Clarification of rule #3- Bible as evidence

[OpenYourEyes]

To moderators, preferably admin.

Here's one of the forum rules:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

I started another thread to address this rule but I did not get any clarification or confirmation. I questioned its application on this forum when a moderator made a series of statements that are contrary to rule #3 by reducing the Bible to just being claims or as being part of circular reasoning when used in debate.

Please clarify or confirm:
The Bible serves as evidence FOR claims regarding people, places and events. IN other words, the Bible is not just a matter of claims but can serve as EVIDENCE for claims. These claims relate to history and not theology, which is implied by the terms, "places", "people", and "events".

Is my understanding correct?

[Zzyzx]

.

Like I said, if an argument is going to be persuasive to a non-Christian, sources outside the Bible must be presented.

Wise words

I might go a bit further and suggest that when Apologists attempt to use only the Bible and thoughts about the Bible to support their arguments they fail to persuade (or even turn off) lukewarm Christians by demonstrating that what they say cannot be supported using sources outside the religious beliefs and literature.

If I was an Apologist I would choose my battles (and statements) carefully to avoid making it obvious that many claims and stories cannot be supported.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Question #2]) If so, then doesn't it follow that appealing to only the Bible, unless the passages in use are disputable (maybe because supernatural is involved or some other reason which is part of the debate), can count as history per historical standards - not proof, just some historical validity?

No, it doesn't follow. The Bible is not the only source of written accounts.

I don't quite understand your reply since I'm not claiming that the Bible is the only source of written accounts.

Did you mean to say that the Bible is not ever used by itself by historians?

In other words, historians always use outside sources before accepting anything in the Bible?

If that that's the case then I'm not sure what your view is based on, and I can message you evidence of historical methods and conclusions that are based on using only the Bible.

Like I said, if an argument is going to be persuasive to a non-Christian, sources outside the Bible must be presented.

If the argument is on the level of history, then what makes a claim historically valid is arguing based on historical standards and reasoning. This includes but is not limited to using just one source or written account. The non-Christian may not be persuaded or may dislike this standard, but then that's a matter of them not liking or understanding historical standards and says nothing about historical credibility.

[OpenYourEyes]

[Replying to post 12 by OpenYourEyes]

Just to pivot off of my previous post...

If you agree with the point of my revised question #2, then I'd recommend that you revise or delete your rule or guideline about using the Bible as the sole source for a claim. Rules #2 and #3 in the C&A forum are enough to be compatible with historical standards. Just to reiterate the reasons that I think are good for the revision:

- It's in keeping with historical standards which involve accepting historical claims based on the source making the claim, unless there's a known dispute or discrepancy.

- The rule that Zzyzx posted sometimes leads to confusion and reinforcing of misconceptions about the Bible being ONE source as opposed to one compilation derived from different sources.

- Related to the previous point, this avoids the Bible being dismissed a priori. If a skeptic doubts the authenticity of a passage, then both the skeptic and believer should debate that issue before the passage is accepted or disregarded in the context of a historical debate.

OR
If you can make it that no Christian will be penalized for using only the Bible to support 'historical' claims, then that might be good enough, as well. What should matter is that historical reasoning/standards are used, and not if skeptics like that process or not.

[Zzyzx]

.
A Solution

Let's have a sub-forum in which the Bible IS regarded as authoritative and proof of truth -- and another sub-forum in which the Bible is NOT regarded as authoritative or proof of truth.

People who want to use the Bible as authoritative and proof of truth can debate in the former and avoid the latter. People who do not accept the Bible as authoritative or proof of truth can debate in the latter and avoid the former.

OH, we already have both of those sub-forums. The former is called Theology, Doctrine and Dogma. The latter is called Christianity and Apologetics.

It mystifies me WHY those who want to use the Bible as Authoritative and proof of truth insist on attempting to debate in C&A while complaining that they are not allowed to use the Bible as authoritative and proof of truth.

WHY do they not use TD&D sub-forum where that IS the case?

Is this yet another example of religionists attempting to force their ideas / theology / literature onto others -- and complaining when they are not allowed to do so? That sounds like a microcosm of society in general with a Christian attitude of "persecution" when not allowed to inflict their beliefs and literature onto others.

[OpenYourEyes]

.
A Solution

Let's have a sub-forum in which the Bible IS regarded as authoritative and proof of truth -- and another sub-forum in which the Bible is NOT regarded as authoritative or proof of truth.

