bible as proof

[smithy]

there seems to be a lot here about the bible being proof for the existence of god/jesus etc. However, that's only one book. There is therefore much more evidence for the existence of Harry Potter or James Bond. Discuss

[Jabba]

Jesus is also mentioned in the work of Josephus, a Jewish historian. He speaks of "James, the brother of Jesus, who is called 'Messiah'". As for claiming the Bible as evidence of God, this is largely restricted to the less intelligent breed of Christian. Some have gone further: they claim that the Bible is infallible, and cite as their evidence for this the fact that the Bible says it is. More often, though, people have an active belief in God because they have had what they consider to be a personal spiritual experience, or (according to surveys) because of the (fallacious) Argument From Design.

[smithy]

Ok then evidence for characters in the Lord of the Rings (3 books) is also corroborated in The Hobbit and The Silmarillion. The latter also contains a complete history of Middle Earth. I believe that me

[smithy]

Ok then evidence for characters in the Lord of the Rings (3 books) is also corroborated in The Hobbit and The Silmarillion. The latter also contains a complete history of Middle Earth. I believe that me

[Jabba]

On the other hand, the books you mentioned were all written by one person. Jesus is mentioned by the authors of the four Gospels, St Paul and Josephus. Furthermore, the author of the books you list said they were works of fiction. Though sections of the Gospels are undoubtedly not true, they were written as works of history (or biography if you prefer).

[smithy]

Aahh Well spotted The bible is true then as there's no authors notes in the cover. Sorry - missed that one! Tell me this though. If something is true by the virtue that the author is unknown and something is false because the author is known, and the known author states that his work is fiction, if you see a work from an unknown author who doesn't acknowledge fiction, is it fact? If not, then where's the evidence for the bible? BTW who wrote those gospel things then? Do they have cover notes?

[Ewood27]

I'm no expert, but I understand that there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. Even without such evidence, it's not hard to accept that a Jew called Jesus lived and was crucified, any more than it's hard to accept that Julius Caesar was real and was stabbed to death.
As for the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus, that is, always has been, and presumably will remain a matter of faith. The Bible is not proof, but it is evidence (unless you reject it all) that many good people have believed in God. Perhaps one day you will stop being so flippant and start thinking like a grown-up.

[blythkeith]

Ewood, what is the bible "evidence" of? It's might be a good read, it has some interesting plot lines, but it's no more "evidence" of anything than the Oor Wullie annual.

[blythkeith]

Jabba, how do you support the statement: "Though sections of the Gospels are undoubtedly not true, they were written as works of history (or biography if you prefer)"? The bible is no more "history" than (say) the Norse sagas, and there is little or no independent contemporary verification of the stories in the bible as actual occurences - as far as I can see the only verifiable historical "facts" in the Bible are that there appears to have been a flood, and someone was called Jesus. The Bible is a collection of allegory, nowt more.

[Jabba]

blythkeith: What i meant was that they were written as (largely) a true representation of the ministry of Jesus. That is, they were intended to be read as works of fact, rather than fiction. The fact that there are errors and (probably) deliberate falsifications in them does not alter that fact. As an analogy, many creationists write books purporting to demonstrate the literal truth of the Genesis stories. These are full of errors, distortions and lies, but they are written to be read as works of fact. In the case of the Gspels, the fact that (for example) Luke's description of the Nativity is completely wrong does not mean that there was never a Jewish preacher called Jesus (or called Yeshoshus/Joshua and Latinized as Jesus, to be more accurate). Luke wrote his Gospel some time between AD 80 and 150 and had no idea where Jesus was born (and probably no-one else did either). There was a demand for stories of the life of the founder of this new cult, so Luke made up a birth story that would fit with certain Old Testament prophecies. Incidentally, there was certainly no global flood as described in the two intertwined stories in Genesis. These myths probably derived from earlier ones developed by people who lived in river valley areas. For them, a flood was a very serious occurence indeed, and it is natural that they should use one as an instrument of destruction in their myths.

[TommyC]

I'm afraid one or two of you have some of your "facts" seriously wrong. Firstly, there is a great deal more to the Bible than simply the ministry of Jesus, as anyone would realise who had ever bothered to look at it for more than two minutes. The history of Abraham and early Israel is fully validated and accepted by generations of Muslim scolars who share a common historical and religious heritage, and the entire history of the Israelite kings from David onwards, and all the internal squabbles, wars and accessions, right up to the 70-year exile in Babylon (not to mention the events of the much later Christian era) are attested to in countless other secular works throughout history that nobody - including Bible-haters, take issue with. So this is hardly the "fiction" and "myths" that smithy and jabba are labelling the entire Bible. As for the flood, I'm afraid it's clear that Jabba knows absolutely nothing about even the basics of archeological research, since archeologists the world over fully understand and accept the hard (scientific) evidence for a flood of global proportions at some point in the distant past, and if you search the web for even five minutes you'll find plenty of it available for study.

