Christians: Why do some of you deny historical facts?

Question

I see it again and again from people here and on other sites.

I've seen people refuse to believe that the Bible was canonized in the 4th century by the catholic church.

I've seen people who refuse to believe that women often took leadership rolls in the first generation of Christianity. (which was quickly undone as a survival technique.)

I've seen people who flat out deny that the Bible texts were altered by scribes when copied or translated; they think it's almost exactly the same as when it was first penned.

And of course the most famous is the denial of evolution despite very solid evidence such as the signs of retroactive viruses in our DNA which prove we have a common ancestor with some animals, and dozens of kinds of carbon dating that have been proven accurate. (Some will cling to the fact the one of these dozen types of carbon dating was not accurate, despite the evidence that many other kinds are.)

It honestly perplexes me. I'm a Christian, and I don't think that history in any way conflicts with God or the Christian faith. It think God created the world and the history that EXISTS, not the one that doesn't exist.

PS: Atheists... Don't need to hear from you on this one, this question is for Christians.

Rev. Albert Einstein:

I study this stuff all the time and I have never seen any non-fundamentalist-scholar (the kind that would be laughed out of most circles) claim this. I read about this kind of thing a lot, it's pretty much the only thing I I read books for. I still haven't come across anything that would confirm what you say. If you would like to offer some sources, that would be cool.

IJacob:

Maybe you are just unaware? I had to learn all this stuff too.

I wish some of you could look honestly at the facts and give me a real answer. None the less, I'm learning from your answers anyhow.

JWH: The question was not about evolution. Also you clearly are unfamiliar with what I believe concerning it. Please answer the question.

Lion of Judah: I've seen most all of that stuff refuted before. I used to think evolution was just a "possibility", but after some research it is clearly a 99.8% possibility. (But why would this possibility do anything to your faith in Jesus? It affects nothing about him.)

Your link on canonization contains no contradictions as to any factual claim I would make about it. It is however silent on my key point that it happened in the 4th century, and the books were voted in.

Also you didn't answer the question, ignore the evolution part if you have to in order to stay on topic.

Robert R: Despite you being one of those I am asking this question, you give a good answer. Evolution aside I would like to point out that most of those copies of the new testament are fragments. Often a sentence or a few. Very few of these copies contain most of any particular Biblical books. Even so, the NT certainly does get some credit as per the number of texts there was, but it's not as solid as you make it sound.

Angeltre...
Glad you agree; glad I'm not the only one. I'm a little less optimistic about the changes made in the Bible, but I think Jesus' message of peace and love and all that is pretty clear and consistent through-out. Still though, why do you think many deny these things?

Answer 1

The earliest surviving manuscript copy of any of the Gospels dates from ca. 140 C.E., so we don't know about the earliest errors in transmission. In addition, the Gospels, as opposed to the genuine Pauline epistles, were based on earlier oral tradition. (Not all of Paul's epistles in the Christian Scriptures are now though to be genuine, such as 1st Timothy.) Mark, the earliest Gospel, was written ca 70 C.E., after the sack of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple, which led to the end of Jewish cultic worshhip.

The earliest churches were house churches, and women, in the Greco-Roman world, controlled the household. Since they provided the place where congregations met, they often exercised leadership roles, particularly if they were wealthy adherents, and even Paul speaks about women prophesying. As the church moved into the public sphere, men increasingly gained a monopoly on the leadship positions, a situation consolidated after the legalization of Christianity by Constantine (whose mother was Christian) and Theodosius the Great's decree making Christianity the State religion and closing the pagan schools in the mid-4th Century.

The process of canonization of the Christian Scriptures was the product of centuries of controversy, beginning with Marcion's attempt to reject in toto the Hebrew Scriptures in the 1st half of the Second Century, and continues today. Protestants and Roman Catholics disagree about what some call the Apochrypha and others the Deutro-canonical Hebrew writings of the intertestimental period. Then there is the question of the Gospel of Thomas, which some scholars argue should be included in the canon.

The position of the catholic churches, summarized in Fides et Ratio, is that nothing in Christianity is contrary to reason, including modern science, although science must be interpreted in light of faith.

Why do some professing Christians refuse to acknowledge this state of affairs? Saint Paul maybe said it best: we see now as through a glass darkly.

Grace be unto you and peace.

