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.

[joer]

Zzy I hope you are enjoying a warm and cozy evening in front a warm fire.
Zzy wrote:

joeyknuccione wrote:

So, here is quite strong evidence that the eyewitnesses themselves could very well have been wrong about events, not to mention errors that creep in over time.

Those who are heavily invested in believing the supposed biblical "eyewitness accounts" (which CANNOT be shown to be accounts by actual witnesses) MUST continue to promote such accounts as being factual and accurate when they have nothing else to offer.

It could be that those that your refer to that “are heavily invested in believing the supposed biblical "eyewitness accounts", are not unlike many historians who face the same problems of piecing together the life culture the mix of peoples, attitudes, customs, languages, religions and other aspects of events that occur within a specific area at a specific time in the historical evolutionary development of humankind.

It certainly seems logical they would face the same problems that historians do. So what do historians do that makes their historical work and analysis acceptable while any historical work involving similar biblical accounts is un-acceptable? Sounds like a familiar theme. We’ve gone through this already haven’t we? Well lets take a look at it again.

You write:

This is a case of using the source itself to "verify" itself.

What’s that mean? Is that like a report from the field on an action that occurred?

Say like one of Alexander the Great’s scribes wrote of one of his engagements, would that be the source verifying itself. He could command the scribe to create the report anyway he wanted it to look. He could lie about the number of casualties, augment his heroics in the battle. Increase the number of his personal kills. Add the names of his most known enemies to the list of his personal victories over them weather he was involved or not. And then the papers the scribes write get lost on the halls of records. Occasionally an interested party maybe a historian transcribes them before the records deteriorate or are destroyed when overrun and burned by another enemy who rose to power at a future point in time.

Maybe the enemies scribes rewrote the records that another historian found and transcribed hundreds of years later. And thus it continued for hundreds or even thousands of years until now historians try to compile a history for the fragmented and conflicting records to teach our children in the schools of today or the world’s history of thousands of years ago. Do you think Zzy that the history we accept and approve for our children in school is any more accurate or less slanted or affected by ravages or time and conflicts than the biblical histories? Then today’s anthropologists discover even more truths and facts in the buried wreckage of past wars and find even more errors in historical accounts that are then corrected.

A few limitations on the supposed biblical "eyewitness accounts"

The problem is Zzy the supposed limitations you imply are limited to biblical "eyewitness accounts" and are supposed to be sufficient to discredit everything contained therein. BUT the SAME LIMITATIONS are limiting a tremendous number of historical accounts which we find acceptable for our purposes of education and learning. As inaccurate and imperfect as they are.

1. The "eyewitness" claims are PART of the story, they are NOT independent accounts separate from the story.

– like an airplane pilot giving an account of the battle of the midway – he’s part of the story and NOT an independent account separate from the story. So throw our hi account. Right?

2. The accounts are NOT shown to be those of actual people who observed events

-so a historian or newspaper reporter writes about what a GI told him. – So throw his story out because the historian or newspaper writer didn’t actually “Observe� what the GI told him. Right?

3. The identify of supposed reporting witnesses is unknown or unverifiable

So one GI tells another what happened in a certain action. That GI tells a reporter what the other one told but he doesn’t know who the other guy was And the reporter can’t find him because he gets lost in the action. So throw that story out to EVEN if all the other witnesses to the event are dead. The story doesn’t get told, because it can’t be verified. Right?

4. The reliability and veracity of supposed witnesses is unknown

So now you have more than one witness telling about something that happened to them. Maybe the number and strength of the enemy over the next hill, but you don’t know if they are telling the truth. So you don’t tell their story to the commander and he send a bunch of troops over the hill and they get wiped out right?

5. The actual "path of information" from observer to recorder is unknown

Who told you the enemy’s over the hill I don’t know, some soldier, who told him, I don’t another soldier� so you don’t’ record the report. Right?

6. The number of people or generations between the observer and recorder is unknown

Go back to Alexander’s battle how many people or generations to this story go through until it reached us in the history class. Shoot I don’t know do you Zzy? Throw it out. Right?

7. The amount of time between observation and recording is unknown (and may be decades or centuries same as last answer.

Same as some previous answer.

8. The identity of bible story writers is incompletely known or unknown

Same as some previous answer.

9. The reliability and veracity of writers is unknown and unverifiable.

Same as 4. Except now the commander throws out the info and sends the troops to their deaths because he doesn’t trust the guy reporting to him. Right?

10. Different writers give different accounts

They’d be plagiarizing if they didn’t. Wouldn't they?

11. No original documents of recordings are available.

I ran out of long lasting papyrus paper and had to use the run of the mill kind.

12. No compilation documents (bibles) available are earlier than eighth century and in a different language than originals.

I’m sure there are many acceptable histories we have today that lack the same documentation but we accept them as true anyway. WHY the double standard?

13. "The" bible has, for over a thousand years, been edited, re-edited, transcribed, translated, modified, revised and rewritten by countless unknown people; thus, there is no way to know if or how accounts have been changed.

Not uncommon in historical practice of popular events.

14. Bible stories are NOT supported by other sources – only by reference back to the same source (i.e., no support at all).

Some of them are supported by other sources. Archeological and historical sources to name a few.

15. Supposed witnesses describe incredible events that should have had worldwide effect (but are not reported elsewhere) _________________.

Not uncommon in history either. Alexander the great was reported to have conquered “the whole world.� Later historians modified that to the known world at the time.

When an ancient writing says the whole world was flooded by forty days and nights of rain. Why can’t that be interpreted as a great flood? Many GREAT Floods occurred in ancient times in biblical areas that could have been interpreted as the �whole world� being flooded.

