Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Luke

[John Opinion]

OK, well before we fall down this particular rabbit hole any further, is it your position that everything the Bible says is true just as a matter of contingent fact, or because there is some divinely sanctioned reason why nothing it says can be false? If it's the former, we can talk; if it's the latter, there's really no point.

Point taken about Pi, but as regards the "Paul isn't talking about logic" defence, it doesn't matter that he isn't talking about logic, he still makes a self-contradictory statement. Self-contradictory statements can't possibly be true. If anyone else said something like that in any other context, you'd point this out. It makes their meaning totally obscure.

What's your position on the gospel accounts? If you want to defend the position that the Bible, as a whole, is true, how do you account for it containing different versions of the same stories that are incompatible? I'm fine if you want to use the defence of these being eyewitness accounts that emphasise different elements of the same underlying story, but if that's the case we don't (and can't) know what actually happened. All we have are approximations, some of which must contain mistakes.

[jimwalton]

> is it your position that everything the Bible says is true just as a matter of contingent fact, or because there is some divinely sanctioned reason why nothing it says can be false?

"A". The former. So we can talk. Yay for dialogue.

> he still makes a self-contradictory statement.

You are still making the error of claiming that Paul is dealing in philosophy rather than theology and morality. Paul is not making a self-contradictory statement. We know this because he is referencing the philosopher as a reliable prophet in this matter, and he would not consider a liar to be a true prophet. In a sense Paul is saying, "We know that Cretans have the reputation of being liars, and we even found a truth-telling one to confirm that." While Greek logicians and philosophers loved to go around and around with the liar's paradox, Paul is standing on different ground while making a moral point with Titus: Beware! Cretans have a bad reputation.

> What's your position on the gospel accounts?

That's a pretty broad question, but I'd like to talk about it. Different versions of stories are common, but that doesn't make them incompatible or contradictory. Ask any detective, and he'll tell you that he *wants* different versions from different eyewitnesses because it gives him a more complete picture. Ask three writers to author a book on "What America is Like" and you will get three very different pictures, but that's OK, because it's the three put together that give us a better idea of what America is like. You'd get the same if you asked for a biography of Abraham Lincoln. Every such work has a different perspective, but that gives strength to the story, not a detriment to it.

Suppose I texted you and autocorrect made some goofy change, as happens quite often. You'd be able to figure it out, most likely. But suppose I texted you the same message several times, with autocorrect making different weird changes each time. With enough of them, you'd be able to piece together the exact rendition of what I had texted. Put that together with different eyewitness accounts that any detective or lawyer will come upon, and we can come to the point where we can know with quite reasonable confidence and accuracy the life and sayings of Jesus.

On top of that add to the recipe that nature of the oral rhetorical culture in which they lived. It was an era of transition from an oral to a written culture in the same way that we are currently in a transition era from written to digital. Certain elements in storytelling were flexible, while others were not. We do the same thing when we tell stories of what happened at a particular place or time. Depending on who we're talking to, we bring out one piece of the story or don't mention another. It's all good—we're telling the truth of what happened, but with acceptable changes in the telling. We see this happening in clear terms in the book of Acts' telling of the story of Paul's conversion. It was the same author every time (regardless of whether you think it was Luke or not is immaterial), but each of the three tellings of the story is a little different. It's the way their culture worked, similar to certain aspects of our culture. But when we put them together, we do and can know what actually happened. Some of the tellings are certainly approximations (every historian has to make decisions about what to exclude), but I wouldn't say they were mistakes.

