"Parts of the Bible Aren't True"

[Zadeth]

Would it matter if parts of the Bible aren’t true? For example, I was informed that the “slavery of Jews in Egypt is a big problem. Historians don’t think it ever happened and this story plays a huge part in the Old Testament.” and that “historians are convinced Moses didn’t exist and the books attributed to Moses were therefore not written by him”.

Does this matter? I just get worried that if parts like this are false, how are we to know the rest of our beliefs aren’t also?

 

[SonOfMan]

I get worried too, because if Moses didnt exist then the 10 Commandments dont exist. Moses was the one who brought them down from the mountain.

 

[Garyjohn2]

All of the Bible is true. Not all of it is historically literal in the modern understanding though (at the same time much is).

Think of a Bible as a library, not a book. There is history, genealogy, poetry, allegory, fable, biography, etc. All of it is true, but not always the way you want or think. For example, is a poem true? How about one of Aesops fables, with a talking fox. Foxes don’t talk, but the fable is most certainly true as a fable.

I’m not sure about the Israelite slavery though. That was in the distant past, it may be hard to prove archaeologically. It’s certainly more than a fable, though I don’t know how much more. Moses was a real person. Where the israelites slaves in the modern sense, or more of a repressed class? Would history even record this (for example, do we know who the other Egyptian slaves were, nationality-wise?)? Without a true written word, mostly just hieroglyphs on temples, how easy or hard would it be to erase from history a political embarrassment?

 

[MatthewTrainor]

For example, I was informed that the “slavery of Jews in Egypt is a big problem. Historians don’t think it ever happened and this story plays a huge part in the Old Testament.” and that “historians are convinced Moses didn’t exist and the books attributed to Moses were therefore not written by him”.

While I haven’t heard this before, it appears that there is quite a bit of information out there. This seems to be a fairly comprehensive look at the available evidence, though I haven’t read through the entire page myself.

Whatever is available just remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is to say that just because we can’t archeologically prove a historical corollary to the events described of Exodus does not mean that it never actually happened.

 

[SonOfMan]

Whatever is available just remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is to say that just because we can’t archeologically prove a historical corollary to the events described of Exodus does not mean that it never actually happened.

I find that explanation problematic because by the same argument and logic, “just because we cant archaelogically prove” the existence of Bigfoot doesnt mean that hes not out there. Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, apparently.

However, I think anyone who is intellectually honest will admit that Bigfoot doesn’t exist because they havent been provided with any good reasons to believe in his existence.

 

[Garyjohn2]

I find that explanation problematic because by the same argument and logic, “just because we cant archaelogically prove” the existence of Bigfoot doesnt mean that hes not out there. Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, apparently.

However, I think anyone who is intellectually honest will admit that Bigfoot doesn’t exist because they havent been provided with any good reasons to believe in his existence.

That explanation is not problematic. It is a scientific explanation, not a religious one. If you ask a scientist if big foot exists, he’ll say no. However, if you ask him if we have proof he doesn’t exist,and push him on this, an honest scientist will say absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

 

[Zadeth]

While I haven’t heard this before, it appears that there is quite a bit of information out there. This seems to be a fairly comprehensive look at the available evidence, though I haven’t read through the entire page myself.

Whatever is available just remember that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is to say that just because we can’t archeologically prove a historical corollary to the events described of Exodus does not mean that it never actually happened.

That page was very helpful, thank you. It was very well written and contained a lot of scholarly opinion.

It mentions the fact archaeologists are looking for the Israelites around 1200BC, when the Bible states on a few occasions it was around 1400BC; which may be the problem as to why they are not finding anything… It also makes the point - archaeological evidence is found every year which strengthens the Bible, not weakens it.

 

[billcu1]

I will tell you about a conversation between Jesus and Nathan. This was for Nathan and Jesus said not the others. “Rabbi you don’t have the same view of the scriptures as most rabbis.”, Nathan said. They were speaking about Jonah and a whale. That seemed odd. Jesus said to not take extreme views of the scriptures. Not that everything “fell out of the sky” so to speak or that the scriptures are worthless. Jesus said it’s the meaning that you are supposed to be concerned with. What is it trying to say? Jonah and a whale is probably from earlier times. Remember Genesis and stuff were bedtime stories the Hebrews told their children at night. But that doesn’t stop faith.

 

[SonOfMan]

. However, if you ask him if we have proof he doesn’t exist,and push him on this, an honest scientist will say absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.

I think if you push him on it he will continue to say no, unless you can present some evidence. Scientists dont really play the god of the gaps game.

