Evidence for God from Science

Do we have any reasonably effective answers to the question "How do you know the [insert Holy Book of choice] actually IS the "word of God" (or inspired by God, or approved by God, or ... )? Atheists generally make a point that the Holy book has passed thru many human hands and the origin of the material therein is of highly suspect origins.

Any suggestions how to respond?

waynepii wrote:Do we have any reasonably effective answers to the question "How do you know the [insert Holy Book of choice] actually IS the "word of God" (or inspired by God, or approved by God, or ... )? Atheists generally make a point that the Holy book has passed thru many human hands and the origin of the material therein is of highly suspect origins.

Any suggestions how to respond?

There are many related articles at the main site - here's the page with the list of them: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... icity.html

Here's some information that I gathered on the topic a while ago too. Is this what you had in mind?

The Reliability of the Bible and Jesus Christ

The Old Testament

The bible itself claims that it is the word of God, hundreds of times. There are other religious texts that claim this, but they are unverifiable.

• Jesus said the bible is the word of God. Scholars do not refute Jesus' existence, and evidence for the New Testament is overwhelming (as we'll see in the next section). So was Jesus lying or mistaken?

• The Old Testament's accuracy was confirmed when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and translated. The OT texts were found to be astonishingly accurate. Archaeology has confirmed the OT many times, including the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the conquest of Jericho, and various things written about by the Assyrians.

• The prophets were convinced that it was the word of God, and many died for their convictions. No other religion has documented prophecies that have come true, yet there are many OT prophecies that have. Many of these relate to Jesus and so will be given in that section. Some examples of OT prophecies that have been fulfilled are: the destruction of the city or Tyre (Ezekiel 26:3-14, 21); the desolation of the Kingdom of Edom (Jeremiah 49:17-18); concerning Cyrus and the restoration of Jerusalem (Isaiah 44:24-28); and, concerning Alexander the Great (Daniel 11:2-4).

The New Testament

• The New Testament documents were virtually all written by Jesus' apostles or their associates, therefore they were written by actual witnesses or persons close to them. Documents that were found to be false or heretical were kept out of the canon at the councils of Carthage (393) and Hippo (397).

• There are some fragments of documents dating to the time, and near to the time, of the apostles. There is a complete works of Paul dating to AD 180, and a gospel of John from around AD175. The earliest whole documents are from the 300s, though we know that the NT was written between the 40s and 90s (Jesus was crucified somewhere between AD30 and AD33). Of the earliest Greek translations, there are ~5,300 (Latin and other ancient languages account for ~17,200 more). Compare these data to Aristotle. He wrote in the 300s BC, but the earliest copy we have is from 1400 years later, and there are only five ancient copies of his work. Homer wrote the Iliad about 900 BC and there are 643 ancient copies of it, but the oldest copy is from 500 years later. The NT is by far the best documented ancient work we have.

• Because of the amount and type of ancient NT copies, scholars can recover 97%-99% of the original content; the 5,300 earliest texts substantially agree 99.5% of the time.

• Archaeology and ancient writings confirm the NT. Persons who wrote about Jesus or the Christians are: Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (109-111); the historian Tacitus (55-120 AD); Emperor Hadrian's (117-138 AD) secretary, Seutonius; Josephus (37-100), a Jewish historian; and the satirist Lucian (2nd century).

Jesus Christ

• His claims to diety. This one is easy, although some people who don't want to believe what's written in the bible will say that much of the NT is just made up. If you want to continue to believe that, despite much evidence to the contrary, then we're at a dead end here. However, if you believe that the NT is reliable, then there's not much choice. Jesus claimed to be the Messiah and the son of God, and even the “I Am” (the “name” that God revealed to Moses for Himself) many times. As CS Lewis wrote, you can't simply accept Jesus as a good moral teacher. Since he claimed to be the son of God, he was either correct, crazy, or a liar. He was either telling the truth, or he was someone that we shouldn't trust.