[John Opinion]

I'm familiar with these arguments. I think we need to establish as a point of clarification, still, is your position:

A. The Bible, generally speaking, is an accurate account of the ancient history, but may contain some individually false statements

Or

B. Every individual statement the Bible makes is true?

These are two quite different claims of course. Biblical literalists, which I take it you are not, go for option B, which leads them to all sorts of bizarre positions (creationism, etc) that fly in the face of demonstrable scientific facts. More intelligent Chrisitians might go for option A, which I don't really have a lot to argue about with really, except for the veracity and value of faith itself. I happen to think that Jesus might have risen from the dead, although I'm not really sure. However I don't think this tells us whether or not God is real, which is what I'm interested in. The resurrection, and other biblical miracles, might just have been something weird that happened once. Weird things actually happen quite a lot. I just don't see the point in building your worldview around them.

[jimwalton]

First, we need to establish what the Bible is. The Bible, quite specifically, is an accurate and true revelation of God. That's what it is. It is an account of the contract between God and humanity, revealing God to us, and revealing the nature of humanity to us. The nature of the contract includes who God is and what He will do, who we are, and the consequences of our compliance or defiance. That's what the Bible is.

As such, the Bible includes many historical references. Generally speaking, the Bible expresses a very accurate account of ancient history. The ancients took a very different approach to historiography than moderns do, and that must be taken into account when making assessments. The authority of the Old Testament narrative is more connected to revelation, however, than to history. Ancient Israel, like its ancient Near Eastern counterparts, used conventional rhetoric and editorial selection in the reporting of events (not the same standards by which our culture functions). Nevertheless we accept the reality of the events, the reliability of their telling, and the authority of the text. Some conclusions:

- We are misguided to defend a modern definition of historiography when dealing with ancient texts, written with different mindset.
- Most, if not all, of what are sometimes deemed historical inaccuracies or contradictions slip out of sight when we focus on the conventions of ancient literature. Fact checking (where possible) must always be done in light of the acceptable ancient conventions.
- Attempts to separate theological from historical information is imposing an anachronistic chain on ancient writings, where no such distinctions were seen.
- We should not be surprised at our inability to reconstruct events of antiquity to suit our historical curiosity
- The authority of biblical historiography is in the illocution (the blessings, promises, instructions, assertions) rather than in the locutions (the words, sentences, rhetorical structures, etc.). Locutions come from God, but can be distorted and abused if not guided by the authoritative direction set by the illocution. Genre, language, and conventions of communication operate on the locutionary level. The authority of the text is in how God is using the words to convey his revelation.
- Ancient biblical communicators didn't falsify events or people, but neither did they share or abide by our conventions of reportage or testimony.
- Instead of saying God accommodates error, we should rather say that God accommodates cultural limitations and literary conventions in the locutions in which his chosen communicators are inspired to make.
- We need to recognize that all literary and historical conventions (ancient as well as modern ones) allow for bypassing some of the truths in favor of accenting the truths that are deemed more significant for one's authorial purposes.

None of this, of course, tell us whether or not God is real. The question of the reality of God is a logical and reasonable one, a theological affirmation, and an experiential (subjective) one. We can reason that theism is more rational than atheism, that the Bible is a reliable document, and that my experiences as a human being make me wonder if there is a spiritual element to life. If convinced of those three elements, one can start to ponder the actual truth of the theological claims of the Bible (untestable), the claims made by Jesus about God, himself, and the world, and my assessment of the condition of humanity, myself included (which I think the Bible speaks very well to). Only through all these processes does a person start to frame an impression of whether or not God is real, whether the Bible reveals the true God, and who Jesus is. As a Christian I would say that if you pursue these avenues sincerely, God will reveal himself to you in ways that convince you of His reality. After that we can deal with questions like these few pieces of the Bible that seem questionable, how prayer actually works, and how to have a relationship with God.

[From Gree]

> I honestly wonder, though, if you have compared the Bible's claims against reality (history, archaeology, geography, culture, psychology, philosophy, sociology) before you judged it as "isn't reliable".

None of the things you mentioned have to do with the claims of the Bible as a religious text.

Even IF the Bible is accurate about geography does not mean any other part about God or his son is true.