How about the flooding of the Mediterranean basin about 34,000 years ago the last time the isthmus of Gibraltar was breach and most likely the greatest loss of human life in the history of humanity occurred? What about the epic of Gilgamesh? Geologists know it happened. Why should possible references to ancient geological events it in ancient Hebrew or Sumerian records be thought to be completely fantastical or complete fantasy? Is it that difficult for us with today’s knowledge to see the connections? No way does it verify what is said in either account but today’s science opens the doors new possible interpretations to here to for unthinkable events.



http://www.nasca.org.uk/Medit/medit.html

www site HERE

www site HERE

[Zzyzx]

.
Joer,

I commend you on a noble attempt to defend a very weak position. You are obviously intelligent and articulate. I have no doubt that you are very passionate in your beliefs – so passionate that great holes in the stories are glossed over or ignored.

Your points are not uncommon religious "defense" for the lack of evidence to support claims made. However, excuses are not equal to evidence. Dancing around the lack may confuse or convince some; however, analytical and discerning readers understand the difference between excuses and evidence.

Nonetheless, I enjoy these exchanges with you and regard them as worthy of those who read these threads.

Thank you for your civility.

Those who are heavily invested in believing the supposed biblical "eyewitness accounts" (which CANNOT be shown to be accounts by actual witnesses) MUST continue to promote such accounts as being factual and accurate when they have nothing else to offer.

It could be that those that your refer to that “are heavily invested in believing the supposed biblical "eyewitness accounts", are not unlike many historians who face the same problems of piecing together the life culture the mix of peoples, attitudes, customs, languages, religions and other aspects of events that occur within a specific area at a specific time in the historical evolutionary development of humankind.

A major difference is that historians do not (to my knowledge) think that their "eternal life" depends upon the story they attempt to understand. If they were under death threat (or some such thing) to believe their findings, they would be similar to theologists looking for evidence.

It certainly seems logical they would face the same problems that historians do. So what do historians do that makes their historical work and analysis acceptable while any historical work involving similar biblical accounts is un-acceptable? Sounds like a familiar theme. We’ve gone through this already haven’t we? Well lets take a look at it again.

Again, the historians' "eternal life" is not at stake.

Notice that historians are NOT part of an organization that is selling services based upon stories about Alexander the Great. Religious writers ARE part of an organization that sells religious services based upon the tales they tell.

This is a case of using the source itself to "verify" itself.

What’s that mean? Is that like a report from the field on an action that occurred?

No. It is like saying this novel says it is a true story, therefore it is a true story.

Say like one of Alexander the Great’s scribes wrote of one of his engagements, would that be the source verifying itself. He could command the scribe to create the report anyway he wanted it to look. He could lie about the number of casualties, augment his heroics in the battle. Increase the number of his personal kills. Add the names of his most known enemies to the list of his personal victories over them weather he was involved or not. And then the papers the scribes write get lost on the halls of records.

EXACTLY. The account controlled by Alexander and his vassals or supporters is NOT to be regarded as absolute truth. Apply the same reasoning to JC and vassals or supporters.

Occasionally an interested party maybe a historian transcribes them before the records deteriorate or are destroyed when overrun and burned by another enemy who rose to power at a future point in time.

Do you propose that the bible was only "occasionally" transcribed by an historian? Do you not realize that it was repeatedly transcribed, copy of copy of copy, for a thousand years by MONKS. Is there ANY chance that the "interested parties" altered what they were copying – any chance at all?

Is there any possible motivation for the monks / scribes or their directors to "improve" the text?

Maybe the enemies scribes rewrote the records that another historian found and transcribed hundreds of years later. And thus it continued for hundreds or even thousands of years until now historians try to compile a history for the fragmented and conflicting records to teach our children in the schools of today or the world’s history of thousands of years ago.

Do you assume that I endorse all of the history we accept or teach?

Do you think Zzy that the history we accept and approve for our children in school is any more accurate or less slanted or affected by ravages or time and conflicts than the biblical histories?

I do not defend the reliability of any particular version of ancient history. I do not necessarily agree that what is taught as "history" in our schools is accurate or appropriate.

I do NOT equate a single source with truth. Verification by wide ranging sources is preferable (regardless whether secular or sectarian or mixed).

Then today’s anthropologists discover even more truths and facts in the buried wreckage of past wars and find even more errors in historical accounts that are then corrected.

That is as it should be. We should depend upon EVIDENCE and we should modify our thinking and conclusions when encountering information that adds to existing knowledge.

When Theists promote a god story they are asked for evidence. They reply with excuses.

A few limitations on the supposed biblical "eyewitness accounts"

The problem is Zzy the supposed limitations you imply are limited to biblical "eyewitness accounts" and are supposed to be sufficient to discredit everything contained therein.

Correction: the limitations cast doubt upon the "testimony" of the witness – and are not applied to the event itself.

One or several supposed "witnesses" to any event may be discredited without reflecting upon the event itself.

BUT the SAME LIMITATIONS are limiting a tremendous number of historical accounts which we find acceptable for our purposes of education and learning. As inaccurate and imperfect as they are.

Does anyone claim that believing in Alexander the Great or other "historical figure" will lead to "eternal salvation"? Does anyone encourage others to worship Alexander or to contribute part of their income to his promotional society?

1. The "eyewitness" claims are PART of the story, they are NOT independent accounts separate from the story.

like an airplane pilot giving an account of the battle of the midway – he’s part of the story and NOT an independent account separate from the story. So throw our hi account.

Correction: Identify the pilot as part of the story. Do NOT claim that he is an "independent witness", provide the reader sufficient information to evaluate the merits and biases of the writer.

Does it make any difference if the "pilot" telling the tale is Japanese? Might his story be EXPECTED to be different than a US pilot? Isn't the reader entitled to know the position from which the reporter writes?

2. The accounts are NOT shown to be those of actual people who observed events

-so a historian or newspaper reporter writes about what a GI told him. – So throw his story out because the historian or newspaper writer didn’t actually “Observe� what the GI told him.

Correction: When the news reporter or historian writes he is EXPECTED to say clearly that the story he tells is NOT his, but is being told to him. He is expected to identify his sources (unless precluded by security concerns).

