Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Sean Pitman.
This is a different argument entirely. Now, you’re arguing against historical credibility. It seems as though you do understand at least something of the concept of the science and value of determining the credibility of a witness.
Now, if your arguments against Biblical credibility proved to be reasonable, this effort would indeed undermine the rational credibility of the Biblical claims. However, if the claims of the Bible show themselves to be true, contrary to the claims of the Biblical critics, then the Bible would maintain credibility while the credibility of the Biblical critics would fail. And, in my opinion, this is just what has happened. The arguments for the “Documentary Hypothesis” of the Biblical critics, which you cite, simply don’t hold water as far as I’ve been able to tell – to include the arguments for multiple primary authors of the creation narrative, multiple non-complimentary creation accounts, and the supposed extensive editing of the Genesis account during and after the Babylonian exile. Many of the original DH claims have also been falsified by more modern archaeological discoveries – so much so that many modern scholars no longer accept the documentary hypothesis as credible.
Consider also that the oldest written account of Alexander the Great is dated 400 hundreds of years after his death. In other words, his story is based almost entirely on word of mouth. Yet, historians do not question the main points of history attributed to him, the things he said or the things he did, despite the lack of direct physical evidence. Why not?
And, as far as confirmatory witnesses are concerned, one cannot get better than the personal witness of Jesus Himself concerning the historicity of the Genesis account. Jesus, who claimed to have existed before Abraham (John 8:58), who claimed to have seen Satan fall from heaven like lightening during the original rebellion in heaven (Luke 10:18), also claimed that the story of Adam and Eve and the creation account was true (Matthew 19:4). How credible are such claims coming from someone claiming to be an eyewitness? – a Divine eyewitness at that?
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
What is interesting is that the older the creation/Flood stories (which are practically universal in cultures around the world), the closer they match the Biblical account. In other worlds, the evidence at hand strongly favors that the Biblical account in the original account from which all other accounts are derived. Also, the details of the Biblical account described in Genesis are supported by archaeological evidence that confirms various details long believed to be in question or even mythical – such as the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities that were catastrophically destroyed (mentioned in the same order in the Ebla Tablets).
In any case, you’re not mentioning anything new here. These attempts to challenge Biblical credibility have been around for a long time. However, the Bible keeps trumping all efforts to undermine its credibility. It has shown itself to be the most reliable historical text that we have. No other historical text or resource comes remotely close.
For a further discussion along these lines, to include a discussion of the origin of the 7-day weekly cycle in history, see: http://ssnet.org/blog/origin-of-sabbath-7-day-week/
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thank you for your clarification Bob. I certainly agree.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thanks Bob for your candour in recoznizing the likelihood of redaction in the Bible. What got left out, amended, embellished?
As already noted, the names of places were likely updated over time, but not the historical narrative – information which was lost outside of the Scriptural accounts. In fact, this is one of the best evidences that the authors cited by Scripture really did write these accounts in their own day.
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