There are many ancient texts that make claims about the things you mentioned. The Iliad for instance makes geographical claims. Some of which are true like the existence of Troy. But not many modern people would say the Greek Pantheon are real or took part in Greek history.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for your comment, but you seem to have missed what I was saying because you're mostly agreeing with me rather than saying something opposed. I said any book only has the authority vested in it by the reader. "Religious texts," I said, are vested with authority by those who are convinced of their reliability. If the Bible was full of historical, geographical, cultural, etc. errors, I would have every reason to doubt its reliability in spiritual matters. Since it has reliability in those areas, I can at least take the next step and consider whether its spiritual information has credibility also. My assessments of its spiritual credibility rely on, besides history, psychology, geography, etc., rational arguments for the existence of God (which are quite strong), the power of the words of Jesus, the historical event of his resurrection from the dead, and my experiences that confirm the reality of spiritual things and the truth of what the Bible says.

[John Opinion]

> The Bible, quite specifically, is an accurate and true revelation of God. That's what it is. It is an account of the contract between God and humanity, revealing God to us, and revealing the nature of humanity to us.

That's really not what it is at all. It's an ancient text, as you said, one of many, that tells all kinds of fantastical stories about supernatural beings intervening in human affairs. There's nothing particularly special about it compared to any other ancient text from other cultures of the same period that tell similar stories. Unless of course you want to affirm that the Greek gods, the Hindu gods, the Chinese gods, and so on all really exist and that the ancient texts of those cultures also describe a supernatural reality. But I don't think you do. They are mythology, and so is the Bible. There may be elements of truth in there, as there may be in the other ancient scriptures, but it doesn't matter. Their claims are simply too implausible to be taken at face value.

To claim special status for your scripture as actually revealing objective truths about the supernatural world, it would be helpful if you could provide an example of something from the Bible that could only have been revealed by a supernatural being. Can you do that? Everything you have said appears to concede that the Bible is a product only of its time and place, which we already agree on.

> As a Christian I would say that if you pursue these avenues sincerely, God will reveal himself to you in ways that convince you of His reality. After that we can deal with questions like these few pieces of the Bible that seem questionable, how prayer actually works, and how to have a relationship with God.

All that's going on there is you allowing yourself into a state of cognitive dissonance. If God wants us to believe he exists, he needs to do so in a way that rules out our having deceived ourselves into thinking he's actually there, regardless of our sincere attempts to discover him. Truths aren't discovered this way in any other context: you devise experiments that do not allow for bias to corrupt the results.

[jimwalton]

> There's nothing particularly special about it compared to any other ancient text from other cultures of the same period that tell similar stories.

About this you are patently wrong. The Bible is greatly different from other ancient and religious texts. The stories of other religions are nothing like the story of the Bible. The Bible is vastly different from mythography. The supernatural realities of which the Bible speaks are of a different character than the ones of other cultures. I have studied them, and the differences are both vast and qualitative.

> To claim special status for your scripture as actually revealing objective truths about the supernatural world, it would be helpful if you could provide an example of something from the Bible that could only have been revealed by a supernatural being.

All theology fits into this answer. God is holy, eternal, love, just, etc. We can't know anything about God unless he reveals it to us. God has created us because he wants more children, and he created us to function as his priest and priestess in his temple, the earth. The truths about the afterlife could only have been revealed by a supernatural being. People can't know such things. Our knowledge of spirit beings like cherubim and seraphim, our knowledge of sin and salvation can only have been revealed by a supernatural being. All theology fits into this category.

> All that's going on there is you allowing yourself into a state of cognitive dissonance.

Again, obviously, I beg to differ, and conclude that you are showing your bias. I'm going to guess you've come to this conclusion without fully weighing the evidence.

> If God wants us to believe he exists, he needs to do so in a way that rules out our having deceived ourselves into thinking he's actually there, regardless of our sincere attempts to discover him.

He has done this, and yet you still don't believe. He has revealed himself over and over through history, he has written a book about it, he came in the person of Jesus and rose from the dead in a historically verifiable event, and yet you still don't believe.

