From: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Subject: Re: Proofs of the Bible
Reply-To: szobell@mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:58:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.131233.3887@wkuvx1.bitnet> barnejd@wkuvx1.bitnet writes:
>  You said (in not quite so many words) that I can't use the Bible to prove
>the Bible.  I could use that same reasoning to say don't use science to
>prove science, but I'll just say this - in a trial, a man is allowed to
>testify on his own behalf.  Likewise, treating the Bible as we would any
>other historical document, let's look at it.
>
>  Comparison to other documents:
>
>ANCIENT LITERATURE             # MANUSCRIPTS           PROXIMITY TO
>>>>>>>       ORIGINAL COPY
>-----------------------------  ----------------------  -------------
>Livy's History of Rome                 20                500 yrs
>Caesar's Gallic Wars                   10                900 yrs
>Tacitus' Annals                         2                800 yrs
>History of Thucydides                   8              1300+ yrs
>History of Heroditus                    1               1000 yrs
>Writings of Aristotle                   5              1400+ yrs
>
>  Now remember - all of these are universally regarded as accurate.  Let's
>compare them to the New Testament - 24,633 total MSS and 5338 complete MSS!
>The second-most is Homer's Iliad, with only 643.  In addition, these date
>to within 40-300 years of the autograph.  To reject the accuracy of these
>is to reject all we know about the ancient world as historically inaccurate
>as well.

You are trying to use the fact that there are many more copies of
Biblical manuscripts than any other ancient European manuscripts as
proof of the historical accuracy of the Bible?  Could the reason for
this unspectacular occurrence have anything to do with the fact that
nearly every surviving ancient European manuscript was transcribed
while Catholic Christianity dominated Europe?  And, could the fact that
nearly every scholar at that time was a Christian monk or cleric have
been a reason that so many Bible manuscripts were created while other
works were overlooked or even suppressed or destroyed?  Basically, the
reason there are so many Bible manuscripts is because many people
believed in Christianity and felt Bible scholarship was more important
than any other scholarship.

OK, so many people believed in Christianity, I don't think anyone
disputes that.  But taking the secondary effects of this fact and
trying to pass them off as further proof of the validity of the Bible
is a deception.

>
>  Proof for the Bible being the Word of God:
>1) It claims to be - as I said, every man is allowed to testify on his own
>    behalf, so the Bible's claim must be counted as evidence, even if that
>    evidence is taken a little more lightly than some of the exterior evi-
>    dence.  I trust we can agree that the Bible claims to be the sole rev-
>    elation of God to man; no Apocrypha, no additions, etc.

This is not a proof and any religious work satisfies the conditions of
this proof (as well as many other works of fiction).

>2) The unity of the Bible - A unity of facts, purpose, and teaching.  Its
>    theme is that of the salvation from sin.  It begins with the creation,
>    sin marring it, and God conceiving a great plan to redeem man from his
>    sins, and goes from there.

I don't consider the Bible particularly united.  You will find other 
religious works to be at least as united if you ever bothered to look
at any.  One mighn't wonder how someone can consider a book united when
it claims to teach morality yet explicitly contains genocide, human
sacrifice, ethnic prejudice, pedocide, and many other atrocities 
committed in the name of God and under direct orders from God.

>3) The great moral teachings of the Bible - No other book has ever
>    condemned immorality so severely or demanded as high a standard of
>    righteousness.  It is virtually unique among religious documents.

You have apparently not read any non-Christian religious books. Note,
the set of rules are little different, but the standards can be at
least as high.

>4) Its Unparallelled Impartiality - "Human books extol the virtues and
>    suppress the vices of their heroes.  Not so with the Bible.  It makes
>    no attempt to conceal, minimize, or apologize for the weaknesses,
>    mistakes, and wrongdoings of even its greatest characters.  It tells of
>    the sins of friend and foe alike." (Jimmy Thomas - I could think of no
>    better way to phrase it in my own words).

Not only are you making the claim that the Bible is impartial, but the
extraordinary claim of "its unparallelled impartiality"!  I've never
heard such a claim before.  How about including Bible history from the
point of view of the Midianites or Cannanites or any other people who
were slaughtered in the name of God?  Wouldn't this be a minimum
requirement for impartiality?

