# The Bible isn't verifiable?



## amishrockstar

In English class today, a teacher mentioned that the Bible is generally viewed as literature (and nothing more) because it is not verifiable. At the time, I wasn't quite sure how to answer such a sweeping statement. After giving it more thought, I figured that I could've said that it's just as verifiable as any other historical document --we check with eyewitnesses, go to the historical sites, etc. etc. 

How would you have answered the teacher's claim?

What about certain aspects of biblical passages that aren't yet verifiable in a "lets go see and find out" manner, such as the tomb of Jesus?

Thanks,
Matthew


----------



## Idelette

The Bible is actually the most reliable religious text that exists! There are so many dates, rulers, historical events, and geographical locations that are all completely verifiable! There is such a wealth of archaeological evidence as well....and the many first-hand eye witness accounts that are consistent with one another. There is a wealth of both internal and external evidence that you can read about here: http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible2.html


----------



## Bald_Brother

There's always the story and writings of Sir William Ramsay

Then there is always this:
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Bible-as-History-Werner-Keller/dp/0553279432#]Amazon.com: The Bible as History (9780553279436): Werner Keller: Books[/ame]

In Near East archaeological history, the Bible is very often the first place where scholars look for a beginning point to their studies because of its impressive historicity.


----------



## Christoffer

amishrockstar said:


> In English class today, a teacher mentioned that the Bible is generally viewed as literature (and nothing more) because it is not verifiable.



I for one don't see that as an objection to the Bible, not sure if I would have reacted to that statement. After all, it is true that many people claim to reject the Bible because its claims cannot be scientifically verified (although we know that in reality that is just an excuse)

I would've just responded "So...?"


----------



## Tim

I would start by asking him what he means by 'verifiable'. Get him to describe the process he would employ to verify something. 

But then remember this:

1:5 We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to a high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture (1Ti_3:15). And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: *yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts* (Isa_59:21; Joh_16:13, Joh_16:14;1Co_2:10-12; 1Jo_2:20, 1Jo_2:27).


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Usually these objections are the result of a person's poorly formed epistemological view, for these same persons will accept many things in the world around them with much less "verifiable" information than the Bible has in evidence, e.g., Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

It helps to start by pointing out this fact in order to start the conversation moving forward.

AMR


----------



## kceaster

External proofs are a way of finding common ground with those who have not been enlightened. As Tim rightly pointed out, unless the Spirit imparts to them the knowledge of the truth, it really doesn't matter how much we try to prove it by external means.

The other section from Chapter 1 of the Confession hits it directly on when it says, "The authority of the Holy Scripture for which it ought to be believed and obeyed dependeth not upon the testimony of any man or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself, the author thereof), and therefore it is to be received because it is the Word of God."

To put it another way, if the claims of God in the Bible are for exclusive rights over all created things, and beside Him there is no other, and no higher authority, then it may only be validated by Him. There is no amount of proof that exists, or no authority to which we may appeal in order to validate one word of it.

But it goes back to what Lewis said about God being in the dock and man on the bench. It will never work, and neither will any amount of proof sway man: himself, a judge appointed by his own ego.

If any reply, I would ask: "If you were God and had rights over everything, and there was no higher authority than you, would you seek to be approved and validated by so small a creature as man?"

I know that answers a question with a question, but really, what else may be said? In the end, God WILL prove to them what He revealed of Himself.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Romans 9:16

There are many things in scripture that are ‘verified’ (if by that one means corroborated by other witnesses or types of witness). To assert that it is ‘unverified’ is too sweeping. Most reasonable unbelievers (if there where such a thing) would not say that. Rather, they would say it’s a mix of history and myth. Virtually nobody would say it is all myth (or pure literature and nothing more). Nevertheless, your teacher will probably disbelieve the Bible even if it was ‘verified.’ If I told him the resurrection of Christ account in the gospels was verified by testimony X, he would just ask about verification for testimony X, and so on and so on. He would never consider the doctrinal and supernatural elements of scripture to be verified adequately. This only goes to show that the standard of ‘verification’ (whatever that exactly might mean) is flexible and subjective. The bar of verification is lowered for the statement “Nebuchadnezzar was king of Babylon” but cranked way up to unattainable for the statement “God delivered his people out of Egypt.” Presuppositions govern too much of what is deemed adequate ‘verification.’

You could also point out to your teacher that the Bible has a variegated range of genres. It makes historical claims, it makes theological/philosophical statements, it contains love poetry, etc. 

Even an unbeliever could grant that: 

-Many of the historical claims have been verified by archaeology 
-Much of the philosophical elements can be demonstrated to be logically cogent and existentially livable (and has been the most popular worldview in history). 
-The love poetry remains aesthetically enduring and is prized. 