3. The identify of supposed reporting witnesses is unknown or unverifiable

So one GI tells another what happened in a certain action. That GI tells a reporter what the other one told but he doesn’t know who the other guy was And the reporter can’t find him because he gets lost in the action. So throw that story out to EVEN if all the other witnesses to the event are dead. The story doesn’t get told, because it can’t be verified.

Correction: Tell the story WITH all the pertinent information regarding its source.

A twice-told tale is less regarded than a true witness account. DON'T try to sound like a witness if you are repeating stories you have heard from others. That is unethical and blatantly dishonest.

4. The reliability and veracity of supposed witnesses is unknown

So now you have more than one witness telling about something that happened to them. Maybe the number and strength of the enemy over the next hill, but you don’t know if they are telling the truth. So you don’t tell their story to the commander and he send a bunch of troops over the hill and they get wiped out

Correction: A responsible person would tell the commander what he has heard WITH all the necessary information regarding sources and their possible reliability.

Give the commander all the information available – positive, negative and neutral – and let him make a decision based upon HIS evaluation and investigation. A rational commander will, if at all possible, seek additional sources of information (convergence of evidence) upon which to base a reasoned decision.

5. The actual "path of information" from observer to recorder is unknown

Who told you the enemy’s over the hill I don’t know, some soldier, who told him, I don’t another soldier� so you don’t’ record the report.

Seek additional information.

6. The number of people or generations between the observer and recorder is unknown

Go back to Alexander’s battle how many people or generations to this story go through until it reached us in the history class. Shoot I don’t know do you Zzy? Throw it out.

Remember that I have no vested interest in defending Alexander stories and have not stated a position in favor of any particular view. That is YOUR straw man.

I make no recommendation that the story (or the bible accounts) be "thrown out" – only that they be recognized for what they are – fallible records that cannot be regarded as absolute truth.

The reliability and veracity of writers is unknown and unverifiable.

Same as 4. Except now the commander throws out the info and sends the troops to their deaths because he doesn’t trust the guy reporting to him.

Your straw man "commander" is as incompetent as religious leaders who might "send people to their death" (spiritual or real) based upon tales told without verification.

10. Different writers give different accounts

They’d be plagiarizing if they didn’t. Wouldn't they?

ABSOLUTELY NOT if they told their own account and did not "borrow" the writings of others without giving credit, they would NOT be guilty of plagiarizing.

11. No original documents of recordings are available.

I ran out of long lasting papyrus paper and had to use the run of the mill kind.

That is a "great" excuse – and an admission that evidence is NOT available.

12. No compilation documents (bibles) available are earlier than eighth century and in a different language than originals.

I

’m sure there are many acceptable histories we have today that lack the same documentation but we accept them as true anyway. WHY the double standard?

Exactly what "histories" do you think I (the one involved in this debate) accept as truthful or complete?

13. "The" bible has, for over a thousand years, been edited, re-edited, transcribed, translated, modified, revised and rewritten by countless unknown people; thus, there is no way to know if or how accounts have been changed.

Not uncommon in historical practice of popular events.

Correct: It is common for ancient accounts to be modified.

Therefore, the accounts can reasonably be regarded as not entirely true or accurate. Is that correct?

14. Bible stories are NOT supported by other sources – only by reference back to the same source (i.e., no support at all).

Some of them are supported by other sources. Archeological and historical sources to name a few.

I challenge you to show archeological or historical sources to support ANY of the bible "miracle" tales (including the "resurrection"). I have started as separate topic to encourage you and others to supply archeological and historical sources to support the tales.

15. Supposed witnesses describe incredible events that should have had worldwide effect (but are not reported elsewhere) _________________.

Not uncommon in history either. Alexander the great was reported to have conquered “the whole world.� Later historians modified that to the known world at the time.

Do later religionists discount incredible bible tales when they discover that the only reference to "miracles" is in their religious promotional literature?

When an ancient writing says the whole world was flooded by forty days and nights of rain. Why can’t that be interpreted as a great flood? Many GREAT Floods occurred in ancient times in biblical areas that could have been interpreted as the �whole world� being flooded.

The Genesis account of the flood is VERY specific. "God" is quoted as saying he will kill "every living thing" on the Earth.

Does that sound like something less than a worldwide flood? Have you actually read the Genesis tale of the flood? Do you still regard that as the story of a local flood?

My Head to Head debate with Otseng deals with many related topics.

How about the flooding of the Mediterranean basin about 34,000 years ago the last time the isthmus of Gibraltar was breach and most likely the greatest loss of human life in the history of humanity occurred?

What about it?

Are you saying that event inspired the bible flood story?

If so, what happened to the supposed "inspired by god" and "truth" claims? Wouldn't a "god" who was supposedly involved in the matter realize the extent of flooding?

What about the epic of Gilgamesh? Geologists know it happened. Why should possible references to ancient geological events it in ancient Hebrew or Sumerian records be thought to be completely fantastical or complete fantasy? Is it that difficult for us with today’s knowledge to see the connections? No way does it verify what is said in either account but today’s science opens the doors new possible interpretations to here to for unthinkable events.

I am willing to discuss geology or Earth scienc as one who has studied and taught in the field. Is there a related topic that you would suggest as a separate thread or as a Head to Head debate?

[joer]

Howdy Zzy. It’s wonderful to receive your cordial greeting. With the Holidays getting closer it’s a pleasure to share Good Will with you Zzy and all here.

You wrote:

I have no doubt that you are very passionate in your beliefs – so passionate that great holes in the stories are glossed over or ignored.

I believe I’m no more passionate in my beliefs than you or anyone here is in theirs. We each have our own worldviews that guide our lives, attitudes and decisions.