> Truths aren't discovered this way in any other context: you devise experiments that do not allow for bias to corrupt the results.

Science is not the only way to discover truth. When we have a jury in a courtroom, scientists give evidence, but scientists don't decide innocence and guilt. Truth is discovered beyond the realm of "devising experiments." When politicians and bureaucrats make policies and laws, they don't devise experiments. Neither do economists, philosophers, mathematicians, artists, and many others. Devising experiments, as worthy as it is for a small slice of reality, is not the only way to discover truth. Someone took a photograph of Van Gogh; he also painted a portrait of himself. Which was more true? Neither, by the way, had anything to do with devising experiments. You're trying to apply the wrong measure to the wrong category.

[John Opinion]

> The Bible is greatly different from other ancient and religious texts. The stories of other religions are nothing like the story of the Bible. The Bible is vastly different from mythography. The supernatural realities of which the Bible speaks are of a different character than the ones of other cultures. I have studied them, and the differences are both vast and qualitative.

Can you give some examples of what you mean here?

> God is holy, eternal, love, just, etc. We can't know anything about God unless he reveals it to us. God has created us because he wants more children, and he created us to function as his priest and priestess in his temple, the earth. The truths about the afterlife could only have been revealed by a supernatural being. People can't know such things. Our knowledge of spirit beings like cherubim and seraphim, our knowledge of sin and salvation can only have been revealed by a supernatural being.

Are you really claiming to know any of these things? On what basis?

> I'm going to guess you've come to this conclusion without fully weighing the evidence.

What evidence? For the record, I was a Christian until quite recently. Less than a year ago, I would probably have presented the same arguments you are presenting. I just no longer find this manner of thinking plausible, and I can find no satisfactory defence of it. I have decided to simply refrain from judgement on the subject. You might be right, but I have no reason to believe so. Again, this isn't bias, it's an absence of bias.

> He has revealed himself over and over through history, he has written a book about it, he came in the person of Jesus and rose from the dead in a historically verifiable event, and yet you still don't believe.

Because that's not good enough evidence. Also, as I said, I've no problem with the idea that Jesus rose from the dead, but that wouldn't prove that God existed. It would just suggest there are some things about human beings and death that we don't understand yet. And as for the claim that God wrote a book, again, what specifically in the Bible could only have been written by a being such as God? You've already conceded that it's an ancient text and a product of a particular time and place. Why is God needed to explain anything it says?

> Science is not the only way to discover truth.

It's the only way to test truth claims. That's what I'm looking for. Not "reasons to believe" - I would like some demonstrable facts. Even a theory that shows that the existence of God is the best explanation for any aspect of reality you care to name.

> When we have a jury in a courtroom, scientists give evidence, but scientists don't decide innocence and guilt.

Juries don't decide what is true, they make decisions based on the evidence available. They are sometimes incorrect. In the event of their being able to establish a verdict beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is not sentenced. The judge reserves judgement. That's what I'm doing in the case of God.

> Truth is discovered beyond the realm of "devising experiments."

Please give an example of a truth that has been discovered without using any form of experimentation to establish its truth.

> Someone took a photograph of Van Gogh; he also painted a portrait of himself. Which was more true?

That question doesn't even make sense.

> You're trying to apply the wrong measure to the wrong category.

I'm applying the only available measure the human race has yet devised to discover truths independently of their own bias.

[jimwalton]

> Can you give some examples of what you mean here?

Sure. The mythological Enuma Elish creation account and the Bible's creation account are worlds apart. While there are a few similarities, the differences are profound: monotheism, the eternity of God, a divine unity of purpose, God is good rather than selfish and murderous, the Enuma Elish is mostly about bringing other gods into existence, the purpose and role of humankind. The Gilgamesh Epic and the Bible story of the flood share more similarities, but again the differences are profound. In GE the wickedness of mankind "keeps the gods awake." In the Bible, it offends a holy God. In GE, Utnaphishtim lies; in the Bible, Noah is righteous. The time frames of the stories are significantly different. The fundamental character of the stories are different in portraying the character of God, the nature of sin, and the place of man in the universe.

