Swoosh

I'll temporarily defer to you about the genealogy information. You seem to know more about it that specific area than I do. Even if we assume what you and Shiloh say is correct, I don't see how genealogies can increase the likelihood of a story being true, which was a big point in my OP. Yes, if there is a confirmed genealogy, that can demonstrate that a particular person actually existed. I guess you can say that that makes the stories about that person more likely to be true than if they didn't exist. That's it though. It doesn't do much in the way of showing that the stories written about that person are true. Unless I'm missing something, in which case, I'd be happy for you to point it out. For the same reason that we as humans today start rumors, that could be why it was made up, if it was made up. I hope you understand that I never claimed it was made up though. Just that I don't have enough information to conclude that it is true.

Correct. I don't know enough about the evidence of Alexander the Great's exploits to 100% accept the claims as true. Correct in the first bolded area, incorrect in the second bolded area. I also don't know enough about evolutionary theory to 100% accept it as a realistic method of explaining the world. It would be interesting to see what more examples you can come up with of what you think I "do". Are you going to try to guess my positions some more, or are you just going to ask?

Hello Swoosh, ShIloh has answered this question in post#23 "Well, the existence of David who is the great grandson of Ruth and his existence has been verified outside of the Bible. The history of Bethlehem, an historical city and the area known as Ephratah where Elimilech was from. The cultural tradition of the kinsman redeemer, and the cultural tradition of Ruth covering herself with Boaz's garment while lying at his feet. That was an actual marriage proposal. Even the time frame of the story is consistent with the festival cycle and the agricultural cycle. The story fits what is known about the time period, is what I am trying to say. It is consistent with the known customs. Does that prove every detail in the story is true? No. But the story is embedded in a number of historically accurate details and that is evidence, not proof, that the story is genuine." Do you have any reason to doubt this ? My complete response to him was for the purpose of figuring out if the quote of his you listed above is the reason he thinks the truthfulness of the Book of Ruth is the status quo and how strong he believes that evidence to be. I think he'll understand what I'm asking, even though I probably didn't word it as well as it could have been worded.

Hello Swoosh maybe I can help answer your question. Above you said Jesus was "just another religious icon " to you; which means you are a non-believer. You chose your distinction. God bless. You're saying that the site picks up on forum posts and decides what label they think best fits us out of a list of labels? Well the mods do that. When a person admits to being an atheist, the mods change the status of the person to "unbeliever." I see. Thanks.

This site categorizes members according to their beliefs. ( this is my understanding ) You decide which category, Are you offended to be classed as a non believer on this Christian Website ? Remember God is patiently waiting for you to repent and believe the Gospel. Thank you. I'm not offended by the classification.

Assuming that those things have been verified, I'm not sure how strong that what you call evidence is. If I were to write a story set in the US, and had various references to New York and the popular reality tv show Jersey Shore, would you take that as evidence that the story itself is genuine? How strong would you think that evidence is? It is generally accepted that cigarettes may contribute to lung cancer because of strong correlation data based on observation. I didn't have time to look completely into these reports by the US Department of Health and Human Services, but I'm going to assume it's there. For what reasons or data do Jews and Christians generally accept the book of Ruth to be true and thus hold it as the status quo?

Hello Swoosh maybe I can help answer your question. Above you said Jesus was "just another religious icon " to you; which means you are a non-believer. You chose your distinction. God bless. You're saying that the site picks up on forum posts and decides what label they think best fits us out of a list of labels?

What is this evidence? What method have you used to determine that your position that the Book of Ruth is true is the status quo?

Jesus is a central figure to various denominations of Christianity. To me, he is just another religious icon. Thank you. I also can't post in the Welcome area anymore, so I gotta relocate the question I had here. I can't tell if you were answering my question or not. How are the labels decided here?

Hey, I don't have PM anymore, so I had to get creative to answer your question. If there's another way to communicate with you, let me know. Jesus is a central figure to various denominations of Christianity. To me, he is just another religious icon.

I haven't set that as the standard for whether it is true or not. I haven't excluded the possibility that the events in the book happened as they say. I just can't accept it as true without proper evidence. Without that, it's just another story that may or may not be true. It just remains an uncorroborated hypothesis in a sense. I disagree. For the same reason that I can't dismiss the book of Ruth just because it hasn't been verified by evidence, I can't accept it just because it hasn't been debunked by evidence to my knowledge. The burden of proof rest on anyone who makes a claim. If you claim that the events in the book did happen, the burden of proof is on you. If I were claiming that the events in the book did not happen, then I would have the burden of proof as well. But, that's not my claim, so I don't understand why I would have a burden of proof and you wouldn't.

From my understanding, the claim that what happened in the Book of Ruth happened in real life is claiming strict historical precision. Which would make how you have defined inerrancy equal to historical precision. You seem to disagree though. Is that true? and why? Point out where I misunderstood your words if I did. Is there any evidence for the Book of Ruth happening? I agree. Of course not having evidence for what the Bible says doesn't mean that it didn't happen. Absence of evidence does not always mean evidence of absence.

To be clear, I'm asking for evidence that supports the historical accuracy of the Book of Ruth, including evidence that the things said between the characters were actually said in history. I do have a Bible at hand. You're asking me to post passages of dialogue from the Book of Ruth to this thread? Why?

Yes, every detail. For those that claim that every book and detail in the Bible is absolutely true and unchangeable in it's inerrancy , holding their claim to that very high standard is reasonable. Why do you think it's unreasonable?

I'm not sure what point you're making. Explain.

Thank you for giving your input. That's a summary of the story, and I certainly am asking for that. But I'm also asking for historical evidence of every detail of the story, including dialogue between the characters. I can't accept it as true on its own because accepting something without corroborating evidence is a poor way to judge its truth value.

Is there any evidence that the events told in this book actually happened exactly as they are explained? Please include references to scriptures and sources if possible. I look forward to seeing your replies.

1. How as the Bible formed? 2. Who inspired it? 3. Who wrote it? 4. How was it compiled or canonized? 5. Why was it compiled or canonized? Feel free to answer one or all the questions. 1./4. - Different cannons of the different denominations have different stories. In general, however, a group of people who were considered leaders got together and debated about what stories belonged in the various collections. 2./5. - Our human need for answering questions inspired the writing of many of the stories in the Bible. Also, many of the stories may be based on real events or actual people and places. Finally, some of the laws in the Bible stories provide a code to attempt to organize people under a common belief. 3. Various authors wrote the Bible stories.

No, natural selection isn't inherently atheistic. Could someone's atheism lead them to investigate and adopt natural selection as an adequate explanation of reality? Yes. But it doesn't necessarily follow that atheism leads to belief in natural selection. I'm having trouble figuring out what you're asking or what point you're making in your middle paragraph. Could you explain?