To relegate the entire Bible to mere literature shows that the person does not even know what kind of literature it is! Nobody says that Plato’s Symposium is mere literature. Nobody says that the I Ching is mere literature. Nobody says that Nietzsche’s The Genealogy of Morals is mere literature. To relegate the Bible to merely English history class reveals an abysmal ignorance is to what kind of book the Bible is.


----------



## Peairtach

There is also the evidence for its divinity such as the many fulfilled prophecies. The Koran has no testable prophecy in it, and I don't know if any other "holy" books do.

Ultimately these evidences need to be backed up by presuppositional evidence for the recalcitrant unbeliever, in order to point out to them, that the real reason they reject evidence of the Bible's divinity is not lack of evidence but determined unbelief because of their sinful nature.


----------



## larryjf

amishrockstar said:


> In English class today, a teacher mentioned that the Bible is generally viewed as literature (and nothing more) because it is not verifiable. At the time, I wasn't quite sure how to answer such a sweeping statement. After giving it more thought, I figured that I could've said that it's just as verifiable as any other historical document --we check with eyewitnesses, go to the historical sites, etc. etc.
> 
> How would you have answered the teacher's claim?
> 
> What about certain aspects of biblical passages that aren't yet verifiable in a "lets go see and find out" manner, such as the tomb of Jesus?
> 
> Thanks,
> Matthew



I would have most likely responded in a couple of ways...

1 - As far as the tomb of Jesus, I would focus on the resurrection and make the point that with the Jewish leaders and the Roman government wanting the spread of Christianity to stop, they would have produced the body of they could have.

2 - As for the "verifiability" of Scripture...I would ask, "What would have to be shown for the Bible to be verified to you?" You would most likely find that he has a much more rigorous standard for the Bible than he has for other historical documents.

3 - Ask him, "If it was shown to you that the Bible was true, by whatever standards you would require, would you submit to its authority?"


----------



## BertMulder

As Christ said:

_22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 

23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 

24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 

25But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 

26And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 

27Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: 

28For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 

29Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 

30And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 

31And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead._

We live by faith, not by sight. Someone that will not believe, would not be pursuaded by _any_ proof, not even one rising from the dead (and testifying of hellfire).


----------



## CharlieJ

I think the teacher has half a point. A public university that wishes to approach the Bible must do so from a literary or religious (subjectively conceived) viewpoint. There are certainly independent historical claims that are verifiable, such as that there was a temple in Jerusalem, and there are certain statements that could be accepted without a whole lot of corroborating evidence, such as the rough genealogy of the kings, there are at least two ways in which the Bible is not "verifiable."

First, it contains statements that are implausible from the perspective of those outside its religious context. Some of the Greek histories refer to the gods as really playing a part in their wars and such. Many of the Greek myths were believed by people in that culture (not by all, of course.) However, scholars treat them as having "mythical" elements because they do not buy into the ancient pagan religious system. So they are treating the Bible "fairly" compared to other religious documents with which they disagree.

Second, the overall message of the Bible, that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, is not verifiable by any sort of external, empirical means of which I am aware.


----------



## rpavich

I'm no presuppositional apologist but more and more I don't answer these types of claims; they are made out of ignorance.

I'd answer with my own questions:

1.) How much of the bible have you actually read?
2.) Do you allow it to be examined like any other historical document?
3.) What is the standard of acceptability of a historical documents statements?


And thereby show the person that although they make sweeping claims; they are just voicing an unsubstantiated opinion.

Once they realize that they are coming at this with a good amount of bias; then the conversation can begin.

and as another poster said; it's God who allows them to see...


----------



## Augusta

CharlieJ said:


> I think the teacher has half a point. A public university that wishes to approach the Bible must do so from a literary or religious (subjectively conceived) viewpoint. There are certainly independent historical claims that are verifiable, such as that there was a temple in Jerusalem, and there are certain statements that could be accepted without a whole lot of corroborating evidence, such as the rough genealogy of the kings, there are at least two ways in which the Bible is not "verifiable."
> 
> First, it contains statements that are implausible from the perspective of those outside its religious context. Some of the Greek histories refer to the gods as really playing a part in their wars and such. Many of the Greek myths were believed by people in that culture (not by all, of course.) However, scholars treat them as having "mythical" elements because they do not buy into the ancient pagan religious system. So they are treating the Bible "fairly" compared to other religious documents with which they disagree.
> 
> Second, the overall message of the Bible, that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, is not verifiable by any sort of external, empirical means of which I am aware.




Mr. Religion's link answers you nicely. It doesn't matter what the NT claims. It is _in fact _more verifiable in it's contents than any other ancient document. The only one even close is Homer. There are so many manuscript copies, and these written within the 1st century so that they could be contradicted by contemporaries, that they can be cross referenced for accuracy many times over. The closest copy of Homer is 500 yrs later not less than 100. These facts are quite extraordinary.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitness-Testimony/dp/0802831621]Amazon.com: Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (9780802831620): Richard Bauckham: Books[/ame]

The Michael Ramsey Prize - 2009 Winner


----------



## Wannabee

His very statement, in a quite real way, verifies the Bible.

