naturalplastic wrote:
AspergianSuperstar wrote:
I know this thread is a necro before anyone says but...Do you have any evidence Steve Parr that Spanish was in current usage when
Jesus was named? Jesus was given the Hebrew name for Joshua, which from my rusty knowledge of Hebrew translates something like Yehesua- this wouldnt have sounded like the 'hey Zeus' name that you postulate.
A lot of things people say in this thread don't make sense or make it difficult to understand their point of view or just appear perverse. Also a lot of people in society just like to make an attack on the bible (some people who posted on this thread don't) and this is reflected in a lot of the comments here.
Would really like to hear from anyone who is sincere in reading and following bible example
Now that youve forced me to read a dead thread from the past Im forced to react to it.
I agree that this WAS a rather inane thread.
Nobody actually responded to the issue that the OP raised.
The OP himself failed to drop the other shoe when asking why Jehovah's Witness's "Use the Bible as evidence..." . The other shoe is "to prove the Bible itsself".
He rightly complained the JW's get in your face to demand that you believe in the bible.
But when you ask why they say "because the bible says so".
"The bible is true because the bible says so" is circular reasoning.
Even if you agree with the JW's that the bible is true and that it is the ultimate storehouse of wisdom you still have to be aware that you cant prove that the way that the JW's attempt to prove it through circular reasoning.
So the bible itsself isnt even the issue. Its the whacky logic of groups like the JW's thats the issue.
Sure, when you put it THAT way!! ! I'm not a JW, and my experience with Witnesses seems to be somewhere between faulty logic and selective editing of the Bible that presupposes someone else's view--and a clearly UN-Biblical one at that. Just because the "Bible says so" doesn't quite cut it.
Seriously, though, it's true that "...the bible says so..." would be circular logic. Using the Bible as evidence is fine, and I think saying "the Bible is evidence" is on the right track. For me, though, "because ___ says so" isn't sufficient for anything. If you look at it that way, then you might as well believe anything anyone says. That would make the Bible basically on the same level as any cult leader, and anything after that is going to sound whacky.
I look at it differently. The Bible is not JUST a religious text. It's a conglomeration of several different things. Because the Bible has been bound into a single volume, people who aren't familiar with it don't understand what it really is, which is a collection of different writings with different purposes. Genesis begins with God, then the creation of the world, the creation of man, human relationships with God in a fallen creation, covenant between God and Abraham/Abraham's progeny, the formation of Israel as a nation. The rest of the Law (next 4 books) deals how Israel, God's covenant people, are to conduct themselves with God, with each other, and the rest of the world. Following that is a history of the conquest of Canaan, the rise of various Israelite leaders, the rise and fall of the kings and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, post-exilic rebuilding, various writings of wisdom literature/religious-themed poetry, and prophecy.
Much of Exodus, followed by Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are concerned with establishing law and order for the Israelites. When Moses wrote down the law, one feature is the frequent "Tell Israel, 'This is what the Lord says:...'" The only thing religious about the laws has to do with the indication that Moses didn't "just make this stuff up." Some misdemeanors can be remedied by paying an appropriate fine in addition to making the appropriate sacrifice and restoring to the person who has been wronged whatever material remedy is called for. Basically, we model our own modern-day justice system on the same principle as "the punishment must fit the crime" as was established in OT law.
Joshua and Judges describe the conquest of Canaan and how various leaders came to power and what they did. Ruth establishes King David's family line. Samuel shows how the kingdom was established through Saul and how power was transferred to David. Kings and Chronicles show the progression of the kings and their dynasties as well as how the kings performed their duties as servants of God (often not very well). The first 9 chapters of Chronicles consists of genealogies.
Ezra and Nehemiah are concerned with rebuilding the temple and Jerusalem.
So half, maybe more than half, of the OT is concerned with historical/factual aspects of Israel, with the rest of the OT focussed on theology.
The OT itself does not make any evidence claims about itself, other than in poetry or wisdom literature when it says something to the effect of "the word of the Lord is true." The way I see it, if God tells you something and you know that it's God telling you something, then logic dictates that it's reliable and true.
So if the OT is "evidence," the question I have is "of what?" Is any history or historical text evidence of anything? Why believe any historical document?
Enough with the OT...
The NT, meaning the gospels, the epistles, and Revelation, would more likely count as evidence of something. The motivation for the gospel writings doesn't really seem to be all that religious. I'm not saying they aren't religious at all. I'm just saying that the importance of how many people saw X happen or witnessed miracle Y is only slightly secondary if not on the same level as Christ's words themselves. They present 4 different approaches to documenting the life and ministry of Jesus, all of which compile facts of Jesus' life from various sources. Sometimes these sources overlap or are "borrowed." Some witnesses were present at certain times and not at others. But the central point of the gospels is that they are a compilation of what people around Jesus saw, heard, and experienced. The gospels bring the reader back to the "scene of the crime." It's not unlike a jury observing testimony in a courtroom. It is meant to be read as documented evidence.
If it's NOT evidence, then you might as well say that every convicted criminal has to be let go for lack of evidence. Or you have to throw out every history textbook because because the actual people the books mention are dead and can no longer testify or give evidence that what happened really happened. The gospels are evidence in that they are the written record of what happened through the eyes of actual observers.
The epistles reveal how the words of Christ were interpreted and put into actual practice. They are not evidence that they themselves are true, but rather evidence of how difficult issues within the early church was handled along with the establishment of doctrine. My opinion is that much of what is contained in the epistles are written for Christians, not unbelievers. They are more overtly religious, I think, than the gospels. One advantage of having the epistles is being able to compare new religious thoughts or teachings with early church doctrine, allowing you to determine whether a new teaching really is consistent with what Christ meant or if the teaching is only pseudo-Christian. Is X true? Yes/No. Why? Because Paul wrote... And the epistles point back to the gospels. Anything that is taught about Christ HAS to be backed up by Biblical evidence, not just "because I said so."
Is the Bible true? Yes. Why? Because when I read it and apply Biblical principles to my life, I find it to be true. I know the Bible to be true because I've experienced it for myself. That's the evidence. That's all I'm really concerned about, anyway. If you want to go deeper than that, you can look at all the old arguments that used to go around calling the Bible into question about how certain places do not/did not exist, but those arguments have been put to rest because of archeological discoveries that confirm Biblical places and events. There's even extra-Biblical evidence that key players in the old testament were actual real people. The issue here, of course, overreaching for extra-Biblical evidence when in current scholarship few writings are actually challenged on their sources the way the Bible seems to be. It gets really silly--amounting to demanding evidence for the U.S. Civil War in Azerbaijan and saying that Confederate cemeteries are fabricated; you have no idea who's buried there, if anyone at all, right? The Americans are biased, so we can't trust our own history books regarding our own civil war (or anything else, for that matter). That's really what arguments against the Bible as evidence amounts to.
So, no, the Bible is not its own evidence for being true or not any more than a history textbook is evidence that it is true. It IS, however, documentation of certain events, and anyone who reads the Bible has to decide themselves whether they believe the testimony presented within its pages.
27 Jan 2010, 9:54 am
