Jack the Bodiless

There has been much discussion lately of matters relating to the "burden of proof" regarding Bblical claims. In particular, apologists will seek to claim that the truth of the Bible is the default position, and is valid until disproved (leading to rather desperate "interpretations" of apparent errors and contradictions in the Bible).

Let's try a different approach. Rather than focusing on Biblical errors, let's see some support for the basic position: that the Bible (or at least a PART of it) is divinely inspired.

Remember, "argumentum ad populum" is a logical fallacy, and only a third of the world is Christian anyhow. Also, accounts of miraculous healings and "God changing my life" do nothing to prove the divine inspiration of the BIBLE: we're NOT attempting to establish the existence of a God here (and such accounts aren't limited to Christianity anyhow).

For the purposes of this discussion, I'd rather not dwell on Biblical errors for the following reasons:

1. We have existing threads on these.

2. An error in a part of the Bible would not prove that ANOTHER part of the Bible isn't divinely inspired (it is, after all, a collection of books).

3. Even if inerrancy COULD be demonstrated, this alone would NOT establish that the Bible is divinely inspired. An "inerrant" collection of books could be written if each author takes care not to contradict himself or others, and competent editors could remove any contradictions that creep in. And it's rather obvious that the tactics of apologists, if applied to virtually ANY other book, would allow it to be "inerrant" too.

...So, the apologist will get to choose which part of the Bible to present as evidence of "divine inspiration". However, the apologist MUST take full responsibility for the burden of proof. The "truth of the Bible" CANNOT be simply assumed. It is only one of many "holy books": WHY should anyone assume it's different to all the others?

If "prophecy fulfilment" is used, the claimed "prophecy" MUST meet ALL the requirements for a successful prophecy. It must be clear and unambiguous, not something obvious or easily guessed, it must be made before the event, it should not be something that the prophecy-believers can make happen, and its fulfilment should be verifiable.

Any takers?

achristianbeliever

I have a problem with this one. I'll take for example the destruction of the temple in 70AD. How much evidence is needed to prove Matthew, Mark, Luke, John were written before the event? Because I believe there is evidence for it. But if I give evidence could you just simply deny the evidence or is it the non-believer's responsibility to counter the evidence with actual evidence themselves and not just give assumptions?

Jack the Bodiless

If you believe you have evidence, then let's see the evidence. But if you merely believe (for reasons of faith) that the prophecy was written before the event: that is insufficient. If the evidence is insufficient to determine whether the writing of the prophecy was before or after: the burden of proof here rests with the prophecy-proponent, the skeptic has no such burden (as the default position must be that the Bible isn't divinely inspired).

achristianbeliever

That didn't answer my question. If the Christian gives evidence that gives reasons to believe Matthew, Mark, Luke, John were written before 70AD is that enough? If the Christian gives what they say is evidence will you just reply, "Oh ok thanks for answering my criteria" or will you try to counter it? And if you are going to counter it does the skeptic have any responsibility to counter the evidence with their own evidence or can they just use speculation and assumptions in order to counter it?

Jack the Bodiless

Why don't you simply present this "evidence"?

Without knowing exactly what you're referring to, it's difficult to give a specific reply. But, in general: if there is no evidence which contradicts the skeptic's "speculation and assumptions" (presumably, plausible alternative explanations which might account for the evidence), then the skeptic's argument stands, due to the burden-of-proof issue (which still rests with the prophecy-proponent).

Let's try a non-Christian example. It was prophesied that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother: and, according to the story, the prophecy was fulfilled. This is certainly specific enough to be a successful prophecy, but rather lacking in supporting evidence. Is the skeptic required to demonstrate that "it's only a story"? Of course not: the skeptic's "speculation and assumption" is sufficient.

achristianbeliever

Because your not answering my questions. And until you do I have no reason to bother with your proposal. Besides you can clearly tell my proposed prediction is based on at least 1 of the gospels being written before 70AD.

But the problem is you could just speculate and assume on every evidence I give. Speculation comes cheap. An example:

Christian:The book of Matthew predicts this.
skeptic: That book was written after the event.
Christian: based on what evidence?
skeptic: you have the burden of proof.
Christian: Well this document indicates it was written before the event.
skeptic: that book was a forgery.
Christian: based on what evidence?
skeptic: you have the burden of proof.
Christian: these manuscripts indicate both were written before the event.
skeptic: there isn't enough there to indicate its the document you describe.
Christian: based on what evidence?
skeptic: you have the burden of proof.
Christian: shouldn't all these combined indicate Matthew was probably written before the event?
skeptic: no

If this is the way the conversation is gonna go then I don't want to do this.

Again I ask 2 questions:
If the Christian gives what they say is evidence will you just reply, "Oh ok thanks for answering my criteria" or will you try to counter it?

And if you are going to counter it does the skeptic have any responsibility to counter the evidence with their own evidence or can they just use speculation and assumptions in order to counter it?

Celine

achristianbeliever,
It seems to me that what you're asking for here is that a text "prove" itself, or represent "evidence" for itself. Am I correct? And would you permit other texts to do this, in other arguments?
Celine

Jack the Bodiless

...A claim for which you have presented no evidence (yet).

Meanwhile, let's have a look at your hypothetical scenario:
Without any means of pinning down the date of authorship: yes, it is reasonable to suppose that the book was written later.
A skeptic might argue that the document could be a forgery, but "that book was a forgery" is a rather strong claim: burden-of-proof for that claim shifts to the skeptic.
Under the circumstances, yes: given that the canonical gospels were not definitely assigned to their traditional authors until the 2nd century, and that there is textual evidence of modification of their contents, it would be entirely reasonable to suggest that an early reference to a "Gospel of Matthew" either might not be the same book, or might not have contained the supposed prophecy back then.
OK, fair enough. It seems that you appreciate the problems inherent in such a demonstration.

...But note that, generally, the "speculations" of the skeptics are supported by some evidence of their own. For instance (to use a different example), skeptics didn't decide to assume that Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC simply because it was a convenient explanation for "successful prophecies" prior to that date: there are legitimate contextual reasons for choosing that specific timeframe.
I will try to counter it, yes. Or, rather, I will point out reasonable weaknesses in the case presented: we will see if such weaknesses are serious problems. I see no reason to resort to "the Bible was tampered with" EVERY time, and the apologist may assume that (for instance) the text of the Old Testament has not been altered in New Testament times (other than by mistranslation issues).

And "speculations and assumptions" are sufficient to counter such claims (due to the burden-of-proof issue), though it helps if the skeptic can provide supporting evidence for the assumption: this might not be possible in all cases.

Julian

achristianbeliever,

it is quite simple. In this case you are dealing with two opposing claims. One says that the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple. The other claim that it was written before. The evidence can be presented for both sides and whichever has the strongest evidence will be the prevailing view. Simple. You know what the post-70 evidence is, now present yours. If it is better, I would be happy to accept it.

Julian

John Kesler

This exchange and subsequent discussion seems to me rather misplaced since predicting the destruction of the Jerusalem temple is rather unremarkable given the tensions that existed between Romans and Jews. Rather, I think that this prophecy fails to meet Jack's second stated criterion: "not something obvious or easily guessed."