People who want to use the Bible as authoritative and proof of truth can debate in the former and avoid the latter. People who do not accept the Bible as authoritative or proof of truth can debate in the latter and avoid the former.

OH, we already have both of those sub-forums. The former is called Theology, Doctrine and Dogma. The latter is called Christianity and Apologetics.

It mystifies me WHY those who want to use the Bible as Authoritative and proof of truth insist on attempting to debate in C&A while complaining that they are not allowed to use the Bible as authoritative and proof of truth.

WHY do they not use TD&D sub-forum where that IS the case?

Is this yet another example of religionists attempting to force their ideas / theology / literature onto others -- and complaining when they are not allowed to do so? That sounds like a microcosm of society in general with a Christian attitude of "persecution" when not allowed to inflict their beliefs and literature onto others.

I'm not too sure that you understand my point since your post talks about "proof", "truth", and "proving Christianity" and not once did I advocate for those things. History is not about truth, proof, nor proving Christianity. In a sense, there are two levels of history. One level is just about acceptable data and the 2nd level is about coming up with hypotheses, explanations, and arguments based on that data. This process involves distinct historical reasoning and criteria, like the criterion of multiple attestation, criterion of embarrassment, argument to the best explanation, etc.

This does not fit in with theology for the following reasons:
- The nature of the claims are historical and does not presuppose theology
- The data is on the level that historians would accept based on historical standards, ie, no interpolations, discrepancies, etc although some of this can be subject to debate.
- There is a distinct historical criteria or methods for argumentation, like those laid out by C. Behan McCullagh.

To dismiss this clear distinction and wave it off as being theology simply because the Bible is used is oversimplifying the matter and ignores the historical process, assuming that you're even interesting in debating on a historical level to begin with.

Also, using the Bible as a primary source ( you call it authoritative) does NOT mean that it is proof of anything, but rather it's part of history via historical standards. The few exceptions are the passages that are disputed.

[otseng]

If that that's the case then I'm not sure what your view is based on, and I can message you evidence of historical methods and conclusions that are based on using only the Bible.

But, is it convincing to someone who is a non-Christian? No matter how strong the interpretive methods are used, if I was not a Christian, it wouldn't really persuade me.

The non-Christian may not be persuaded or may dislike this standard, but then that's a matter of them not liking or understanding historical standards and says nothing about historical credibility.

This would be a good debate topic.

I don't think I'm asking for the impossible by saying that non-Biblical sources should also be used. Like I said before, I rarely even use the Bible to support my arguments against non-Christians.

Again, I'm not saying the Bible cannot be used. But, everything you've been saying is defending why the Bible should be the only source of evidence.

If you agree with the point of my revised question #2, then I'd recommend that you revise or delete your rule or guideline about using the Bible as the sole source for a claim. Rules #2 and #3 in the C&A forum are enough to be compatible with historical standards.

No, I'm not going to revising any of the rules or guidelines.

I assume you mean guideline #2, not rule #2.

Related to the previous point, this avoids the Bible being dismissed a priori.

Yes, this happens. And one needs to consider this when debating any non-Christian.

OK, I think I've made myself clear on this matter and I'm not going to keep on repeating myself. If people are not happy with the standard and guidelines of this forum, there are plenty of other forums on the internet that can accommodate debates that rely solely on the Bible.

[OpenYourEyes]

If that that's the case then I'm not sure what your view is based on, and I can message you evidence of historical methods and conclusions that are based on using only the Bible.

But, is it convincing to someone who is a non-Christian? No matter how strong the interpretive methods are used, if I was not a Christian, it wouldn't really persuade me.

Perhaps it's not persuasive to you, but to others it is persuasive, and I say this because some have been convinced on biblical issues. Such examples of progress are on issues like the existence of Jesus, the dating of the NT writings, certain facts surrounding Jesus's death, ruling out of notable natural explanations, etc.



This progress has all been made via the use of historical methods and reasoning along with a critical examination of the text. For_The_Kingdom has appealed to various aspects of the historical

Perhaps you have not examined the NT from a historical standpoint to realize the impact it can have. In general, a lack of research can lead to common misconceptions, like ALL of the bible being a book of fairy tales, dismissing it a priori as if it has no historical value/relevancy, looking at it as being from ONE source, etc.

