Authenticity of the Bible

Originally posted by litlmike
So your rebuttal argument is in the form:

Argument:
If you have never heard of normalisation, then your argument is wrong.

Premise
I do not believe he has heard of normalisation.

Conclusion:
By modus ponens, therefore, litlmike's argument is wrong. Even though he provided evidence, and I have not.

Is that about right?

Nope. That is not my argument at all.


My argument is this; the "bible" has been revised and revisited many times. For example, grammar and punctuation only came around in the 1500s. The present bible has both. Thus, the bible had to be reinterpreted at that point. Also, look at how many versions of the bible there are - 11 difference versions were published in the 1700s.

But, all major religions have their "authorised" version, the one you probably refer to. And why are they all so alike? Because generations of people have set to "correct" the stories, and to make them more alike each other. For example, an early mistranslation of the Hebrew to Greek for "young woman" came out to "virgin". Now, all versions of the Christian bible feature a virgin birth, something that wasn't even in the original bible!

Originally posted by Penguin
I thought it was the Q'ran that was the word of God? Surely they can't both be. One says that Jesus was the son of God and the other that he was just another prophet.

--- Penguin

Actually the Bible also says Jesus was a prophet. Not just any prophet, but one like Moses.

For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me

(King James Bible, Acts)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Does anyone have any answer to my original question? So far only litlmike seems to have tried but he doesn't understand the question.

The question is a bit problematic when you take the book of Revelation as an example, because of the nature of the book. It doesn't claim to be a historical record of something that has happened, so you can't possibly verify whether it is factually true.

Some people would regard Revelation as a factually accurate account of things that WILL happen, but in that case you couldn't verify its contents until after the fact - in which case it must be true. You can't possibly falsify the 'facts'. But many Christians would understand Revelation to be full of symbolism, not run-of-the-mill description.

Similarly, you can't test whether the Psalms or Proverbs are factually 'true'. They're poetry and philosophy, not historical accounts of something. A great deal of the Bible is about something other than facts.

Out of your original options, I'm inclined to go with 2. The people who put the Bible didn't just randomly pluck books out of the sky. They considered things like who wrote the book, and they did reject some where the attribution of authorship was considered to be false. They also considered whether the theological content was consistent with the beliefs that had been handed down to them, including in books already accepted as part of the canon (the Bible was not an all-at-once collecting).

There were heated arguments about some of the books, and there were (and still are) variations as to what was accepted by different groups. Even today, a Catholic Bible will have additional books that are not accepted by other churches (well, actually, other churches do regard these books as useful, but don't regard them as having the same divine inspiration as the canonical books), and a couple of the Psalms are either split in two or joined.

Originally posted by orfeo
They considered things like who wrote the book, and they did reject some where the attribution of authorship was considered to be false.

Certainly, you cannot believe that this ought to be a criterion for retaining a book in the Bible, right?

I mean, short of Biblical literalists, no theologian believes that Isaiah (e.g.) was written by a single
person, but by no fewer than three, separated by decades of time.

Biblical literalists have no argument against the text-critical analysis except to state 'It says it's by
Isaiah, therefore God believes it's by Isaiah.'

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
Certainly, you cannot believe that this ought to be a criterion for retaining a book in the Bible, right?

I mean, short of Biblical literalists, no theologian believes that Isaiah (e.g.) was written by a single
person, but by no fewer than three, separated by decades of time.

Biblical literalists have no argument against the text-critical analysis except to state 'It says it's by
Isaiah, therefore God believes it's by Isaiah.'

Nemesio

I was referring to what the compilers of the Bible thought, not what current scholarship might have concluded. If we're going to start suggesting that there's a question about whether to 'retain' a book NOW, that's a whole new dimension to the debate.

Originally posted by litlmike
[b]Do you have any evidence for this claim?
Of course, to be brief, there is no one of any authority that would begin to question this notion. In fact, the New Testament is thought to be the most authentic document of its time.

I will try to be as short as possible with this, but it will be difficult. There is a procedure to test the reliability o ...[text shortened]... of the barrel for reliability (Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War)?[/b]

What does any of this have to do with the historical accuracy of texts? The criteria you mention above are certainly relevant to ascertaining whether current texts are faithful renditions of original manuscripts, but that is not the issue. If you'd like to discuss the actual evidence (cross-textual, archeological, etc.) for Thucydides' History..., then that would be fine, but simply cutting and pasting some dubious claims from apologetic websites (which is what you've done) doesn't show anything about the extent to which Thucydides is accurate.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There are tests that any objective mind can put to any work to ascertain veracity. What tests do you employ to call into question the Bible's histrocity (besides a scoffing reference to supernatural wonder and natural law contraventions)?

I look at the archeological evidence for historical texts, the extent to which those texts concur with other texts of independent origin, their agreement with our most justified beliefs about the subject matter at issue, etc. In other words, I look to evidence. The comments about miracles aren't just scoffs, but the result of a general argument (pace Hume on miracles).

Originally posted by bbarr
I look at the archeological evidence for historical texts, the extent to which those texts concur with other texts of independent origin, their agreement with our most justified beliefs about the subject matter at issue, etc. In other words, I look to evidence. The comments about miracles aren't just scoffs, but the result of a general argument (pace Hume on miracles).

And--- besides first-hand witness accounts--- what possible evidence could there ever be for a miracle? The fog that rolled in on Washington and his troops, buffering him from the slam-dunk slaughter by British troops: divine intervention or simply a matter of temperature change?

Obviously some facts of history can be interpreted in multiple ways. Feeding 5000 with a few fish has but one interpretation. Being born without the aid of male sperm has but one interpretation. Witnessed by hundreds following a certified death can only be interpreted one way.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
And--- besides first-hand witness accounts--- what possible evidence could there ever be for a miracle? The fog that rolled in on Washington and his troops, buffering him from the slam-dunk slaughter by British troops: divine intervention or simply a matter of temperature change?

Obviously some facts of history can be interpreted in multiple ways. Fee ...[text shortened]... erpretation. Witnessed by hundreds following a certified death can only be interpreted one way.

That's true - but only if those events, as described, actually occurred.
I have no doubt Jesus was born, but what do we have by the way of evidence to prove that his mother was a virgin at the time? An account written after his death?
I have no doubt he made some sort of sermon on the mount and people were fed. But how do we know there were a few fish and loaves of bread magically made to feed the lot? An account written after his death.
I have no doubt that he died, but to rise again after this. We have hundreds of witnesses, but where are their accounts? We have only one, which tells us that the others indeed saw this event.
Hardly convincing evidence of these miracles.

Maybe they did occur, although I obviously don't think so, but either way, your proof is an account written some time after his death.
I could write an account of the life of Ghandi, claiming I and several thousand of his followers saw him walk on water.
A couple of thousand years from now when Ghandi is worshipped for the miracles of his life, how much credence will you put in the 'evidence' of my account?