Is the Bible mythology?

[Physicist]

However, the most logical tense that applies to the Hebrew text is that the young maid is with child (i.e. she was already pregnant).

I will admit I do not know Hebrew. However, every major translation uses a future concept in Enlgish. Can you quote a source or explain this? Sources please?

Not sure if I am allowed to provide links but google crivoice.org/isa7-14 for a very detailed discussion.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

Is that it?

I thought this was a good thread to clarify the idea many Christians hold that non-Christians think the Bible as just mythology. Sorry to see it peter out so fast.

 

[mondar]

]Your sentence might be unclear here. When I used the word naturalism previously, I was not referring to Isaiah and his world view but you and your world view. You have a naturalistic presupposition that you are trying to justify in the text. It is not supported by the text. Neither Christianity nor Judiasm is a naturalistic religion. Neither is the scriptures of those world religions. So why insist on naturalism within the text of the scriptures?

I'm a wee bit confused here.

If I understand you correctly you are saying the pericope as written by the writer of Isaiah is written from the perspective of naturalism, yet you state that the poster in question is trying to "justify" the text by reading it the way it was intended to be read?

If the point is Matthew had a "fuller meaning" as well as "progressive revelation" coupled with the need to hold a supernatural presupposition to accept that view, then that makes any similar faith position of fuller meaning and progressive revelation just as viable, including the spin of Islam and the Mormons given the Abrahamic traditions would it not?

Tell me, how do you read 9:6-7? Was this Isaiahs historical son?
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.
This "child is born...." whose son is he?

 

[mondar]

Let me also add this one....
Isa 11:1 And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall bear fruit.

So out of the family of Jesse was to come a branch. Was this to be the natural son of Isaiah.

My point is Isaiah was poetry as you already admitted. Being it is poetry, why not some figures of speech and double meanings with words or passages? Isaiah had a double meaning that develops in a progressive revelation fashion. He does not tell the whole story at the beginning in 7:14 or 8:1-4. He adds more material about this son in 9 and 11.

 

[Tabasco Breath]

]Your sentence might be unclear here. When I used the word naturalism previously, I was not referring to Isaiah and his world view but you and your world view. You have a naturalistic presupposition that you are trying to justify in the text. It is not supported by the text. Neither Christianity nor Judiasm is a naturalistic religion. Neither is the scriptures of those world religions. So why insist on naturalism within the text of the scriptures?

I'm a wee bit confused here.

If I understand you correctly you are saying the pericope as written by the writer of Isaiah is written from the perspective of naturalism, yet you state that the poster in question is trying to "justify" the text by reading it the way it was intended to be read?

If the point is Matthew had a "fuller meaning" as well as "progressive revelation" coupled with the need to hold a supernatural presupposition to accept that view, then that makes any similar faith position of fuller meaning and progressive revelation just as viable, including the spin of Islam and the Mormons given the Abrahamic traditions would it not?

Tell me, how do you read 9:6-7? Was this Isaiahs historical son?
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.
This "child is born...." whose son is he?

Good question....I don't know for sure...but Isaiah 37 looks promising.

 

[Veritas]

I think you have hit on a good topic here, but let me be the first one to tell you that unless a man or woman is personally convinced by God Himself of the Scripture's truth, whether by hearing or reading, they will never be able (nor would want) to believe in the authority, accuracy, and authenticity of Scripture. .....The best defense I have found for this is to do exactly as 1 Peter 3:15 says and be ready to give a defense to those who ask of you, and give it as sincerely and loving as you can, strong in the knowledge of the word of God, stating it with confidence - and yes, even making rational or intelligent conversation out of it. But it will not be us, ...which will convince them of the truth of God's word and their need for a Savior. It depends on the state of the heart of the recipient and the Holy Spirit who might give grace enough to them that the truth would ring as genuine in their ears, hearts, and minds. We can muster the most intelligent and intellectual of arguments with which to defend the faith, but we cannot convince anyone who has already made their mind up as to the (in)validity of the Scriptures.

Thanks for pointing this out. I agree with you - a person cannot believe until God opens their heart to receiving the truth. However, I do think God at times uses apologetics as a catalyst or instrument to do this. When Paul was in Athens, he used the altar to an unknown God set up by the Greeks as a launching pad off of which he proclaimed the Gospel. He started with what the Greeks knew and then systematically built off of it.