As for describing weakness in the characters, fiction would be very
dull if none of the characters had a weakness!  But look at the Greek
myths, even the Gods had human failings, and the Greeks didn't shrink
from describing them.  I guess this is proof that these myths are
true!

>5) The Brevity of the Bible - So much, virtually a history of the world, is
>    packed into so few pages.  It tells the 33-year life of the most
>    important man ever to walk the earth in four short books.

First time I've heard the bible described as brief.  Also the first
time I've heard the claim that the Bible contains "virtually a history
of the world".  Not only has the existence of other religions escaped
you, but apparently the existence and rich history of the rest of the
world too!  Try reading something besides the Bible.

>6) The Life of Jesus - That Jesus existed is virtually indisputable.  The
>    testimony of those closest to him indicated His sinless perfection.
>    Such a perfect person could never have been so perfectly created by any
>    man.

In proof #4, you tell us that the fact that the Bible describes people
with human failings is more proof of the Bible.  Let me get this
straight.  If a book describes characters with human failings it can be
considered proof of the authenticity of the book, and if the book
describes characters without human failings, it can be considered proof
of the authenticity of the book!

First, I don't think the Gospels describe a sinless perfect person.
Second, I disagree that a person could not make up a fantasy about a
perfect person.  You underestimate the imagination of humans and
apparently haven't read much fiction (besides the Bible).  I contend
that a good writer could do a much better job of creating a consistent
story of a perfect person than is available from the Gospels.

>7) The Fulfillment of Prophecy - Modern self-proclaimed "prophets" usually
>    get about 10-20% right; the Bible's all come true in exactly the way
>    predicted.  The odds of Jesus fulfilling (whether accidentally and/or
>    by design) the prophecies applying to Him are beyond calculation.

So, ALL Biblical prophecies come true?  Could it be that you haven't
read all the prophecies in the Bible?  I haven't examined each to see
if it came true either, but I'm not making the extraordinary claim that
they all did came true.  However, I do know of some that haven't.

Jesus clearly states several times that his will return at the end of
the world and the event will be witnessed by people of his generation
who knew him and didn't yet die (see MATT 10:15, 10:23, 16:28, 24:34,
MARK 6:11, 9:1, 13:30, LUKE 9:27, 21:32).  These were not parables but
clear direct statements.  This was believed by members of the early
church (see ROM 13:12, PHIL 4:5, HEB 10:25, JAMES 5:8, I PETER 4:7, I
JOHN 2:18, REV 1:3).  Here is a disprovable (due to the time limit)
prophecy of an unlikely event.  What a chance for a prophet to shine!

Another example of a bad prophecy has been discussed in the thread
"Tyre Still Exists Today".  The Bible predicts the destruction of Tyre
by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 26:7-14) and predicts the following result:

   I will make you [Tyre] a bare rock, and you will become a 
   place to spread fishnets.  You will never be rebuilt, for I 
   the Lord have spoken; declares the Sovereign Lord. (Ezekiel 26:14)

Nebuchadnezzar did besiege Tyre, but eventually a truce was reached and
he withdrew leaving the city intact.   Later Alexander destroyed Tyre
around 323 BC.  However, it was rebuilt and is even mentioned later in
the Bible (Matt 25:21, Mark 7:24, Acts 12:20).  There is still a city
where the old Tyre was.  One of the people out in net land (sorry, the
post has been purged but I wish I could give credit) went to
extraordinary efforts to gather the evidence that the modern Tyre is
built on top of the old Tyre.  Oops, I guess the Sovereign Lord spoke
too soon.

Now, why don't you point out some Biblical prophecies that have come
true?  I'm really only interested in cases where the event prophesied
is unlikely, where the event hadn't happened at the time the prophecy
was written down, and where there is real evidence (besides the Bible
itself) that the event happened.  I warn you that someone tried to
present the destruction of Tyre as an example fulfilled prophecy and
investigations by others then revealed it to in fact be a counter
example.

>8) The Bible's Scientific Foreknowledge - One of the areas I personally
>    find fascinating.  Being pre-scientific, it should attribute the
>    workings of nature to colorful myths and be woefully inaccurate - if it
>    was written by man. In the 19th century, Herbert Spencer first
>    announced the 5 fundamental facts of science; yet the Bible covered all
>    5 in the first 2 verses: "In the beginning [time - jdb] God created the
>    heavens [space] and the earth [matter].  And the spirit of God moved 
>    [force] upon the face of the waters [motion]."

