Sensei Meela

Greetings, all.

Have been lurking the boards for a little while and am amazed at the civility and thoughtfulness of the posters, and must admit to feeling somehwat inferior.

I've been arguing (with some ostensibly venomous language) the Bibles veracity with a creationist who (surprise?) doesn't accept my statements and wants to see where they came from (hey, at least he's willing to look?). Here's his specific request which is giving me difficulty:

"Could you please state what proof you have that biblical events never happened and give the source to the proof?"

I've already repreated myself (and again) that science doesn't "prove" anything; it tentatively accepts adequate conclusions while rejecting others. So what "reliable sources" may I cite on, say, the theological composition of early Isrealites/Jews, impossibilities of miraculous or mythological events, changing/alterations of holy texts, etc.?

(PS, I've found a few threads here that have similarly related topics, but thus far have not found anything convincing within them...or is this a futile effort, since he always has the special knowledge appeal?)

[edit -- upon re-reading the title, I regret that my wording way have been misleading ,and I apologize].

cjack

First off, welcome fellow Az infidel!


Aside from the fact that it is damned difficult to prove something never happened (can we prove that Socrates never ate a ham sandwich?), you'd have to provide examples of which biblical events are in question.

If we're talking major events like the flood, the Hebrews leaving Egypt and living in the desert for years, etc., you could offer that there is no evidence of these things occurring.

No Egyptian records of the Exodus, no mention of Moses, plagues, firstborn sons dying en masse, etc. You'd think that someone would have recorded the whole Red Sea debacle if it had actually happened, right?

No archaeological evidence for large numbers of Hebrews living in the Sinai for 40 years, etc.

You also might want to point out that, aside from Biblical sources, there is little or no evidence that the person of Jesus ever existed.

Generally speaking, I'd put the burden of proof on your cretinist friend. Let him have a go at "proving" the Sun stood still (leaving aside the fact that, relative to us, it's stationary!). See if he can dig up evidence for the Flood, a location for the Garden of Eden, and throw in some Roman historical mentions of Jesus.

DrJim

You can also ask him to "prove" that King David ruled a great empire from Jerusalem and that his kid Solomon was one of the most powerful and prestigeous monarches of his time. I'll bet all he can come up with are uncountable number of book called "History of Israel" that simply assumes this on the basis of the biblical story, and then ignores the fact that no ancient inscription, letter etc. ever mentions a United Monarchy in Jerusalem, or an emperor David, or even a petty-king named Solomon. Hard to have empire that no-one ever notices, let alone fights to avoid becoming part of, or rebells or conspires against.

JRL.

Sensei Meela

Thanks fo the welcome, cjack.

That is essentially the tactic I've been using; but for some reason, he just doesn't trust TalkOrigins or Infidels. ;^)

He will admit to the "implausibility" of some stories but still maintains that god can do anything - which is the equivelent to saying "I don't get it either, but so what?" in my book.

I was hoping for something akin to what DrJim has posted, about the historical/archelogical/scholarly look into Christianity and pre-Christian Judaism.

And for some reason, the very first thread on this forum totally escaped my sight!! I am indeed sorry for posting this (redundant) topic.

Thanks all.

Doctor X

Sensei Meela:

I cannot recommend enough a wonderful book linked in Recommended Reading--Archeaology and the Bible.

Regarding, say, Exodus, it has a nice and cogent summary of the evidence against it ever happening without polemic or a need for a Ph.D. in ancient languages.

This may not convince your creationist, but it will be hard for him to refute . . . unless he has dug something up recently in the bathroom of an Israeli dealer. . . .

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

I don't know how you can go about falsifying things if you don't accept canons of plausibility nor reliability of other sources...

You might see how he responds to this; it's a minor and non-miraculous detail. Acts 10:1 says, "There was a certain man in Caesarea named Cornelius. He was a centurion from the Cohort known as The Italian." Luke Timothy Johnson writes of Acts 10:1: "The reader is reminded at once of the earlier centurion (=leader of 100 men) who sent mesengers to Jesus with a request for help (Luke 7:1-10). There is archaeological evidence for a Second Italian Cohort (speira = app. 600 men) stationed in Syria around 69 C.E., but we have no evidence supporting the presence of the unit named here in Caesarea for the period 41-44 C.E.; see Josephus, Antiquities 19:365-366." (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 181)

best,
Peter Kirby

Doctor X

Peter:

But you need to consider the SPIRIT of the passage. . . .

--J.D.

Madkins007

Sensai- this request is a common tactic (in fact, I believe I have seen it specifically mentioned on another website), and it is a difficult one to fulfill.

The points made earlier are valid, but all he has to do is to mention that just because the proof has not been found does not invalidate the event.

You might try asking him to set the Bible aside for a moment and show some solid signs of Creationism in the world as we know it. Rather than asking you to prove a negative (nearly impossible), ask him instead to show an example of something that evolution cannot explain, or for any evidence of man co-existing with dinos.

(If he comes up with some, let us know. I've heard many of them before and can help refute them, and I bet others here can do the same PDQ.)

(FYI- I am a Christian, but I think that Creation Science is anything but.)

Unbeliever

You might try pointing out Judges 1:19 to him. After all, if God can't even defeat chariots of iron, there must be many other things he's unable to accomplish!

Sensei Meela

Would that others could appreciate this, as you do.
Sorry if the nuance of this statement is lost on me...does it suggest that I a priori dismiss plausibility of Biblical events by assuming the Bible unreliable? Or should I read it as:

"I don't know how you can go about falsifying things [in his eyes] if [he doesn't] accept canons of plausibility nor [the] reliability of other sources..."

Or have I just got it all wrong? To wit, I'm not looking to falsify the events per se (as I acknowledge the difficulty involved), and again I apologize for the misleading and poorly chosen wording of the topic.

Thanks all for the helpful replies.