Those who doubt the Bible .. please, check out this link and then say?

Question

what you think. Does historical evidence mean anything to you? By faith Christians believe, but there is evidence for those who doubt. Answer, comments and opinions welcome, please, keep it nice if you don't agree. I'm not being judgemental or mean, do the same for me.

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-bible.html

Answer 1

I appreciate what you're trying to do and I believe that discussion is always a good thing. However, if people were to list rebuttals to these arguments with proof, wouldn't you likely discount them? I've found that while there are many logical arguments to both sides of the discussion that neither has a "smoking gun" that is going to change the other's mind.

If you read the article through again and try to think about it in an objective way, you'll come up with your own arguments against it. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to debate most arguments about practically anything.

Here is a rundown of my intial thoughts:
1. Test of Time: Many other religions have been around for thousands of years.
2. Famous Testimonies: This is like saying, vote for this political Proposition, because look who endorses it! It is better to make your own evaluation than to rely wholly on others.
3. No Editors: Nice, but doesn't prove truth. It only means that there were many devout people who took care not to change things.
4. Translation: I agree that translations were undertaken with great care (KJV seems to be problematic, though). Again, though, that's not an argument for the Bible; rather, it's an argument against some silly argument others have made anti-Bible.
5. Historical Witnesses: Only solid evidence (and I would personally say proof) that Jesus existed, not proof of anything else.
6. OT supports NT: Perhaps. Or, maybe just hindsight interpretation. I'm going to be looking into prophesies soon, so don't have much to say on it.
7. Human behavior: Is the claim really, "the Bible is true because there are examples of true human behavior?" What does that really prove?

I'm concerned about finding the truth about Christianity and feel it is the most worthwhile endeavor I can have. However, I must try to view all "proofs" through the eyes of those who might oppose it. Once I have a satisfactory answer to perceived objections, then I move forward. It has been an interesting journey for me when taking that approach - I've learned more than I could have ever imagined.

Answer 2

We have found fatal flaws:
Noah's Ark couldn't have stayed afloat -- a wood vessel that large would have shattered under its own weight.
The world is far, FAR more than 7000 years old -- hubble expansion is proof.

The resilience of a text or religion is not proof of it. There are still people who worship the Egyptian Gods. If the resiliance is true, then the Great Pyramid, the Book of the Dead, and modern worshipers prove themselves more true than the Bible.

Testamonies are meaningless. First, because Truth is not subject to popular vote. If 6 billion people suddenly said 2+2=5, and 1 person said no, 2+2=4, which is right? The six billion or the one? Second, most testamonies make perfectly logical sense when analyzed in the psychological context of the person without needing an outside influence -- their belief is sufficient, regardless of if that belief is correct.

In fact, the Roman Catholic Church *DID* set down the canon of the New Testament, rejecting many (some that might have even been written by the actual apostles [Gospel of St. Thomas]). This was done at a single council in 330AD. Most of the books were passed on orally for the first few decades before being written down (writing was proof you were a follower of Christ and thus a criminal). As anyone knows, oral tradition changes with the telling.

If it is true that modern translations are made from the original sources, why is the protestant Bible missing 7 books? It is a known scholarly fact, agreed by secular and religious archeologists alike, that the original Bible was based on the Septuagint, which included these seven, and then Martin Luther used the Pentateuch in his translation. So no, not all translations are made from the originals. The discussion of the agreement with the dead sea scrolls is invalid -- there were books included in the dead sea scrolls that are not included in ANY known version of the Bible. Should these books then be made part of the Bible?

Most skeptics will acknowledge the existence of the man named Jesus, who was born in Nazareth. I'm among them. So I'll skip that discussion.

The old testament does not support the new testament, and the schollar who wrote this page hasn't done all his research. The old testament makes over 300 predictions that the Messiah must meet. And Jesus did not fulfill all of them. The other error of this section is that it assumes that the Old Testament is correct in proving the New Testament. However, numerous archeological and scientific errors can be found in the Torah alone, let alone the rest of the Old Testament. Therefore, this section is completely logically flawed.

LOTS of ancient texts revealed their heros to have fears. Gilgamesh was fearful in the valley of the scorpions. Herculease was fearful in the presence of the Hydra until he figured out how to kill it. The Bible is not unique as this site claims in this regard.

God is no fool? This assumes the a priori existence of God, without ever providing a lick of proof he exists.


----------------

Please provide a better challenge next time. This was so much garbage and far too easy to expose for it.

Answer 3

Okay, so I read it. The arguments are:

1. The bible has "withstood attack" for 2000 years. So have other religious texts, some for much longer, and some which are mutually exclusive.

2. Famous people endorse it. This isn't evidence, this is a logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority." I find it funny that Jefferson, who disavowed being a Christian is listed as one of these.

3. A claim that "the bible had no editors" which is both flatly false and irrelevant. If there were no editors, why are there different versions?

4. Claims that the bible has been accurately translated. Again, meaningless even if true.

5. A list of "Historical Witnesses," not one of which was a contemporary of Yeshua ben Yusef. They were recording second- or third- hand accounts, and even in the ones closest to the time, there were just reports of the claims of his followers. Makes a good case for the existence of such a person, but nothing more.

6. Using the old testament to validate the new. The followers of Christ were largely Jews previously. Of course the records will coincide. Furthermore, it's self-referential, it requires you to accept the validity of one half of the bible to validate the second.

7. The bible is about actual people, sometimes portrayed negatively. This is not unique among religious texts, and again, offers no proof of validity.

8. God is infalliable. According to the bible. This is circular reasoning, a perfect example of "begging the question."

This site lists no hard evidence or reasonable logic to validate its position. It's meaningless unless you already accept its assumptions, in which case, it has nothing to argue to you.

Answer 4

The Bible have been misused, unused for quite sometime (there was a very long years of disallowing the people to read the Bible and when they were allowed, it should not be without an elder) and then abused by the the false teachings through misleading and confusing interpretations of the the religions who were able to enrich themselves by continuously imprisoning their believers to their ignorance, guilt, fears of hell and false hopes. Go to this website for a much enriching studies, www.thename.ph

Answer 5

That argument is pretty useless, it depends on testimonials (a logically flawed way of prooving the truth) and the test of time. Buddhist scriptures are older than the bible and have survived to this day, that must mean that they are more true, according to your logic. And, for your information, the New Testament was compiled at the Council of Necea, hundreds of years after Jesus's death, by people who had never met him. Doesn't sound very accurate to me.

Answer 6

What is the point in that? Its just another site promoting the bible. Wonderful for the gullible but can you show me concrete evidence? No of course not...

Answer 7

Sorry, m'dear, I have to assume that the Bible is potentially falliable. No matter what reasoning you use, it was written by men who will happily embellish, alter, fabricate, omit, and yes, even outright lie, to support their own conclusions.

I would love to have the opportunity to study and translate the Dead Sea scrolls for myself, however. If you know how I can arrange this, please enlighten me. I do not want to read someone else's translation, I want to see the original text and translate it for myself.

Answer 8

Within 10 seconds I noticed it portraying Jefferson as if he were a Christian, which is a flat out lie.

I must assume everything else on the site is equally deceptive apologetic crap.

Answer 9

Not much point in going to a Christian based link especially for proof of a book of fiction.

Answer 10

the Holy Bible is perfect,you don't need any thing else, stop reading, and listening to things written, by unholy people... .............THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS ALL A PERSON NEEDS nothing ELSE. don't listen to nonbelievers either, they will lead you astray.oh yes there is no rapture in the bible at all.It is a denominational word. not OF God. And if it ain't of God don't believe it.