Are holyscriptures reliable sources?

Joeman

Eviiiiiiiil Clown
Registered Senior Member
I can't understand why people would think it is reliable.

I think of it as the same as having a report on a experiment conducted a long time ago and it only states the result of the experiment. There are no descriptions on the set up. We don't know how it is conducted. The experiment is obviously not repeatable. Also we have no way of knowing how much the author's honesty, prejudices, subjectivity, or mistakes affect the report.

Those holy scriptures gives second hand account of the data, and since we cannot repeat or witness those miracles ourselves, we are left with interesting but unreliable and useless results.
 
They are a reliable source to the mythology that they represent, given that complex works of fiction will inevitably contain numerous errors and inconsistencies - which is what we observe.

Kat
 
I see you truly are an eviiiil clown Joeman. You shouldn't be asking such questions don't you know it is blasphemy There is no doubt a deity somewhere around here that just put a black mark next to your name in his/her big book. Don't worry though he/she is also merciful and knows what size pants you wear. ;)
 
Are you people suggesting that "The Lord Of The Rings" isn't a reliable historic account?

May the wrath of the Dark Lord Sauron fall upon your heads, you despicable heathen!
 
I want to ask something. How would you preserve trustworthiness?

How would you prove to your children, for example, that their grandfather - now dead - was an honest man, so that they would know it?
 
Jenyar said:
I want to ask something. How would you preserve trustworthiness?

How would you prove to your children, for example, that their grandfather - now dead - was an honest man, so that they would know it?

I would tell them "Your grandfather was an honest man". Easy as that. If the children trust me, they'll believe it. If they don't, it means I've been doing a LOUSY job of gaining their trust and respect. That's all there is to it. If one has to resort to prove the absence of police records to establish the rectitude of Gramps, there's something very wrong in the family.
 
Exactly. But your children could just decide not to trust you, as well, right? After all, why should they care about their grandfather, and how do they know you are always honest? There's a little love and faith involved as well, isn't there?

Similarly, your father isn't the one who decided who trusts him, he could simply trust that being an honest man would speak for itself. So whether he is dead or alive, his trustworthiness will be vouched for by those who knew him. But if your trustworthiness is suspect, your children will be "cut off" from knowing his.

But what if it was important for your children to know that Gramps was a trustworthy man? He could vouch for you. He could sign a testament (now I've given the game away) about himself, and mention you as the inheritor of his trust. Your children could check your testimony against his and come to a conclusion.

But to prevent tampering, the testimony between you and your father should be signed and sealed. Anything that doesn't bear his signature is liable not to have come from him, but as long as you speak the truth about him, you can add to that or vouch for his character. He trusted you, remember?

The Bible can be seen as recording a succession of trust in God. The God of Israel vouched for the trustworthiness of Jesus, who sealed the testament with his blood. Jesus vouched for those who vouched for him, as God does - the apostles. He considered them trustworthy (even Judas, who he trusted to betray him). Their trustworthy accounts were taken up in the Christ's Testament. Therefore the Bible becomes a trustworthy account of trustworthiness. I trust Paul because He trusted Jesus, I trust Jesus because He trusted God, and I trust God because He has proven himself trustworthy.

Faith is an exercise of this trust.
 
Last edited:
You say you shouldn't have to rely on the absence of police records to establish your claims to his trustworthiness. Just for interest's sake: how much circumstantial and physical evidence do you think will be left of your father's actions, behaviour and words of wisdom - besides the testimonies you and those who knew him and believed in him can provide - for your children to collect? Does his name on a grave, or in someone's journal, vouch for his trustworthiness like you can?

And what will you say to your father's enemies who accuse you of being biased? What will you say to those who claim to know your father but speak lies about him? They will accuse you of exclusivity - of deciding who knew him and who didn't... what will you have to fall back on, what will you use as evidence when push comes to shove?
 
You can't convince someone to trust you unless you tell the truth. Trust relies on truth. But the requirements of trust are not the same as the requirements for scientific accuracy, for instance. You can trust your dad to catch you even if you know he can't calculate the precise trajectory of your fall down to 3 decimals.

