There is an appalling lack of historical evidence backing the Bible's veracity

From a dictionary:

quote:

---

1ev·i·dence Listen to the pronunciation of 1evidence
Pronunciation:
\e-v-dn(t)s, -v-‘den(t)s\
Function:
noun
Date:
14th century

​

1 a: an outward sign : indication b: something that furnishes proof : testimony ; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness ; especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against his accomplices

---

I'd say the bolded part is of importance when doing science. Yes, and it's up for other supporting evidence to see which one of them is correct, or if they are both wrong. Evidence is NEVER a matter of belief in science. I say jesus did not exist as he is portrayed in the bible. There were many men named jesus in that region at that time, but someone like in the bible NEVER existed. There is at least no evidence for this. Wow, how convenient. First you have to accept it to be true and only then can you understand it. Nice.... Strangely, I agree with you here. Yet strangely, we see NO signs and wonders, and people STILL believe. And have yet to turn up ANY evidence that supports it. Again, I deny the jesus of the bible existed. Furthermore, interpreting evidence doesn't need ANY faith to be correct. Fairy tales can never be proof.

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

ev·i·dence
-noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
-verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
”Idiom6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.

---

Relevant definitions bolded. I think the dictionary makes it clear. Evidence is anything that tends to prove an assertion. Sometimes true. However, that doesn't mean both of them will be right, or that both of them understood the evidence, or that the subject actually is evidence in the first place. With regard to religions such as Christianity, it's plainly a case of "belief" without supporting evidence. The only evidence of the more unusual claims of the Bible (6-day Creation, the existence of a deity, the Flood, the Exodus, the settlement of the Hebrews in teh promised land, the miracles performed by Jesus, the resurrection, etc) is the text of teh Bible itself. All other texts that speak of the same events have already been attributed back to the Biblical texts - that is, there are no first-hand accounts or historical documentation outside of the Bible that were not originated by the same Biblical text. There is no physical evidence of Creation, the existence of a deity, the Flood, or the Exodus, all events that should have left plenty of evidence to find. Instead, we typically find evidence that contradicts the Biblical account.In this case, it's certainly possible for two people to look at the evidence and come to different conclusions. However, the person who believes the account of a set of texts written by ancient, ignorant goat-herders over the accumulated models of science which have been repeatedly tested and verified is a gullible fool.Quite literally, the person who believes that teh Bible is evidence of its own veracity must either use special pleading or accept every text, no matter how ficticious, from the Quoran to Harry Potter, as "evidence" that similarly overrides all observation of reality. Both are quite plainly irrational positions. As an Atheist, I can say I have no reason to beleive in any gods, whether that be yours or anyone elses, because your collective theological brethren have never supplied anything approaching actual evidence to support your wild claims. When your beliefs require that every species of animal on Earth must have existed within walking distance of Noah's house, and is contradicted by every single model accepted by mainstream geology, archaeology, paleontology, oceanography, biology, and physics, models that are based on and supported by actual real-life observations of the world around us, I think it's pretty reasonable to ask why I should beleive you.As for the existence of Jesus, claiming that a man by that name existed around the specified time is not a very extraordinary claim, and I'd as readily believe such an assertion as I would if you claimed there was once a man named George in England. However, as with the previous set of claims, if you assert that this Jesus performed a series of magical miracles and rose from the dead, I'd again have to ask why I should believe you.If your answer to both of those questions is "the Bible says so," I'm afraid you aren't helping your case much. The Illiad says that Zeus exists and that there was a man named Achilles who participated in the destruction of Troy and who was invulnerable except for a spot on his ankle. While I'll readily accept the existence of a man named Achilles, and even that he may have participated in the destructon of Troy (a city we have externally verified to exist), I certainly don't think anyone, Achilles or otherwise, had some sort of superhuman invulnerability that protected him from all harm so long as nobody hurt his ankle. And I certainly see no reason to accept that Zeus exists.The only way around accepting all extraordinary claims so long as they are written down is to make special pleading for