Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge

[Throwaway]

Why do you believe what you believe

[jimwalton]

Because of the evidence. I follow the evidence where it leads. The Christian faith is both logical and evidentiary, so that's where I go.

[Dude]

There is no evidence for the truth of the supernatural claims of Christianity.

[jimwalton]

This is not precisely true.

1. There is evidence for the resurrection. The tomb was empty, the disciples verifiably believed that Jesus had risen from the dead, and their lives were inexplicably and radically changed by their conviction.

2. There is extra biblical evidence that Jesus was a miracle worker. Josephus mentions it (in a much-debated section); a bowl from the 1st c. has been discovered in Alexandria attributing "magical" power to Jesus.

3. The sudden and radical growth of Christianity in a bastion of faith opposed to it gives weight to the conviction of some miraculous event.

4. The existence of the Jewish people through millennia of oppression and exile, spending millennia without even a country of their own, lends some credence to divine help. No other ancient people group survived as they have. It is said they had supernatural support, and it could be true.

5. People's lives are miraculously and supernaturally changed every day as people come to Christ and interact with Him. It's completely different than any other religious claims.

But you'll notice that I didn't identify the supernatural claims only. There is also logic to the position, historically and theologically. There are evidences from the historiographical record of the truth of what is written in the Bible. There are many directions to go with this. Frankly, there has yet to be a single archaeological discovery that proves that something—anything—in the Bible is false.

[Throwaway]

Can you please share some of your evidence?

[jimwalton]

There are varieties of evidences from different sectors of science, logic, history, and reasoning. Since there are so many, I will share only a few, and even those briefly.

• Science tells us that nothing spontaneously generates by its own energy and power out of nothing. Since the universe had a beginning, something outside of nature is likely the causal mechanism.
• That the cosmological constants of the universe are so finely-tuned for life with such precision in very narrow bands—a state not necessary in the grand scheme of things, and yet present in dozens upon dozens of ways, speaks to the likelihood of an intelligent source.
• Following Occam's Razor, theism is the simpler path and also gives sufficiency of explanation of all these things. It makes more sense that intelligence came from an intelligent source, personality from a personal source, the ability to reason from a reasoning source, our sense of purpose from a purposeful source.

There are about 6-8 more of these, but I'll move on.

• History and archaeology confirm what is recorded in the Bible. There has never been an historical record or archaeological artifact that proves anything wrong in the Bible.
• The Bible is true to life. It speaks truthfully of man's condition (capable of great nobility and horrific evil and cruelty), the character of nature (order, predictable, and yet dynamic), the reality of evil, the reality of love, of free will, of progress.
• Jesus is such an ideal figure that every religion wants a piece of him. Buddhism considers him enlightened, Hinduism considers him an avatar, Islam regards him as a prophet.
• Jesus's words of wisdom have had a positive effect on culture for 2000 years and counting. He is regarded as a true cosmopolitan man for the ages.
• Jesus's resurrection can be examined as a cold case, both from the vantage point of direct evidence, recorded evidence, and circumstantial evidence, and there's strong validity to the case.
• People's experience bear out the truth of the gospel. People experience the presence of God, answers to prayer, miracles in their lives, and true life-change.
• Christianity makes sense of history and of science. It puts both in a context of reality and credibility.

Well, these are a few. I could keep going, but you get the idea. The fact is, just about everything in science, logic, math, and reasoning point to theism in general and Christianity in specific.

[Dude]

1. There is a story that a tomb was empty. This isn't evidence. It's a story, one that has no corroboration outside scripture.

2. There are stories of the miracle workings of Jesus. This isn't disputed. There are lots of stories of people doing miracles. But that's not evidence.

3. No, it doesn't. Otherwise you must concede that Islam or Mormonism also have some kind of truth, given their "radical growth."

4. Lol. As a Jewish person, no, it doesn't. Are you willing to give the same credit to present day Zoroastrians? or the hundreds of millions of Hindus in India? Or the Buddists in Japan?

5. People's lives change, but not miraculously or supernaturally. If there was actual, tangible evidence of the supernatural, you'd present it. And it's completely similar to other religious claims.

> Frankly, there has yet to be a single archaeological discovery that proves that something—anything—in the Bible is false.

There is not a single iota of evidence from any record of ancient Egypt that points to Exodus as anything except fiction.