 

[Della]

Would it matter if parts of the Bible aren’t true? For example, I was informed that the “slavery of Jews in Egypt is a big problem. Historians don’t think it ever happened and this story plays a huge part in the Old Testament.” and that “historians are convinced Moses didn’t exist and the books attributed to Moses were therefore not written by him”.

Does this matter? I just get worried that if parts like this are false, how are we to know the rest of our beliefs aren’t also?

You’re been asking questions along this line about the Bible by starting various threads focusing on this passage or that, saying that our faith is based on the accuracy of these passages.

First of all, the Bible is not the basis for our faith–Christ is. The Bible is a witness to God working with, in and for mankind, but it is not a strictly historical work nor does it pretend to be. It contains many forms of literature, but all of it tells us the same things–that God created all there is, that man owes God for his existence, that we fell from grace, and that God has given us his Son to redeem us. That is the core message of Holy Writ–not to tell us just what happened like a news report.

Secondly, reading websites that are created to destroy peoples’ faith is hardly a good source for clear and truthful information. They skew what they write to cast the Bible and faith in the worst light possible. Any website dedicated to destroying people’s faith in God or in a particular faith community is probably not what anyone should be reading for accurate data about anything.

The Egyptians are hardly going to record such a great defeat as the kind they suffered at the hands of God. They were known for destroying any negative “press” about themselves and their leaders, indeed putting a positive “spin” on defeats. And as others have pointed out there’s very little evidence for much of anything that still exists for that time. We barely have much from centuries closer to our own.

 

[DCNBILL]

I think if you push him on it he will continue to say no, unless you can present some evidence. Scientists dont really play the god of the gaps game.

But then again there are some honest scientists as well.

 

[SonOfMan]

But then again there are some honest scientists as well.

So an honest scientist, without any testable proof, would conclude that Bigfoot definitely exists because “absence of evidence doesnt mean evidence of absence”? Perhaps a pseudo-scientist, but not any credible professional.

 

[MatthewTrainor]

I find that explanation problematic because by the same argument and logic, “just because we cant archaelogically prove” the existence of Bigfoot doesnt mean that hes not out there. Absence of evidence isnt evidence of absence, apparently.

However, I think anyone who is intellectually honest will admit that Bigfoot doesn’t exist because they havent been provided with any good reasons to believe in his existence.

Belief in the truth of something and whether or not something is actually true are two different things. I agree that people can reasonably and rationally refuse to believe in both Bigfoot and the Exodus based on the current evidence, but this does not mean neither is true.

Let me put this another way: Do you believe that my uncle lives in Florida? I refuse to give you any evidence one way or the other. Anyone could say that they have no reason to believe my uncle lives in Florida since they have not been provided with any evidence that this is true. Does this lack of evidence mean that I do not have an uncle living in Florida? Of course not.

Of course I did not mean to imply that failure to disprove something is the same as proof in favor of it. That would be absurd.

True intellectual honesty is admitting one’s own ignorance. I’m kinda agnostic on the Bigfoot question myself, which is another way of saying that I don’t know if he exists or not.

 

[DCNBILL]

So an honest scientist, without any testable proof, would conclude that Bigfoot definitely exists because “absence of evidence doesnt mean evidence of absence”? Perhaps a pseudo-scientist, but not any credible professional.

Huh?

I was merely pointing out that there are still some honest scientists, the ones who are willing to give an honest answer to an honest question which is not evidenced above.

 

[DCNBILL]

So an honest scientist, without any testable proof, would conclude that Bigfoot definitely exists because “absence of evidence doesnt mean evidence of absence”? Perhaps a pseudo-scientist, but not any credible professional.

Belief in the truth of something and whether or not something is actually true are two different things. I agree that people can reasonably and rationally refuse to believe in both Bigfoot and the Exodus based on the current evidence, but this does not mean neither is true.

Let me put this another way: Do you believe that my uncle lives in Florida? I refuse to give you any evidence one way or the other. Anyone could say that they have no reason to believe my uncle lives in Florida since they have not been provided with any evidence that this is true. Does this lack of evidence mean that I do not have an uncle living in Florida? Of course not.

Of course I did not mean to imply that failure to disprove something is the same as proof in favor of it. That would be absurd.

True intellectual honesty is admitting one’s own ignorance. I’m kinda agnostic on the Bigfoot question myself, which is another way of saying that I don’t know if he exists or not.

There now you have an honest answer. Matthew, you wouldn’t happen to be a scientist would you?

 

[edwest2]

Would it matter if parts of the Bible aren’t true? For example, I was informed that the “slavery of Jews in Egypt is a big problem. Historians don’t think it ever happened and this story plays a huge part in the Old Testament.” and that “historians are convinced Moses didn’t exist and the books attributed to Moses were therefore not written by him”.

