**Jesus took the history of Exodus literally. John 3:14.
**

I don’t see that. Jesus indeed pointed to it but He also pointed to Jonah’s story as an example, and not many scholars have taken that literally at all, then or now. I can refer to the Good Samaritan as an example of how to act knowing full well that it was never determined that such a man or such an incident actually existed. It’s safe to say that Jesus made it up. It was a parable.

**If Jesus did not get history correct—why should I accept his statements about the Law and Prophets as valid? **

1) Was history the question or was Jesus’ truth the question? I’d say the latter was at issue. I don’t see a great error in not mentioning the literary writings. [I recommend posting a definition of what inerrancy means to you.]
2) You seem so sure that historical evidence, future historical evidence, will tell a far different tale, one that puts Moses into the realm of fiction. This is still a great assumption.

The truth is that Jesus used parables, and these stories are common in the Bible. By your measuring stick, wouldn’t these parables make the Bible errant because they were not factual? On those grounds, I would find the Bible indefensible. Most of the historical narrative in its pages would have to be considered fables until bit by bit it is backed up by archaeological discoveries. And then what? What if we find in the meantime that they are good fables? That we can apply their truths and see things fall into place around us?

I don’t see how anyone could walk in the light of Christianity while waiting for a more accurate historical confirmation of its principal facts. The fact is that the infallibility of Christ’s teachings are what attracts us to Christianity. Paul Tillich and Thomas Merton wrote volumes on Christianity yet not one book on archaeological data to back up the Bible’s historical claims. The answer as to why that is is simple; the evidence was in their own lives.

You and HIS are on an exciting journey to look for the historical roots of what the Bible claims. I’m with you 100% on that. It’s healthy for Christians to keep up with new discoveries both in science and archaeology. But we can’t make that the rock of our faith because it’s very crumbly. We don’t want to be the racehorse that gets stuck in the starting gate.
Blessings.

I feel, at times, as if I am perpetually debating “they.” You know who “they” is. When a person starts a claim or story with “They say…” We never can find the elusive “they” or where “they” came from. Often the person themselves will not remember where the claim originated or to whom I should turn to find this “they.”

The other day, I was listening to Dr. Kroll on “Back to the Bible” and he made the statement, “They found a copy of the Gospel of John dated to 125 A.D.” This is only correct in the most loosest of senses, being that they found a scrap of papyrus with portions of Greek words from five (5) verses from John, which was dated to 150 C.E. /- 25 years by the writing.

As he was speaking, I could picture in my mind the chain of events that was about to occur. Some pastor, listening to Dr. Kroll, will assume the Dr. had thoroughly researched the issue and was speaking the Gospel truth. Besides, no Christian would mislead, true? The pastor, justifiably, would accept that the research was done, and log this tidbit away for future use.

A few months later, to bolster his sermon on John 3:16, the pastor demonstrates his depth of study by proclaiming, “They found a copy of the Gospel of John dated to 125 A.D.” Some layperson, who teaches a Sunday School, hears that and files it away in memory. A few months later, uses the same sentence in a class. (And this is assuming that the statement stays the exact same. Most times it gets tweaked to more than the Gospel of John, or a bit earlier date.)

Soon that sentence is traveling ‘round the Christian circles. Some day a Christian hears it, and realizes that they heard it from a pastor, a teacher, and a radio personality. From THAT many sources (all Christian) it simply MUST be true!

And so, the Christian enters the Internet world, fully loaded for battle, and proclaims with confidence that “They found a copy of the Gospel of John dated to 125 A.D.” I ask where the person heard THAT claim. “They say it.” I am fighting “they.”

So I ask for evidence. Backing. Proof. Luckily for the Christian “Google” is a well-worn bookmark, so they googlewhack it. Only to discover that it was not exactly as they thought. What to do? Can’t have this blasted hard-hearted heathen actually be right, can we? (Note: I poke fun at myself, too.)

They cling on the fact that there is “some” controversy surrounding the dating, hold on to the fact that 125 must be true, since numerous other Christians say so, and wander off to discuss “election” with the Calvinists.

