Equal treatment for the Bible

[Zzyzx]

.
Many Bible defenders ask that the Bible be given the same treatment by critics as other documents / historical writings from ancient times. Let's consider that proposition.

1. Ancient historical documents are not considered to be accurate in detail or to-the-word.

2. Supernatural claims made in other historical documents are not regarded as truthful and accurate (not taken seriously)

3. Ancient historical documents are seldom, if ever, used as instructions or guidelines for making modern decisions or modern laws

4. Ancient historical documents are regarded as nice-to-know but not of paramount importance

5. Ancient historical documents are not regarded as sacred, holy, above reproach

6. In modern times characters mentioned in ancient historical documents are not worshiped, palaces of worship for them are not built, frequent reinforcement meetings are not held, and worship of them is not proselytized

Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

[1213]

...Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

I don’t think old age is good reason to say something must be inaccurate or not truthful. I think it is better to read the text and see if it is accurate and truthful or not. Bible is book that has many different matters, historical, legal and words of wisdom. It doesn’t tell all details and so it is not very accurate. But in those things that seems to be the point, it is relatively accurate. Is some text truthful, is more difficult, even with modern writings. If the thing can’t be checked to be true, it remains as matter of belief. I think all writings should be evaluated by same way.

I think Bible is truthful and accurate, but is it more accurate than others, it depends what are the others.

After 1000 years, todays documents are all ancient. And if ancient documents are not accurate, doesn’t it mean that we don’t have accurate documents today?

[Zzyzx]

.

I don’t think old age is good reason to say something must be inaccurate or not truthful.

Agreed.

I think it is better to read the text and see if it is accurate and truthful or not.

How, exactly, is that done with accuracy?

If you are handed a text that discusses in detail of events 1000 years ago. HOW can you determine if the text is an accurate account of events that really happened?

You CAN'T.

The best you might be able to do is identify matters that are highly doubtful -- such as "leaps tall buildings in a single bound" or "flys faster than a speeding bullet" -- or "got up and walked around a few days after he died".

Bible is book that has many different matters, historical, legal and words of wisdom. It doesn’t tell all details and so it is not very accurate.

Is the Bible accurate concerning what Jesus said and did – and why regard it as accurate?

I'm not asking for opinion or guesswork – but asking you to show readers that stories about Jesus are accurate AND how their accuracy can be known / shown.

But in those things that seems to be the point, it is relatively accurate.

In what “points� is the Bible “relatively accurate� AND WHY claim that?

Is the "resurrection" story relatively accurate? WHY claim that?

Is some text truthful, is more difficult, even with modern writings.

Yes, it can be difficult to determine if accounts are truthful. Therefore, we are well advised to NOT assume that they are truthful and accurate UNLESS they can be substantiated by other, disconnected sources – preferably several or many.

Apply that to Bible stories.

If the thing can’t be checked to be true, it remains as matter of belief.

In reasoned consideration, if something cannot be checked for truth, it is considered questionable.

I think all writings should be evaluated by same way.

Okay. If we examine other ancient documents that claim someone went to heaven on a winged horse, or that an angel delivered golden tablets, or claim that an emperor / king was supernatural, do we evaluate them as being truthful and accurate?

I think Bible is truthful and accurate,

In debate, what you think or believe is of no importance.

but is it more accurate than others, it depends what are the others.

To what other ancient “historical� documents have you compared the Bible in order to say that it is more accurate?

After 1000 years, todays documents are all ancient. And if ancient documents are not accurate, doesn’t it mean that we don’t have accurate documents today?

In a thousand years very few of today's documents will likely be available. Of those that survive, future people will have difficulty determining which, if any, are truthful and accurate. By then, though, means and methods of analysis might have been developed that we cannot even imagine.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

I think the Bible is unique, in that internally it validates its claim as the word of an all wise, and all powerful creator.
And external evidence has supported that claim.

I believe that they are already individuals who put the Bible on par with other documents, and in my opinion, it has lowered the importance of it, in the minds of some people.
From my experience, what the Bible has accomplished in the lives of those who use it correctly, is miraculous. And therefore, the Bible is in itself a miracle.