Answer 2

Christians don't deny historical facts. 1) The Bible: The existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures). The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism. Additionally there exist over 86,000 quotations from the New Testament texts in the preserved writings of the leaders of the Early Christian church, testifying to the original texts. Only a small percentage of the New Testament is not quoted in outside sources. The official canon of the New Testament was agreed upon by 397 AD, however, before the year 150 AD, all gospels, Acts and Paul’s epistles were universally accepted as part of the list of Inspired writings. The disagreements in the 3rd and 4th century only centered around a few of the smaller New Testament books: James, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude and Revelation. 2. Ok, SOME Christians deny any leadership role of women in the church. Not all Christians do. However, you must admit that the Twelve were all men. The absolute clear teaching of the Bible is that the man is the "head" of the hosehold. That doesn't mean that men are better than women but that there are different roles in marriage. A woman can never be in a leadership role in a church higher than the role her husband occupies. 3. No, see above. We have almost the entire New Testament quoted in various extra biblical sources. Now, what you have to understand is that scribes did make notes in the margins of texts as they were copying it for various reasons. Occasionally another scribe might inadvertantly include those notes as "scripture." However, by comparing the many many documents we have (much more than any other ancient document) we can determing what was added inadvertantly. 4. I'm sorry but evolution is a theory, not an established scientific fact. If evolution is true how did the first "something" come from nothing? That, my friend is a scientific impossibliity. And then to think that that first something eventually decided to become the human race is just preposterous. No, no common ancerstery with animals has been proven. And no fossils linking any 2 species has been found. Also, you do know that carbon dating is not accurate or reliable don't you? Furthur, some Christians believe that the creation story is an allegory, not a step by step account of how God actually created everything.

Answer 3

Christians don't deny historical facts.

1) The Bible:
The existing Hebrew manuscripts are supplemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint (a third-century B.C. Greek translation of the Old Testament), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Targums (ancient paraphrases of the Old Testament), as well as the Talmud (teachings and commentaries related to the Hebrew Scriptures).

The quantity of New Testament manuscripts is unparalleled in ancient literature. There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, about 8,000 Latin manuscripts, and another 1,000 manuscripts in other languages (Syriac, Coptic, etc.). In addition to this extraordinary number, there are tens of thousands of citations of New Testament passages by the early church fathers. In contrast, the typical number of existing manuscript copies for any of the works of the Greek and Latin authors, such as Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, or Tacitus, ranges from one to 20. The New Testament can be regarded as 99.5 percent pure, and the correct readings for the remaining 0.5 percent can often be ascertained with a fair degree of probability by the practice of textual criticism.

Additionally there exist over 86,000 quotations from the New Testament texts in the preserved writings of the leaders of the Early Christian church, testifying to the original texts. Only a small percentage of the New Testament is not quoted in outside sources.

The official canon of the New Testament was agreed upon by 397 AD, however, before the year 150 AD, all gospels, Acts and Paul’s epistles were universally accepted as part of the list of Inspired writings. The disagreements in the 3rd and 4th century only centered around a few of the smaller New Testament books: James, 2 Peter, 2&3 John, Jude and Revelation.

2. Ok, SOME Christians deny any leadership role of women in the church. Not all Christians do. However, you must admit that the Twelve were all men. The absolute clear teaching of the Bible is that the man is the "head" of the hosehold. That doesn't mean that men are better than women but that there are different roles in marriage. A woman can never be in a leadership role in a church higher than the role her husband occupies.

3. No, see above. We have almost the entire New Testament quoted in various extra biblical sources.

Now, what you have to understand is that scribes did make notes in the margins of texts as they were copying it for various reasons. Occasionally another scribe might inadvertantly include those notes as "scripture." However, by comparing the many many documents we have (much more than any other ancient document) we can determing what was added inadvertantly.

4. I'm sorry but evolution is a theory, not an established scientific fact. If evolution is true how did the first "something" come from nothing? That, my friend is a scientific impossibliity. And then to think that that first something eventually decided to become the human race is just preposterous.

No, no common ancerstery with animals has been proven. And no fossils linking any 2 species has been found.

Also, you do know that carbon dating is not accurate or reliable don't you?

Furthur, some Christians believe that the creation story is an allegory, not a step by step account of how God actually created everything.

Answer 4

Yes, the Bible was canonized in the 4th century by the catholic church, and yes, they left out a lot of stuff that didn't agree with their agenda at the time.