• His resurrection. The ultimate miracle is Jesus' resurrection, and it is probably the most difficult for nonbelievers to accept. If a person doesn't want to believe the eyewitness testimony about it found in the NT, there is circumstantial evidence too. Presenting it would indeed take no small amount of space, however. One can consider Paul—only one person, for sure-- but a very very compelling one regarding this subject. Before his conversion, Paul (then named Saul), had everything going for him. He was trained by the best Jewish teachers, was highly educated otherwise as well, and was a Roman citizen. A very unusual combination! He was a Pharisee who was very zealous in his persecution of the new Christians, even happy to see them put to death. However, he had a conversion experience with the resurrected Jesus and he found himself on the “other side.” It took a while for the other apostles to accept him, but eventually they did, and his writings now make up a great amount of the NT. In the end, he died for his faith, just like most of the apostles and early disciples. In 1 Corinthians 15:17 he wrote: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.” Jesus' contemporary followers and his post-resurrection followers all believed he was resurrected because either they were witnesses to it themselves, or they believed these witnesses along with all the other evidence. One-third of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ is devoted to looking at the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, so the reader may want to check that out.

• Related prophecies. There are many OT prophecies fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and taken together they are a major proof for the Christian faith. No other religions have any prophetic proof. For the sake of brevity, I will only give a few here. (1) Daniel 9:25 & 26 predict when the Messiah will make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem and when he will die. (2) Zechariah 11:12 talks of the betrayer receiving 30 pieces of silver, and Matthew 26:14, 15, provide that Judas Iscariot was given 30 pieces of silver for his betrayal of Jesus. (3) Isaiah talks of God's righteous servant in chapter 53; in 53:12 it states that he shall be numbered with the transgressors. In Mark 15:27, 28, we read that Jesus was crucified with criminals. Crucifixion was not only very horrible, but it was the worst (most shameful) type of execution conducted by the Romans.

waynepii wrote:Do we have any reasonably effective answers to the question "How do you know the [insert Holy Book of choice] actually IS the "word of God" (or inspired by God, or approved by God, or ... )? Atheists generally make a point that the Holy book has passed thru many human hands and the origin of the material therein is of highly suspect origins.

Any suggestions how to respond?

I would ask the atheists for their evidence.
If they should come up with anything, give them cslewislover's post and see what happens.

It is (usually) pointless to debate run-of-the-mill atheists as most of them don't know much about the Bible.
They tend to use talking points from the likes of Harris, Dawkins, etc. Not exactly reliable sources.

Cross.eyed wrote: I would ask the atheists for their evidence.

I believe it is called the third council of Carthage. The point at which the church arbitrarily decided which gospels, and which versions of the gospels, to canonize. Using a 40 year old recommendation from the Bishop of Alexandria, the popular and most widely used gospels were declared correct, and all others were destroyed. Try reading the Quaran, a few of the lost gospels wound up in there. Most were irrevocably destroyed, though they pop up now and again for biblical scholars to get all excited about. In any event, by the time the New Testament was finalized it was almost four hundred years past the death of Jesus. There wasn't a single entity, not even the church, controlling doctrine. I would parallel it to the King Arthur legend. It came about a long time, but no one wrote it down, and even if they did, people kept adding to it and changing it. By the time a widely accepted version, a cannoicol Arthurian legend, came about the story had been kicking around normandy for hundreds of years and was so mixed with history and fact and legend no one can tell the truth from the story.

Ogjak wrote: I believe it is called the third council of Carthage. The point at which the church arbitrarily decided which gospels, and which versions of the gospels, to canonize. Using a 40 year old recommendation from the Bishop of Alexandria, the popular and most widely used gospels were declared correct, and all others were destroyed. Try reading the Quaran, a few of the lost gospels wound up in there. Most were irrevocably destroyed, though they pop up now and again for biblical scholars to get all excited about. In any event, by the time the New Testament was finalized it was almost four hundred years past the death of Jesus. There wasn't a single entity, not even the church, controlling doctrine. I would parallel it to the King Arthur legend. It came about a long time, but no one wrote it down, and even if they did, people kept adding to it and changing it. By the time a widely accepted version, a cannoicol Arthurian legend, came about the story had been kicking around normandy for hundreds of years and was so mixed with history and fact and legend no one can tell the truth from the story.