The fool says in his heart, there is no God.
Romans 1 - specifically "nor were they thankful" and "knowing God he suppresses the truth in unrighteousness" "worshipping the creature rather than the Creator."
No matter if he agrees or disagrees with the Bible, he is necessarily verifying its verity.


----------



## CharlieJ

Augusta said:


> Mr. Religion's link answers you nicely. It doesn't matter what the NT claims. It is _in fact _more verifiable in it's contents than any other ancient document.



[***Comment edited by moderator***] I precisely stated two ways in which the Bible is not verifiable. Both were geared to the supernatural. The supernatural cannot be "verified" by empirical means any more than you can see with your ears. 

For example, this statement is unverifiable from any sort of empirical or rational framework: 

Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 

Now, as regarding the accuracy of the historical events recorded in the Bible, secular researchers do indeed tend to approach the Bible similarly to others. Other religious works from non-Christian traditions get edited and "de-mythologized," which is perfectly natural for someone outside that religious tradition. It is absurd to defend the miracles of Scripture on the basis of "eye-witness accounts" or something similar, because then Christians would have to accept "eye-witness accounts" of the supernatural in other religions or deviant Pentacostalism. In other words, I don't think secular researchers are as inconsistent as they are made out to be. They are quite consistent with their unbelieving presuppositions.


----------



## larryjf

And there is a difference between ...

The Bible being a verifiable historical document

and

The contents of the Bible are all true.


----------



## Marrow Man

Moderator Warning:

Folks, let's try to keep the discussion civil and respectful. There have been many GREAT posts on this thread; let's not derail that, please.


----------



## Peairtach

CharlieJ said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Religion's link answers you nicely. It doesn't matter what the NT claims. It is _in fact _more verifiable in it's contents than any other ancient document.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [***Comment edited by moderator***] I precisely stated two ways in which the Bible is not verifiable. Both were geared to the supernatural. The supernatural cannot be "verified" by empirical means any more than you can see with your ears.
> 
> For example, this statement is unverifiable from any sort of empirical or rational framework:
> 
> Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
> 
> Now, as regarding the accuracy of the historical events recorded in the Bible, secular researchers do indeed tend to approach the Bible similarly to others. Other religious works from non-Christian traditions get edited and "de-mythologized," which is perfectly natural for someone outside that religious tradition. It is absurd to defend the miracles of Scripture on the basis of "eye-witness accounts" or something similar, because then Christians would have to accept "eye-witness accounts" of the supernatural in other religions or deviant Pentacostalism. In other words, I don't think secular researchers are as inconsistent as they are made out to be. They are quite consistent with their unbelieving presuppositions.
Click to expand...


Yes. As well as evidence of the general reliabilty and historicity of the Bible:-

[ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Testament-Documents-They-Reliable/dp/0802822193/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252612716&sr=1-1]The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?: Amazon.co.uk: N. T. Wright, Frederick Fyvie Bruce: Books[/ame]

[ame=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Reliability-Old-Testament-K-Kitchen/dp/0802803962/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1252612741&sr=1-1]On the Reliability of the Old Testament: Amazon.co.uk: K.A. Kitchen: Books[/ame]

plus evidence for its divinity in fulfilled prophecy, the underlying unbelieving presuppositions need to be challenged.

Unbelievers make sweeping statements like it is impossible to know if there is a God, there's no evidence that Jesus ever existed, or the Bible isn't verifiable, to cocoon their own unbelief in ignorance and to repel any possibilility of them becoming believers.


----------



## JennyG

Kitchen's book is brilliant - everyone who talks about the Bible's "unreliability" or "unverifiability" should be tied to a chair and forced to read it.


----------



## Archlute

Bruce, thanks for bringing up Bauckham's work. I've worked through a chunk of it for a study on John's Gospel, and he does a great job addressing the standard academic objections to single author, eyewitness reports. 

For those who have not yet read Bauckham on this subject, much of that against which he writes is an approach to the Gospels that would have them be the work of later communities patching together their ideas and stories of Christ, especially as those stories would act as a reflection of the presuppositions, hopes, etc, etc of that "faith community". You see where they would be going with all of that. So he places the focus back onto the objective, the verifiable, and forces the reader to think about definitions, about evidence, and about what all that means for the theological and historical reliability of the Gospel accounts.

Kitchen is great as well.