[jimwalton]

> There is a story that a tomb was empty. This isn't evidence. It's a story, one that has no corroboration outside scripture.

Actually, it's much stronger than that. I'm guessing you haven't researched it. There is no doubt that the tomb was empty. What we are left with is explaining it.

* N.T. Wright says, "Neither the empty tomb by itself…nor the appearances by themselves could have generated the early Christian belief. The empty tomb alone would be a puzzle and a tragedy. Sightings of an apparently alive Jesus, by themselves, would have been classified as visions or hallucinations, which were well enough known in the ancient world. However, an empty tomb and appearances of a living Jesus, taken together, would have presented a powerful reason for the emergence of the belief."
* There is no ancient record disputing the empty tomb.
* The fact that thousands of die-hard, Torah-loving, Sabbath-keeping, baby-circumcising Jews living in Jerusalem suddenly made an about-face change simultaneously speaks to some solid evidence they had access to.
* Christianity would not have flourished in Jerusalem if the tomb were not empty. Jesus was publicly executed and publicly buried. Sermons about resurrection would be sheer nonsense if the tomb was not verifiably empty, and Christianity would have fizzled quickly if there were any evidence contrary to that claim.

> There are lots of stories of people doing miracles. But that's not evidence.

There have been other street protests, like the ones we're seeing now around the country. The fact that there have been others doesn't reduce or eliminate the possibility that this one is true and historical. As a matter of fact, previous claims neither reduce nor enhance the veracity of this one. Your objection is basically a non-factor. The fact is that we have evidence, both biblical and extra-biblical, or Jesus's miracle workings. If those aren't disputed, according to your statement, then that's evidence.

> Otherwise you must concede that Islam or Mormonism also have some kind of truth, given their "radical growth."

Islam grew primarily through violence and military conquest. That's a whole different picture than Christianity. If you want to truly relate it to Isalem, what would be notable is if suddenly another religion grew up in Mecca during Ramadan as pilgrims walked around the Cube, which is a parallel to Christianity breaking out in Jerusalem during Passover. It's not just the rapid growth, but when and where it happened that gives evidence of something profound going on, and that most likely being eyewitnesses to a bona fide miracle.

> Lol. As a Jewish person, no, it doesn't. Are you willing to give the same credit to present day Zoroastrians? or the hundreds of millions of Hindus in India? Or the Buddists in Japan?

You missed my point. Where are the Philistines today? Ammonites? Hittites? Assyrians? Babylonians? As a people group, GONE. Obviously their descendants still exist in other ethnicities and countries. But the Jewish people survived—and without a country! Where are the Canaanites today? Gone. Where are the Jews? Israel, and all over the globe. Their preservation as a people, despite numerous dedicated and violent attempts to wipe them out, is astounding.

Another thing: the lost 10 tribes taken by Assyria in 722 BC—GONE. But the tiny southern two tribes, taken by Babylon in 586 BC—still around. It's a most curious miracle. 2000 years without a country, but not lost to history like *every other such group.*

> People's lives change, but not miraculously or supernaturally. If there was actual, tangible evidence of the supernatural, you'd present it. And it's completely similar to other religious claims.

Oh, but it IS miraculous and supernatural. People's lives completely changed. Addictions gone. Alcoholism gone. Violence turned into peace. It's NOTHING like other religions.

> There is not a single iota of evidence from any record of ancient Egypt that points to Exodus as anything except fiction.

Wrong again. An Israelite presence in Egypt is quite reasonable and fairly certain.

A four-room house (a distinctively Israelite style) was found by archaeologists within the precinct of the temple of kings Aya and Horemheb. It dates to the 12th century BC, the time of Ramses IV. The team of excavators suggested that the makeshift construction of the 4-room house was for workmen (slaves) who had the task of pulling down the temple of Aya and Horemheb to reuse the material for the new temple project of Ramses IV. The time of construction of these slave quarters fits perfectly with the chronology of the 4-room houses in Canaan as the begin to appear in the Judean hill country in the Iron Age, matching one that was found at Tel Batash by the end of the 13th century BC.

We also know from extra-biblical sources that immigrant Semitic groups regularly entered and settled in Egypt and were conscripted for corvee labor for the Pharaoh, especially during the mid-11th-13th Dynasties (2030-1650 BC), the latter of which could coincide with the original immigration of Israelites to Egypt. These are not specifically identified as Israelite or Hebrew, but it's difficult to know by what label the Israelites were called and known in this era.