You write:

analytical and discerning readers understand the difference between excuses and evidence

I’m counting on it. Like in this next statement of yours:

I said

It could be that those that your refer to that “are heavily invested in believing the supposed biblical "eyewitness accounts", are not unlike many historians who face the same problems of piecing together the life culture the mix of peoples, attitudes, customs, languages, religions and other aspects of events that occur within a specific area at a specific time in the historical evolutionary development of humankind.

To which you replied:
A major difference is that historians do not (to my knowledge) think that their "eternal life" depends upon the story they attempt to understand. If they were under death threat (or some such thing) to believe their findings, they would be similar to theologists looking for evidence.

It seems a little far-fetched to me that an historian of Religious or biblical history would falsify their work to gain “eternal life�. It would also seem illogical to think that ONLY historians of biblical history were Religious. Certainly with the percentage of humanity that believes in God it would be illogical to think all historians of non-religious history or non-biblical history to be non-religious. It would also be illogical with the percentage of humanity believing in God for historians to IGNORE religious elements and beliefs of the historical societies and cultures they were investigating, studying or reporting on.

You write:

Again, the historians' "eternal life" is not at stake.

Exactly. Neither the religious or non-religious historians lives are at stake. Unless they intentionally lie and cheat on their reporting, they not only would their eternal lives be at stake for sinning, their physical lives might be at stake in the historically less civilized populations where they might meet death for they transgressions.

You write:

Notice that historians are NOT part of an organization that is selling services based upon stories about Alexander the Great. Religious writers ARE part of an organization that sells religious services based upon the tales they tell.

I beg to differ. They cater to Publishers who are venders to educational systems competing for placing their histories into the classrooms. Thus economically benefiting the historians and publishers alike while increasing their reputation and sales for other books under different subjects.

Of Biblical historical sources you wrote:

This is a case of using the source itself to "verify" itself.

I wrote:

What’s that mean?

You replied:

It is like saying this novel says it is a true story, therefore it is a true story.

That doesn’t seem like a very clear answer to me. You don’t need to clarify it because it seems it’s really not that important.

You wrote of the possibility of historical inaccuracies:

EXACTLY. The account controlled by Alexander and his vassals or supporters is NOT to be regarded as absolute truth. Apply the same reasoning to JC and vassals or supporters.

I’m glad you acknowledge that these historical inaccuracies can occur in non-religious and religious history alike. So there is no need to hold biblical scholars or historians to a higher standard than any historian pre se.

You write:

Do you propose that the bible was only "occasionally" transcribed by an historian? Do you not realize that it was repeatedly transcribed, copy of copy of copy, for a thousand years by MONKS.

Those who read what I wrote, know I’m not proposing that. They can see that I’m proposing that biblical historical inaccuracies are no more common than any historical inaccuracy of a similar content of evidence from that long ago, biblical or otherwise.

You write:

Is there any possible motivation for the monks / scribes or their directors to "improve" the text?

Only the motivation that any historian would have…to discover and report the truth as accurately as possible.

You wrote:

I do NOT equate a single source with truth. Verification by wide ranging sources is preferable (regardless whether secular or sectarian or mixed).

Exactly. The problem is, you DON�T accept the range of sources verifying the historicity of biblical personages and events that I’ve already presented. You keep raising the same objections perhaps dressed in different words. If you allowed me to present MORE verification of Biblical evidence I would. Yet I feel impelled to spend so much time responding to your criticisms, I don’t have time to find more evidence acceptable to material and secular standards of acceptability.

There are SO MANY questions that you raise seemingly to create doubt in anyone’s minds as to the veracity of the idea that it is possible to find ANY VALID acceptable evidence of ANYTHING that’s in the bible. There’s a lot more evidence to SO MANY questions you’ve already raised. I could spend months presenting it to just the questions that have been raised already. One question could be answered with pages and pages of evidence. Then you could respond to new evidence perhaps a little more directly than raising 15 to 20 of the same general questions and objections to religious or biblical texts or positions per post.

You write:

That is as it should be. We should depend upon EVIDENCE and we should modify our thinking and conclusions when encountering information that adds to existing knowledge.

Exactly, so let me show you some new evidence, and instead of critiquing every thing religious wether in my post or not, lets just focus on evaluating the evidence using acceptable secular historical and analytical terms applied to religious sources or sources supporting religious sources. Let’s leave the supernatural claims and attacks out of it and let’s see if we can add to scant body of acceptable secular historical, analytical and anthropological evidence we have so far.

Since this is a civil debate, does that sound good to you? Let me present some evidence in response to a point or issue related the OP than you respond to it and show your evidence that counters it. Than I’ll respond to the evidence you presented.

Than You present some evidence in response to a point or issue related the OP. I’ll respond to it and show my evidence that counters it. Then you have the final response to my counter.

Than we will repeat the process moving forward with new evidence each time. Hopefully we won’t get stuck on repetitive objections and replies about the same old eveidence.

How’s that sound Zzy? Would that be acceptable to you? We can always ajust the review procedure by agreement when we need to spend more time on certain evidence or issue.

Thank You my friend. Happy Winter Soltice to you!
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/wintersolstice1.html

"He who cuts his own wood is twice warmed". Thrice warmed if you cut AND split it.

Peace and Good Will to all.

[Zzyzx]

.

I have no doubt that you are very passionate in your beliefs – so passionate that great holes in the stories are glossed over or ignored.

I believe I’m no more passionate in my beliefs than you or anyone here is in theirs. We each have our own worldviews that guide our lives, attitudes and decisions.

The term "passion" as I use it above is defined (by Merriam Webster Dictionary and my use) as "intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or conviction". That does not seem to apply to a reasoned acceptance of the real world as it exists. Many realists (me included) have little or no emotional, intellectual or personal attachment to specific theories or explanations. I am, for instance, quite willing to modify my conclusions when presented with evidence.

I am NOT, however, willing to adopt promoted ideas based upon the promoter's conjecture, opinion, wishful thinking, promises OR upon ancient ignorance.