The reason I ask for evidence, jennypo, is not solely for me. (I am interested, of course, to see if something new developed that I was unaware. Often is the case some new theory is out there I hadn’t heard before.) It is partly for the theist. I hope the theist looks up the evidence for themselves. Rather than accepting it from a pastor, or teacher, or even a Christian book, look at the evidence itself.

For example, you listed articles by David Wood. Do you know what David Wood’s evidence, not his claim, not his argument, but what his base evidence was for the proposition of invasion? Incorrect radiocarbon dating of material from Jericho. You read that right—it was WRONG dating! Upon other dating of the same material, it was demonstrated he was off by 150 years. The correct date aligns with every other claim of Kenyon.

Yet what do I see? (And not pointing the finger at you, particularly, here.) Christians continue to use Wood (or Wyatt) as the evidence for the claimed invasion. It is the perpetual “they.” An incorrect claim is spread ‘round and ‘round the Christian community enough that everyone begins to believe it.

Thanks to interactions such as this blog, I am starting to see a glimpse of hope, though. I am starting to see Christians telling other Christians to NOT use this incorrect data. I think, frankly, it is a wise move.

Anyway, you are right. There are respected scholars who disagree with me. I have just never seen a single piece of evidence as to why. I know the claims; just don’t see the evidence. All I can do is keep asking for the evidence, in the hopes of either discovering something I did not know earlier, or, if there is no evidence, hope that the Christian discovers that fact for themselves.

I apologize if I gave the impression that Christians “put on airs” on Sunday, or even that I did. What I was saying was that I used my skeptical mind on Monday through Saturday, and for some bizarre reason turned off that same mind come Sunday.

I did not mean to give the impression, either, that Christianity needs to be proven “beyond a reasonably doubt.” You are quite correct, to be fair, if I held others to that standard, I should equally be held to the same. Such a claim would surely come back to bite me in the hinny!

The standard I use is preponderance of the evidence. More likely than not. More plausible than the opposing position.

Actually, when copying Mark, the author of Matthew added Jesus saying the “Law and the Prophets” hang on “Love God. Love your neighbor.” Nothing about the historical (or poetic either, for that matter) books. Jesus took the history of Exodus literally. John 3:14.

I understand the sentiment. But this is asking me to take the person who said it at face value. To not test his credibility. (Oddly, in direct contradiction to what the Bible tells me to do. 1 Thess. 5:21)

If Jesus did not get history correct—why should I accept his statements about the Law and Prophets as valid?

This probably won’t be a satisfactory point to you, but it might help you understand why Christians can believe with certainty now that the Scriptures do not deceive them. ”

Jim, JennyPo – the whole reason I started this website is because I have heard pretty much one side of the story my entire Christian Life. The orthodox story. That’s it – this giant world and a Christian tradition that is thousands of years old, and traditions that go on well beyond that – and I am in my comfy little cucoon with my cozy beliefs. Many things about my beliefs just did not add up – and I have to get out of this cucoon and just explore where my beliefs came from, why I believe, and what sense I can make of it.

I made this website to expore other options, other ways of interpreting the text, being a little more critical of my beliefs and traditions – and frankly the Christian arguments and apologetics, the very ones that I had down pat and used in witnessing for years are just – LAME.

I knew the arguments for my own Christian faith were lame when I was a Christian, I just took it on faith, but I could not continue parroting that stuff with any honesty or integrity. After doing lots of Bible Study, some critical thinking, some reading about where our Christian origins really come from, I never realized just how lame that stuff really is.

Do you know a single non-Christian who has been convinced that Christianity is true by reading a CS Lewis, Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharias or William Lane Craig book? Maybe you have, but I never met any. That’s because those apolgetic arguments only work on the faithful, and only exist to bolster their own faith. Contrary to that, it seems that many people quit Christianity because many of those same arguments are just – LAME.

Leaving Christianity has nothing to do with egocentric thought. It has everything to do with not making sense anymore.

Jim, what you are asking DagoodS and me to do is to just ignore everything we read, everything we witness, all the evidence that points away from our orthodox beliefs – just close our eyes, close our ears and just – BELIEVE.

I wish I could, but it’s just not that simple.

**Is that the best Christianity has to offer?**
It is interesting to note that Christianity doesn’t give us the option of being beyond any reasonable doubt. Christianity depends on the truth of its principles to survive, not on the unfolding archaeological record. BTW, evolution rests on this same idea that future discoveries will prove it true beyond any reasonable doubt. In your hypothetical courtroom, Christianity and evolution would be in the docket together.