I'm very late to make this comment, but I'd like to point out that a comparison should be made between what happened in Athens, and what happened in Jerusalem on Pentecost. It is very instructive to us in that it illustrates what we will expect in our mission. In particular, compare Acts 2:41 with Acts 17:34. There is a dramatic difference. Acts 2:5 gives us a clue for that difference.

 

[mondar]

Tell me, how do you read 9:6-7? Was this Isaiahs historical son?
Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.
This "child is born...." whose son is he?

Good question....I don't know for sure...but Isaiah 37 looks promising.

What about Isaiah 37?

 

[logical bob]

Tabasco Breath is right. It would be a shame to let this die out, so here are a few thoughts.

In the OP, izzy suggested that denying the literal truth of the supernatural claims in the Bible would render Christianity pointless. It's worth considering Paul here. Paul's writings are very, very light on the supernatural. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't mention the virgin birth, water into wine, feeding the four/five thousand, Lazarus or in fact any of the miracles in the gospels apart from the resurrection.

Surely nobody doubts that Paul believed in the unique importance of Christ and was confident that he was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. If Paul could explain the complex theology he taught without any reference to supernatural events apart from the resurrection then how essential are they?

Liberal theology also gets a bad press. A good example here in the UK was David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham in the 1980s. He was vilified for denying the resurrection, but what he actually said was that it wasn't essential for Christians to believe that the risen Jesus had a "literally physical body." Throughout this he stressed his belief that the resurrection was real. He felt that a preoccupation with the supernatural obscured what was really important. People are sometimes quick to cry "heresy" because that's easier than understanding a subtle set of beliefs.

 

[cyberjosh]

Tabasco Breath is right. It would be a shame to let this die out, so here are a few thoughts.

In the OP, izzy suggested that denying the literal truth of the supernatural claims in the Bible would render Christianity pointless. It's worth considering Paul here. Paul's writings are very, very light on the supernatural. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he didn't mention the virgin birth, water into wine, feeding the four/five thousand, Lazarus or in fact any of the miracles in the gospels apart from the resurrection.

Surely nobody doubts that Paul believed in the unique importance of Christ and was confident that he was the fulfillment of the Old Testament. If Paul could explain the complex theology he taught without any reference to supernatural events apart from the resurrection then how essential are they?

I suppose this depends on whether you are talking about Paul's view on miracles in general, or if you are specifically talking about Jesus' miracles as historically occured. Though not written by Paul, Luke (who was close to Paul) in Acts tells of the miracles that occured for Paul such as the earthquake setting him and Silvanus (Silus) free from prison, the snake that bit Paul to no effect (recalls Jesus' promise that they would "tread on" serpents), the cloth from Paul's garment that healed all those who touched it. Paul also was miraculously healed of blindness by Ananias. Paul most certainly also believed in the miraculous gifts of the Spirit.

Now as for Jesus' miracles, Paul wrote almost all his epistles to Gentiles (excepting the possibility that he wrote Hebrews) and explained everything about the Gentiles being adopted and grafted into the promises and covenant given to Israel. It however was the Gospels that told all the individual miracles of Jesus as fulfilment of OT prophecies about the Messiah in accordance with that covenant. Paul has no direct reason to address those historical fulfillments of Christ in narrative style, though he alludes to Christ's fulfillment of the OT for the Jews. In short the miracles were witnesses to the Jewish nation of Christ's identity. They did not believe in Jesus, and crucified him, only to witness him rise from the dead three days later, once and for all affirming his identity. It is that reality that Paul relays to the Gentiles.

Liberal theology also gets a bad press. A good example here in the UK was David Jenkins, Bishop of Durham in the 1980s. He was vilified for denying the resurrection, but what he actually said was that it wasn't essential for Christians to believe that the risen Jesus had a "literally physical body." Throughout this he stressed his belief that the resurrection was real. He felt that a preoccupation with the supernatural obscured what was really important. People are sometimes quick to cry "heresy" because that's easier than understanding a subtle set of beliefs.

I regard John Shelby Spong as a liberal "theologian", and I think he has earned "bad press" with the liberties he has taken in interpreting biblical theology. Also, the view that Christ had no physical ressurection body is essentailly docetic. It also fails to reconcile with the fact that the disciples were told to touch his hands, feet, and side, and that he ate fish with them by the sea shore, and (prophetically) that in Daniel he is still spoken of as the "Son of Man", indicating he still is human - God incarnate in the flesh.