"Belief" implies more than "worldview, attitude and decision". I do not use the term applied to myself because it has connotations that do not seem to fit.

It could be that those that your refer to that “are heavily invested in believing the supposed biblical "eyewitness accounts", are not unlike many historians who face the same problems of piecing together the life culture the mix of peoples, attitudes, customs, languages, religions and other aspects of events that occur within a specific area at a specific time in the historical evolutionary development of humankind.

A major difference is that historians do not (to my knowledge) think that their "eternal life" depends upon the story they attempt to understand. If they were under death threat (or some such thing) to believe their findings, they would be similar to theologists looking for evidence.

It seems a little far-fetched to me that an historian of Religious or biblical history would falsify their work to gain “eternal life�.

Why would you suggest that anyone would "falsify their work"?

It would also seem illogical to think that ONLY historians of biblical history were Religious.

Yes it does seem illogical to think that. Are you making that proposal?

Certainly with the percentage of humanity that believes in God it would be illogical to think all historians of non-religious history or non-biblical history to be non-religious.

I agree. The point is?

It would also be illogical with the percentage of humanity believing in God for historians to IGNORE religious elements and beliefs of the historical societies and cultures they were investigating, studying or reporting on.

Has someone suggested that historians should ignore religious beliefs of societies they study? OR, is that a straw man?

Again, the historians' "eternal life" is not at stake.

Exactly. Neither the religious or non-religious historians lives are at stake. Unless they intentionally lie and cheat on their reporting, they not only would their eternal lives be at stake for sinning, their physical lives might be at stake in the historically less civilized populations where they might meet death for they transgressions.

Let's consider a theologian looking at an historical event – say the "resurrection". That person DOES have a vested interest in concluding that the stories are true IF they think that belief in a "divine (resurrected) Jesus" is essential to their achieving "everlasting bliss" based upon belief and worship.

If the theologian was to conclude that evidence does NOT support a literal "resurrection", that challenges the dogma and doctrine they accepted would lead to them to "heaven". Thus their "eternal salvation" IS at stake. Their very beliefs are "on the line" (involved) in their conclusions. In fact, the conclusion (god exists) predates the investigation.

Notice that historians are NOT part of an organization that is selling services based upon stories about Alexander the Great. Religious writers ARE part of an organization that sells religious services based upon the tales they tell.

I beg to differ. They cater to Publishers who are venders to educational systems competing for placing their histories into the classrooms. Thus economically benefiting the historians and publishers alike while increasing their reputation and sales for other books under different subjects.

You are DEAD WRONG. Most historians do NOT write books for publication. Most derive NO income from publications (including some who do publish books).

Thus, the financial incentive you cite as "evidence" is incorrect.

This is a case of using the source itself to "verify" itself.

What’s that mean?

It is like saying this novel says it is a true story, therefore it is a true story.

That doesn’t seem like a very clear answer to me. You don’t need to clarify it because it seems it’s really not that important.

A contraire, it is VERY important that a source NOT be used to verify itself.

When a bible promoter /defender makes a statement such as "the resurrection actually happened and Jesus came back to life", I ask for evidence. I am given bible quotations ("the bible says it is true") and NO other evidence.

Thus, the ONLY evidence presented to verify the bible story is . . . the bible story. THAT is using the source in an attempt to verify the source.

]EXACTLY. The account controlled by Alexander and his vassals or supporters is NOT to be regarded as absolute truth. Apply the same reasoning to JC and vassals or supporters.

I’m glad you acknowledge that these historical inaccuracies can occur in non-religious and religious history alike. So there is no need to hold biblical scholars or historians to a higher standard than any historian pre se.

Agreed.

What standards do you apply to determine if tales of Norse "gods" are true?

]Do you propose that the bible was only "occasionally" transcribed by an historian? Do you not realize that it was repeatedly transcribed, copy of copy of copy, for a thousand years by MONKS.

Those who read what I wrote, know I’m not proposing that. They can see that I’m proposing that biblical historical inaccuracies are no more common than any historical inaccuracy of a similar content of evidence from that long ago, biblical or otherwise.

Okay.

Do we agree that the bible cannot be shown to be any more accurate than other historical documents of similar age?

Is there any possible motivation for the monks / scribes or their directors to "improve" the text?

Only the motivation that any historian would have…to discover and report the truth as accurately as possible.

Are you claiming that the people involved in transcribing, translating, editing, revising and rewriting the bible for 1500 years had ONLY the motivation to "discover and report the truth as accurately as possible"?

Are you saying that NONE of them had an agenda to promote religion? Could any of them have been inclined to "improve" the text? Are you familiar that Archbishop Ussher's 4004 BC "date of creation" became inserted into copies made from his bible?

Anyone who is depending on the Anglican Bishop Ussher for their interpretation of the Old Testament chronology is in for a real shock. Bishop Ussher proposed that:

- Adam was created in the year 4004 BC
- The Great Flood occurred in 2349 BC
- The Jews entered Egypt in 1728 BC (when Joseph was sold into slavery)
or 1706 BC when Jacob entered Egypt.
- The Israel left Egypt in 1491 BC
- That Solomon layed the foundation of the temple in 1012 BC.

You will find this in most all of the old King James protestant bibles. You will also find them in old Catholic Bibles. For example, they revered Haydock Bible contains Ussher’s chronology on pages 1227-1231.
http://www.catholicintl.com/catholiciss ... ogies2.htm

I do NOT equate a single source with truth. Verification by wide ranging sources is preferable (regardless whether secular or sectarian or mixed).

Exactly. The problem is, you DON�T accept the range of sources verifying the historicity of biblical personages and events that I’ve already presented.

Correction: I accept that some people, places and events mentioned in bible stories did exist or occur. HOWEVER, I do NOT accept that mention of real people, places and events verifies the truth of the stories themselves. If a novel mentions New York City, does that mean that the story must be literally truth and not fiction?