There was a large-scale immigration of Asiatics to Egypt we know as the Hyksos who actually ruled Egypt, as least over the northeast Delta, as Dynasties XV and XVI (1650-1550 BC). This could coincide with the narrative of Joseph in Genesis. Since the Bible speaks of the Israelites living in Goshen, this also could possibly corroborate the biblical account.

About 400 years after the Hyksos, Dynasty XIX came to power in Egypt, including Pharaoh Ramesses the Great. The 430-year presence of the Israelites in Egypt could have spanned the era from Hyksos to Ramesses. The Ramesside family originated in the NE Delta (the land of Goshen) and came to the throne through the office of the vizierate (a position Joseph held), the pharaoh’s prime minister and chief justice. The Ramessides certainly had some Asiatic (Semitic) roots, as indicated by the choice of the name Seti.

An Egyptian papyrus reveals an Asiatic slave with a Biblical name identical to the name of a midwife mentioned in Exodus: Shiphrah (Ex. 1.15). It is reasonably certain that the papyrus came from Thebes. The point is not that this is the same woman, but that such names date to that era in that area. It could indicate the presence of Israelites in Egypt, though it's impossible to confirm.

To conclude, there is no irrefutable evidence of the Israelites in Egypt, but there are numerous corroborations, markers, and hints that support the idea. There is nothing farfetched, historically, about the presence of a large group of Semitic immigrants working as corvee labor, especially in lower Egypt. There is evidence of a Semitic group (like Joseph) in power in the Nile Delta and that the Ramesside dynasty might have issued from the delta region. In other words, none of the information we have from non-biblical sources contradicts what the Bible says or proves it to be false. In contrast, the information we have found could easily corroborate the biblical account. But none of it is direct, irrefutable evidence of Israelite presence there.

Secondly, evidence of an exodus escape isn't decisive, but it's present enough to be credible.

1. First of all, it needs to be decided what sort of evidences you expect to find. Most archaeological remains are found in the destruction layers of cities. What would one expect to find of a people group on the move for 40 years, building no cities, subject to little military action, and taking all their possessions with them? We have to be realistic about what one expects to find as evidence. Mostly what an archaeologist might hope maybe to find is skeletons, but since they would be scattered about, even that would be a challenge. The egalitarian nature of Israelite society, however (confirmed by excavations in Canaan during Joshua's era, when they know Israelites were present in the region) yields precious little artifacts, even skeletons of the dead—and we KNOW the Israelites were there then. The Israelites buried in simple inhumations outside of settlements, in open fields with no grave goods. What evidence are you thinking an archaeologist will find?

2. Archaeologists, though, have uncovered the well-preserved village of Deir el-Medina in Egypt, showing us the exact conditions under which Egypt’s own laborers worked, and it matches the conditions described in the Exodus. This village was inhabited for over 400 years. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative of the early chapters of Exodus. The author knew what he was talking about.

3. We know from extra-biblical sources that immigrants regularly entered and settled in Egypt. Some are depicted in the tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hasan (1850 BC). The best known large-scale immigration involves a group of Asiatics we know as the Hyksos who actually ruled Egypt, at least over the northeast Delta, as Dynasties XV & XVI (1650-1550 BC). Their position did not differ much from that of Joseph as described in the Bible. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative. The Joseph story is easily believable given what we know about Egyptian history.

4. About 400 years after the Hyksos, Dynasty XIX came to power in Egypt, including Pharaoh Ramesses the Great. The 430-year Egyptian sojourn could have spanned the era from Hyksos to Ramesses. The Ramesside family originated in the NE Delta and came to the throne through the office of the vizierate, the pharaoh’s prime minister and chief justice. The Ramessides certainly had some Asiatic roots, as indicated by the choice of the name Seti. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative. The book of Exodus fits easily into the framework of Egyptian history.

