Board index ‹ Bible

[Disconcerted]

Hypothetical. Holy book 2.0 is discovered and it's about as old as your book is. It claims that your holy book is a work of fiction. Do you continue to have faith?

What would you do?

Now you would have two books that contradict each other. If you would continue to accept the original bible as truth then why wouldn't you accept the second book? What proof and evidence would you require to accept it as true?

[jimwalton]

I would continue to accept holy book 1.0 (the Bible) because the Bible has proved itself by evidence. Holy book 2.0 is yet unproven. While it may turn out that there are things in it that we can accept as truth (just about every book has some truth in it, even works of fiction), that wouldn't mean that "holy book 2.0" was actually holy.

So, yes, I would continue to have faith, because my faith is based in evidence. It's not blind.

> What proof and evidence would you require to accept it as true?

The same standards of truth we use for every other book, secular or religious. Truth is truth as has to stand upon correspondence to reality and both founded in and coreborated by the evidence.

[Disconcerted]

That's an interesting and also confusing answer. This hypothetical book would flat out state that the original bible is a work of fiction. You now have two books from the same time period, why believe one over the other? What evidence would you require from book 2.0 to make you disregard the original?

[jimwalton]

> This hypothetical book would flat out state that the original bible is a work of fiction.

Since holy book 1.0 (the New Testament) has already be proved to be historically reliable, culturally accurate, and has been corroborated by contemporaneous documentation and artifacts, then the case that "holy book 2.0" makes would have to be evaluated. Nothing gets a free pass. Just because hypothetical book makes a claim doesn't make it so, just like reality holy book 1.0. All must be assessed.

> You now have two books from the same time period, why believe one over the other?

Because book 1.0 has been evaluated and shown to be reliable and hypothetical book 2.0 has not. After 2.0 has been assessed, then and only then can conclusions be drawn.

> What evidence would you require from book 2.0 to make you disregard the original?

Nothing would make me discard the original because of the evidence it stands on. The question would be to what degree I would accept the claims of 2.0 based on the evidence it contains. But since it you say it flat-out contradicts 1.0, the New Testament, then immediately I would look at it with a more than skeptical eye, since the veracity of 1.0 has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Disconcerted]

> "since the veracity of 1.0 has been established beyond a reasonable doubt."

Great, you must have some secret evidence that I, nor many other people in the world know about. Can you please show me this evidence?

[jimwalton]

It's not a secret at all, but don't worry, I can perceive your sarcasm. There is plenty of evidence for the veracity of the NT account.

• What archaeologists have dug up confirms what the NT says. Nothing has ever been discovered by archaeologists to show that anything in the NT is incorrect.
• The NT has been shown to give authentic historical, cultural, political, and religious (cultic) information. It has never been proved to be incorrect about anything.
• As far as Jesus, on the basis of historical sources, there is no reasonable doubt that Jesus existed as a man. He was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7 and 4 BC and died between AD 26-36. Most scholars hold that Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea, did not preach or study elsewhere, was called Christos in Greek, had a brother named James, and that he spoke Aramaic and may have also spoken Hebrew and possibly Greek. It is believed even from non-Christian sources that he had both Jewish and Gentile followers, and that Jewish leaders held unfavorable opinions of him. Although there are great differences (outside of the Gospels) trying to reconstruct the details of his life, the two events whose historicity is subject to "almost universal assent" are that he was baptized by John the Baptist and shortly afterwards was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate. In other words, the Bible is credible beyond a reasonable doubt.
• There is evidence for the resurrection that provides sufficiency of explanation of the event and mounts a stronger case than alternative explanations.
• Theologically, there is simply no way to give evidence of what the Bible claims. Theologically, however, what the Bible teaches is consistent with both logic, reason, and what it claims about deity and humanity.

The authenticity, accuracy, corroborations, and reasonableness of the NT content establishes its veracity beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's something in specific you want to discuss, I'd be glad to discuss whatever you want.