the Bible...and I'm afraid I just don't buy that. If "believers" are unable to explain the scriptures to "nonbelievers," how are you ever supposed to convince anyone?This seems like a rationalization for ignoring all evidence outside of the Bible, and a support for apologetic reasoning that puts the conclusion first and finds evidence to support it later.Further, do the scriptures not say that the Earth was Created in 6 days, and that there was a global Flood which was survived by a single family and a small number of every animal on Earth by getting onto a relatively small boat to wait out the storm? Do they not say that there were a large number of Hebrew slaves held in Egypt, and that they were released after God plagued Egypt with such things as famine, disease, meteor showers, and the killing of all first-born children? I fail to see how such basic assertions could be "understood" only by someone who already believes in them. They seem pretty straightforward to me. It's odd that you should paraphrase that passage in such a way. To me, that quote is a reminder of how God purposefully "hardened Pharoah's heart." It sounds like Jesus is saying that he will deliberately make comprehension of the scriptures impossible. It doesn't say anything about "truth" or "evidence" at all.This is again your attempt to promote apologetics - only the "interpretation" of the evidence that supports the preconceived conclusion is "valid." This is the reasoning of an idiot. What other forms of evidence are there? If you have evidence that the Christian faith is valid, please share it with us.But then, the Bible also makes very physical claims, such as the aforementioned Creation story and the global Flood. Are you saying that these events, which are global in scale, would not leave any physical evidence? That we shouldn't see any evidence of a genetic bottleneck across all animals around the time of the Flood, despite the fact that we do see genetic bottlenecks for some species around the time of other, more local natural disasters that thinned the population? Should we not see archeological and geological evidence of a 100-ish-day long global Flood? Should we not see a global sediment layer as everything was moved by the Flood waters?If we should not expect to see physical evidence of such events, why not? If your explanation involves divine magic, why should I believe you, and not any of the thouands of other myths dreampt up by humanity? Again with the apologetics. Unless you believe in the preconceived conclusion before looking at the evidence, your interpretation of the evidence will be incorrect?This methodology leads to unfalsifiability. If I "interpret" any and all evidence (including contradictory evidence) to support the existence of fairies that I've already decided exist, how can my belief be tested against reality? This line of reasoning is detached from rality, and leads to gullible, blind-faith beliefs that have no evidenciary support at all. Not really. Evidence that is so vague as to be interpreted any which-way is not really evidence at all. Let's use an example:There is a pen on my desk.Could this be interpreted as evidence of many things? Sure. You could interpret it to mean writing tasks have been performed at the desk. You could interpret it to mean a famous novel may have been written with the pen. You could interpret it to mean a man was stabbed to death by the pen at this desk.Of course, the existence of a pen doesn't necessarily imply, even in the slightest, that ths particular pen was used to write a particular novel, and it most certainly doesn't actually imply that it was used as a murder weapon. These conclusions are "speculative," and simply don't follow the evidence. In your method of reasoning, we should conclude that a murder had happened and "interpret" any and all evidence, such as the existence of the pen, in support of that conclusion. The fact that the supposed "victim" may in fact be standing next to you alive in well would somehow be ignored, just as with the physical evidence that contradicts the Biblical accounts.This is the sort of vaguery that lowers the value of any evidence. If a conclusion cannot be reached with a minimal degree of certainty base don the evidence, then the evidence does not really support that conclusion any more than the infinite numebr of alternative and similarly unsupported potential "interpretations."But in science, only conclusions that are directly supported by evidence are acceptable. In our example, only the conclusion that writing tasks were likely performed at the desk would be a tenable conclusion, because it is at least somewhat supported by the evidence of a pen at the desk.Not all "interpretations" are equal, and not all conclusions require faith. ...if it ever happens. When was that supposed to be? "Soon?" Almost every faith has an apocalypse myth of some sort, and I see no reason to differentiate yours from the others in the absence of real evidence.

Gday, Pardon me,
but the Council of Nicea did not collect the books of the bible.That's an oft-repeated, but false, urban legend.Kapyong

Eek! I misremembered what I thought I knew but didn't! Thank you, Kapyong, and a hearty welcome to EvC!