 

[logical bob]

I'm not saying that Paul didn't believe in miracles. But even if he was cured of blindness and freed from prison by an earthquake, they found no place in his teaching. The summary of his faith he passed on "as of first importance" made no reference to any miracles other then the resurrection. Neither does his teaching claim that the risen Christ had a physical body.

I presume that you'd say that someone who followed Paul's teachings was a Christian. If so, then how can you say that a belief in miracles and the physical resurrection are essential in order to be a Christian?

I regard John Shelby Spong as a liberal "theologian", and I think he has earned "bad press" with the liberties he has taken in interpreting biblical theology.

I'd never heard of Spong, but I just had a quick look at his website, specifically at the section on the resurrection. He argues his case there with close reference to the Bible. If the physicality of the risen Christ is an essential foundation of Christianity it is puzzling that it took 50 years for anyone to say so.

Also, the view that Christ had no physical reserrection body is essentailly docetic.

Docetism is the belief that Jesus didn't have a physical body before his death and was in fact a being of pure spirit.

It also fails to reconcile with the fact that the disciples were told to touch his hands, feet, and side, and that he ate fish with them by the sea shore, and (prophetically) that in Daniel he is still spoken of as the "Son of Man", indicating he still is human - God incarnate in the flesh.

These gospel accounts describe something strange. While the ones you cite there stress the physical, others make it clear that the risen Jesus was sometimes unrecognizable to people who had known him in life (Luke 24:16, John 21:4) and could suddenly disappear (Luke 24:31) and appear in locked rooms (John 20:26). However you make sense of this, the gospels don’t seem to be saying that Jesus got up in the same body he’d had in life and carried on as before.

What does change in liberal theology is that something is no longer taken to be literally true because it’s stated in the Bible. Mainstream Christians have long since started down that road, however. Whatever your views on creationism, how many people would say that if you read Genesis non-literally you’re not a Christian? Does anyone hold out for the literal truth of the Book of Job?

What I’ve seen reading various threads on this site is that Christians here disagree on many points of interpretation but tend to agree to set these aside saying “it’s not as if you have to believe that to be saved.†Are you so sure that the miracles and the physical resurrection are part of that essential core belief that you have to have in order to be a Christian?

 

[glorydaz]

Unless we believe in the resurrection, we can't believe in Jesus.
It isn't enough that He was a great moral teacher....He is God come in the flesh...died for our sins and was buried and rose again. That is the basic Gospel message.

Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Without the resurrection, none can be saved.

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

 

[logical bob]

I agree with you. I'm not suggesting that belief in the resurrection is an optional part of Christianity and neither are the liberal theologians cited above. What they question is the idea that after the resurrection Jesus walked the earth in a physical body. Nowhere does Paul say that he did, in the two passages you just quoted or anywhere else.

That quote from Romans bears out what I'm saying. Paul gives two criteria sufficient for salvation. Neither of them involve belief in miracles or a physical resurrection.

 

[elijah23]

I think the Bible is actual history.

 

[nadab]

Many have taken the stand that the Bible is not the word of God. James Barr (1924 -2006) once Oxford Hebrew professor, said that "the proper term for the Bible would be Word of Israel, Word of some leading early Christians.†(The Bible in the Modern World ) There is, however, sound evidence that the Bible is God's word. What are some examples of the Bible's accuracy, that we can trust this "book" ?

Anatomy: The Bible accurately says that ‘all the parts’ of a human embryo are “in writing.†(Psalm 139:13-16) The brain, the heart, the lungs, the eyes-these and all the other body parts are ‘written down’ in the genetic code of the fertilized egg in the mother’s womb. Contained in this code are internal timetables for the appearance of each of these parts in proper order. This fact about the development of the human body was recorded in the Bible almost 3,000 years before James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the genetic DNA code in 1953. How was it possible for the "book", the Bible, to have pointed toward a genetic code long before it's discovery in the twentieth century ?