[OpenYourEyes]

If that that's the case then I'm not sure what your view is based on, and I can message you evidence of historical methods and conclusions that are based on using only the Bible.

But, is it convincing to someone who is a non-Christian? No matter how strong the interpretive methods are used, if I was not a Christian, it wouldn't really persuade me.

I suppose this would depend on the person and on the issue being debated. Also, from my experience from multiple forum sites, I think it's also important to keep in mind that the debates are not just about appealing to atheist/naturalist/skeptics since you can also find Christian vs. Christian, Christian vs. other religionists, Christian vs. agnostic, as well. These debates can be centered on historical, philosophical, and even scientific issues, rather than just being about "theology".

Earlier, you also made a comment that For_The_Kingdom has relied only on the Bible to make his case in his H2H with Zzyzx. I respectfully disagree. FTK has used the Bible but he's also appealed to the historical process, which involves the use of historical reasoning, methods, sources, and a critical examination of biblical text. Then he can also refute the seemingly plausible naturalistic explanations for the resurrection. This is all part of making a 'historical' argument, and far different than throwing out Bible verses and arguing that the "The bible says so".

It would do some good if skeptics would learn how historians approach the Bible, and I can tell you now, it does not involve dismissing the Bible a priori nor looking at it as one source.

[Divine Insight]

It would do some good if skeptics would learn how historians approach the Bible, and I can tell you now, it does not involve dismissing the Bible a priori.

This appears to be the real problem here. It's not about forum rules, or guidelines. The problem people have been having recently are these accusations that "Skeptics need to learn how historians approach the Bible".

This implies that the theists have a solid handle on how history is supposed to be done whilst skeptics are clueless. That's a totally unwarranted and false accusation.

I've been addressing this accusation in various threads, but I've addressed it head on in the following thread:

History versus Theology: Do you understand the difference?

In other words, theists like OpenYourEyes accuses the skeptics of needing to learn the how historians approach the Bible. I suggest that theists like OpenYourEyes take a more critical look at the difference between approaching the Bible historically and approaching it theologically because they are the ones who appear to not understand the difference.

I've even cited an example of a very well-respected theologian/historian who explains this difference between these things in an interview that I've included in the OP of the thread linked to above.

Clearly well-respected and well-educated theologians and historians recognize these differences. But apparently the "theists" like OpenYourEyes, who have been making these accusations toward skeptics of needing to learn how history is done, aren't aware of the different approaches of historians and theologians themselves.

[OpenYourEyes]

Here's one former agnostic and skeptic who found the resurrection of Jesus convincing:
Gary Habermas

Gary R. Habermas was born just outside Detroit, Michigan in 1950. Although he was raised in a Christian home and attended a German Baptist Church, he began having serious doubts about Christianity. For more than ten years, he faced uncertainty about key Christian claims and searched other religious and non-religious systems, especially naturalism.

While certainly having more evidential considerations than other religions, there always seemed to be a reason why the argument could not be finalized. While Habermas conducted detailed studies of creation, fulfilled prophecy, archaeological discoveries, and the general reliability of the Old and New Testaments, he constantly asked if there were any "clinching" arguments.

Habermas especially studied the notion that Eastern metaphysics were confirmed by modern physics, as well as the claims made on behalf of various other holy books.
...
He especially recalls one encounter where an exasperated Christian told him that he was filled with demons! Once his mother called to see how he was doing, and he announced that he thought he was close to becoming a Buddhist, his latest research interest.
...
In addition to the data itself, this meant conducting a long, arduous study of most of the critical publications on the subject of the resurrection, in order to ascertain the scholarly "lay of the land." Habermas concluded that the resurrection could be known according to probability as a normal historical fact. To this day, he marks the conclusion of his study as giving him the conviction that the resurrection had occurred in history and could be evidenced as such.

Most relevant to my point is that a committee at his former university approved for the resurrection to be used as the thesis for doctrinal dissertations under the following condition...

Studying relevant historical, philosophical, and religious questions, Habermas proposed an historical study of Jesus’ resurrection (what else?) for his Ph.D. dissertation. The topic was approved by his committee, but he was told specifically that he could not use the New Testament as evidence, unless the individual passages could be affirmed by ordinary critical standards, apart from faith.

The highlighted part briefly mentions how the Bible can be used in a historical/scholarly context which is contrary to saying that it can't be used at all.