Standards of Evidence

[Zzyzx]

.
Those who attempt to defend weak positions tend to favor low standards of evidence since that is what they have to offer. “He said so, They said so, This book says so, I think so, Many believe� etc.

If I claim that something happened, I am prepared to present strong evidence from multiple independent sources. For instance, I state with confidence that Lincoln gave an address on November 19, 1863 – a century and a half ago. That claim is supported by so many disconnected sources that it would be extremely foolish to doubt it occurred.

However, I will NOT claim to know exactly what words he spoke. There are at least five different versions attributed to Lincoln himself, so his exact wording cannot be known with certainty – even with his own testimony.

A typical rebuttal (known as picking nits) is: “It was not a century and a half – it was 155 years and seven months� (or whatever), another “The difference in wording is insignificant.� Oh no it is not insignificant if one claims to know the exact words used. Bible defenders often claim to know exact wording used by Jesus two thousand years ago

Wait a minute:
Were the words written by Jesus? No
Were they written by people known to scholars and theologians as being personal eye witnesses? No
Were the words recorded in gospels when spoken or decades later? Later
If later, on exactly what what were their sources of information and how reliable? Unknown
What language did he speak? Likely Aramaic
What language is used in recording? Greek
If different, who translated and what is their record for accuracy? Unknown
What is the date of the earliest existing copy of the gospels? Fourth century
Do the gospels report exactly the same words? No
If not, which version is correct and why? Unknown

Are approximations good enough concerning words attributed to Jesus? Perhaps some appreciate a certain amount of ‘wiggle room’ when inconsistencies and errors are pointed out – but then argue vehemently about specific words in other cases.

Another ‘rebuttal’ – ‘You don’t know the exact words of Caesar, Aristotle, Plato, or other people of antiquity.� RIGHT, I do not AND I do not claim to know – and do not make life decisions based upon their words.

Question for debate: Since we cannot know with certainty words and actions of thousands of years ago, WHY expect or claim to know exact words and actions of Bible characters?

[Jagella]

Since we cannot know with certainty words and actions of thousands of years ago, WHY expect or claim to know exact words and actions of Bible characters?

As a Christian I was taught that the Bible writers were "inspired" to write what they did. In other words, it was a kind of "automatic writing" in which the "automaton" was the human holding the quill while God was the true author of their words (I was never told why God chose such an indirect and inefficient method). As a result, the end product had to be perfect and if quoting somebody like Jesus, that person's exact words.

So it's important to understand that what we read in the Bible isn't really history but what people by faith insist on believing. If Matthew tells us that Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount, then we know not from a historical account in the normal sense of the word but from a revelation from God himself. If the account originated in Matthew, then as a human he could be wrong about anything he wrote. However, if the account is seen as from God, then there must be truth to the account.

[John Human]

Question for debate: Since we cannot know with certainty words and actions of thousands of years ago, WHY expect or claim to know exact words and actions of Bible characters?

i'm going to compare the Biblical account of the teachings of Jesus to a muddy footprint. We can get a distinct impression, although the details are not clear.

[marco]

i'm going to compare the Biblical account of the teachings of Jesus to a muddy footprint. We can get a distinct impression, although the details are not clear.

But from this muddy footprint we have constructed a young god, son of an older god, brother of a shadowy spiritual figure. For completeness we have made his mother Queen of Heaven, and so resurrected the pantheon of Greek and Roman deities.


Caesar was born in 100 BC and died of stab wounds in 44 BC. In 55 BC he crossed the English Channel to land at Dover. He wrote in excellent prose an account of his wars in Gaul and his struggle in the Civil War which he won. We know that after him came Philippi and then Actium, battles that brought the Roman Emperor Augustus to power.

With Jesus we have the commentaries and opinions of Paul; the account of his speeches and his holiness from the evangelists; but we cannot say when he was born or when he died. He walked from one lake to another, healing a sore leg here and a staved thumb there. Then passed away. The sore leg and staved thumb became multiplication of fish and bread and raising of stinking corpses.

Chivalry was built on the legend of Arthur and his knights. Christianity was built on the legend of Jesus. Had Jesus wanted us to know him he could have worked as efficiently as Julius Caesar. Instead we have the teachings of a vast church, teachings that vaguely resemble something Christ may have said.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

A typical rebuttal (known as picking nits) is: “It was not a century and a half – it was 155 years and seven months� (or whatever), another “The difference in wording is insignificant.� Oh no it is not insignificant if one claims to know the exact words used. Bible defenders often claim to know exact wording used by Jesus two thousand years ago

I just wish to point out that this point above is definitely true, but not detrimental to Christianity. I am not an inerrantist; I am a Christian based on historical methodology--that is, on the science of past events.

[Zzyzx]

.

A typical rebuttal (known as picking nits) is: “It was not a century and a half – it was 155 years and seven months� (or whatever), another “The difference in wording is insignificant.� Oh no it is not insignificant if one claims to know the exact words used. Bible defenders often claim to know exact wording used by Jesus two thousand years ago

I just wish to point out that this point above is definitely true, but not detrimental to Christianity.

How can it be ‘not detrimental’ to claim to know exact words when exact words are not known to be available?

I am not an inerrantist; I am a Christian based on historical methodology--that is, on the science of past events.

Everyone is entitled to develop their own version of religious belief and call it ‘Christianity’. Doing so avoids dealing with the most difficult-to-accept parts. It is not surprising that tens of thousands of splinter groups have developed within that umbrella name.