Your response here shows how much you disregard historical evidences. You know, real ones, stuff that real historians and archaeologists use. The canonized books were chosen on their authenticity and for other reasons. The "lost" gospels and other books were either known to be false or not inspired. Would you like to hear stories on the news that you thought were true, then later found that they were made up? The church leaders at the time of course chose the books that they knew were reliable. Your comparison using the King Arthur legend is more than laughable. The books in the NT were written by witnesses to the living Jesus, or their associates, and then handed down until they became canon. The King Arthur legend is based on almost nothing, with much of what people think of him being written six centuries later after he (apparently) lived.

cslewislover wrote: Your response here shows how much you disregard historical evidences. You know, real ones, stuff that real historians and archaeologists use. The canonized books were chosen on their authenticity and for other reasons. The "lost" gospels and other books were either known to be false or not inspired. Would you like to hear stories on the news that you thought were true, then later found that they were made up? The church leaders at the time of course chose the books that they knew were reliable. Your comparison using the King Arthur legend is more than laughable. The books in the NT were written by witnesses to the living Jesus, or their associates, and then handed down until they became canon. The King Arthur legend is based on almost nothing, with much of what people think of him being written six centuries later after he (apparently) lived.

I like how you accuse me of willfully throwing out known and accepted evidence (known by me) rather than being simply misinformed. I'd point out that atheist make the same charges against you. So maybe you should reign in that kind of behavior. Unless of course your goal is only vindicate yourself, in which case by all mean proceed.

I would like to invite you to tell me any historical evidence that historians or archaeologists might use to support the propositions you've made. I don't need things to be cited or any such nonsense, just what you've been told, read or heard. I would like to know about why you believe that the gospels in the NT, to the exclusion of others, were written by associates or witnesses of Jesus.

Ogjak,

There are plenty of interesting sites on this, but if you really want to get detailed answers, I'd suggest you pick up a New Testament Introduction. There are plenty of very good ones out there. Probably the standards are either Carson, Moo, and Morris' or else Guthrie's. Both are fairly inexpensive. You can get them on Amazon for around the $20 mark, if not less.

A NT Intro will have a section on what is called canonization, that is, the process by which certain books were recognized as being authoritative and others rejected. Any website is going to get their info from those kinds of sources anyway, so you may as well start there.

The short answer, in any case, is that NT books were accepted as those which were written by the Apostles or their close associates. Contrary to popular belief, it is rather easy to show that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The only books that are ever seriously questioned would be 2 Peter and perhaps Hebrews.

Concerning the OT, I would again recommend an OT Intro. Archer probably has the best. The process of its canonization isn't nearly as "neat," but that process is never really questioned by anyone, atheist or otherwise. The debates there surround the widely debunked source documentary methodologies that critics tend to use. The bottom line there is that, if those critics are right, then the compilation of sources is the canonization process, and so no more study is necessary. It is only if you accept that the documents were written by their original authors that such a question arises, but if you accept THAT premise, then the canonization of the OT becomes rather self-evident.

So, yes - pick up an NT Intro (Guthrie or Carson, Moo, and Morris) and an OT Intro (Archer) and you should have a great start to getting your question answered.

God bless

Thank you for that information Jac. I am interested in history as a general topic, but what i'm more interested in, hence my question to cslewislover, isn't the specific "technical" information, but rather how it is perceived. What happened may be an objective fact, whether we know what that is or not is a different matter. But how we act ultimately relies on our perceptions and interpretations rather than an objectively defined fact/s. What those perceptions are, and why they are held, are my specific interest. And that can only be personal, subjective.

