it be that I am in denial, and lying to you about my reasons for not accepting it, or could it be (just this simple) that it's not evidence?

Good post.

I have always thought that the assumption that a person who does not accept and acquiesce to one's arguments must ipso facto be arguing in bad faith to be a poor one. It amounts to a dismissal of genuine rebuttal and counterargument in favor of a hugely unwarranted assumption that one's opponent secretly knows that one is right and simply won't admit it. In other words, it is he who makes that assumption who is refusing to consider rational arguments, and not his opponents,

The word "arrogant" richly applies.

[Noachian]

So it is a fable?

I'm not denying that it isn't. How can I tell?

Are you serious? How about proving the "David" in question existed? How about Moses? I honestly can't say you read too much into the OP or not enough? Your questions are scattered with absolutely no pattern whatsoever.

Firstly, am I serious about what? Secondly; I don't care whether Moses or David existed, that was my point. What I was saying (or rather asking) is what exactly do you want evidence for, because the Bible's intention, in my view, is not historical accuracy or sceintific statements. Whether David killed Golieth or Moses parted the Red Sea is not what is important about the Bible's initial message. For instance I know that the Genesis poem of Adam and Eve was not a historical accoun, but it does not damage the integrity of its message; that is, the art of humanity is failure and success runnig side by side in order to create a realistic exisance. As well as alot of other social and spiriatual allagories which it explores.

I apologise if I was vauge, but I think you may have missunderstood my answer. My answer was intended to give you my view that the Bible does not need historical proofs or evidence, as it's function is not to prove anything.

No, it is only trying to teach you something. If you are to be taught, should it not be from a reliable source? Should we not know if the stories in the bible actually occurred? How would you presume we do that? I think McCulloch presented a rather typical response in Post #2.

Do I need to find evidence to prove Frodo threw the One Ring in Mount Doom if I want to explore the spiritual and philosophical allagories which it is intending to capture? While I am not comparing a 1950's novel-series with a collection of Jewish spiritual texts reaching millenia, I am just trying to [again] get my message across. Do I have to justify the events as literally historical in order to take spiritual or philosophical knowlege from them?

*EDIT* You creating a straw-man argument anyways; your clearly aiming for evidence of Noah's flood, or the Garden of Eden, when actually the Bible comprimises of various historical documents and accounts of the development of the Nation of Israel. Obviously since these accounts are from individuals who have recorded it, their judgements may not have been entirely accurate, however ask most archeologists and they will tell you that some books of the Bible, such as The Book of Kings, The Book of Judges and The Chronicles are historical accounts from personal perspectives and are mostly accurate. However my intent still isn't to argue that the Bible has to be true in order for it to be significant.

[Flail]

The issue is not the 'message'. Their are many 'messages' in the Bible that could agruably be characterized as virtuous and good....love,tolerance....stories of the Good Samaritan etc etc.....but that is beside the point....as there are many such virtuous messages in much of classic literature...Dante,Longfellow,Emerson,Hesse,Dickens,Milton,Harry Potter,the Koran,the Dao,Twain,Shakespeare and on and on....all good story tellers with messages and ideas for the mind.

the issue for debate here,however, deals with the evidence or proof that the Bible is other than a fictional account and that all of it or parts of it are the infallible interpretations of the Christian God's own words....isn't it a fair question?....

We have millions of people who have a Christian membership and have apparently ascribed to the Christian doctrine that they are special,chosen people and that all who deny Jesus also deny God are doomed to eternal damnation....shouldn't you have some viable evidence of our damnation by God to show us before you caste us into Hell?...other than mystical claims in an old book?

[joer]

Cnorman, Zzzy, Fallibleone, The Duke, goat Bernee and others. Peace be with you all.

Zzzy wrote",

Joer my friend, do you believe EVERY claim for which the "evidence" has not been proved false?

I don’t what you mean Zzz? Can you clarify what are you asking?

Cnorman wrote:

The word "arrogant" richly applies.

The pot calling the kettle “Black!�

Fallibleone wrote,

That is because it isn't evidence.

That was easy. Is that an example of incontrovertible evidence, that the evidence I present is False! Shoot I can put forward that level of evidence. - Yes it is evidence! Prove it’s not!

The Duke

If you were trying to sound dishonest, you have succeeded spectacularly.

I wasn’t trying to sound dishonest.

Goat

I see one person's claim.

You “see� what you want to see. You ignore and obfuscate the rest.

Fallibleone wrote:

My question remains - if there is so much evidence, what would non-believers gain from ignoring it?

I can’t speak for them. You’d have to ask them that.

She also wrote:

I've heard the argument that non-believers are afraid of God
I've heard the argument that non-believers are hedonistic
I have heard the argument that non-believers are deceived.
I've heard all sorts of arguments which don't describe me at all.

What I am saying is that these arguments don't apply to me, and yet I have found none of the supposed 'evidence' offered so far by theists to be anything of the sort.

I’m not all theists. I’m your believer friend joer. I’m not trying make all those arguments to you or anyone else. I’m not defending all evidence presented by all theists.

I’ve posted some information in response to Confused’s request in the OP that I believe fulfills her request.

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.

For some reason it (the information I’ve posted) has met with vehement objections.

I pointed out “one� just “1� link that I felt fully satisfied Confused request.

I’ve ask or I ask NOW that those who reject it Prove it is NOT what Confused asked for in a manner commensurate with the manner they are asking me to prove that it is.

So Goat if you want a peer review for it that proves it answers Confused’s request give me one that proves that it doesn’t.

So Fallibleone if you feel this link is calling you afraid of God, Hedonistic, deceived or all of the above, PROVE that it’s doing that.

So Duke if you feel this link I posted for confused in an honest reply to her request is dishonest, PROVE IT.

All I hear is a bunch of haranguing. Apply the yardstick by which you measure me to yourselves. Prove your worth. Why spend all this effort to tear what someone else has presented down? Why don’t you build something yourselves and present it?

Fallibleone wrote:

o what's my reason for ignoring it?

You got me? I don’t know.