Archaeology: The Bible has been supported in many ways by archaeology. For example, discoveries have confirmed the places and names found in Genesis chapter 10. Excavators have uncovered the Chaldean city of Ur, the commercial and religious center where Abraham was born. (Genesis 11:27-31) Above the spring of Gihon in the southeastern part of Jerusalem, archaeologists found the Jebusite city taken by King David. In Jerusalem in 1867 an old water tunnel was discovered, running from the fountain of Gihon back into the hill behind. (2 Samuel 5:4-10)

The Siloam Inscription carved at one end of King Hezekiah’s conduit, or aqueduct, was discovered in 1880. (2 Kings 20:20) Babylon’s fall to Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C.E. is related in the Nabonidus Chronicle, unearthed in the latter half of the 19th century C.E., near modern Baghdad. Details in the book of Esther have been confirmed by inscriptions from Persepolis and the discovery of the palace of King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) at Shushan, or Susa, between 1880 and 1890 C.E.

An Assyrian king named Sargon (whose name, up until the nineteenth century C.E., were not found in sources independent of the Bible record), and other adverse criticisms as to Bible data relating to these lands have all been demonstrated to be without foundation. Near Khorsabad, on a northern tributary of the Tigris River, in 1843 the palace of Assyrian King Sargon II, covering some 10 hectare (25 acres), was discovered, and subsequent archaeological work there brought this king, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1, out of secular obscurity to a position of historical prominence.

Astronomy: Some 2,700 years ago-long before people in general knew that the earth is round-the prophet Isaiah wrote: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.†(Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh here translated “circle,†may also be rendered “sphere.†(A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson) Then, too, “the circle†of the earth’s horizon is clearly seen from outer space and sometimes during high-altitude airplane travel.

Incidentally, Job 26:7 says that God is “hanging the earth upon nothing.†This is true, for astronomers now know that the earth has no visible means of support and is spherical or round like a "circle". How could the Bible present this over 1000 years even before Pythagorus asserted that the earth was round in about 500 B.C.E. though most believed it was flat ?

Contradictions: Some have doubted the account of Matthew saying that Jesus was "going out of Jericho" when he met the blind beggar, Bartimaeus.(Matt 20:29-34), while the Bible writer Luke said that Jesus "was getting near to Jericho" when he came upon him.(Luke 18:35-42) Why the seeming discrepancy ? On this, Joseph P. Free writes: “Archaeology, however, has thrown additional light on this apparent discrepancy. Early in the twentieth century A.D., excavations were made at Jericho by Ernest Sellin of the German Oriental Society (1907-1909).

The excavations showed that the Jericho of Jesus’ time was a double city . . . The old Jewish city was about a mile away from the Roman city. In the light of this evidence, it is possible that Matthew is speaking of the Jewish city which Christ had left, whereas Luke is speaking of the Roman, at which Christ had not yet arrived. Thus, on His way from the old to the new city, Christ met and healed the blind Bartimaeus.â€-Archaeology and Bible History, 1964, p. 295.

People: Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the historicity of David, the brave young shepherd who later became king of Israel and whose name is mentioned in the Bible over 1000 times. That year, however, archaeologists uncovered in northern Israel a basalt stone [2], dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words “House of David†and “king of Israel.â€

Bible critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled. (Matthew 27:1-26) Evidence that Pilate was once ruler of Judea is etched on a stone [1] discovered at the Mediterranean seaport city of Caesarea in 1961.

Events: Until recently, many scholars doubted the accuracy of the Bible’s account of the nation of Edom battling with Israel in the time of David. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) Edom, they argued, was a simple pastoral society at the time and did not become sufficiently organized or have the might to threaten Israel until much later. However, recent excavations indicate that “Edom was a complex society centuries earlier [than previously thought], as reflected in the Bible,†states an article in the journal Biblical Archaeology Review.

Proper titles: There were many rulers on the world stage during the 16 centuries that the Bible was being written. When the Bible refers to a ruler, it always uses the proper title. For example, it correctly refers to Herod Antipas as “district ruler†and Gallio as “proconsul.†(Luke 3:1; Acts 18:12) Ezra 5:6 refers to Tattenai, the governor of the Persian province “beyond the River,†the Euphrates River. A coin produced in the fourth century B.C.E. contains a similar description, identifying the Persian governor Mazaeus as ruler of the province “Beyond the River.â€

Accuracy in seemingly minor details is no small matter. If we can trust the Bible writers in even small details, should that not bolster our confidence in the other things that is written down in the Bible ?