And what's more: the criteria for truth also isn't limited to the scientific realm, or even the historic realm. It's part of those contexts, but not limited to them. I'm not talking about "honest mistakes" here, I'm talking about things that are literally true without being sctrictly scientific: if your dad told you over the phone that a sunset was beautiful, science would have no comment, but you would have to judge the truth of his words by his character, his personality, his tastes and preferences. You would have to know him to consider it true, and that knowledge will inform the trust that he isn't lying to you about what he sees. That's the kind of trust I'm talking about.

The Bible authors vouched for the truth and staked their lives on what they saw and believed. Anything else is to say God is a liar, or Jesus was an incompetent judge of character. Does the latter seem true, from what we read?
 
So, If I say "Gramps was OK", my children won't necessarily believe me, but if Gramps himself writes "I'm OK" in a piece of paper and I show it to the children, they'll automatically believe it, right?

Well, sorry but no.


Jenyar said:
Faith is an exercise of this trust.

Except for the little fact that the ultimate object of this trust (Gramps/God in your analogy) either existed or not. I KNOW my grandfather existed, while you can only BELIEVE that God exists. But hey, aside form this trivial existence vs. non-existence issue, I can see your point.
 
Jenyar,

You can't convince someone to trust you unless you tell the truth. Trust relies on truth.
Agreed, but just being truthful is irrelevant if the person doesn’t know you are telling the truth. They would need evidence that things you have done and said in the past have been shown to be truthful. That is evidence that you will probably be truthful in the future. This is inductive reasoning, and an extremely common practice in science. But the key component is EVIDENCE.

But the requirements of trust are not the same as the requirements for scientific accuracy, for instance. You can trust your dad to catch you even if you know he can't calculate the precise trajectory of your fall down to 3 decimals.
This is totally irrelevant. Meaningful trust can only be based on evidence.

.. you would have to judge the truth of his words by his character, his personality, his tastes and preferences. You would have to know him to consider it true, and that knowledge will inform the trust that he isn't lying to you about what he sees.
I.e. and that knowledge is past evidence of what he says and does is truthful and in turn would justify his trustworthiness.

The Bible authors vouched for the truth and staked their lives on what they saw and believed. Anything else is to say God is a liar, or Jesus was an incompetent judge of character. Does the latter seem true, from what we read?
From your own reasoning above we must reject the bible as being trustworthy since we have no past evidence that the authors are trustworthy and truthful. We also only have their word for it that characters like God and Jesus actually exist or did exist. What evidence can you demonstrate to show that past claims of such things were true such that we could trust their judgment this time? You can’t since there is no evidence of their past trustworthiness. All you can do is irrationally believe what the bible says on pure blind faith.

Kat
 
fadeaway humper said:
So, If I say "Gramps was OK", my children won't necessarily believe me, but if Gramps himself writes "I'm OK" in a piece of paper and I show it to the children, they'll automatically believe it, right?

Well, sorry but no.
That's not what i meant. Grandpa writes "I hereby certify that I am satisfied that my son, FH, knows what I stood for, about event X, Y and Z that occurred in my life, and princples C, D and E which I applied consistently and honestly. About these important events I ask him to tell the truth, but about my own integrity, I simply ask him to follow my example".

Since your own evaluation about his trustworthiness is based on your observation of XYZ and CDE, telling the truth about these things are automatically testimonies to his trustworthiness. You children can read up on XYZ and listen to you vouching for the character (as opposed to fiction) of their grandfather. So, if you proceed to tell about F, G and Y, they will have more reason to trust your account. In other words, you have gained their trust by being trustworthy, and following your dad's example.

Trust doesn't appear in isolation, neither does faith, neither does truth. Your children won't might not believe (or even know) that the document your grandfather signed is true unless you a)show it to them b)talk about it c)corroborate it in your own behaviour. No, they won't believe "automatically" - they need your honest testimony.
Except for the little fact that the ultimate object of this trust (Gramps/God in your analogy) either existed or not. I KNOW my grandfather existed, while you can only BELIEVE that God exists. But hey, aside form this trivial existence vs. non-existence issue, I can see your point.
But you came to that knowledge in the same way that I came to mine. Through information and trust. You were in a sense born with it, but you couldn't realize it until you were ready to know it.

