The Bible as a historical source

[Fox]

Okay, first question, immediately I want to think David and Goliath, but could you mean Elhanan a Bethlehemite and the son of Jair? In one of the many battles with the Philistines, Elahnan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite (1 Chron. 20:5). There is a discrepancy between the account in 1Chron. 20 and 2 Sam. 21:19, where it appears that Elhanan killed Goliath himself rather than his brother. Some have suggested that Elhanan was simply another name for David. Others have thought that they are two different incidents and that, if Elhanan slew Goliath, there must have been two of them. It is also suggested that the phrase "brother of" has been lost from the text in 2 Sam.

please give reference...

According to 1 Samuel 17:7 it was Goliath of Gath whose "spear was like a weaver's beam". He was killed by David

In 2 Samuel 21:19 "Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam" (KJV, the NIV does not say his brother, it says Goliath - damn why did I pick the KJV? )

And in 1 Chron 20:5 "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam"

According to scripture, Judas hanged himself, and since the jury is still inconclusive regarding the "gospel of Judas" I am not so sure that would be best to bring into the discussion, I have not read anything regarding that text as of yet so would be hard to debate it, but will look into it...

Nope, in Matthew 27:5 "he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself"

But in Acts 1:18 "purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out"

My point is this, purely in the discussion of the Bible as a historical record, any source which contradicts itself (and these are not the only examples by any means) cannot be considered a reliable one. Full stop. If it were any other book and I said "hey look at this great historical source", people would say "But it contradicts itself, how can it be reliable, and which part do we believe, if any?" - and quite rightly so.

This does not mean for a minute that God does not exist or that Moses didn't lead the Israelites from Egypt or that Christ wasn't born in Bethlehem or anything like that. It does mean that the Bible is not a reliable historical source. From an historical point of view, if some parts of it are known to be wrong, and by its own evidence some parts of the Bible must be wrong, then the only parts which can be trusted as historical record are those parts which can be verified from another source (much like you're trying to do with the creation evidence). If we must look to other evidence to prove the Bible then it isn't in itself a reliable historical source.

[Zephaniah W Nash]

About twenty minutes of work here, regarding Sterling's post entitled "Evidence for Creation." Pardon the roughness of it, please...

By no means am I saying my own post must necessarily be correct, and Sterling's citation must necessarily be wrong -- just pointing out the alternative view. I chose this one because it was a straight, point-by-point list -- easiest to tackle.

I'm also liberally snipping, to save time and space.

1.  The Fossil Record...Evolutionists have constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate the supposed progression of "primitive" life forms to "more complex" systems we observe today.

Actually, evolutionists constructed the Geologic Column in order to illustrate what they have observed, not what they think it should be.

[T]he lack of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.

Simply mistaken. There are many, many, many examples of transitional fossils. The only way this argument can even come close to holding up is by moving the goalposts, and claiming that every transitional fossil that comes along is not a transitional fossil, and is a distinct subset of its’ own.

2. Decay of Earth's Magnetic Field

A concept that has been debunked many times.Here...

...and here...

...and here...

To point out just a few...

3. The Global Flood... The Biblical record clearly describes a global Flood during Noah's day. Additionally, there are hundreds of Flood traditions handed down through cultures all over the world.

There are hundreds of Flood traditions through many cultures because many cultures are based near bodies of water, which tend to flood from time to time.

4. Population Statistics...World population growth rate in recent times is about 2% per year.

Completely off-point. World population growth rates in modern times are very dissimilar to population growth rates in other times.

5. Radio Halos...Physicist Robert Gentry has reported isolated radio halos of polonuim-214 in crystalline granite. The half-life of this element is 0.000164 seconds!

Or, the rocks studied came from one of a number of geologic locations which, due to understood principles of physics, have a variant reaction to the tests used, as shown by N.K. Chaudhuri and R.H. Iyer, "Origin of Unusual Radioactive Halos," Radiation Effects, 1980, vol. 53, pp. 1-6. and N. Feather, "The unsolved problem of the Po-halos in Precambrian biotite and other old minerals," Comm. to the Royal Soc. of Edinburgh, no. 11, 1978.

6. Human Artifacts throughout the Geologic Column...Man-made artifacts - such as the hammer in Cretaceous rock, a human sandal print with trilobite in Cambrian rock, human footprints and a handprint in Cretaceous rock

Or, alternatively, natural artifacts that appear quite similar to man-made artifacts. Similarly, footprints or handprints have been shown to have been created by living animals of the time, and through weathering or misinterpretation, appear similar to human footprints and handprints.

7. Helium Content in Earth's Atmosphere... Physicist Melvin Cook, Nobel Prize medalist found that helium-4 enters our atmosphere from solar wind and radioactive decay of uranium.

Helium also escapes our atmosphere, at very similar rates to the rates that it enters.

8. Expansion of Space Fabric...Astronomical estimates of the distance to various galaxies gives conflicting data.13 The Biblical Record refers to the expansion of space by the Creator14. Astrophysicist Russell Humphries demonstrates that such space expansion would dilate time in distant space.15 This could explain a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

Or, if we don’t arbitrarily accept that time dilates in distant space, we would have no need to resort to a recent creation with great distances to the stars.

