Board index ‹ Bible

[Vivian]

How did you determine that the Bible is an accurate (and perhaps the only) way to seek out spiritual truth? Are you positive that the Bible’s claims and stories are accurate? How so?

Extra questions:

Do you interpret the Bible literally or metaphorically? Or both?

Are there any translations of the Bible you prefer over others?

[jimwalton]

The Bible has to be submitted to tests of truth just like anything else: What corresponds to reality? What has historical corroboration? What describes the human condition most accurately? What conforms to logic and reason? It is on the basis of these that I have discerned that the Bible is the correct text describing God and His interactions with nature and with humanity.

I have come across nothing in the Bible that has been proven to be untrue. I am not aware of any archaeological discovery that has shown any part of the Bible to be false. I am not aware of any historical information that proves any part of the Bible to be untrue. The science that is in the Bible is old world science, and we know now that that perspective is no longer accurate. But that's also true with our science, if we move forward a few years. It was accurate to the day, and the authority of the Biblical message was not in the level of science, but in what the Bible was teaching us, such as God's sovereignty or power. I have never been shown anything in the Bible that is able to be proven as false. If you think you know of something, I'd be glad to discuss it with you.

As far as spiritual truth, I would first say that if it's reliable historically, geographically, psychologically, morally, and reflects the political, religious, and social cultural context accurately, on what basis would I doubt its reliability in spiritual things? Obviously the authors were sane men who were truth-tellers. Secondly, if the Bible has spoken spiritual truth that billions of people from the past three millennia confirm by their lives as true, that should carry some weight (though other religions might also make a similar claim to this one—though they can't say the same with my first observation). Thirdly, the accuracy of the Bible as to spiritual truth has been proved by my own experiences.

Richard Swinburne writes: "What are we supposing? An experience is a conscious mental going-on. Experiences can be effects of reality (I think I hear a car outside the window, and there is one) or effects of sensation (I think I hear a car outside the window, but there isn’t one). Into which category do religious experiences fall? It could be either: (1) God or an angel may actually appear to me, or (2) I may have a sensation of 'the room going around' or of 'a timeless reality outside myself.' Sometimes the car appears to moving when it is not; sometimes it actually is. What constitutes religious experience? It is an epistemic event where the subject is metaphysical. Experiences can be public (shared by others) or private. One is no less or more legitimate than the other. The important question is the legitimacy and validity of these experiences.

"Philosophers sometimes claim that an experience is evidence from nothing beyond itself, and therefore religious experience has no evidential value. Quite obviously, if you literally walk into a table that is physically there and raise a bruise on your thigh, there is good evidence for the table and your experience with it. It is also verifiable that your experience of reading what I have written is both rational and valid. Perception is how we process reality. In the absence of special considerations, experiences can be taken as genuine, and there is no rational reason to isolate religious experiences as being in a different category. There are substantial grounds to believe in the existence of God. It is intuitively right to take the way things seem to be as the way they are.

"Efforts to restrict religious experience from validity are either unjustified or unsuccessful."

He obviously says a lot more, but I don't want to bore you with a quote that drones on. What are the signs of divine inspiration? Usually that God confirms the message with a phenomenon, that the experience has credibility, that it is confirmed by others, and that it turns out to be reliable and true.

> Do you interpret the Bible literally or metaphorically? Or both?

The Bible is a rich literary collection containing music, poetry, metaphor, allegory, archetypes, parable, hyperbole, metonymy, irony, simile, and many other literary forms, as well as genres such as prayer, prophecy, blessing, covenant language, legal language, etc. "Literally" quickly becomes a word with very little meaning or helpfulness. If a poet says the trees of the field will clap their hands and the mountains will jump for joy, is that literal? Of course not, it's poetry. If a man prays, "God, kill all those people", we may all understand that his prayer is inappropriate, and is not blessed by God, but is it literal? Well, how does that word even apply? And how does it apply to archetype, allegory, parable, and all the others? It's a word that should be dropped from the discussion because it doesn't take us anywhere except to the Land of Misunderstanding.

It's better to think that the Bible should be taken the way the author intended it to be taken. If he was using hyperbole, we're to take it that way. So also allegorically, historically, parabolic, poetic, etc. Our quest is to understand the intent of the author. In that case we'll take the Bible seriously, but "literally" doesn't take us anywhere.

> Are there any translations of the Bible you prefer over others?

I prefer ones that are more accurate and also readable: NIV, ESV, NASB.

[Vivian]

Erm the worldwide flood is widely debated against. So is the Exodus (though I do believe it is possible that there was a small group of people and true to ancient writings’ nature, the numbers got exaggerated)

Considering the Life of Jesus historically, most scholars find it unlikely that Pontius Pilate would’ve handed over Jesus’ body to Joseph of Arimethea (probably spelt that wrong)

The whole point of crucifixion was to prevent them being buried..

[jimwalton]

> the worldwide flood is widely debated against.

The Flood wasn't global. The Pentateuch often uses hyperbolic language of universality to explain something that's huge. What does "all" mean? In Gn. 41.57 (same book, same author), we read that "all the countries came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph because the famine was severe in all the world." Was Brazil experiencing famine? Did the Australians come to Joseph? No. "All" means the countries of the immediate vicinity in the ancient Near East.

Also, Deut. 2.25 (same author): "I will put the...fear of you on all the nations under heaven." Did that include the Mayans? The people of Madagascar? I don't think anyone would argue that this refers to more than the nations of Canaan, and perhaps a few others.