But in this discussion, I'm not talking about "knowing that", I'm talking about knowing, as in a relationship. Even a test-tube baby has a grandfather, but will they ever know him, not to mention know whether he was trustworthy?
 
Kat,

Because we agree with their convictions about morality, honesty, and truth. They preached that liars have no part in God's kingdom. They boldly preached Christ crucified, with no regard for their own popularity or safety. If they based their testimony on what everybody knew to be a lie, nobody would believe them. Jesus was believed, and that's why we can believe. He was a trustworthy man, able to distinguish between those who would betray him and those who would transmit the message honestly and persuasively. At that stage, miracles played an important role to establish credibility, but once that had been obtained, something much more lasting became necessary - trust, commitment to the truth, and perseverance in the faith they had accepted based on their trustworthy witness of evidence.
John 14:11
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.​
Jesus resurrection was physical proof of God's love, but it only confirmed and established what had already been believed by faith. Israel's witness to what God did (i.e. on the evidence they had) had been trustworthy. Christ is the evidence we have.
Acts 1:3
After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.​

Some more claims to truth:
John 3:11
I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.
...
The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe. (19:35)

2 Corinthians 4:2
Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

Ephesians 5:9
(for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth)

Ephesians 6:14
Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist,

If they didn't wear that belt, they would have stood with their pants around the ankles.
 
Last edited:
I guess the point I'm making is that trust and trustworthiness originates in a person, evidenced by behaviour and deliverance on claims (character and personality). Physical evidence is dead and useless without the knowledge of character and sincerity. The reliability of physical evidence lies in its correspondence with living, breathing people - it isn't inherent to the evidence.

My original question was: what if the person or people - the spirit in which they did things - are the evidence. What kind of succession of trust would you accept?
 
Is The Bible Historically Accurate?

“Critics have claimed that the Bible contains all kinds of factual errors. Is the Bible trustworthy when it speaks of historical matters?”

The Bible contains two kinds of information. Some of it can be checked; some of it cannot. For example, it is not possible to “check” scientifically the accuracy of Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” While the affirmation is not in any way inconsistent with available scientific data, at the same time the statement is one of pre-human history and therefore does not lend itself to empirical investigation.

On the other hand, the Scriptures contain hundreds of references that arise out of the background of human history. These may be tested for accuracy. If it is the case that the Bible is demonstrated to be precise in thousands of historical details, it is not unreasonable to conclude that its information in other matters is equally correct.

In fact, one of the most amazing features of the Bible is its uncanny reliability in the smallest of details. Let us note a few examples of biblical precision.

1. During His personal ministry, Jesus once passed through the region of Samaria. Near Sychar, the Lord stopped for a brief rest at Jacob’s well. He engaged a Samaritan woman in conversation, during which He suggested that He could provide the woman with water that could perpetually quench her thirst. Misunderstanding the nature of the Master’s instruction, the woman, alluding to Jacob’s well, declared: “Sir, you have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep” (Jn. 4:11). The statement is quite correct, for even now, some twenty centuries later, Jacob’s well is approximately 80 feet deep – the equivalent of an eight-story building!

2. Reflect upon another example. In Acts 10 there is the account of Peter’s visit in the city of Joppa. Luke declared that Peter was staying in the home of Simon, a tanner of animal hides. Then the historian said, almost as an afterthought, “whose house is by the seaside” (Acts 10:6). Hugh J. Schonfield, author of the infamous book, The Passover Plot (and certainly no friend of Christianity), has commented on this passage as follows:

“This is an interesting factual detail, because the tanners used sea water in the process of converting hides into leather. The skins were soaked in the sea and then treated with lime before the hair was scraped of” (The Bible Was Right, New York: The New American Library, 1959, p. 98).

3. Consider another interesting case of Bible precision. When Paul was en route to Rome for trial, the ship upon which he sailed became involved in a terrible storm. When it eventually became apparent that the vessel was in a very dangerous circumstance, the crew cast the ship’s anchors into the water. At the same time, they “loosed the rudder bands, hoisted up the foresail, and aimed the ship towards the beach” (Acts 27:40 KJV).