(source of information - Watchtower Library)

 

[Veritas]

If Paul could explain the complex theology he taught without any reference to supernatural events apart from the resurrection then how essential are they?
....But even if he (Paul) was cured of blindness and freed from prison by an earthquake, they found no place in his teaching. The summary of his faith he passed on "as of first importance" made no reference to any miracles other then the resurrection.

I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me in leading the Gentiles to obey God by what I have said and done— by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. Romans 15:18-19

Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Galatians 3:4-6

Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret? 1 Corinthians 12:27-30

I presume that you'd say that someone who followed Paul's teachings was a Christian. If so, then how can you say that a belief in miracles and the physical resurrection are essential in order to be a Christian?

Those whom Paul spoke to believed in miracles and performed miracles. Even so, for most of us today, the starting point will be the resurrection. If you accept a man raised from the dead, the rest are inconsequential to accept in comparison.

 

[glorydaz]

I agree with you. I'm not suggesting that belief in the resurrection is an optional part of Christianity and neither are the liberal theologians cited above. What they question is the idea that after the resurrection Jesus walked the earth in a physical body. Nowhere does Paul say that he did, in the two passages you just quoted or anywhere else.

That quote from Romans bears out what I'm saying. Paul gives two criteria sufficient for salvation. Neither of them involve belief in miracles or a physical resurrection.

What happened to his body then?

Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.

Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died. This resurrected body was a glorified, spiritual body. Jesus made a point of showing he was in his physical body....changed, but still His body. He even ate to prove it.

And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them.

I'm not sure how much clearer Paul can be...

For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles. And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time. For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed. Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

 

[Physicist]

Many have taken the stand that the Bible is not the word of God. James Barr (1924 -2006) once Oxford Hebrew professor, said that "the proper term for the Bible would be Word of Israel, Word of some leading early Christians.†(The Bible in the Modern World ) There is, however, sound evidence that the Bible is God's word. What are some examples of the Bible's accuracy, that we can trust this "book" ?

Anatomy: The Bible accurately says that ‘all the parts’ of a human embryo are “in writing.†(Psalm 139:13-16) The brain, the heart, the lungs, the eyes-these and all the other body parts are ‘written down’ in the genetic code of the fertilized egg in the mother’s womb. Contained in this code are internal timetables for the appearance of each of these parts in proper order. This fact about the development of the human body was recorded in the Bible almost 3,000 years before James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the genetic DNA code in 1953. How was it possible for the "book", the Bible, to have pointed toward a genetic code long before it's discovery in the twentieth century ?

Yes, and the Muslims claim that the Quran is the Word of God because it says the the Universe came from smoke which can be loosely interpreted as interstellar dust clouds. An actual reading of this Psalm

"My substance was not hid from you, when I was made in secret, and curiously worked in the lowest parts of the earth"

shows that has nothing to do with DNA.

Archaeology: The Bible has been supported in many ways by archaeology. For example, discoveries have confirmed the places and names found in Genesis chapter 10. Excavators have uncovered the Chaldean city of Ur, the commercial and religious center where Abraham was born. (Genesis 11:27-31) Above the spring of Gihon in the southeastern part of Jerusalem, archaeologists found the Jebusite city taken by King David. In Jerusalem in 1867 an old water tunnel was discovered, running from the fountain of Gihon back into the hill behind. (2 Samuel 5:4-10)

The Siloam Inscription carved at one end of King Hezekiah’s conduit, or aqueduct, was discovered in 1880. (2 Kings 20:20) Babylon’s fall to Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C.E. is related in the Nabonidus Chronicle, unearthed in the latter half of the 19th century C.E., near modern Baghdad. Details in the book of Esther have been confirmed by inscriptions from Persepolis and the discovery of the palace of King Xerxes (Ahasuerus) at Shushan, or Susa, between 1880 and 1890 C.E.

An Assyrian king named Sargon (whose name, up until the nineteenth century C.E., were not found in sources independent of the Bible record), and other adverse criticisms as to Bible data relating to these lands have all been demonstrated to be without foundation. Near Khorsabad, on a northern tributary of the Tigris River, in 1843 the palace of Assyrian King Sargon II, covering some 10 hectare (25 acres), was discovered, and subsequent archaeological work there brought this king, mentioned at Isaiah 20:1, out of secular obscurity to a position of historical prominence.

