Faith in the living, resurrected Word (while the scriptures are only 50% historically accurate).

[redleghunter]

The first generation Christians had no gospels.

They had the very apostles who wrote them.

The Church as a whole had no bible for the first 400 or so years, and after that there were only very few copies of it.

A deceptive way of putting it. They had the OT in full and also the NT writings very early on as can be seen here:

Early Christian NT References

 

[redleghunter]

Transcriptions can be 99% accurate without providing proof that every account within the texts are accurate historical representations.

How do you judge ancient history?

We have very early manuscripts which confirm the later manuscripts. We have an unbroken chain of church theologians who handled these Scriptures very early on:

Early Christian NT References

It seems you have a problem with what is being communicated as accurate. Meaning the trustworthiness of the human authors themselves. That’s a different problem in itself. If that be the case you can question all of the Scriptures like the skeptics do. They do so because according to them miracles just don’t happen.

 

[Hawkins]

It's a strawman as history is not something which can be evidenced. History (= his story) is conveyed through human testimonies which you can't possibly have a correct evaluation on whether it's 50% or 100% accurate.

What matters is, in comparing to other history written in the same period of time, the Bible account represents the best human effort in terms of the nature of what testimony is. It means it's a valid account in the court of Heaven unless God demands it to be a supernatural (thus inhuman) account of testimony (it's already supernaturally done in comparing to other human documents).

 

[redleghunter]

It's a strawman as history is not something which can be evidenced. History (= his story) is conveyed through human testimonies which you can't possibly have a correct evaluation on whether it's 50% or 100% accurate.

What matters is, in comparing to other history written in the same period of time, the Bible account represents the best human effort in terms of the nature of what testimony is. It means it's valid account in the court of Heaven unless God demands it to be a supernatural account of testimony (it's already supernaturally done in comparing to other human documents).

Evidenced? Yes that is exactly what historians do by looking at the documentary data and archeology.

Two good references on that:


More:
The Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses: We Can Trust the Factuality of the Gospel, by Bob and Gretchen Passantino

The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice : Greenleaf, Simon, 1783-1853 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Charlie24]

What evidence do you provide to substantiate that they are 100% accurate?

Does the efficaciousness of salvation through Jesus Christ depend on their being 100% accurate?

What evidence do you have that any historical event in scripture is false?

All this "if" is not logical without a foundation of fact to work from.

 

[HTacianas]

They had the very apostles who wrote them.


A deceptive way of putting it. They had the OT in full and also the NT writings very early on as can be seen here:

Early Christian NT References

There is no deception in anything I've said. Copies of the old testament were extremely rare within the early Church. So much so that Paul waited perhaps months for what he had to be brought to him:

2Ti 4:13 - The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

At the time the earliest gospels were circulating they had been tainted by the gnostics. So much so that the writer of the Revelation swore a curse against anyone attempting to corrupt what he had written:

Rev 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

It was the Church, apart from the written word, that has preserved the gospel since the beginning.

 

[redleghunter]

What evidence do you have that any historical event in scripture is false?

All this "if" is not logical without a foundation of fact to work from.

I’ll go further, what evidence do we have any of ancient history is true?

That’s the real question. Because if we discard the Biblical accounts which has solid archeological and documentary evidence, why believe Alexander the Great existed?

 

[Charlie24]

I’ll go further, what evidence do we have any of ancient history is true?

That’s the real question. Because if we discard the Biblical accounts which has solid archeological and documentary evidence, why believe Alexander the Great existed?

With all the pages in Scripture concerning history, surely one of those events would have been proven wrong if that was the case. Many have tried over the centuries but all have failed.

I don't need any further proof!

 

[redleghunter]

There is no deception in anything I've said. Copies of the old testament were extremely rare within the early Church. So much so that Paul waited perhaps months for what he had to be brought to him:

2Ti 4:13 - The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Those were personal copies and we don’t know if they were all of Paul’s writings.

Each Synagogue had the scrolls of the OT.

The Qumran discoveries show the OT books and even commentaries in them in wide circulation before the birth of Christ.

At the time the earliest gospels were circulating they had been tainted by the gnostics.

Can you prove this? It seems Irenaeus had no problem quoting what would become the NT canon in his Against Heresies. He even confirms the Gospels they had in hand at his time were written by the authors.

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 1)

1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. ​

You can see how much the NT books were quoted early on here:

Early Christian NT References

So much so that the writer of the Revelation swore a curse against anyone attempting to corrupt what he had written:

Rev 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

That’s an assumption based on an assertion.

It was the Church, apart from the written word, that has preserved the gospel since the beginning.

Irenaeus says no to your statement. You would like perhaps for that unnecessary dichotomy to exist, but it did not exist.

It’s both. The Church is to uphold the Truth which the apostles taught and later wrote down. Not create its own. That’s why even the early church fathers argued major doctrines from the Scriptures themselves.