Interestingly, the Qur'an encourages persons to follow the Torah.
And some Hindus, believe it is a sacred text, of great value.

So I think many persons still view it as unique.

[Zzyzx]

.

Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

I think the Bible is unique, in that internally it validates its claim

Any book can “internally validate�. Superman stories can be “internally validated� when it says over and over that its hero can perform supernatural feats – consistently.

Bible stories do the same for its heroes.

What counts in rational thinking is EXTERNAL verification – actual evidence that the heroes actually perform(ed) supernatural feats. Superman stories fail that test – and Jesus / God stories fail that test.

as the word of an all wise, and all powerful creator.

What words of the Bible came from an “all-wise, all-powerful creator�? What Bible words are even brilliant or profound? They seem about typical for the culture and knowledge levels of the era of those men who wrote the Bible.

And external evidence has supported that claim.

Kindly cite external evidence that supports ANY supernatural claim of the Bible.

I believe that they are already individuals who put the Bible on par with other documents, and in my opinion, it has lowered the importance of it, in the minds of some people.

There are approximately 4000 religions practiced in the world, worshiping at least 2000 proposed gods. Exactly what makes it “lowering the importance� of the Bible to consider it as equal to “holy� books of other religions?

From my experience, what the Bible has accomplished in the lives of those who use it correctly, is miraculous. And therefore, the Bible is in itself a miracle.

The Boy Scout Manual has accomplished a great deal in many lives. Is that “miraculous� and does it make the BSM itself a miracle?

Interestingly, the Qur'an encourages persons to follow the Torah.
And some Hindus, believe it is a sacred text, of great value.

What does that say in support of the Christian Bible?

So I think many persons still view it as unique.

Being “unique� isn't much of a claim. The Book of Mormon is “unique�, as is the Quran, as is the Bhagavad Gita. So what?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by 1213]

...Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

If the Bible is given equal treatment with other ancient documents, what is left as a basis for Christianity?

If the thing can’t be checked to be true, it remains as matter of belief. I think all writings should be evaluated by same way.

It's VERY strange to me that someone is going to BELIEVE something without knowing if it's true or not. People base their whole LIVES on their religious beliefs without knowing if they are true or not. To me, that's like not knowing if some food is good to eat or not and EATING IT ANYWAY !!!!

I say that would be a very bad idea.

[1213]

How, exactly, is that done with accuracy?

If you are handed a text that discusses in detail of events 1000 years ago. HOW can you determine if the text is an accurate account of events that really happened?

Text is accurate, if it tells the matter with great detail. For example:
a) car passed street corner
b) red car passed street corner
the b option is more accurate, because it tells more details. Bible is not extremely accurate in how it describes for example Jesus. It doesn’t tell what kind of hair he had, or what color was his clothes. Bible is more focused on his teachings and they are relatively accurate, because Bible tells much about what Jesus said. However, Bible also says:

There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn't have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25

I think that is one form of accuracy to tell that the written thing is not all.

But accuracy is not in my opinion something that makes text true. Fantasy novel can be written with great accuracy and it is still not true. But perhaps you have different idea about accuracy.

In what “points� is the Bible “relatively accurate� AND WHY claim that?

Is the "resurrection" story relatively accurate? WHY claim that?

It is accurate enough. One can have enough information about it by reading the story. But obviously it is not super detailed text, which I think is not necessary, because it wouldn’t make any difference.

Okay. If we examine other ancient documents that claim someone went to heaven on a winged horse, or that an angel delivered golden tablets, or claim that an emperor / king was supernatural, do we evaluate them as being truthful and accurate?

Interesting stories. By what I know, I can’t tell are those true. Also if what you say is all, I think it is not very accurate, because there is not much information about the matters.

[Zzyzx]

.

How, exactly, is that done with accuracy?

If you are handed a text that discusses in detail of events 1000 years ago. HOW can you determine if the text is an accurate account of events that really happened?

Text is accurate, if it tells the matter with great detail. For example:
a) car passed street corner
b) red car passed street corner
the b option is more accurate, because it tells more details.