In the book of Exodus, chapter 9 outlines some of the plagues. Verse 6 says "all" the livestock died, but then in the next plague, the livestock get boils (vv. 9-10). Then in v. 19 they are to bring their livestock under cover to save them from the hail. It's fair to conclude, then, that "all" the livestock didn't die in v. 6.

There are plenty of other references like this throughout the Bible (Acts 17.6; 19.35; 24.5; Rom. 1.8). We have to give serious consideration that quite possibly "all" doesn't mean "global".

> So is the Exodus

There is no evidence against the Exodus, just as there is no evidence for it. In such a case, we must withhold judgment. Every historical mention with corroboration in the book of Exodus is shown to be true. There is no evidence against the Exodus.

> was a small group of people and true to ancient writings’ nature, the numbers got exaggerated)

The same word in Hebrew ('lp) can be voweled with 'alup, meaning thousands, for 'elup, meaning "groups." It's more than plausible that the author was speaking of 613 units or groups of soldiers, not 613,000 fighting men. In that case, it reduces the population to 25,000, not 2.5 million—big difference. 25,000 makes a whole lot more sense; 2.5 million makes no sense at all.

> most scholars find it unlikely that Pontius Pilate would’ve handed over Jesus’ body to Joseph of Arimethea (probably spelt that wrong)

I disagree.


1. Joseph of Arimathea, the man who the Gospels say buried Jesus's body, is portrayed as a member of the Sanhedrin. This character is an unlikely fictional invention. In the era in which the Gospels were written (the first century AD), if this were a fabrication it would be widely known and would easily discredit the account, subjecting the whole story to ridicule.

2. Arimathea is a city of Judea, of unknown location, is but thought to be what we know of as Ramah, about 5 miles north of Jerusalem. It's perfectly within reason that a member of the Sanhedrin might live there and own a tomb just outside of Jerusalem.

3. It’s plausible that a member of the Sanhedrin might have become a follower of Jesus (John 12.42). The Gospels mention several. Not only was Joseph a follower of Christ, but also Nicodemus, known to us from John 3, was involved in Jesus'a burial, suggesting that he, too, was a follower.

4. Joseph's request for the body of Jesus is plausible, and fits with what we know of Roman law. Ulpian, a Roman jurist of the 3rd century, says: "The bodies of those who are capitally punished cannot be denied to their relatives. At this day, however, the bodies of those who are executed are buried only in case permission is asked and granted; and sometimes permission is not given, especially in the cases of those who are punished for high treason. The bodies of the executed are to be given for burial to any one who asks for them."
Marvin Vincent adds, "Avaricious governors sometimes sold this privilege. Cicero, in one of his orations against Verres, has a terribly graphic passage describing such extortions. After dwelling upon the tortures inflicted upon the condemned, he says: 'Yet death is the end. It shall not be. Can cruelty go further? A way shall be found. For the bodies of the beheaded shall be thrown to the beasts. If this is grievous to parents, they may buy the liberty to burial.' " This proves that Roman officials allowed people to procure the corpses for burial.
Remember, though, that Jesus was not even executed for sedition or treason, but for blasphemy. Pilate said he found no reason to condemn Jesus, and found no fault in him. Ultimately he turned Jesus over to be crucified on the insistence of the Jewish leaders, not because he found Jesus guilty of any crime against the State.
The release of a corpse for burial depended solely upon the generosity of the magistrate. In actual practice, if the relatives of a condemned man sought permission for burial, the body was normally given to them. Cicero had permitted the burial of confederates of Catiline in response to the request of their wives, and Philo reports that before a great festival, like the emperor’s birthday (in Jesus's case, the Passover), the bodies of those who had been crucified were given to the relatives for proper burial. It can be assumed that the practice was similar in Palestine under Tiberius during the era of Jesus. The fact that Pilate was willing to release the body of Jesus to Joseph is historically credible.

5. Burial in a tomb was consistent with Roman policies and practices regarding criminals who were crucified. It is well attested from both literary and archaeological evidence.

6. Rabbinical and Qumran texts attest to the Sanhedrin taking responsibility for the burial of executed criminals. This gives credibility to the claim that Joseph asked for and was granted the body of Jesus even though he was not a relative, and was allowed to bury him in his family tomb.

7. Jerusalem tombs in this period were typically family tombs carved into limestone caves, fitting the Gospels’ description of Joseph's tomb.

8. That a rich man owned a rock-hewn family tomb just outside of the city walls is a common custom of the day, and as a member of the Sanhedrin, it is no surprise that Joseph owned such a tomb. For similar royal tombs in gardens see 2 Ki. 21.18, 26; Neh. 3.16.

One crucifixion victim—a man named Yehohanan—has been discovered and identified by archaeologists. Yehohanan’s remains were found in an ossuary in a rock-cut tomb in Jerusalem. This is extraordinary because victims of crucifixion would generally not have received an honorable burial. Jewish law, however, does not prohibit the burial of victims of crucifixion in family tombs.

> The whole point of crucifixion was to prevent them being buried..

No, the point of crucifixion was an agonizing public death as a punishment and a deterrent to others.

I still maintain that I have come across nothing in the Bible that has been proven to be untrue. You may have listed things that haven't yet been proven (the Exodus), and somethings that you think don't quite square with history (Pilate giving the body to Joseph), but those are far from proving that anything in the Bible is verifiably false.

[Vivian]

Huh. I’ll check it out a bit more then.