And, for instance, other religions have stories of dying and rising gods. The Greeks' and Romans' are tied to seasons of the year—stories of planting and harvest.

Attis was conceived when a virgin place a magic almond inner breast. Her son castrated himself when he found out about Attis's true identity. This is also tied to the agricultural year.

Krishna is said to have died and rose again, not in resurrection, but in reincarnation.

These stories are nothing like the biblical story of Jesus' resurrection. They have nothing in common with each other.

> Are you really claiming to know any of these things? On what basis?

As you asked, and I said, on the basis of supernatural revelation. There is no other way to know such things.

> What evidence?

There are many evidences that the biblical writers intended to be speaking historical truth, not mythological theology. The resurrection of Christ stands out as a miracle that is subject to investigation. The theological claims of the Bible are evidenced by what we see in the changes in people's lives, just as the Bible says.

> And as for the claim that God wrote a book, again, what specifically in the Bible could only have been written by a being such as God?

The prophecies are pretty good proof that the Bible was divinely written. The weatherman can't even get today's weather right, and no one can accurate predict the end score of a football game.

> You've already conceded that it's an ancient text and a product of a particular time and place.

That doesn't contribute to the discussion of whether it's true or false. You can't possible be claiming that because it's old, it's false. There's no logic there. Isaac Newton's observations about the laws of physics are old, too.

> [Science is] the only way to test truth claims.

Of course it's not. There's inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and abductive reasoning. Beside, suppose you offend me and I say I forgive you. Is science the only way to test the truth of that? Of course not. Science isn't even in that picture. What if you claim something is not fair? Is your claim true? Maybe. Can you test is with science? Of course not.

> I would like some demonstrable facts.

Most of what we know is not based on demonstrable facts: I like apple pie, I forgive you, I felt chilly yesterday, I saw a beautiful sunset five days ago, Bill is my friend, that wasn’t fair, I'm in love with Denise, I’m afraid of heights, my favorite movie is “Gladiator,” I feel at peace with myself. There are millions of these. We’re just in the wrong arena to think that we can use science to prove these things. There are also things that exist, that are coherent, but not scientific: peace, justice, love, memory, reason, values, to name a few. There are disciplines that have nothing to do with science, but they are still legitimate ways to know things: jurisprudence, economics, history, literature, politics, art, philosophy, logic, and theology. As it turns out, probably most of what we know is not subject to scientific verification, nor can it be considered scientific knowledge.

> Juries don't decide what is true

In a courtroom, the scientists certainly don't decide what's true. Or we would stop trial by jury and institute trial by laboratory. Juries weigh intent, motive, environment, perspective, etc., things that are outside of the purview of science.

> They are sometimes incorrect.

Scientists are sometimes incorrect also. Science is not the only way to test truth claims, nor is it always reliable.

> Please give an example of a truth that has been discovered without using any form of experimentation to establish its truth.

OJ Simpson is guilty. Hillary Clinton is a criminal. Donald Trump is an idiot. I am an introvert. Beethoven's symphonies are pure genius. Picasso's paintings are filled with meaning.

> That question doesn't even make sense.

Sure it makes sense. Which portrait was the more accurate, the more true to who Van Gogh was? Which portrait portrays him more reliably? Accuracy to truth is not just a scientific question.

> I'm applying the only available measure the human race has yet devised to discover truths independently of their own bias.

It is not the only available measure. As a matter of fact, we are the first generation to claim such a thing. Never in history, until now, have metaphysics and physics been seen in opposition. Humans always seek to give sense and value to their life. Belief and knowledge together make up the totality of reality; science cannot have ultimate authority because it is only one slice of reality.