You keep raising the same objections perhaps dressed in different words. If you allowed me to present MORE verification of Biblical evidence I would. Yet I feel impelled to spend so much time responding to your criticisms, I don’t have time to find more evidence acceptable to material and secular standards of acceptability.

I often raise the same objections to the same claims repeated without verification.

Make it easy on yourself. Keep it simple. Pick a claim that you KNOW you can substantiate. Then do so.

For instance. Christianity is based upon the divinity of Jesus. Much of the claim of divinity is based upon the tale of "resurrection". Something that basic to the religion should be very easy to substantiate (because without it claims of divinity are very weak and the religion is based upon falsehood).

ALL it takes to substantiate the claim of a literal "resurrection" is to cite wide ranging, credible sources that report the event. NOTE: citing bible stories to support bible stories does NOT count as even one support.

Your search for evidence will be very short – because there is none – at least none has been presented after many centuries of theological study.

There are SO MANY questions that you raise seemingly to create doubt in anyone’s minds as to the veracity of the idea that it is possible to find ANY VALID acceptable evidence of ANYTHING that’s in the bible.

Precisely. One who makes claims should expect the claims to be challenged in debate.

I find that open and honest answers to questions take far less time and energy than contrived and convoluted "answers" designed to conceal more than they reveal. "Tangled webs" come to mind.

Those who choose to defend the bible as being literally true have great numbers of questions to answer.

When claims cannot be substantiated and questions cannot be answered openly and honestly, they SHOULD be doubted (in anyone's mind – including yours).

There’s a lot more evidence to SO MANY questions you’ve already raised. I could spend months presenting it to just the questions that have been raised already. One question could be answered with pages and pages of evidence. Then you could respond to new evidence perhaps a little more directly than raising 15 to 20 of the same general questions and objections to religious or biblical texts or positions per post.

Perhaps you should refine your "evidence".

For instance, I have asked many times "What evidence supports the claim that a dead body came back to life after three days in the grave (as claimed by Christian lore)? The honest and complete answer is that stories in a book tell that tale and there is NOTHING else other than conjecture or opinion to demonstrate that the story is true.

Rather than acknowledge the truth and acknowledge that the story is unsupported, there are usually attempts to show that death is reversible (quoting stories of "miraculous" return to life of people declared dead (but not dead and buried for three days).

I am not saying that you have used this particular approach because I do not remember one way or the other. However, it is representative of why religionists often seem to think that they are "buried in questions" and perhaps in a search for evidence. If clear-cut evidence existed there would be no great challenge to set if forth for all to consider.

That is as it should be. We should depend upon EVIDENCE and we should modify our thinking and conclusions when encountering information that adds to existing knowledge.

Exactly, so let me show you some new evidence, and instead of critiquing every thing religious wether in my post or not, lets just focus on evaluating the evidence using acceptable secular historical and analytical terms applied to religious sources or sources supporting religious sources.

I am always open to new evidence. In fact, I repeatedly ASK for evidence. The response is usually nothing more than additional unsubstantiated claims, conjecture, opinions, or quotations of ancient ignorance (or superstition or belief).

Are you asking me to NOT critique, question or criticize the "evidence" you present?

Let’s leave the supernatural claims and attacks out of it and let’s see if we can add to scant body of acceptable secular historical, analytical and anthropological evidence we have so far.

Are you willing to "leave the supernatural claims and attacks out of it" COMPLETELY?

If you can actually do that and not resort to fanciful tales and "goddidit" we can have very interesting discussions. However, I suspect they will be quite short. How does one defend or promote religion without supernatural claims?

Since this is a civil debate, does that sound good to you? Let me present some evidence in response to a point or issue related the OP than you respond to it and show your evidence that counters it. Than I’ll respond to the evidence you presented.

Again, are you suggesting that I must accept your "evidence" without questioning or criticizing?

Are you expecting me to "prove it did not occur"?

Than You present some evidence in response to a point or issue related the OP. I’ll respond to it and show my evidence that counters it. Then you have the final response to my counter.

Than we will repeat the process moving forward with new evidence each time. Hopefully we won’t get stuck on repetitive objections and replies about the same old eveidence.

What you propose sounds a bit like "point / counterpoint" style of debate.

How’s that sound Zzy? Would that be acceptable to you? We can always ajust the review procedure by agreement when we need to spend more time on certain evidence or issue.

Yes.

I suggest that we set up a one-on-one debate in the Head to Head sub-forum, agree upon practices and policies, and ask two moderators to very closely moderate our discussions.

What topic do you suggest?

Thank You my friend. Happy Winter Soltice to you!

Thank you and the same to you.

"He who cuts his own wood is twice warmed". Thrice warmed if you cut AND split it.

My wife and I make a LOT of firewood – most given to others – only a little burned in a chimnea or "campfire". Our RV home does not have wood burning capability. We have counted six "warmings" when we were heating a dwelling exclusively with wood – 1) cut, 2) split, 3) transport, 4) stack, 5) move in, 6) burn.

[joer]

Happy New Year! To all. I love it. Something most of us can agree on.

Thanks for your post Zzy. I’ve been trying to avoid the temptation to engage in a discussion or debate if you will on supernatural events. Confused, wisely I believe, for this OP eliminated the need to meet those challenges. While you continue it seems Zzy, to wish to enter into those kinds of debates I still must avoid them as I believe they are indefensible positions by the terms of acceptable material realities and proof.

Since you will not entertain a spiritual basis of explanation for supernatural events I can’t help you there my friend.

BUT what I’ve been trying to do on this thread is Save the Baby from getting throughout with the Bath water in terms of biblical or biblical related scenarios. If the bath water is the materially untenable biblical positions or events. The Baby are those persons, places, things, events or stories that DO have some basis or possible basis in material, historical or scientific reality. I had intended to approach you on the basis of the more recent translations and historical and literary analysis applied to biblical translations after a Pope in the second Vatican council in the early sixties suggested we bring things up to date and make them more pertinent. He opened up the guarded achieves and encouraged using the most ancient manuscripts available to make the translations.