Yes, women often took leadership roles. A few things Paul said have been grossly misunderstood and badly abused, I'm afraid. For instance, folks tend to forget that at the time he was writing, men and women did NOT sit together to listen to preaching...in fact the women sat in a separate room, away from the men. They forget that Corinth was a seaport city...and let's face it, harbor gals have always been a bit...ummm...rowdier...than their sisters. Seen in that light, Paul's admonition to the ladies of Corinth to keep silence in the church and wait to ask their husbands questions at home makes much more sense, yes?
People tend to forget women like Deborah, Tamar, Rahab, Esther, Ruth...to name just a few. They forget Mary Magdalene, Martha and Mary of Bethany, Suzanna, Joanna, and so many others...

They also seem to forget that, during those times, folks had to laboriously copy scriptures by hand. You try making five copies (five copies will be enough to prove my point, but remember that these guys made dozens of them at a time!) of your favorite short story, written out by hand, and see if you don't change a word or two here and there...
I see no problem with this, though...because I totally trust God to make sure that the important information I need to know was preserved and what I hold in my hands may not be an exact copy of what the original writers wrote, but it is what God intended me to have...
That is my faith...

I wouldn't really care so much about evolution...except that it's proponents seem to be pushing it as a substitute for God. Heck we were taught evolution in school back when there was still a short prayer on the intercom every morning...and nobody got excited. God and science co-existed very well together.
Personally, I do not KNOW whether "evolution is a fact" or not. I don't see that some commonalities in our dna "prove" that we have a common ancestor with the apes...nor am I much impressed by some foot bones in China. Of course, there would be similarities among God's Creation...just as there are similarities among the different works of art produced by a particular artist, or the music composed by a particular musician, or the literature produced by a particular writer. That doesn't mean that one sculpture "evolved" from another one, or that one symphony "evolved" from a previous piece, or that one novel "evolved" from an earlier story...at best it only means that the ideas behind these things are similar.
As for carbon dating, it seems to me that, if it can be shown that one type was not accurate, it is possible that carbon dating itself could be suspect. We can't know with any certainty how old something is, unless we were present at it's beginning.
I have always been amused by the circular reasoning...obviously, earlier forms of life would be found in older rocks...and it is just as obvious that rocks with more primitive fossils must be older rocks...
Ummmm....maybe I missed something there...

The thing is, I don't see that it matters much...science, after all, is ONLY about "how" and has nothing to do with "why". If they could prove to me, beyond any shadow of doubt, that evolution IS INDEED a fact, it would still not prove that God is not. If we could agree on that, then there would be no more problem.
I do not like the notion of my grandchild's biology teacher telling her that God is an outdated concept, or that, since we now "know" how life evolved, there is no more "need" to revert to "primitive explanations" such as "Godidit"...I do not insist that he teach her anything but science...but I DO insist that he stick to the subject he is hired to teach, and leave his personal opinions about religion at home.
My argument with evolution is not whether it is a fact or not..frankly, I am skeptical...but that it is NOT a replacement for God.

Answer 5

I don't What you state is simply not true.Remnant Believers preserved God's Word.You haven't read enough to know this great truth.And microevolution is not the same as macroevolution.You have such a long rant that I'm not sure citing sources would alter you skewed views.Especially the perverted logic with regards to DNA and viruses.I think you are very young and not well read enough to absorb the material that refute your erroneous claims.Come back in a few years and ask specific questions one at a time so detailed answers can be given to you.

Answer 6

I don't disagree with some facts in science,but I don't question GOD either. Just as there are many facts presented in extensive scientific research there are just as much or more facts from the bible that are proven. I think that some christians like to turn their heads away from this because they believe that to learn about these things is a sin.

Answer 7

here is something that you have missed.. or just wish to deny.. modern day biologist as with other scientist.. now have proven that humans did not evolve from another species... what you must learn is that LIFE CANNOT CREATE ITSELF.. if it could then life would still be evolving.. humans would still be evolving.. life did not just happen.. you can take all the chemicals that make up the human body.. put them all together in a vat.. to the exact formulation and stir them up.. and nothing will happen.. because the chemicals are dead.. there is no life force.. with a life or energy force.. life could not have begun.. it had to be created.. we did not evolve.. it is not a denial.. it is a statement of fact.. and you need to face the truth.. LIFE CANNOT CREATE ITSELF.. it required the presence of a supernatural force.. the proof is evident.. and irrefutable..

Answer 8

I think that one of the problems is that not all of your facts are facts.
Evolution still calls itself a theory. Why? No proof. No sound evidence, etc.
The Dead Sea scrolls are still remarkably like the modern Bible.

Answer 9

The biggest denial of Christians is that Catholicism shows us what not to put any faith in.

Answer 10

Flat out denial does eliminate the need to consider what it is that is being denied. That is one of its attractions.