What Christianity depends on are its two primary commands, love God first, love your neighbor as yourself. When you put God first, you take a great leap out of your own ego-centric world and enter the dimension of that Creator who thought more of us than He thought of His own quiet time. Loving your neighbor at least as much as you love yourself is the application of that principle on a daily basis – and we testify to the progressive transformation.

Jesus said that the Scriptures “hang on these two commands”. They do not hang on rows of people with metal detectors cris-crossing the desert.

This probably won’t be a satisfactory point to you, but it might help you understand why Christians can believe with certainty now that the Scriptures do not deceive them.

If you don’t mind a momentary rabbit trail, I would like to follow this concept of legal method to give you some background on where I am coming from. Thanks for your patience…

Legal Method

The implementation of the legally system is designed to answer a simple question—“What happened?” It includes more than places, times and names, it also includes motivations, biases, and credibility. The same question we have in the Synoptic Question—“What happened?”

Think of the tools it uses: testimony, documents, circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, and argumentation. The same evidence we utilize with the Synoptic Question.

Further, how does the legal system attempt to be as objective as possible in this quest? Two particular things it does: First it uses the adversarial system, and second it has a neutral party making the determination. Both of these areas could use some further unpacking.

The adversarial system, a curious creature, is to pit two (or more) people of diametrically opposing views against each other, in the hopes that it will not be a one-sided presentation, but that the party making the determination can see ALL alternatives. In other words, we don’t get just one person’s view. We hope the fight will bring out ALL the possible facts and arguments.

On a personal note, this was, by far, the biggest shock to myself. I realized that within the single most important belief of my life, I abandoned the methodology I implemented in the vast predominance of my life. HeIsSailing mentioned in a blog entry how he had never used the same method he used in his work as he did in his Christianity. I relate to the sentiment 100%. I did the same thing.

On Monday through Saturday, while at work, I would question everything. I question my own clients, I question the witnesses, I question the other party and their attorney. I question the experts. I look at it from my side, from their side, and from the neutral position. I tear apart every claim to see how valid it is.

But on Sunday, I would only look at one side. The Pastor would say, “They found the walls of Jericho in archeology and they had fallen outside” and I would nod my head and never look up the other side. It is truly embarrassing to me (now) as to how I prided myself in looking up verses to see if the Pastor quoted them accurately (and catching him sometimes) but I never looked at it from the position of a non-Christian. To me the “opposition” was another Christian that would question the claim. I never looked at it from a non-theistic position.

What I would NEVER accept in myself for six days out of the week, on the seventh I gladly embraced! What a shock to realize what I had done.

This is the reason, jennypo, I post on Christian sites. Why I am a member of “Debunking Christianity.” Not that I am on some atheistic missionary bent. No—because I want people to NOT be like I was and have a chance to see both sides. See the arguments of both positions. If a person reviews my claims as to the authorship of 1 Timothy (for example) and a claim of Pauline authorship, is familiar with the arguments, weighs the evidence and concludes that Pauline authorship is more compelling, that is perfectly fine with me.

What I fear, though, are the millions of Christians who are sitting in pews and hearing just one side. A side, sadly, that is not completely forthright.

If Christianity is true, it should welcome an adversarial system. That would only reinforce its validity. Take on the best and come out winningly. Yet what I see are most Christians that have never read the other side. How many Christians have read a book written by a scientist that supports evolution? Or do they read what a creationist says that evolutionists say? How would Christians like it if I made claims of what theism was like, ‘cause Richard Dawkins told me? Wouldn’t they tell me to read Christians themselves, not what an atheist says a Christians says? Yet they do the same…

Secondly, the legal system uses a neutral. Someone uncommitted to either position to make a determination. This is such a HUGE value, that most do not recognize.

How often, in theistic debates do we see one side say, “I think…” and then the other side responds “I think..” and we go back and forth, each presenting their subjective opinion as to what is more plausible? How do we get the objectivity back into the process? How do we keep from entering the debate with a pre-conceived notion and then maintaining it despite the evidence?