VERY false (and dangerous) notion.

The amount of detail in an account is NO assurance of its accuracy and truth. Anyone can make up a very detailed account that is totally fabricated, while another can make an account that is accurate and truthful but lacks detail.

If my daughter or son had said something like that I would have had a long discussion with them about learning to use intelligence, reasoning, judgment and discernment to evaluate information presented -- rather than relying on false notions such as “detail makes it more accurate�.

Bible is not extremely accurate in how it describes for example Jesus. It doesn’t tell what kind of hair he had, or what color was his clothes. Bible is more focused on his teachings and they are relatively accurate, because Bible tells much about what Jesus said.

We do NOT know what Jesus said – but know what others SAY he said. Jesus left no accounts (as best we know). People writing accounts decades later cannot be identified with certainty by Christian scholars and theologians – let alone being shown to have personally witnessed the storied actions and words.

However, Bible also says:

There are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they would all be written, I suppose that even the world itself wouldn't have room for the books that would be written.
John 21:25

I think that is one form of accuracy to tell that the written thing is not all.

But accuracy is not in my opinion something that makes text true. Fantasy novel can be written with great accuracy and it is still not true. But perhaps you have different idea about accuracy.

I tend to use “accuracy� and “truthful� together to indicate that an account is faithful to what occurred, literally happened, in the real world (as described) and to cut down on wiggle room for those I debate.

In what “points� is the Bible “relatively accurate� AND WHY claim that?

Is the "resurrection" story relatively accurate? WHY claim that?

It is accurate enough.

Is it “accurate enough� to assure that a long-dead body came back to life?

One can have enough information about it by reading the story.

The story does NOT describe a “resurrection�. It only tells of people supposedly finding an empty tomb and claiming that the deceased came back to life and left. The story also discusses people claiming to have seen and conversed with the deceased days after death.

What about that “information� enough to conclude that the story is true and accurate?

But obviously it is not super detailed text, which I think is not necessary, because it wouldn’t make any difference.

Wait a minute. Weren't you arguing above that detail IS important in determining accuracy?

Okay. If we examine other ancient documents that claim someone went to heaven on a winged horse, or that an angel delivered golden tablets, or claim that an emperor / king was supernatural, do we evaluate them as being truthful and accurate?

Interesting stories. By what I know, I can’t tell are those true.

Is this to say that if provided with detailed accounts of winged horse ascension, angel-delivered gold tablets, and supernatural emperors, you are prepared to accept (believe) them as truthful and accurate?

Would you not realize that a story itself does not verify its truth and accuracy? Do you (generic term) just believe what is told or written without consulting sources outside the story and the storyteller?

I cannot state with certain knowledge that the tales are true or false. However, I can state that horses do not have wings and do not fly – and that horses and people cannot exist high in the atmosphere without life-support systems.

Also if what you say is all, I think it is not very accurate, because there is not much information about the matters.

A great deal of detailed information about Mohammad's “Ascension� is available from Islamic (and other sources) – starting with easily accessible:

http://www.allaboutturkey.com/muhammed.htm
http://www.religionresearchinstitute.or ... ension.htm

Notice that those tales have no more (or less) supporting evidence that tales of Jesus' resurrection and ascension.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Zzyzx]

So are you suggesting if someone didn't hold to the premise 1-6 then they could treat the bible as any other historical document?

In other words for example an athiest historian CAN treat the bible as any other ancient document because he wouldn't hold any of the above beliefs? Or are you suggesting his right to do so would be forfeited by what other people think? Is that how logic works? one person can't examine evidence objectively because there exists someone in the world that isn't objective?

Clarification appreciated because as it stands (see above) this seems illogical.

JW

[Zzyzx]

.

Clarification appreciated because as it stands (see above) this seems illogical

What is "illogical" or in need of "clarification" in:

Is there any valid reason that the Bible should be considered as more truthful and accurate than other documents from ancient history?

Shall we attempt to address the question or shall we dance around to avoid answering?

It seems as though many people are under the impression that the Bible should be given preferential treatment over other ancient documents. I challenge that assumption and ask for justification.