Whether a man called Jesus existed is irrelevant. The Biblical Jesus exists only in the scripture. The books about Jesus, the Gospels, were most likely written 100 to 200 years after the fact, not by anyone who was there. The stories were later compiled into the books, without any evidence that there was any truth to them.

It amazes me how people argue about the bible. Look at the fist few sentences that describe creation, pretty much as the big bang. There was chaos until light. at the introduction of light, came time. After that was day and night. A day, is one rotation of the earth...so no one knows the length of time this really means, but creation is described just as we know the order had to be. Now look at the fulfillment of prophecy. I think the bible has been pretty accurate, and the only place this info could have come from, is outside space-time...thus from God.

quote:

---

It amazes me how people argue about the bible. Look at the fist few sentences that describe creation, pretty much as the big bang. There was chaos until light. at the introduction of light, came time. After that was day and night. A day, is one rotation of the earth...so no one knows the length of time this really means, but creation is described just as we know the order had to be.

---

It always amazes me that people try to assume that Genesis 1 has anything to do with our modern scientific understanding when it is so obviously geocentric with its roots in the earlier creation myths of the Middle East. To point out just one problem, numerous stars formed in the ~9 billion years between the Big Bang and the formation of the Earth - yet Genesis 1 doesn't place the creation of stars before the first day as it surely should if you were correct.

quote:

---

Now look at the fulfillment of prophecy. I think the bible has been pretty accurate, and the only place this info could have come from, is outside space-time...thus from God.

---

We have looked, a number of times. And found that success usually rests on "creative interpretations" of the prophecy in question (and that is being kind). On a more objective assessment we see failure after failure.Edited by Admin, : Fix quotes.

quote:

---

With regard to religions such as Christianity, it's plainly a case of "belief" without supporting evidence.

---

I believe "Science" attempts to "TEST" each "theory" before coming to a conclusion about it's Veracity.however, in order to test a theory one would have to understand the "precepts" (prinicples) on which it is based to see if the "results" were the same as that "Prophesied" by those "precepts".Of course, failing to understand the theory's precepts would negate any possiblility of testing the theory.So, we have one group of "Scientist" (Christians) who have understood/tested the veracity of scripture and found the results to be precisely as "predicted". (prophesied)And another group of "Scientist" (unbelievers) that doesn't understand, and without the ability to test, deny it's verscity based on their "Belief", rather than the actual results of a test.Would you say that is "good Science"???Scripture doesn't only prophecy future events, it also includes a "SCHEDULE" (timeframe) in which these events will occur,The "Economic meltdown" the world is presently experiencing has been prophesied from "Genesis", for our time period.Jesus condemned those of his day for being able to "read the signs of the sky", but not the "signs of the "TIMES".Once understood/tested, the "Evidence" of scripture's verscity is without question, and the only evidence against it is an untested "BELIEF".

That's because some people keep bringing it up and claiming the stupidest things about it. The first sentences in the bible are not "Lo and behold, from the singularity there did expand all space an time as we now know it" so I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that's the big bang and nothing about it in the bible. Time was created INSTANTLY after the big bang, it didn't need light. No there wasn't, since there were still no planets around on which to perceive this day and night cycle, that took quite a long time actually. A day is one full rotation of the planet on which you currently are. I think I pointed out the story is NOTHING like what happened in reality. The fulfilment of prophecy? NO prophecy in the bible has EVER been fulfilled.

---

I hunt for the truth

Yes, that's about how science goes about testing hypotheses. First of all, science doesn't "prophesy" it predicts, this is a different process. Second, the only principle one has to understand is that one has to follow the evidence WHERE EVER it leads. Not at all, one can completely miss the theory, as long as one follows the evidence. Christians aren't scientists, some scientists ARE christian however. And here again you claim that you first have to accept something as true before you can start interpreting it, that's not how science works. On prophecies in the bible: NONE have EVER been fulfilled. Again, "unbelievers" aren't scientists, some scientist however ARE "unbelievers". As for the inability to test, it's not our fault your god doesn't leave behind ANY evidence that can be tested. Good science is NOTHING as you described it here. Good science is following the evidence WHERE EVER it leads. No it doesn't, there's NO prophecy in the bible about future times whatsoever. Really? Care to back that up with a quote from genesis? I seem to remember it being about creation and all, nothing in there about economic collapse. Yes, sounds like a reasonable man this jesus chap, too bad he didn't exist. The "evidence of the scripture's veracity" certainly IS NOT without question, in fact, it fails tests against reality time and time again.