Do Christians have a method in place by which they can recognize they are wrong?

The value of a neutral is that they can see all the evidence, all the arguments, all the claims and make the determination as to that all important question—“What Happened?” The neutral re-introduces an objective view.

This way, as we argue as to who wrote what Gospel was first; we can agree on a method, agree on the evidence, agree on the presentation. Let a neutral decide. Then you and I can walk away actually being willing to modify our beliefs to the evidence, rather than dogmatically maintain a belief despite all the evidence.

Frankly, I think the legal method is an outstanding way to determine such things as a resolution to the Synoptic problem. I have a sneaky suspicion as to why most Christians that I have debated significantly with do not prefer it. Even they see Christianity will lose. I find that intriguing.

Btu I am not addicted to only the legal method. If the Christian would like to propose a method that introduces ALL the evidence and provides an objectivity which would cause them to change their position, I would use it. I just don’t see Christians proposing such a method.

What I see a preference for the “I think..” and nothing more.

Joshua’s Genocide

I was slightly surprised by your claim of a “large inventory” of archeological evidence for the Hebrew’s entrance into Canaan. If anything I was perturbed you “jumped on” the claim of all this evidence that I have not seen.

I thought I had researched the area fairly sufficiently. That is why I asked for this “large inventory” of evidence.

And still have not seen any. None. Not a bit. Oh, we all agree there is evidence that a nation existed. The Moabite Stone or the Merneptah Stele would be indications of that. (And I would dearly love to dig in to these claims, but another time. Only enough I can type in a day.) Further, we all agree that there were fights and battles within Canaan.

What we are looking for is evidence of an invasion of a separate tribe. And there is no evidence of this occurring. None. Let alone a “large inventory.” While I appreciated the links, I was well aware of these articles. I have written against Kitchen, and if you insist I could probably dig that up. (If I remember correctly, it was a comment on another blog.) I was aware of Wood and his incorrect Radiocarbon dating. I was aware of Wyatt and his “chariot wheels.”

None of these even remotely present evidence of Joshua’s genocide. In fact, if you read your cited articles, like Soggie, no one is looking for evidence of an invasion. That is a dead issue. Gone. All they are looking for is some basis, no matter how small, to be the kernel of history by which the myth of the book of Joshua developed. As an analogy they are looking for the arrow point to prove that an archer/robber lived. The “history” of Robin Hood is no longer even considered.

Look how Christianity has developed in this regard. At the turn of the Twentieth Century, the feeling was that every turn of the shovel confirmed the Tanakh. (Don’t forget, the Jews have a far greater stake in proving its validity as to their claim for the land. Much more than Christians do.)

However, the evidence was not appearing. It was not showing what literalists desired. In the 60’s and 70’s rather than all this “confirmation” much of Christianity retreated to “all depends on how one evaluates the evidence. It is possible that some of the evidence could point in a direction of an invasion.”

It didn’t. By 2000, the same Christians are forced to retreat to “perhaps some day we might find some evidence that could confirm that something happened.” I suspect most Christians in the pews have no clue how far they have retreated in the archeological aspect. They still hear some pastor make some claim of how archeology has proven the Tanakh, and have no clue as to the actual state of the evidence.

jennypo: I’ve tried to be fair here, and not include too many “religious” sources, but the fact is that most of the scholars in this area are divided into those who believe the Old Testament and are interested in seeing it supported, or those who do not and are interested in seeing it fall.

Who is interested in seeing the Tanakh “fall”? What they are interested in is determining that most simple, yet difficult of questions—“What happened?” You may not realize how devastating this is to the Jewish community as compared to the Christian community. Their claim to the land rides upon it! Otherwise, they have as much “right” to the land as the Palestinians!

This claim of bias would need to be supported.

More: The arguments have run in circles for centuries.

Perhaps. But thanks to technology and the ability to share information, we have gained significant amounts of knowledge since 1970. None of which helps literalists.

Is this, now, where the retreat has gone? “Sure, all the information we have gained in the last 40 years is against our position, but heck—people have debated this for 100’s of years, so the jury is still out.”

Is that the best Christianity has to offer? That since its propositions have been debated for so long, despite the facts, it is possible to still be true? Seen in that light, it doesn’t sound very convincing, does it?