Many of the attacks I‘ve seen you and others make on biblical positions on this forum are based on OLD ideas and interpretations about the bible. Like the idea that the earth is 6,000 years old. Or ideas that are not really meant to be taken literally, but because there are those believers WHO DO STILL take them literally you respond to other believers in the same fashion as you would respond to fundamentalists.

But I found something yesterday or the day before I thought would serve the purpose of the OP in that it is scientific evidence that could possibly be the basis of part of an old biblical story. The Star of Bethlehem.

The exact dates (May 29th, September 29th, and December 5th) used for the Jupiter and Saturn conjunction were published by Charles Pritchard in 1856 in the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. XXV, p. 119. From there they were extensively quoted by others:

“Now we learn from astronomical calculations, that a remarkable conjunction of the planets of our system took place a short time before the birth of our Lord. [I may premise, that the whole of the statements in this note have been remarkably confirmed, except in the detail now corrected, “that an ordinary eye would regard them (the planets) as one star of surpassing brightness,� by the Rev. C. Pritchard, in a paper read by him before the Royal Astronomical Society, containing his calculations of the times and nearness’s of the conjunctions, as verified by the Astronomer Royal at Greenwich. The exact days and hours have been inserted below from Mr. Pritchard’s paper.] In the year of Rome 747, on the 20th of May [29th, Pritchard], there was a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the 20th degree of the constellation of Pisces, close to the first point of Aries, which was the part of the heavens noted in the astrological sciences as that in which the signs denoted the greatest and most noble events. On the 27th of October [29th Sept., Pritchard], in the same year, another conjunction of the same planets took place, in the 16th degree of Pisces: and on the 12th of November [5th Dec., Pritchard], a third, in the 15th degree of the same sign…. Supposing the magi to have seen the first of these conjunctions, they saw it actually in the East; for on the 29th of May it would rise 3 ½ hours before sunrise…. [It is fair to notice the influence on the position maintained in this note of the fact which Mr. Pritchard seems to have substantiated, that the planets did not, during the year B.C. 7, approach each other so as to be mistaken by an eye for one star: indeed not “within double the apparent diameter of the moon.� I submit that even if this were so, the inference in the note remains as it was. The conjunction of the two planets, complete or incomplete, would be that which would bear astrological significance, not their looking like one star.]� (Alford 1863: 10-11)

So we do see Zzy that there HAS been a connection in Science to the Star of Bethlehem legend in the time and conjunction of those planets as stated. In the following 1892 William Smith article on this phenomenon, you notice his reluctance on accepting the story on the basis of the date 7BC. But I have seen recently a post by Bernee arguing about the date of Christ’s birth and proffering that Christ’s birth is generally accepted now as having occurred in 6BC. So as time passes we find the 7BC date is becoming more accurate in just the last 100 years as the errors in time tracking of the Julian Calendar are discovered and applied. (Note that "7 B.C." corresponds to the astronomical year -6; astronomers use a year "zero").

Smith, William (1892) Dictionary of the Bible. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company. V.2, pp. 1348-
1349.
The appearance of the star to the wise men has been thought likely, by the aid of astronomy, to determinethe date. But the opinion that the star in the East was a remarkable conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn inthe Pices, is now rejected. Besides the difficulty of reconciling it with the sacred narrative (Matt. ii 9) it
would throw back the birth of our Lord to A.U.C. 747, which is too early. (Smith 1892.v2: 1348)
We have said that in the year 747 occurred a remarkable combination of the planets Jupiter and Saturn,and this is supposed to be the sign by which the wise men knew that the birth of some great one had takenplace. But, as has been said, the date does not agree with this view, and the account of the Evangelistsdescribes a single star moving before them and guiding their steps. (Smith 1892.v2: 1349)
Many have thought the star seen by the wise men gives grounds for an exact calculation of the time of our Lord’s birth. It will be found however, that this is not the case. For it has first been assumed that the star
was not properly a star but an astronomical conjunction of known stars. Kepler finds a conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the sign of Pisces in A.U.C. 747, and again in the spring of the next year, with the
planet Mars added; and from this he would place the birth of Jesus in 748. Ideler, on the same kind of calculation, places it in A.U.C. 747. But this process only proves a highly improbable date, on highly improbable evidence. The words of St. Matthew are extremely hard to reconcile with the notion of a conjunction of planets; it was a star that appeared, and it gave the Magi ocular proof of its purpose by guiding them to where the young child was. But a new light has been thrown on the subject by the Rev. C.Pritchard, who has made the calculations afresh. Ideler (Handbuch d. Chronologie) asserts that there were three conjunctions of Jupiter and Saturn in B.C. 7, and that in the third they approached so near that, “to a person with weak eyes, the one planet would almost seem to come within the range of the dispersed light of the other, so that both might appear as one star.� Dean Alford puts it much more strongly, that on
November 12 in that year the planets were so close “that an ordinary eye would regard them as one star of surpassing brightness� (Greek Test. in loc). Mr. Pritchard finds, and his calculations have been verified
and confirmed at Greenwich, that this conjunction occurred not on November 12 but early on December 5; and that even with Ideler’s somewhat strange postulate of an observer with weak eyes, the planets could never have appeared as one star, for they never approached each other within double the apparent diameter of the moon (Memoirs R. Astr. Soc. vol. xxv.).1 [STAR IN THE EAST.] (William 1892.v2: 1381) (See also STAR OF THE WISE MEN 1892.v4: 3107-3108)
1 Pritchard, C., 1856 On the conjunction of the Planets Jupiter and Saturn in the year 7 B.C., 66 B.C., A.D. 54, Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 16, 215-216. [Monthly Notes of the Royal Astronomical Society] Or see Memoirs of the Royal
Astronomical Society, Vol. xxv, p. 119, 1856.