There is an interesting and subtle point in the Greek text that is not apparent in the King James Version. The original language actually says that they “loosed the bands of the rudders “ (plural – see ASV). This is amazingly precise, for in ancient times, ships actually possessed two paddle-rudders, not a single rudder as with modern vessels. In 1969, a submerged ancient ship was discovered in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Cyprus. An examination of the ruins gave evidence of dual rudder-oars by which the boat was steered (see National Geographic, November 1974), thus demonstrating the remarkable accuracy of Luke’s record.

The Bible can be tested – historically, geographically, scientifically, etc. And it always passes the test. Its incredible accuracy can be explained only in light of its divine inspiration.

http://www.christiancourier.com/questions/historicalAccuracyQuestion.htm

Bible Accuracy
Robert Utley is one of today’s leading historians of Old West lore. His recent book, Lone Star Justice, chronicles the history of the Texas Rangers from 1823 to 1910. In the Preface to his book, Utley points out that many who have attempted to portray the activity of America’s frontier days have not been diligent in getting their background data accurate.

For example, in 1956 a Lone Ranger feature film was produced; it was based upon the old TV series of the same name. In the film, Clayton Moore, who played the role of the “Lone Ranger,” was wearing the typical Texas Ranger badge – a star within a wagon wheel. Utley points out, however, that this style badge was not designed until the 20th century. This item represented an anachronism (a chronologically misplaced error). It is rather inevitable that historians occasionally will slip in constructing their narratives, as careful as they try to be.

One of the truly amazing facts about Bible history is the phenomenal accuracy that characterizes the text. Take, for example, Luke’s two New Testament documents – Luke and Acts. These books combined constitute more than a quarter of the bulk of the New Testament. Within these narratives the author is very specific with reference to historical data including persons, places, and titles.

In the book of Acts, Luke mentions 32 countries, 54 cities, and 9 Mediterranean islands. He also lists 95 people by name, 62 of which are not named elsewhere in the New Testament (Bruce Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, Content, p. 171). In addition, Luke is intimately familiar with the constantly-changing political conditions of the Roman world. References to Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Quirinius, the Herods, Felix, and Festus are recorded. In not one of these citations is there a mistake.

Some early critics occasionally charged Luke with errors, a few of them even suggesting that he was quite careless. The discoveries of archaeology, however, have vindicated him in every instance.

Sir William Ramsey, who initially doubted Luke’s reliability, did many years of “on site” study of these matters; he eventually classified “the beloved physician” (Col. 4:14) as one of “the very greatest of historians” who ever lived (Luke the Physician, p. 222).

Noted scholar Philip Schaff once observed that the final two chapters of Acts have provided more information about the details of ancient sea navigation than any other document of antiquity (Theological Propaeduetic, pp. 132-133).

This “uncanny accuracy” puts the biblical record in a class of its own. Even the best historians cannot avoid that occasional “slip.” But the writers of Scripture, guided by the Spirit of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17), were protected from the inclusion of error into their works.

If their credibility is established in such seemingly trivial matters, surely it may be trusted in the great theological themes it develops.

Trust your Bible; obey its precepts.

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/bibleAccuracy.htm

I do believe the evidence is here. :)
 
Jenyar,

Because we agree with their convictions about morality, honesty, and truth.
And if I wanted to deceive you the last thing I would say is that I am a liar and plan to deceive you, instead I would tell you all the things you expect from an honest person, that I share your views on morality, honesty, and truth. Without evidence of any past honest deeds you should have no reason to trust me simply based on what I say.

They boldly preached Christ crucified, with no regard for their own popularity or safety.
There is no evidence of any widespread actions as you suggest, and the fate of the apostles, for example, is essentially unknown. So who are you talking about? This is largely a myth.

If they based their testimony on what everybody knew to be a lie, nobody would believe them.
Well of course not and they wouldn’t say such things. It’s a basic selling tactic, get the victim on your side, agree with them, and tell them things they want to hear. And a skilled story-teller is going to be very convincing because of such subtle and deceptive techniques.