9. Design in Living Systems...A living cell is so awesomely complex that its interdependent components stagger the imagination and defy evolutionary explanations. A minimal cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations.16 The chance of this assemblage occurring by chance is 1 in 10 4,478,296 .17

A basic misunderstanding of both evolution and statistical analysis. The cell did no occur by chance, but through natural selection.

10. Design in the Human Brain...The human brain is the most complicated structure in the known universe.18 It contains over 100 billion cells, each with over 50,000 neuron connections to other brain cells.19 This structure receives over 100 million separate signals from the total human body every second. If we learned something new every second of our lives, it would take three million years to exhaust the capacity of the human brain. 20 In addition to conscious thought, people can actually reason, anticipate consequences, and devise plans - all without knowing they are doing so.21

If size is equal to complication (reference to the number of cells, neurons, etc. seem to imply this) then the brains of certain whales are much more complex than our own -- dismissing the author’s own contention. And whether or not the processing power of the brain can or ever will be exhausted seems to have no bearing on anything else.

As I expected, it took much longer to actually put this into a posting here, utilizing the quote feature to make it less confusing. These are old arguments, often taken completely apart.

And yes, I know I said I was gonna avoid this thread, just couldn't help meself...

[Capt. Sterling]

Okay, first question, immediately I want to think David and Goliath, but could you mean Elhanan a Bethlehemite and the son of Jair?  In one of the many battles with the Philistines, Elahnan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite (1 Chron. 20:5).  There is a discrepancy between the account in 1Chron. 20 and 2 Sam. 21:19, where it appears that Elhanan killed Goliath himself rather than his brother. Some have suggested that Elhanan was simply another name for David. Others have thought that they are two different incidents and that, if Elhanan slew Goliath, there must have been two of them.  It is also suggested that the phrase "brother of"  has been lost from the text in 2 Sam. 

please give reference...

According to 1 Samuel 17:7 it was Goliath of Gath whose "spear was like a weaver's beam". He was killed by David

In 2 Samuel 21:19 "Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam" (KJV, the NIV does not say his brother, it says Goliath - damn why did I pick the KJV? )

And in 1 Chron 20:5 "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam"

According to scripture, Judas hanged himself, and since the jury is still inconclusive regarding the "gospel of Judas" I am not so sure that would be best to bring into the discussion, I have not read anything regarding that text as of yet so would be hard to debate it, but will look into it...

Nope, in Matthew 27:5 "he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself"

But in Acts 1:18 "purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out"

My point is this, purely in the discussion of the Bible as a historical record, any source which contradicts itself (and these are not the only examples by any means) cannot be considered a reliable one. Full stop. If it were any other book and I said "hey look at this great historical source", people would say "But it contradicts itself, how can it be reliable, and which part do we believe, if any?" - and quite rightly so.

This does not mean for a minute that God does not exist or that Moses didn't lead the Israelites from Egypt or that Christ wasn't born in Bethlehem or anything like that. It does mean that the Bible is not a reliable historical source. From an historical point of view, if some parts of it are known to be wrong, and by its own evidence some parts of the Bible must be wrong, then the only parts which can be trusted as historical record are those parts which can be verified from another source (much like you're trying to do with the creation evidence). If we must look to other evidence to prove the Bible then it isn't in itself a reliable historical source.

Well then it comes down actually to a matter of which translation one goes to and with any historical debate we all know that the original texts NOT the translations are always the best to go by... unfortunately we don't have those at hand for you and I to look at, but as stated before, just the translation of thou shall not kill has taken on a WHOLE new meaning and throws the entire Old Testament into contridiction... but when going to the original Hebrew text the contridictions disappear... there is another instance in KJV, off hand I don't know exactly what it was referring to but the KJ translators chose to omit it... and boy, once again the verse takes on a entire new meaning, not at all what the original text is talking about... kind of like saying Bart Roberts was a homosexual purely because one of his men was referred to as Miss Nancy... ??? how does one draw that conclusion based on just that statement alone??

KJV is tough, you can read alot into it when you study the mindset of the translators... the whole issue of Eve and women's roles, comes into question regarding later translations as compared to what modern day Hebrew scholars are now learning using original texts... archeologists are still studying old testament sights and learning new things every day... again with Judas, one would love to read it all in the original to see exactly what happened... again, unfortunately a lot gets lost in the translation...

As to the last words of Christ depends on what you consider his last time on earth, his death at the cross or when he appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus (sp) or when he spoke in a vision to John in Rev.... but that would be a matter of faith not history really....so that would not be allowed in this particular debate...

And looking at Noah, it too becomes a matter of faith to argue about the ark... just because we can't make it work now, doesn't mean it didn't work then... either way we can't truly prove it either way because we don't have the evidence to back it up... as far as historical events in the bible and persons, there is evidence to prove as you stated earlier that some is very accurate and others is questionable, and could possible be proven or disproven with time... as historians we both pretty much have learned never to say never... just go by what evidence we can actually bring forth...