[Jabba]

For some of the many refutations of the idea of a global flood, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

[anthomson]

I pretty sure there is no hard evidence for a flood of global proportions and such a flood would have left a awful lot of scientific evidence. There may be some evidence for a more localised flood in the middle east. This may form the origin of the story.

[madhat]

There is no "hard" scientific evidence of the existence of a global flood, but there is theory in the creation of a planet such as the Earth. In order for a planet to undergo acretion, a sort of metamorphis of the planet's elements, the planet needs to be met with a fairly large object wondoring through space (or more accurate: the solar system, of which its development itself includes a thorough description). A very ideal object to strike the planet and receive a source of water (frozen ice), is a meteor. This was very likely to happen to Earth in its predevelopment days (being a planetary mass encircling a star) and at least initially engulfing the entire planet. What's more is the very likelyhood of other planets (planetary masses) colliding with other space objects...maybe getting some water...maybe receiving fundemental elements (i.e. hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, etc. molecules) from other collisions in space that might have generated a development, quite like the Earth's. So yes: a global flood could likely have happened (those statistics again) that would have needed to somehow "carry" the "future" of life.

[madhat]

btw, I was trying to make a connection between "the Bible" and "scientific evidence grounded in theory." I know I may have strayed from the original question, but I'm trying to harmoniously piece together our existence. The Bible may not have any sort of evidence of anything (its based on historical testimony) - but the stories may in fact be grounded in evidence. The stories ARE all analogies...but analogies of what? As for Jesus, there's virtually no doubt that he was able to accumulate a very large number of followers, was very adament of the cause he believed in, and probably did receive an ass-kicking from people (or from government officials being nicely illustrated by Mel Brooks) who were losing power from his (rhetoric...preaching...etc), and for that something MUST be said: The Man did begin the largest revolutionary paradigm in histroy.

[sibelius]

The key to this is that the bible is a collection of books, written over centuries, and in some places heavily edited before it reached its present state. [The editing too may be subject to divine guidance, depending on what you want to believe.] This is a real problem for anyone who wants to see the whole bible as one equally real and true text. This is a bit like watching TV for 24 hours in the belief that it's all a documentary, which can get you tied in knots if you watch Coronation Street, Star Trek, The Simpsons and the News. It helps to know which book of the bible you're dealing with. Different parts are clearly history, some poetry, some folk tales, some philosophy. The gospel of Mark is generally thought to have been the basis for the gospels of Matthew and Luke, but even Mark started off as a collection of what people remembered, written by someone else, thirty years after the event. That could make it objectively more reliable than the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. I guess there is a difference between a story being True, and being Real. At the risk of offending fundamentalist Flemingites, I think there's more Truth in Harry Potter than James Bond. But the truth is there with or without the magic.... Maybe the same is true of the gospels.

[smithy]

yep I'll go with that. In order of believability so far we've got harry potter lord of the rings james bond jesus biggles any other thoughts?

[SoloBoshek]

wow... talk about contention. Now, to use the word bible you need to know where it originated from. First off, the word bible didn't even come around until about the 4th century, The word itself is of Greek origin, being derived from ta biblia, �the books.� In course of time �biblia,� a neuter plural, was regarded as a feminine singular, and in that way �the books� came to be spoken of as �the book.� By the word Bible therefore we must understand not a single book, but a divine library. Which contains 66 different books within this one book "called" the bible. But you want another book? Have you ever heard of the Book of Mormon? It is the writings of ancient prophets that lived on the American continent during the time of christ, and it contains 15 different books within its covers. So you've got a lot of books testifing of Christ, and a majority of these books were written by different authors. Compared to your 1 auther multiple book theory. Also why don't you try to find out for yourself instead of realying on your own or others intelligence? Ask God yourself if he is there. And if you exercise your faith, he will answer you.

[HarryR]

In the book of mormon, Helaman chapter 14/10, does it not say "And now, because I am a Lamanite, and have spoken unto you the words which the Lord hath commanded me, and because it was hard against you, ye are angry with me and do seek to destroy me, and have acast� me out from among you"?

[B.Eelzebub]

I like James Herbert books

[smithy]

James Herbert? Now I'm getting confused. Do we now have Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, James & Herbert?? btw SoloBoshek I've looked at the bible in the hotel room and ther's not even one author mentioned. If the bible was true, wouldn't it be in there? ps you may have answered this but i didn't read your message - sorry!