Anyway Zzy, this does not “prove� by any means The Star of Bethlehem Story. But it does demonstrate something I have been saying consistently on this thread, that with modern scientific, literary and historical techniques, many of the things in the Bible that were previously ONLY taken by Faith ARE NOW finding an ACCEPTABLE materialistic basis for the possibility or actually of their having REALLY occurred. And considering the mind set of the people of that time and place in history it would be logical that a story of the type of the The Star of Bethlehem would emerge from the FACTS surrounding it’s occurrence. And what scientists are looking for and finding today ARE evidences of THOSE FACTS that occurred 2000 years ago.

So, so far on this thread we have found Material Evidence for three cities mentioned in the bible and dating that puts them close to the time they were supposed to have existed as stated in the Bible. We historically acknowledged the existence of Jesus and the fact that he was a Jewish teacher who went about teaching of the kingdom of God. And now that there was a planetary conjunction that could have been in part the basis for the Star of Bethlehem Story.

Peace my brothers and sisters of the thread and Good Will to Humankind.

[Nilloc James]

there HAS been a connection in Science to the Star of Bethlehem legend

People have added religous connentations to natural phemona long before the time of jesus.

It is possible myths rose around these,

The greeks did it with their gods, zeus and lightning for example.

Or the egyptions, Ra(Rah) and the sun.

acknowledged the existence of Jesus and the fact that he was a Jewish teacher who went about teaching of the kingdom of God. And now that there was a planetary conjunction that could have been in part the basis for the Star of Bethlehem Story

In addition there is a large difference between Jesus existing and being the son of god.

Just because a religion is formed around a person it does not prove they are what they claim.

[joer]

there HAS been a connection in Science to the Star of Bethlehem legend

People have added religous connentations to natural phemona long before the time of jesus..

That's true Nilloc. But not ALL of those connotations receive scientific investigation 2000 years later and this one has.

It is possible myths rose around these,

The greeks did it with their gods, zeus and lightning for example.

Or the egyptions, Ra(Rah) and the sun.

Your right again. Yesterday's religions are today's Mythology and Today's religions will be tomorrow's Mythology. But the question that science, logic and reason and EVOLUTIONARY RELIGION try to uncover is: "Where does the TRUTH lay?"

acknowledged the existence of Jesus and the fact that he was a Jewish teacher who went about teaching of the kingdom of God. And now that there was a planetary conjunction that could have been in part the basis for the Star of Bethlehem Story

In addition there is a large difference between Jesus existing and being the son of god.

That's right again. And for the purposes of this OP we are looking for only that that can be proven by a materialistically based basis of reality.

Just because a religion is formed around a person it does not prove they are what they claim.

Exactly. Doesn't prove they aren't what they claim either. But what we are looking for here is "WHAT IS PROVABLE?"

Peace brother. Nice to meet you.

[Goat]

there HAS been a connection in Science to the Star of Bethlehem legend

People have added religous connentations to natural phemona long before the time of jesus..

That's true Nilloc. But not ALL of those connotations receive scientific investigation 2000 years later and this one has.

It is possible myths rose around these,

The greeks did it with their gods, zeus and lightning for example.

Or the egyptions, Ra(Rah) and the sun.

Your right again. Yesterday's religions are today's Mythology and Today's religions will be tomorrow's Mythology. But the question that science, logic and reason and EVOLUTIONARY RELIGION try to uncover is: "Where does the TRUTH lay?"

acknowledged the existence of Jesus and the fact that he was a Jewish teacher who went about teaching of the kingdom of God. And now that there was a planetary conjunction that could have been in part the basis for the Star of Bethlehem Story

In addition there is a large difference between Jesus existing and being the son of god.

That's right again. And for the purposes of this OP we are looking for only that that can be proven by a materialistically based basis of reality.

Just because a religion is formed around a person it does not prove they are what they claim.

Exactly. Doesn't prove they aren't what they claim either. But what we are looking for here is "WHAT IS PROVABLE?"

Peace brother. Nice to meet you.

Well, you know that there have been at least 3 or 4 DIFFERENT phenomenon that is speculated as being connected to Jesus's birth. Since there are multiple items, and there is always something happening that
could be considered astrological in nature, the idea that some speculations about a particular astronomical event being the 'sign' is not very relevant.

Since there were numerous things that could be.. how can you say any one was?

[JoeyKnothead]

I don't know if we'll ever know for sure one way or the other here, but I know this - Joer is putting up one heck of a sound position. Right or wrong, he's using rational, logical, plausible evidence to support his claims.
I for one appreciate Joer's admitting the strengths and weaknesses of his position. I've had to say it once already today, and I'll say it again: Where a debater shows he's not dogmatically sticking to a position, I am able to trust he has done his homework, and investigated the issue thoroughly. I am able to more easily think he could danged well be right here.
If there were any "fence sitters" reading this thread, I could not blame them for completely accepting Joer's claims.

Givem heck Joer!

HAPPY NEW YEAR ONE AND ALL! EXCEPT MY EX OLD LADY...OH WHAT THE HECK, HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU TOO!

[joer]

Goat wrote:

Since there were numerous things that could be.. how can you say any one was?

What can I say Goat? There may have been many things it could have been. But this one is documented and proven that it happened then, it happened where He was supposed to have been born. And IT was a rare occurrence NOT one of many things that it could have been, BUT ONE of those rare things that probably would only be seen once in a lifetime or even in many lifetimes AND REALLY DID HAPPEN!

Joey wrote:

HAPPY NEW YEAR ONE AND ALL! EXCEPT MY EX OLD LADY...OH WHAT THE HECK, HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU TOO!

Good Will to You Joey! Thanks to you I know I’m not going to die of Cancer! I’m laughing to much. If you don’t mind my saying, God Bless Your ex-Old Lady TOO!