5. An Egyptian tomb discovered in Sakkara, Egypt, in the late 1980s, contains the coffin of a Semite named Aper el along with the coffins of his wife and children. His titles include "vizier," "mayor of the city," "judge," "father of god," "child of the nursery." This tells us that a Semitic-speaking foreigner like Joseph, and later Moses, could have risen to the highest levels of Egyptian government.
James Hoffmeier points out that Aper el's name was the first of a high ranking, Semite official to be found there, even though Sakkara has been excavated and explored for more than a century. "If such a high ranking official as Vizier Aper el was completely unknown to modern scholarship until the late 1980s, despite the fact that he lived in one of the better documented periods of Egyptian history [14th century], and was buried in arguably the most excavated site in Egypt, it is wrong to demand, as some have, that direct archaeological evidence for Joseph should be available if he were in fact a historical figure." This is even more the case, he says, because Joseph lived during a period when surviving Egyptian documents of any kind are sparse and because Joseph operated in the Nile Delta, an area that remains "underexcavated" to this day

6. In the 13th c. BC, during the reign of Ramesses the Great (aka Ramesses II), the old Hyksos capital of Avaris in the northeast Delta was rebuilt and expanded under the new name of Pi-Ramesses (Ex. 1.11). This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative.

7. The place names of Ra’amses and Pithom (Ex 1.11) in Egypt accord with the Late Bronze Age, when there was extensive construction in the Nile delta region, most likely by a large slave force.

8. The desert Tabernacle is described as a portable prefabricated shrine. The structure has close Egyptian parallels in the 2nd millennium BC. The Tabernacle is true to the era, and even likely to have come from people who knew about Egyptian architecture. The ark of the covenant may be compared with the portable clothes chest found in the tomb of King Tut (1336-1327 BC). There is no reason to believe that such an artifact could not be manufactured by the Israelites.

9. The accounts of the Exodus ring true to nomadic life: nomads living in the Nile delta who were exploited for cheap labor, Moses' flight to Midian was a common escape route, Bedouins knew how to find water in the wilderness, even by striking certain rocks, Matzah had origins in Bedouin life, etc. These give credibility to the narrative.

10. A pillared, 4-room Israelite house has been found along the Nile near the biblical city of Ra'amses. It bears no similarity to any Egyptian structure, but is identical to the houses of Canaan after the Israelite presence is known. It is dated to 1200-1000 BC.

11. An Egyptian papyrus reveals an Asiatic slave with a Biblical name identical to the name of a midwife mentioned in Exodus: Shiphrah (Ex. 1.15). It is reasonably certain that the papyrus came from Thebes. The point is not that this is the same woman, but that such names date to that era in that area. The text of Exodus rings true to the culture and era.

12. The Merneptah stele clearly shows that before the last quarter of the 13th century BC there existed an "Israel" as distinct from Egypt and outside of it, though there is a strong Egyptian presence in the land of Canaan.

13. The Wisdom of Merikare and the Prophecy of Neferti, ancient Egyptian documents, report influxes of thousands of Semites into the Nile Delta between 2200 and 2000 B.C. Similar patterns of settlement recurred over the next thousand years, creating a "significant Asiatic population" in the Delta region. The Merikare document explains that these Asiatic, Semitic speaking peoples, like Jacob and his sons, had come to the fertile Delta area in search of food during times of famine.

14. There is abundant evidence in all eras that Egyptians were slave owners. Scholars previously though that the pyramids in the 3rd millennium BC were built by foreign slaves. Current thinking, however, is that Egyptians, possibly as conscripts or corvée, built the structures. Foreigners, captured in war, were enslaved. Pharaoh Thutmose III (1479-1425 BC) brought back almost 90,000 prisoners from his campaign in Canaan. In other words, the Egyptians were known for large groups of foreign slaves. Exodus fits these facts.

15. In a surviving Egyptian document called Leiden Papyrus 348, orders are given to "distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the 'Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Rames[s]es." This brings to mind Exodus 1:11, which says the Hebrews "built supply cities, Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh." While hotly debated, 'Apiru is believed by some scholars to refer to the Hebrews, the 'Ibri. If a future discovery of an inscription could link this word to the Hebrews, this document would prove to be our first direct extrabiblical reference to the children of Israel in slavery in Egypt.

16. Recent discoveries of military outposts on a road leading from Egypt into Canaan, built by Pharaoh Seti I and earlier kings in the 13th c. BC, shed new light on why a northern route for the Exodus would have meant war for the Israelites. Exodus 13:17 states: "When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was nearer; for God thought, 'If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt.' " Instead, the Bible explains, "God led the people by the roundabout way of the wilderness."