Does this matter? I just get worried that if parts like this are false, how are we to know the rest of our beliefs aren’t also?

Your question is not very specific. Who are these historians? Why do Jewish people celebrate Passover?

jewishworldreview.com/0401/prager.exodus.html

Ed

 

[MatthewTrainor]

There now you have an honest answer. Matthew, you wouldn’t happen to be a scientist would you?

I have a very diverse educational background that includes a Bachelor of Science degree. I think SonOfMan has simply gotten my argument a bit twisted around and has it transposed in his mind.

So an honest scientist, without any testable proof, would conclude that Bigfoot definitely exists because “absence of evidence doesnt mean evidence of absence”?

He seems to think I claimed that when I say something hasn’t been disproved that means it is proven. That wasn’t my intent. On any question of fact we are not restricted to only two answers, true or false, there’s always the middle ground of “I don’t know”

 

[Thorolfr]

According to the archaeologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silbeman in their book *The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Scripture *(New York: Simon and Schuster, 2001), 61-63:

According to the biblical account, the children of Israel wandered in the desert and mountains of the Sinai peninsula, moving around and camping in different places, for a full forty years. Even if the numbers of fleeing Israelites (given in the text as six hundred thousand) is wildly exaggerated or can be interpreted as representing smaller units of people, the text describes the survival of a great number of people under the most challenging conditions. Some archaeological traces of their generation long wandering in the Sinai should be apparent. However, except for the Egyptian forts along the northern coast, not a single campsite or sign of occupation from the time of Ramesses II and his immediate predecessors and successors has ever been identified in Sinai. And it has not been for lack of trying. Repeated archaeological surveys in all regions of the peninsula, including in the mountainous areas around the traditional site of Mount Sinai, near St. Catherine’s Monastery, have yielded only negative evidence: not even a single sherd, no structure, not a single house, no trace of an ancient encampment. One may argue that a relatively small band of wandering Israelites cannot be expected to leave material remains behind. But modern archaeological techniques are quite capable of tracing even the very meager remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world. Indeed, the archaeological record from the Sinai peninsula discloses evidence for pastoral activity in such eras as the third millennium BCE and the Hellenistic and Byzantine periods. There is simply no such evidence at the supposed time of the Exodus in the thirteenth century BCE.

The conclusion – that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner described in the Bible – seems irrefutable when we examine the evidence at specific sites where the children of Israel were said to have camped for extended periods during their wandering in the desert (Numbers 33) and where some archaeological indication – if present – would almost certainly be found. According to the biblical narrative, the children of Israel camped at Kadesh-barnea for thirty eight of the forty years of the wanderings. The general location of this place is clear from the description of the southern border of the land of Israel in Numbers 34….Yet repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze Age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees.

 

[SonOfMan]

On any question of fact we are not restricted to only two answers, true or false, there’s always the middle ground of “I don’t know”

Saying “I dont know” is the most reasonable approach. We dont have any evidence, therefore we dont have any reason to believe something happened,at least at the moment. Until there is evidence, then we can begin to investigate, and then we can see where the cards fall.

In the meantime, we can certainly use our reasoning to deem what is and isnt probable. In all these years there hasnt been a single corpse, not one remain, not one legitimate DNA sample, not one public encounter of a Bigfoot, therefore its reasonable to conclude that he most likely does not exist. To say he definitely does exist in the face of all that abscence of evidence, would be unreasonable.

But no believer says “I dont know.” They always seem to know with certainty that Bible events happened, that God exists, etc. without a single shred of evidence.

 

[Zadeth]

Saying “I dont know” is the most reasonable approach. We dont have any evidence, therefore we dont have any reason to believe something happened,at least at the moment. Until there is evidence, then we can begin to investigate, and then we can see where the cards fall.

In the meantime, we can certainly use our reasoning to deem what is and isnt probable. In all these years there hasnt been a single corpse, not one remain, not one legitimate DNA sample, not one public encounter of a Bigfoot, therefore its reasonable to conclude that he most likely does not exist. To say he definitely does exist in the face of all that abscence of evidence, would be unreasonable.

But no believer says “I dont know.” They always seem to know with certainty that Bible events happened, that God exists, etc. without a single shred of evidence.

I know a lot of people (myself as a prime example) who struggle with their faith… I assume most people do, at some point in their life. Some people, like myself, have had experiences with what we would call the ‘supernatural’, in that my previous house, and the neighbouring one, was haunted. Whilst it may not be direct evidence of God Himself, it seems that there is something beyond this physical world we live in.