---

I hunt for the truth

I note that you compeltely ignored the vast majority of my post. Should I take this to mean yo have no way to respond, that you are simply lazy, or that you don't actually intend to participate in an honest debate? Of course. That's the most important part of the scientific method - all models are rigorously tested against realist to determine their accuracy. So, what you're saying is that when a reasonable person reads the account of the Flood in the Bible, unless he believes the story before trying to examine the evidence (and subsequently "interpreting" any and all evidence to match the preconceived conclusion), any testing of teh story against reality will be invalid.I'd say that's pretty dumb, Me4Him.Once again, you're promoting apologetics. Apologetics is the practice of taking an already-held belief as an absolute axiom, and then trying to find "supporting evidence" for that already-held belief. It's basically starting at the ending and then working your way back, and it leads to fallacious reasoning. Conclusions must be drawn from evidence, not the other way around. If a position can only be supported if you already believe that position, then it's reasonable to say that there is no objective evidence for that position. How can you test something by assuming it's true from the beginning?The answer, of course, is that you can't.Since you seem to be very fond of making blanket statements without any specific reference or supporting evidence of your assertions, let's make you a little less comfortable by being very specific. We'll analyze the Flood account, just briefly.Any reasonable person reading the Bible can see exactly what it says about the Flood. In fact, let's copy the relavent bits, from Genesis of course:

quote:

---

7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.
7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days

---

So we have a global Flood that kills "every living substance...which was upon the face of the ground." This Flood rose over 40 days, and lasted for 150 before receding, covering the entire Earth including the "high hills" to a depth of 15 cubits. Later, of course, the Ark landed on a mountain, so it's reasonable to assume that "high hills" includes mountains.By apologetic reasoning (your methodology), only one who already believes that this is literally true will be "qualified" to test it against reality. Any and all evidence should be "interpreted" in support of the Flood. So, we find the fossilized remains of sea creatures on mountaintops, and the apologetic exclaims "see? Evidence of the Flood!" We see sedimentary deposits on what is now dry land, and the apologetic exclaims "see? Evidence of the Flood!" We find fossilized dinosar bones and other remains deep in the Earth, and the apologetic assumes they must all have been killed in the Flood.Where is the testing? Nowhere. It's a farce. By assuming that the conclusion must be true, even evidence that contradicts the Flood account is assumed to support it.What does a real scientist say? Well, there's a reason that, despite the fact that the vast majority of scientists are religious, the Flood account is not held as even remotely accurate in any accepted model of geology. The reason, of course, is that it simply doesn't fit. The fossilized remains of dinosaurs are sorted by age, not be body density or swimming ability, in layers of rock that are not consistent with a singular Flood event. Even teh mere act of fossilization takes longer than the supposed age of the Earth held by most Creationists. The fossils of sea creatures on mountaintops matches what we would expect to see if current models of plate tectonics are accurate - a global Flood wouldn't allow the aquatic organisms enough time to develop the fully-formed ecosystems and incremental yearly deposits that we find. The sediments found arounf the globe are not part of any consistent global layer that would be representative of any single, global event, but are rather completely consistent with local processes, many of which we can observe happening directly even today.If one had never heard of the Biblical Flood story and looked only at the evidence, the conclusion would look nothing like the Biblical account.I would say that your suggestion that only "believers" can "understand" the "precepts" of the Bible sufficiently to test it against reality requires that you support that assertion, Me4Him. Given the above example, what aspect of the Flood story is "incomprehensible" to a non-believer? Is your only response that anything that disagrees with the Bible is wrong? If that's the case, you're simply continuing to hold your pre-determined conclusion as unassailably factual. You aren't testing or verifying anything. I'd call that "bad science" of such a high degree that even a Jr. High School student would call you an idiot. Chapter and verse, please. But be warned, this isn't in the "faith" section of EvC. You're required to back up your assertions here, and the Bible alone is not considered evidence above any other simple text. You'll need to explain how your prohpecy applies to the current economic situation and not previous global economic crises. If your prophecy is so vague as to apply to almost anything, be prepared to be mocked severely. I've tested the Biblical accounts of Creation, the FLood, Exodus, and others against reality. Far from being verified "without question," the Bible's accoutns have come up sorely lacking in external support of any type.And I did the testing when I was a believer. How precisely does that fit in with your assertions, Me4Him?