I know you aren't saying God doesn't exist, and that you aren't saying God does exist either, that was never the jist of our debate...others should take note.... when debating issues of faith, I personally believe that should be done in a face to face discussion... not through hard to interpret notes... but that is neither here nor there... we've always been able to debate things betwix each other and I've always enjoyed it immensly...

so basically I think we have managed to show that when it comes to historical accuracy of the Bible, things get lost in the translation and original texts that can be studied are really the best way to go... but?!?! we already agree on that!!!

as to the translation of Yom again, it boils down to the statement that God spoke the worlds into existance..but how does one measure that???

[Capt. Sterling]

Kersey anyone?

Greg

we need to get you a copy of Textiles in America... by Montgomery....and until we can afford to do so, feel free to email and ask for info from my copy...

Not to fret GOF, Foxe and I debate often... especially regarding sashes in the early GAoP... I think we are both able to agree to disagree and then launch onto another topic with no hard feelings what so ever... in this case, he can't shake my faith nor me his... we're just having fun... and I am learning as well! Picking his brain, as far as seeing how it works regarding research and studying any given topic, is a pleasant refresher to me... I had one course in college regarding how to research and to say it was lacking from what I have learned from Foxe on "How to" is an understatement...

[Coastie04]

I think Foxe made a great statement in that the bible is not a reliable historical document. When some of the source is true, some is false, and a lot is unknown, then it is not reliable in and of itself.

On the other hand, many historical references are debated unless verified by other sources in order to prove their reliability. As a hypothetical example: a journal is found somehow preserved in South America written in european language and dated around 1000 AD. describing interaction with the a strange culture, etc. Taken alone, this would not seem like a very reliable source, since the first known europeans in the area arrived in the 15th Century. However, if there was strong evidence of a voyage to find new lands to the west left in 989 AD and was never heard from again in europe, then the journal would seem reliable. Then, we have to just examine how accurate the journal itself is. Many explorers seem to herald their own glory in their journals, and often have a very self centered viewpoint.

Just think of what historical evidence being left behind today would look like in 2000 years. Let's take a classic novel, Moby Dick (in keeping with the nautical theme of this pub), and look back 2000 years at it. There is abundant evidence that whaling did take place during the time it was written. There are references in different sources to specific whales who were reportedly viscious, including a white one in the south Pacific named Mocha Dick who was notorious with New England whalers. There are accounts that whaling captains tried to hunt him once rounding the Horn (not exclusively, but imagine the prestige of being the one to get him). There is also an account of the whaling ship Essex being attacked and sunk by a whale. Therefore, did Captain Ahab really exist? Naming people after biblical figures was common then in that culture.

Getting to my point (at last), the reliability of a source depends on how much you trust the author (and any subsequent editors and translators). How many people knew that Nelson's true last words were "Damn it, I knew we should have made peace with those bloody frogs" and that everyone in that cabin decided for political reasons to omit that from their reports? Since you don't know the authors personally, the only way to begin to trust them is to verify their claims of truth with some additional proof. The problem with the bible, is we have no idea who the original author, editors, transcribers, and translators are. It's hard to trust them. Thus, it becomes unreliable.

Just my two cents worth.

Coastie

[hitman]

I have so little to add to this it almost seems worthless to contribute but to be honest that has never stopped me before and it is how we learn so,

As a historical source for science and geological history the Bible does indeed seem to have many problems. (This much has been oft noted thus far.) However as a record of cultural history (wars, engineering, etc.) I have several times heard it said it holds up as well if not better than any other source from ancient times. Should this seperation be made if not for the purpose of this debate (witch I would be sad to see happen) then for the root question itself. Or am I being too nit picky?

[hurricane]

Actually, there was just a program here in the states that showed the ark could have been built as stated. It was either on National Geographic or the History Channel. They put today's naval architects to work on the issue and they demonstrated using computer modeling that tha ark could have been constructed and would have floated just fine. Wish I could give you the link, but I have to get back to work. It was an interesting show though as I was a true doubter of the ability to build the ark with the tools of the time.

-- Hurricane

Or look at Noah's Ark. The Bible tells us that it was 450' in length, yet scientifically wood does not have the inherent strength required to support its own weight in such worked lengths. The largest wooden vessel ever built (outside of Bible stories) was only 350', a clear 100' shorter. It required iron reinforcement, was built using technology far in advance of anything known to the ancients, and still warped drastically under its own weight. Even assuming that Noah was able to build a wooden vessel of such megalithic proportions, it still could not possibly have housed two of every species (fourteen of "clean beasts", and fowl), let alone enough food to last them all 5 months (15 days).

[jessie k.]

My own opinion is that strictly as a historical source (I agree, it's not too good on geology and science), it's no worse than many others. While it's debatable whether certain events described actually happened, it's also known that others did. I'd say it's valuable as a historical source when it's also compared with other sources...but you have to do that with all sources; I've read few that don't get at least something wrong.