Forgive me, but maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were asking about how the Bible came together/how we know how the Bible (particularly the NT) came together, especially with reference to the fact that there were some books that were "left out". Did I misunderstand you? If not, I don't really understand how that is a subjective question?

Cross.eyed wrote:I would ask the atheists for their evidence.

Their evidence??? They want evidence that God exists. Asking them for evidence God doesn't exist is invariably countered with requests for evidence that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, purple unicorns, [insert mythical being of choice] doesn't exist.

If they should come up with anything, give them cslewislover's post and see what happens.

It is (usually) pointless to debate run-of-the-mill atheists as most of them don't know much about the Bible.
They tend to use talking points from the likes of Harris, Dawkins, etc. Not exactly reliable sources.

They point out that the Bible was written by people, translated by people, printed by people. Further, they claim that while there is certainly some historical facts in the Bible, the miracles and prophesies described have very little if any to supporting them.

Ogjak wrote:Thank you for that information Jac. I am interested in history as a general topic, but what i'm more interested in, hence my question to cslewislover, isn't the specific "technical" information, but rather how it is perceived. What happened may be an objective fact, whether we know what that is or not is a different matter. But how we act ultimately relies on our perceptions and interpretations rather than an objectively defined fact/s. What those perceptions are, and why they are held, are my specific interest. And that can only be personal, subjective.

Jac3510 wrote:Forgive me, but maybe I misunderstood you. I thought you were asking about how the Bible came together/how we know how the Bible (particularly the NT) came together, especially with reference to the fact that there were some books that were "left out". Did I misunderstand you? If not, I don't really understand how that is a subjective question?

I think Jac is very correct in questioning you, ogjak. The technical information is needed in order to base our perceptions on something. I'm not going to believe the bible unless I think it's valid, and I'm not going to believe it's valid based on sentimentality. Based on your response above, you could be one of those people out there who doesn't believe we actually ever landed on the moon, or that Auschwitz was a reality. Either you believe evidence, or you don't. Of course, the futher back in time one goes, the harder it can be to verify the authenticity of documents and what is in them. Does one believe the writings of the original witnesses? Does one believe the integrity of copyists? It seems to be me that you look at the evidence and the technical data, and decide for yourself.

So the evidence that you've accepted is...

Og, that question is too broad. There have been whole books written on the evidence of just the NT, just the OT, of just the Synoptics, of just certain aspects of the evidence (i.e., authorship, transmission, preservation, textual criticism, etc.).

If you have a specific question in terms of evidence, it is easy to supply. But for a general study, I HIGHLY recommend you pick up the materials I suggested earlier. They are very inexpensive, and though scholarly, I have no doubt you will be able to follow the vast majority of the discussions.

So, not to brush you off, but I can't write a 70 page response. This is just a discussion forum.

waynepii wrote:

Cross.eyed wrote:I would ask the atheists for their evidence.

Their evidence??? They want evidence that God exists. Asking them for evidence God doesn't exist is invariably countered with requests for evidence that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, purple unicorns, [insert mythical being of choice] doesn't exist.

If they should come up with anything, give them cslewislover's post and see what happens.

It is (usually) pointless to debate run-of-the-mill atheists as most of them don't know much about the Bible.
They tend to use talking points from the likes of Harris, Dawkins, etc. Not exactly reliable sources.

They point out that the Bible was written by people, translated by people, printed by people. Further, they claim that while there is certainly some historical facts in the Bible, the miracles and prophesies described have very little if any to supporting them.

I was referring to the "highly suspect origins" part of your OP.
If they are truly looking for evidence of God's existence, they would explain the problems of suspicion they have with facts.
Without anything factual, they really don't have a claim,and its useless to debate.

I use to argue points of evidence for the existence of God on another board before I came here.
Almost all the atheists used opinions from from the "unholy trinity" of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, etal.
Whenever I gave them facts, they dismissed them without consideration or just ignored them altogether.

My apologies if I missed your main point.