17. While it is virtually impossible 3,000 years later to retrace the footsteps of a people who escaped over a sand swept wilderness, an Egyptian letter (Anastasi III) from guards at a "border crossing" between Egypt and the Sinai helps explain Moses' insistent cry, "Let my people go!" The text indicates that in the 13th c. the Egyptians maintained a tight border control, allowing no one to pass without a permit. The letter describes two slaves who—in a striking parallel to the Israelite escape—flee from the city of Rameses at night, are pursued by soldiers, but disappear into the Sinai wilderness. "When my letter reaches you," writes the official to the border guard, "write to me about all that has happened to [them]. Who found their tracks? Which watch found their tracks? Write to me about all that has happened to them and how many people you send out after them." Another inscription from the same cache of documents (Anastasi VI) records that an entire tribe gained permission to enter Egypt from Edom in search of food. Compare that with Gen. 42.3.

18. No one knows the exact location of Mt. Sinai, and archaeological remains are scarce in the Sinai Peninsula. There is in Midian, however, a "holy" mountain surrounded by literally THOUSANDS (tens of thousands) of artifacts and carvings relating to the time period and the situation of the Exodus. Perhaps, as scholars are still evaluating, Moses led the people in their wanderings through Midian (a theory that would make sense given that he had spent 40 years there) rather than the Sinai Peninsula, and perhaps these abundant remains are exactly what people such as you are looking for.

19. For two centuries ending in 1550 B.C., a foreign Asiatic people called the Hyksos actually ruled Egypt. After their expulsion, the new pharaoh extended his rule into Canaan and Syria, transporting back to Egypt many prisoners of war. After the expulsion of the Hyksos ruling and military elite, Pharaoh Ahmose and his successors discovered large numbers of Semitic speaking peoples, including the Hebrews, in the Delta, who were subsequently forced to work alongside the POWs. This shift in status from being tolerated immigrants to an enslaved population described in Exodus 1:8 may represent the transition from the Hyksos period to the eighteenth Dynasty. It's also true that the practice of using forced labor for building projects is only documented for the period 1450 to 1200, the very time most biblical historians place the Israelites in Egypt. The realization that there were others enslaved along with the Hebrews may explain who the "mixed multitude" of Exodus 12:38 are who joined the "freedom train."

The conclusion of the matter is that the Exodus is an incredibly believable narrative. And there is ZERO evidence that ANYTHING the Bible says is untrue.

[Bubbles]

Couldn’t this just be the simulation theory, I have been trying to reason for why Christianity is believable but to me, it sounds like a naturalistic experiment as in a simulation.

Why don’t you believe in it but a lot of Christians accept it. How can I accept Christianity and discard the simulation theory. Thank you

[jimwalton]

If we are in a simulation, then all things—science, math, reasoning, history, religion, education, and business—are all unreliable and meaningless. And if your ability to reason is potentially meaningless, then you are not even in a state where you can evaluate whether your reasoning ability is meaningless or not. In other words, the speculation itself is self-defeating. There have to be something we assume if even language has meaning, and those things are:

1. There is a real world
2. The real world is discernible
3. Truth is meaningful
4. Truth is discernible.

If we don't assume those things, even your question has come from a place of absurdity, is addressed in a context of absurdity (language), and cannot be answered because it's self-defeating.

Formulating foolproof criteria for certainty and knowledge has not been successful. Think about this. The ideal of certainty of knowledge is this: I must accept as true only those claims of which I am rationally certain, having no shadow of doubt. But if that's true, how can I be certain of it? The ideal doesn't even meet its own standard. Ultimately one must run with certain assumptions. You can't verify your procedure without first having knowledge, but you can't get any knowledge without first verifying your procedure. Kant would say the only option is to pick one or the other and run with it (choose a procedure that you assume but cannot prove will yield true knowledge, or choose some tenets of knowledge that you assume are true even though you can't verify them, which is called foundationalism and is the process used in nearly all of philosophy). The way to verify (or contest) truth in a Kantian system isn't to verify (or contest) the first principles, but to test for coherence. The act of knowing is the human's skilled coping with the world through achieving a coherence—an integrated pattern—making sense of things. It is the foundation on which all science, philosophy, and knowledge are based. In other words, we can't possibly be in a simulation. The Matrix, as fascinating as it is, is pure fiction. Coherence, which we see, requires reality, which we see, and therefore negates simulation theory as absurd and self-defeating.