----------



## CharlieJ

I think some people on this thread have misunderstood what is actually being discussed. I'm not trying to slap anyone in the face by saying that, but occasionally someone needs to wave a flag simply to prevent miscommunication.The message of the Bible is not "verifiable" in terms of the "verification principle" of logical positivism. Here is that principle, from Britannica online: (I will add that Wittgenstein and his disciples had a lot to do with this)



> a philosophical doctrine fundamental to the school of Logical Positivism holding that a statement is meaningful only if it is either empirically verifiable or else tautological (i.e., such that its truth arises entirely from the meanings of its terms). Thus, the principle discards as meaningless the metaphysical statements of traditional philosophy as well as other kinds of statements—such as ethical, aesthetic, or religious principles—asserted as true but neither tautological nor known from experience. Such statements may have meaning in the sense of being able to influence feelings, beliefs, or conduct but not in the sense of being true or false and hence of imparting knowledge. According to the principle, then, a nontautological statement has meaning only if some set of observable conditions is relevant to determining its truth or falsity; so stated, it reflects the view that the meaning of a statement is the set of conditions under which it would be true.



Since the Bible is a religious book dealing with realities that are beyond the realm of sensory experience, it is not verifiable in this sense. Now, I suppose that it is possible that the professor meant something different, but most educated professionals who have not embraced a form of post-modernism operate on the philosophy of logical positivism or something very similar, and this is what they mean by verifiability.

So, all that to say, heaping up books about the reliability of the Gospels or whatever simply isn't germane to this discussion, because this philosophy automatically rules out ideas such as God, the soul, and ethics. It places them into a different category of "unverifiable" human productions, which is why you can study them as "literature." No amount of archaeology or facts can change the situation. The issue is not with facts per se, but about the criteria which a priori exclude certain topics from truth judgments.


----------



## Romans 9:16

"Since the Bible is a religious book" - Charlie J

I agree with much of what you are saying. However, as I tried to point out in my response above, the Bible is variegated in terms of its contents. There are things in it that are not ‘religious’ (i.e. historical dates, events, names, etc.). Even given positivist presuppositions (and a positivist definition of ‘verification’) there are things that can be ‘verified.’ I am not saying that there is or is not worth in such ‘verification,’ rather I point out only that the English teacher was wrong in his/her generalization that the Bible is beyond ‘verification.’ The most he/she could say is some/much of it is unverifiable. To dismiss it out rightly as myth/fiction is invalid literary and historical analysis, even given unbelieving principles. That being said, you are right in pointing out that a person’s a-priori commitments determine what is viewed as fiction and what is non-fiction. I too labored that point in my answer. 

Blessings!


----------



## MW

CharlieJ said:


> Since the Bible is a religious book dealing with realities that are beyond the realm of sensory experience, it is not verifiable in this sense.



It might be worth poining out that the non-sensory in general is verifiable. I cannot see thoughts, for example; but they are a fact of consciousness. It is true that the supernatural record of the Bible is non-verifiable by direct evidence; but if we were to draw out the generally accepted experiences of consciousness we would be furnished with indirect evidence which confirms the Bible's message. Further, if this were ruled out there would be no way of knowing that an individual is a true Christian or a church is a true church.


----------



## CharlieJ

Romans,

Yes, I agree, individual elements of the Bible are verifiable in the positivist sense. Furthermore, it is certainly questionable for the professor to use a technical term in an environment in which many of the students would probably hear it as "false" or "mythical." 

Rev. Winzer,

I'm not sure if I understand your point, or if you are using "verifiable" in the positivist sense. Verifiability in the positivist sense refers only to propositions, not things in themselves. Certain propositions are verifiable - "my car is in the garage." According to the behaviorist school of analytic philosophy, other propositions can be recast in ways acceptable to analytic philosophers - "I feel thirsty" can be recast into the verifiable "I am dehydrated from running." Other propositions are not verifiable at all, since they use "language games" that from the perspective of analytic philosophy, cannot be subjected to truth-claims - "God is a Trinity."


----------



## MW

CharlieJ said:


> I'm not sure if I understand your point, or if you are using "verifiable" in the positivist sense. Verifiability in the positivist sense refers only to propositions, not things in themselves. Certain propositions are verifiable - "my car is in the garage." According to the behaviorist school of analytic philosophy, other propositions can be recast in ways acceptable to analytic philosophers - "I feel thirsty" can be recast into the verifiable "I am dehydrated from running." Other propositions are not verifiable at all, since they use "language games" that from the perspective of analytic philosophy, cannot be subjected to truth-claims - "God is a Trinity."



I am using verifiable in the realist use of the term, to support by evidence. There are some things that are true simply as a matter of common experience. To deny that men have thoughts would deny the reality of something which is evident in every conversation. I affirm that there is a whole range of conscious experience which is true of human beings in general, and that the Bible can be verified as a revelation from God because it speaks truly in each and every case of conscious human experience.


----------



## CharlieJ

OK. Thank you for the clarification. I agree.


----------

