Common Gripe From Christian Apologists

[POI]

Below, is another example of a gripe I often ultimately encounter when debating Christians:

Here is additional evidence skeptics place a higher bar on anything the Bible claims to be true compared to extra-Biblical claims

Well, there is a reason for this....

In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy naturalism? YES

This means this publication is then set on higher alert. This is one of the reasons why the Biblical account is not just another line of evidence, and is instead scene with higher levels of scrutiny. IMHO, the Bible is one of the OG's of 'fake news'. But sure, sometimes even 'fake news' can have nuggets or kernels or truth within them, which is why Bible believers can debate some "facts" or "plausible considerations", in some cases.

For example, people are growing tired of all legacy media, or what many refer to as 'fake news'. Newer platforms are now being created, in the hopes of providing more objective, unopinionated, and/or unslanted reporting. But maybe this is not ultimately possible?

For debate: Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above apparent violation(s) to the historical method? Or, is it instead reasonable to, in a sense, "throw the baby out with the bath water?" Meaning, just discard all of it? Or is it somewhere in the middle? And if it is somewhere in the middle, how do we know where exactly to draw the proverbial line?

[bjs1]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This post goes a long way towards pointing out the validity of the "gripe" in question.

The post claims to be "applying the historical method."  It then asks, "Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias?"  Is that true of the Bible?  Yes.  It is also true of Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus, Tacitus, Polybius, Xenophon, Livy, and almost any other ancient historian we could name.  

The post then asks, "Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims..."  Again, that is true of the Bible as well as Herodotus, et al.  

So for the majority of this "historical method," the Bible is held to a standard that virtually no ancient historical source could meet.*  

The last three words of the second criterion do set the Bible apart from some other historical sources.  That is, the Bible does include claims "which defy naturalism."

The challenge here is that this does not establish that naturalism is true, but rather assumes that naturalism is true.  This is a kind of circular reasoning.  The argument in essence is "I know that the Bible is false becuase naturalism is true, and I know that naturalism is true because any source, including the Bible, that contradicts naturalism is false."




*I have encountered some non-theists on this site who maintain a consistent standard by rejecting the Bible and rejecting all other ancient historical sources.  I grant that this is logically consistent, but I find it absurd.  We should never abandon a genuine historical method simply because it leads to results we do not like.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #1]

This post goes a long way towards pointing out the validity of the "gripe" in question.

The post claims to be "applying the historical method."  It then asks, "Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias?"  Is that true of the Bible?  Yes.  It is also true of Herodotus, Thucydides, Josephus, Tacitus, Polybius, Xenophon, Livy, and almost any other ancient historian we could name.

Well then, if all such stated sources also fall victim to some or much presented possible 'fake news', then I guess you are ready to answer the debate question(s).

For debate: Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above apparent violation(s) to the historical method? Or, is it instead reasonable to, in a sense, "throw the baby out with the bath water?" Meaning, just discard all of it? Or is it somewhere in the middle? And if it is somewhere in the middle, how do we know where exactly to draw the proverbial line?

The post then asks, "Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims..."  Again, that is true of the Bible as well as Herodotus, et al.

See above.  

So for the majority of this "historical method," the Bible is held to a standard that virtually no ancient historical source could meet.

I don't think it is this black and white, do you?*  Can we discern any differences in such said sources at all? Are all sources equally tainted? Is it possible to render some ancient source(s) more reliable than others? And if so, where exactly does the Bible fall upon this spectrum of variability?

The last three words of the second criterion do set the Bible apart from some other historical sources.  That is, the Bible does include claims "which defy naturalism."

Yes, it makes many many many claims which defy "naturalism". Should skeptics still accept all natural claims from the Bible, and ignore all supernatural claims, or is it a mix, or other? Again, it goes right back to the presented debate questions.

[1213]

...In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES

Please give one example of political or religious bias in the Bible?

- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims

I think all history is unfalsifiable.

[Difflugia]

...In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES

Please give one example of political or religious bias in the Bible?

Mark 1:1—"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, son of God."

[theophile]

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES
- Does the source present with unfalsifiable claims which defy naturalism? YES

This means this publication is then set on higher alert. This is one of the reasons why the Biblical account is not just another line of evidence, and is instead scene with higher levels of scrutiny. IMHO, the Bible is one of the OG's of 'fake news'. But sure, sometimes even 'fake news' can have nuggets or kernels or truth within them, which is why Bible believers can debate some "facts" or "plausible considerations", in some cases.

For example, people are growing tired of all legacy media, or what many refer to as 'fake news'. Newer platforms are now being created, in the hopes of providing more objective, unopinionated, and/or unslanted reporting. But maybe this is not ultimately possible?

For debate: Can the Bible still be an independent and reliable source of historical events, in spite of the above apparent violation(s) to the historical method? Or, is it instead reasonable to, in a sense, "throw the baby out with the bath water?" Meaning, just discard all of it? Or is it somewhere in the middle? And if it is somewhere in the middle, how do we know where exactly to draw the proverbial line?

Historical events? The past is not what really matters in the bible, or is what gives its arguments weight. The bible is more in the genre of historical fiction than non-fiction history. It's a set of stories and other literature in an historical setting that it draws upon and stretches / makes up wherever needed to to make its point.

But if by 'historical' we're talking past, present, and future events (a much broader sense of history), then I would say the bible is more about present and future than it is about past. It's about bringing into being a new world order. It's about taking a certain way forward. That is what its stories convey, and shows us the consequences of. It's ultimate validity is if that order and path fulfills the promise that the bible declares. i.e., Life for those that take it, and death for those that don't. Not whether the stories conveying it are historically true.

So if you want to draw a proverbial line, I think we could throw out a lot of the so-called history that the bible presents as such. But the bible still stands as is, or at least in the way that really matters. I don't think there's much to throw away in the bible in regards to its real purpose.

[1213]

...In applying the historical method, there are a couple of key considerations, when examining the Bible:

- Does the source present with a possible political or religious bias? YES

Please give one example of political or religious bias in the Bible?

Mark 1:1—"The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, son of God."

How is that political or religious bias?

[POI]

Historical events? The past is not what really matters in the bible, or is what gives its arguments weight. The bible is more in the genre of historical fiction than non-fiction history. It's a set of stories and other literature in an historical setting that it draws upon and stretches / makes up wherever needed to to make its point.

But if by 'historical' we're talking past, present, and future events (a much broader sense of history), then I would say the bible is more about present and future than it is about past. It's about bringing into being a new world order. It's about taking a certain way forward. That is what its stories convey, and shows us the consequences of. It's ultimate validity is if that order and path fulfills the promise that the bible declares. i.e., Life for those that take it, and death for those that don't. Not whether the stories conveying it are historically true.

So if you want to draw a proverbial line, I think we could throw out a lot of the so-called history that the bible presents as such. But the bible still stands as is, or at least in the way that really matters. I don't think there's much to throw away in the bible in regards to its real purpose.

Rather than waste time, I'd like to know your position? Are you a(n):

a) atheist?
b) Christian, (of some flavor), if so, what exactly?
c) other, (if other), what exactly?