Using this reasoning, one could conclude that the Illiad and Odyssey are historical because Troy ruins have been found. However, the Bible contains many historical inaccuracies, as described by experts such as Dever (Who Were the Early Israelites) and Finklestein(The Bible Unearthed)

Astronomy: Some 2,700 years ago-long before people in general knew that the earth is round-the prophet Isaiah wrote: “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth.†(Isaiah 40:22) The Hebrew word chugh here translated “circle,†may also be rendered “sphere.†(A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures, by B. Davidson) Then, too, “the circle†of the earth’s horizon is clearly seen from outer space and sometimes during high-altitude airplane travel.


Incidentally, Job 26:7 says that God is “hanging the earth upon nothing.†This is true, for astronomers now know that the earth has no visible means of support and is spherical or round like a "circle". How could the Bible present this over 1000 years even before Pythagorus asserted that the earth was round in about 500 B.C.E. though most believed it was flat ?

First, the earth is not a circle but a sphere (Dhur in Hebrew). Second, the OT authors adopted the Babylonian cosmology with Hell below and Heaven above, kept separate from the earth by the Firmament. Note Job referring to the pillars holding up earth. That is why Jesus 'rises to heaven and why the Devil could take Jesus to a high mountain to see all the cities of the earth. That is not possible on a sphere.

Contradictions: Some have doubted the account of Matthew saying that Jesus was "going out of Jericho" when he met the blind beggar, Bartimaeus.(Matt 20:29-34), while the Bible writer Luke said that Jesus "was getting near to Jericho" when he came upon him.(Luke 18:35-42) Why the seeming discrepancy ? On this, Joseph P. Free writes: “Archaeology, however, has thrown additional light on this apparent discrepancy. Early in the twentieth century A.D., excavations were made at Jericho by Ernest Sellin of the German Oriental Society (1907-1909).

The excavations showed that the Jericho of Jesus’ time was a double city . . . The old Jewish city was about a mile away from the Roman city. In the light of this evidence, it is possible that Matthew is speaking of the Jewish city which Christ had left, whereas Luke is speaking of the Roman, at which Christ had not yet arrived. Thus, on His way from the old to the new city, Christ met and healed the blind Bartimaeus.â€-Archaeology and Bible History, 1964, p. 295.

People: Before 1993, there was no proof outside the Bible to support the historicity of David, the brave young shepherd who later became king of Israel and whose name is mentioned in the Bible over 1000 times. That year, however, archaeologists uncovered in northern Israel a basalt stone [2], dated to the ninth century B.C.E., that experts say bears the words “House of David†and “king of Israel.â€

Bible critics questioned the existence of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea who handed Jesus over to be impaled. (Matthew 27:1-26) Evidence that Pilate was once ruler of Judea is etched on a stone [1] discovered at the Mediterranean seaport city of Caesarea in 1961.

Events: Until recently, many scholars doubted the accuracy of the Bible’s account of the nation of Edom battling with Israel in the time of David. (2 Samuel 8:13, 14) Edom, they argued, was a simple pastoral society at the time and did not become sufficiently organized or have the might to threaten Israel until much later. However, recent excavations indicate that “Edom was a complex society centuries earlier [than previously thought], as reflected in the Bible,†states an article in the journal Biblical Archaeology Review.

Proper titles: There were many rulers on the world stage during the 16 centuries that the Bible was being written. When the Bible refers to a ruler, it always uses the proper title. For example, it correctly refers to Herod Antipas as “district ruler†and Gallio as “proconsul.†(Luke 3:1; Acts 18:12) Ezra 5:6 refers to Tattenai, the governor of the Persian province “beyond the River,†the Euphrates River. A coin produced in the fourth century B.C.E. contains a similar description, identifying the Persian governor Mazaeus as ruler of the province “Beyond the River.â€

Accuracy in seemingly minor details is no small matter. If we can trust the Bible writers in even small details, should that not bolster our confidence in the other things that is written down in the Bible ?

(source of information - Watchtower Library)

So we are to conclude that the novel ' Gone with the Wind' is historically accurate because it describes certain events and Civil War leaders accurately?