Jesus was believed, and that's why we can believe.
That’s what the stories say and that’s what they want you to believe but no one can show that Jesus even existed let alone accurately report what he is alleged to have said.

He was a trustworthy man, able to distinguish between those who would betray him and those who would transmit the message honestly and persuasively.
That’s just the story you are being persuaded to believe, but you still haven’t shown that the authors of these stories can be trusted to tell the truth. Remember that we have no independent evidence for the existence of Jesus outside of the Christian stories we are discussing – you are still dependent on the honesty and truthfulness of the bible authors to support your claims, and you have no basis for that trust. And here is a real difficulty because there were many of them and nearly all are unknown.

At that stage, miracles played an important role to establish credibility,
Yes indeed and the myth-makers of the times knew that if their stories about a new god were to be believed then miracles were mandatory especially if the ignorant and illiterate masses of those times were to be persuaded. According to research on Q all the miracle stories originated around 50CE in and around Palestine and were picked up and used by the authors of Mark at around 80CE. From there they proliferated to the other gospels and other texts. They are at least pure fiction.

John 14:11
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
This doesn’t show that the author is revealing a truth instead of just creating a myth.

Jesus resurrection was physical proof of God's love, but it only confirmed and established what had already been believed by faith.
Only if it occurred and the only source for those claims are unknown authors whose honesty you cannot verify.

Israel's witness to what God did (i.e. on the evidence they had) had been trustworthy. Christ is the evidence we have.
Then you have no evidence. It cannot be verified that he ever existed.

Acts 1:3
After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.
This is still story telling by authors whose honesty and trustworthiness you cannot verify.

The remainder of your quotes suffer the same fatal flaw in that you cannot show they are anything more than fairy tales especially since you cannot demonstrate the honesty or intentions of the authors.

Kat
 
Jenyar,

I guess the point I'm making is that trust and trustworthiness originates in a person,
Well yes, it is people who do the trusting.

evidenced by behaviour and deliverance on claims (character and personality).
This is indeed inductive reasoning, although note that this type of evidence is not proof of course, it is only a probability of the future behavior.

Physical evidence is dead and useless without the knowledge of character and sincerity.
But past behavior is physical evidence. Your statement seems confused.

The reliability of physical evidence lies in its correspondence with living, breathing people - it isn't inherent to the evidence.
This appears to be gibberish. It is not clear what point you are trying to make here.

My original question was: what if the person or people - the spirit in which they did things - are the evidence. What kind of succession of trust would you accept?
I do not understand the question.

Kat
 
SouthStar,

.. the Scriptures contain hundreds of references that arise out of the background of human history. These may be tested for accuracy. If it is the case that the Bible is demonstrated to be precise in thousands of historical details, it is not unreasonable to conclude that its information in other matters is equally correct.
LOL this is total bullshit. If I write a book of fiction about imaginary people living in San Francisco but around known and real events then your reasoning would conclude that because real events were described then the imaginary characters must be real as well.

Surely even you can see the gibberish of your quoted claim.

…it is not possible to “check” scientifically the accuracy of Genesis 1:1 – “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” While the affirmation is not in any way inconsistent with available scientific data…
LOL – absolutely unbelievable gibberish. You must be joking right?

The Bible can be tested – historically, geographically, scientifically, etc. And it always passes the test. Its incredible accuracy can be explained only in light of its divine inspiration.
LOL dream on.

You are going to have to be extremely gullible and/or stupid to believe an article like this. Is this aimed at children or something?

Kat
 
I have a chat with an archaeology professor in U of Minnesota today. I have always thought that religion has conflict only with science. Today I found out the problem is a lot worse than that. Christian Religion is in conflict with many other parts of academia including history, archaeology, philosophy, and of course all the sciences. Bible history is way different from main stream history, and the gap is growing. Archaeology has also proved bible to be very unreliable. In philosophy you can prove omniscience and omnipotence not only don't exist individually but are in direct conflict of each other.

Of course Christian historian, Christian archaeologist, Christian scientist (an oxymoron) band together and they think they are wearing the armor of God. Everyone else look at them like funny people.
 
Back
Top