First you say that the Bible doesen't attribute the workings of nature
to colorful myths and then you use the prime example of a colorful
myth: the the creation of the universe in 6 days.  Also, your mapping
of time, space, matter, force, and motion to the creation story is
quite contrived.

>      The Bible said the earth was round (Is 40:22, Prov 8:27, Lk
>    17:34-36). 

   Is 40:22: He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth
   and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the 
   heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to
   live in.

This may describe a disk with the heavens like a tent over it.  Certainly
not an accurate description of a globe in space.

   Prov 8:27: I was there when he set the heavens in place and
   he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep.

I see no indication of a spherical earth here.

   Luke 17:34-36: I tell you, on that night two people will be in
   one bed; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be
   grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.

??????? Sorry, wrong subject!!!
   
>    Not too long ago, great minds were convinced the earth was
>    held up by Atlas or something like him; read Job 26:7 to hear what the
>    Bible claimed.  Moses knew about a plurality of seas, all with one 
>    common bed (Gen 1:9-10).  Solomon knew about the rain/evaporation cycle
>    (Eccl 1:7), as did Amos and Job (Amos 9:6; Job 36:27-28).  

Even stone age man could have discovered evaporation and condensation. All
that is needed is the ability to heat water.  But there seems to be a
big hole in Solomon's understanding of the cycle:

   Eccl 1:7: All streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full.
   To the place the streams come from, there they return again.

Amos appears to think God pours every shower out personally:

   Amos 9:6: He who builds his lofty palace in the heavens and sets 
   its foundation on the earth, who calls for the waters of the sea
   and pours them out over the face of the land - the Lord is his name.

Job is better at the simple realization that water evaporates and
condenses.

>    After reading Psalm 8:8, Matthew F. Henry charted the sea currents 
>    which are still recognized today.  

   Psalm 8:8: the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea.
   all swim the paths of the seas.

You tell us how Mr. Henry derived even one sea current out of this
verse.  

Really, don't you even check your verses before you post?  Were you
hoping that no one would bother to look them up?  You wouldn't happen
to be blindly copying these "proofs" out of a book containing arguments
for the Bible, would you?  Is the book by "Dr." Kennedy by any chance?

>    Until recently, doctors had no idea how that blood
>    contained, in essence, the life of man, but the Bible did (Lev 17:11,
>    14).  

   Lev 17:11: For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have
   given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it
   is the blood that makes atonement for one's life.

   Lev 17:14: because the life of every creature is in its blood.  That
   is why I have said to the Israelites, "You must not eat the blood of
   any creature, because the life of every creature is in its blood,
   anyone who eats it must be cut off."

According to this, anyone who has a complete blood transfusion is dead
(or is now someone else).

>    Scientists cannot distinguish between the blood of races of 
>    people, just like God said in Acts 17:26.

   Acts 17:26: From one man he made every nation of men, that they
   should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set
   for them and the exact places where they should live.

If there is a verse that says everyone's blood is indistinguishable,
this ain't it!

>9) The Bible's Undeniable Influence for Good - When taken in its purity
>    (I do not consider the adulterated version pushed by denominations
>    to be pure), it has done nothing but good.  It makes those who
>    would obey it the model parents, friends, neighbors, and citizens, if 
>    obeyed.

Atrocities have been committed in the Bible in the name of God, and by
Bible believers in the name of God. These have included genocide,
torture, and murder.  Now you say these people didn't take the Bible in
its "purity" (except, I suppose, the atrocities actually in the
Bible).  They thought they did and would probably think you don't.

But the only thing this argument excels in is that it can be applied
to any religious work (substitute "The Bible" with any other religious
book).  Nazis would find this statement made perfect sense if "Mein
Kampf" were substituted for "The Bible".  Is it such a difficult
concept to grasp that any argument that can be validly applied to any
or all beliefs is not a useful argument?

I don't think you do your beliefs any favors by presenting the
arguments you've made here.  I don't know what other Christians think,
but I certainly wouldn't want you arguing for my beliefs with this type
of reasoning!  I also wonder if your are deliberately deceitful or
overwhelmingly careless with your references to Bible verses.

-- Steve