 

[zippy2006]

Logically speaking: there is a possible world where Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who is incarnated, dies and rises again, and yet there are no scriptures in the sense that we know them today. Someone might balk and say, "But, how would we know about it?" Well, any number of ways. A different set of writings, perhaps? The point being that the scriptures are not that which makes his death and resurrection efficacious for salvation. They are simply a means to knowing about Christ, as fallible as they might be.

Logically speaking, even if 0% of the Old and New Testaments were historically accurate and Jesus never died nor rose, he could still be the savior of the world and the Son of God. So I'm not sure I'm following the argument here. Furthermore, your belief in Jesus' existence, status as the Son of God, death, and resurrection are all based on historical, scriptural testimony.

The point being that the scriptures are not that which makes his death and resurrection efficacious for salvation. They are simply a means to knowing about Christ, as fallible as they might be.

Were the death and resurrection strictly necessary for salvation? If not, they were fitting; and if they were fitting, then a cultural and historical context accounts for and explicates that fittingness (i.e. the Scriptures). Also, it's not clear to me that an ontological event can be efficacious to rational beings without it being communicated to them. That is, if we have no way of knowing about Jesus' paschal mystery, is it still efficacious?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This post is primarily for those who believe the scriptures (original documents) are an inerrant, perfect representation of historical events. Of course, anyone may comment. (This post may need to be moved, but I figured the topic would be controversial for some so I placed it here).

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that only 50% of the scriptures are (in some sense) historically accurate. Nonetheless, Jesus Christ is the resurrected Son of God whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. Assuming this were true, how would this affect they way you think about the scriptures?

I get the impression from some, who argue for the inerrancy of the scriptures, that if something within the scriptures were not historically accurate, then we could not trust that Jesus Christ is Son of God, whose death and resurrection are efficacious for salvation. But, one does not necessarily follow from the other.

Logically speaking: there is a possible world where Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who is incarnated, dies and rises again, and yet there are no scriptures in the sense that we know them today. Someone might balk and say, "But, how would we know about it?" Well, any number of ways. A different set of writings, perhaps? The point being that the scriptures are not that which makes his death and resurrection efficacious for salvation. They are simply a means to knowing about Christ, as fallible as they might be.

Again, imagine a community of 1st generation Christians, a community that possesses no copy of the scriptures, they find a hermit, they proclaim the gospel in her hearing, and she comes to faith. What does she lack? She has faith in the resurrected Son of God, she has a community within which to worship and learn and grow, so what does she lack not having an opportunity to read the scriptures?

Would you give up the faith if you knew some of the scriptures were not historically accurate and yet you knew that Jesus is in fact the living, resurrected Son of God through whom salvation is given? I dare say you would have no good reason to do so. Thoughts? Comments?

Check out my Blogger article here:

Love Branch: Evidences for the Word of God

 

[Hawkins]

Evidenced? Yes that is exactly what historians do by looking at the documentary data and archeology.

Two good references on that:


More:
The Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses: We Can Trust the Factuality of the Gospel, by Bob and Gretchen Passantino

The testimony of the evangelists examined by the rules of evidence administered in courts of justice : Greenleaf, Simon, 1783-1853 : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

You can't. Archaeology can only evidence rare and limited human mass activities (say, usually an ancient site conserved by a disaster), but not any individual activities.

 

[public hermit]

It seems you have a problem with what is being communicated as accurate. Meaning the trustworthiness of the human authors themselves. That’s a different problem in itself. If that be the case you can question all of the Scriptures like the skeptics do. They do so because according to them miracles just don’t happen.

My problem is specific. It has to do with the insistence that the scriptures be 100% inerrant, historically speaking. There is a lot of room between 100% and 0% accurate. I chose 50% accurate for the sake of argument.

My argument is pretty simple. The truth concerning the good news of the resurrection of Jesus Christ does not depend on the scriptures, as a whole, being 100% historically accurate. Would you argue the gospel does depend on the scriptures being 100% accurate? If so, why?

 

[public hermit]

Logically speaking, even if 0% of the Old and New Testaments were historically accurate and Jesus never died nor rose, he could still be the savior of the world and the Son of God.

I agree. But, the salient feature of the gospel is that the efficaciousness of salvation has been wrought through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. So, I would argue that much of the scriptures needs to be historically accurate for that claim to hold true.

Furthermore, your belief in Jesus' existence, status as the Son of God, death, and resurrection are all based on historical, scriptural testimony.

Again, I agree. Keep in mind, I am trying to put into question a very specific claim concerning the scriptures, i.e. that they are 100% historically accurate ( I take that to be the underlying claim of scriptural inerrancy). My argument is that they need not be 100% historically accurate for the truth of the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ to hold. Exactly what parts need not be historically accurate is up for debate.