quote:

---

So, we have one group of "Scientist" (Christians) who have understood/tested the veracity of scripture and found the results to be precisely as "predicted". (prophesied)

---

No,we have a group of religious apologists who attempt to force science to fit their interpretation of scripture.

quote:

---

And another group of "Scientist" (unbelievers) that doesn't understand, and without the ability to test, deny it's verscity based on their "Belief", rather than the actual results of a test.

---

Again, no. We have people doing genuine science- including some believers - who happen to come to conclusions contradictory to the dogmas of some sects.

quote:

---

Would you say that is "good Science"???

---

The fact that you malign and misrepresent the positions of honest scientists is hardly a reason to condemn their work.

quote:

---

Scripture doesn't only prophecy future events, it also includes a "SCHEDULE" (timeframe) in which these events will occur,

---

No, it does not. A few books give some indication of a timeframe for some future events (e.g. Daniel places the End Times in the mid-2nd Century BC) but they do not agree and they have all failed.

"IF" you don't understand the scriptures, and what they "Predict","HOW" are you going to "PROVE" your "theory"??? (Belief)Your "belief" is based on an UN-provable "FAITH",while mine "belief" is based on a "FAITH" that is provable, once the "principles" are understood.The scriptures also tell us that some "Unbelievers" will still refuse to believe even when faced with hard evidence that is undeniable,So, evidence to these really doesn't matter, their belief is based on "personal predilection" rather than allowing the "FACTS" of any evidence to speak for it's self.This is where Bad Science, Bad Judgment, and Atheist originate. The economic collapse is caused by the "Bank of International Settlement" which owns/control the "Federal Reserve bank", in order to gain control of the world through the "Financing of their Economies",A "One World Government"..."predicted"....to be in place at the time of the Antichrist arrival, he "TAKES" control of it away from them to establish his dominance over the world.Of course, this is "predicted" to occur at/very near the "end of time", which is where we are according to the "Schedule" given. Your belief is based on an ignorance of current events and their relationship to prophecies of the scriptures,"Facts" that are easily seen once the scriptures are understood, and the test results are precisely as "predicted".Since we live at the "end of time", most porphecies have already been fulfilled, there's still a few left,"IF" you were presented with a "Fact sheet" detailing Bible prophecies and their time frame, some thousands of years before they occurred, would you still deny the hard evidence???

Me4Him,This thread is about the historical evidence (actually, the lack thereof) for Biblical accounts.--Percy

I really don't think we're are talking about the same thing here,The scripture deals with the "Spiritual aspects" of man/earth, not the "physical sciences".Scripture has no record of the "time period" before sin enter the world, so any speculation is just that, speculation.However, after sin entered, a "time limit" was placed on both man/earth.This world/universe will evenually "burn", the only important thing about the world to God is the "harvest" (souls) he can reap before it is burned.And the only important thing to man about the earth "SHOULD BE" the spiritual aspects rather than "physical sciences".Physical science/knowledge has an "end", therefore it's "Worthless", (hell) however "Spiritual knowledge" can benefit a person for "Eternity". (heaven)1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God...the world by (it's) wisdom knew not God, You can't judge Spiritual knowledge (bible) by Physical science/knowledge.I think we're talking about two different sides of the coin here.