In fact, the Bible has several internal difficulties related to persons and places. For example, different dates for the birth of Jesus, the incorrect description by Luke of Nazareth, the lack of archeological evidence to support Exodus and so forth. While these contradictions and errors do not distract from its overall message, they make implausible the acceptance of the Biblical texts as literally inerrant.

 

[logical bob]

glorydaz, I was going to quote that passage from 1 Corinthians 15 myself, then I took it out because the post was getting too long. Paul gives us a list of people to whom the risen Christ appeared which starts with the disciples and ends with himself. As far as I know, no Christian tradition claims that the appearance to Paul was in the flesh. Acts certainly doesn't. So at least one of the appearances on the list is non-physical. Paul doesn't say that some of the appearances are physical and some not and he clearly regards them as essentially the same.

How do we know if any were physical? From the gospels. But the thing is, Paul died some years before the first gospel was written. And even that first gospel, as it was originally written, contains no resurrection appearances. The second has appearances that are arguably physical (Mary clings to Jesus' feet) but it isn't until the third and fourth that we find the physical directly emphasised with wounds touched and fish eaten.

I realise that I won't sway you here because you're committed to the belief that every word of the Bible as we possess it today is inerrant (a view which is consistent if not without its problems). But I have trouble with the idea that we can tell what Paul meant using books written by other people perhaps 40 to 50 years after he wrote and 25 to 35 after his death. Paul is silent on the subject of physical resurrection, as is the first gospel. Why is this if that belief is essential for Christianity? At a very minimum, don't you find it strange that Paul makes very nearly no reference to any material that appears in the gospels?

Paul is our best witness to Jesus, an associate of people who knew him in life. The gospel writers are anonymous, later and almost certainly further removed from events than Paul. (You’ll say they were there, but you have to look at the evidence.) If Paul doesn’t mention all these details about Jesus’ life and then they pop up years later from less reliable sources then we should ask questions.

Oh, and if the gospels are literally true then Paul misses the first witnesses off his list, presumably because they were women.

Of course Paul believed the resurrection to be real and made it central in his theology. That’s not in doubt for a moment. But this may be real in the sense that after his death, people were having visions or experiences of Jesus. This would obviously lead them to believe that he wasn’t dead.

Veritas, thanks for a colourful contribution. You’re right and I should clarify. The passages you quote show that Paul expected Christianity to involve healing, prophecy and speaking in tongues just as it does for many people today. They don’t seem to refer to the miracle stories in the gospels or in Acts.

 

[Physicist]

Gnostic Paul

Of course Paul believed the resurrection to be real and made it central in his theology. That’s not in doubt for a moment. But this may be real in the sense that after his death, people were having visions or experiences of Jesus. This would obviously lead them to believe that he wasn’t dead.

I think one can go further and say that Paul definitely did not believe in a real physical resurrection,

1 Corinthians 15:50 “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

Paul separates the natural body from the spiritual body. Only the latter gets resurrected. This is quite Gnostic in its interpretation and explains why Marcion used letters from Paul in his canon. The later gospel authors (Luke, John), in contrast to Paul, provide the resurrected Jesus with a physical body. He certainly is not in Paul's spiritual body, as pointed out in Luke 24:39.

 

[Veritas]

Veritas, thanks for a colourful contribution. You’re right and I should clarify. The passages you quote show that Paul expected Christianity to involve healing, prophecy and speaking in tongues just as it does for many people today. They don’t seem to refer to the miracle stories in the gospels or in Acts.

I see, in my mind I'm not sure what healing, prophecy, tongues, and miracles, would apply to, if not to the stories in the gospels and especially acts

I think one can go further and say that Paul definitely did not believe in a real physical resurrection,

1 Corinthians 15:50 “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God"

Paul separates the natural body from the spiritual body. Only the latter gets resurrected. This is quite Gnostic in its interpretation and explains why Marcion used letters from Paul in his canon. The later gospel authors (Luke, John), in contrast to Paul, provide the resurrected Jesus with a physical body. He certainly is not in Paul's spiritual body, as pointed out in Luke 24:39.

This view doesn't seem to harmonize well with the rest of the chapter. Although I can see how this could just be a disagreement in semantics. I agree that Jesus' resurrected body was different in that it was no longer subject to disease, and decay. I think a spiritual body is a good description; however, I would say His spiritual body was physical.