Were the death and resurrection strictly necessary for salvation? If not, they were fitting; and if they were fitting, then a cultural and historical context accounts for and explicates that fittingness (i.e. the Scriptures).

This is an interesting question, but I am not sure how it is relevant to the question at hand, But, if it is I am certainly open to hearing how it is.

Also, it's not clear to me that an ontological event can be efficacious to rational beings without it being communicated to them. That is, if we have no way of knowing about Jesus' paschal mystery, is it still efficacious?

I agree, I think. I included a couple of examples to cover this issue. Let's assume that there were a whole different set of writings than the ones we have that, nonetheless, communicated the event. Good enough, I would say. The example of hermit also addresses this concern. No scriptures, but a communication of the event, i.e. orally.

I am not arguing that the event need not be communicated. I am arguing that the communications we have , i.e. the whole bible, need not be historically accurate in every detail. Better, I am arguing that the truth of the gospel is not somehow efficacious, if and only if, the whole set of writings we have are 100% historically accurate in every detail. There is a lot of room between 100% accurate and 0% accurate.

 

[public hermit]

What evidence do you have that any historical event in scripture is false?

This is an interesting question, but I am not sure that it relates. I am addressing a specific claim. The claim is that the scriptures are 100% historically accurate. In relation to that claim, I am not requesting any evidence be provided. I am not asking for proof that the scriptures are 100% accurate. I am asking: If the scriptures are less than 100% accurate (let's say they are only 50% accurate) does that mean the gospel concerning salvation through Jesus Christ is thereby nullified? Or maybe better, does the truth of the gospel somehow depend on the 100% accuracy of the whole set of scriptural writings? I am saying it does not, but it seems to me the biblical inerrantist is arguing it does.

 

[Charlie24]

This is an interesting question, but I am not sure that it relates. I am addressing a specific claim. The claim is that the scriptures are 100% historically accurate. In relation to that claim, I am not requesting any evidence be provided. I am not asking for proof that the scriptures are 100% accurate. I am asking: If the scriptures are less than 100% accurate (let's say they are only 50% accurate) does that mean the gospel concerning salvation through Jesus Christ is thereby nullified? Or maybe better, does the truth of the gospel somehow depend on the 100% accuracy of the whole set of scriptural writings? I am saying it does not, but it seems to me the biblical inerrantist is arguing it does.

When it comes to the Word of God, there is no "what if."

This is where false doctrine is born. This is where undue doubt arises.

Let's stick to what we know and not the "what if's" to avoid the occasion of evil.

 

[public hermit]

Word of God

What do you mean by "Word of God." Are you referring to Christ or to the scriptures?

 

[zippy2006]

I am not arguing that the event need not be communicated. I am arguing that the communications we have , i.e. the whole bible, need not be historically accurate in every detail. Better, I am arguing that the truth of the gospel is not somehow efficacious, if and only if, the whole set of writings we have are 100% historically accurate in every detail. There is a lot of room between 100% accurate and 0% accurate.

Okay, sure, but I think the other points I made bleed into this question, for if logical possibility is insufficient to evaluate the problem, then what criteria are to be used, and what percentage of historical accuracy is necessary? The Fundamentalist position (which affirms 100% historical accuracy) is inevitably worried about a slippery slope, and I think your argument about logical possibility tends to confirm their suspicions.

The Fundamentalist position as I perceive it seems to say that the truth and efficacy of the gospel are grounded in the historical reliability of the New Testament, a reliability which is vouchsafed by the same authority that authored the Old Testament, namely the Holy Spirit. Therefore an error in the Old Testament would impugn the reliability of the overall author, the Holy Spirit, thus casting into doubt the New Testament as well.

As I understand it you are making an argument from logical coherence. You are saying that a historical error or alteration in a remote part of the scripture need not create an internal contradiction or exclude a "Core gospel truth." It is also apparently the idea that there are superfluous parts of Scripture where errors are unimportant. Such arguments work from a coherence perspective, but they don't intersect with the Fundamentalist premise of infallible authorship. The Fundamentalist doesn't reject historical errors because he believes they would logically imply the falsity of the gospel, but rather because they would undermine the authority of the divine author and cast doubt on the reliability of the gospel.

 

[redleghunter]

You can't. Archaeology can only evidence rare and limited human mass activities (say, usually an ancient site conserved by a disaster), but not any individual activities.

All but one of Luke’s historical references have been confirmed by Archaeology. And that happened in the golden age of Archeology in the beginning of the 20th century silencing the guffaw of skeptics.

 

[JackRT]

What’s that purpose to you?

Scripture serves many purposes. Some is mythology of tribal origins and history. Some is just history. Some delineates religious law. Some is wisdom sayings. Some books are extended parables. Some is poetry. The gospels are interpretive narratives. The epistles are mail to congregations. It all winds up in an angry rant.