Historical Evidence for the Book of Ruth

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Every detail???  

 

,,,but to ask for evidence of every single detail is a bit unreasonable...

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? 

 

 

You don't understand the doctrine of inerrancy.   Inerrancy is a separate issue from historical evidence or corroboration. 

 

I think it is necessary at this point to clear up what is NOT required for a text to be "inerrant" in order to understand what the evidence is required to show.

1. Inerrancy does not require a strict adherence to all rules of grammar.

2. Inerrancy does not require strict historical and semantic precision.

3. Inerrancy does not exclude the use of figures of speech or any kind of literary genre.

4. Inerrancy does not require verbatim exactness when Old Testament passages are cited by the New Testament.

5. Inerrancy does not require that any literary sources used by the biblical writers also be inspired or inerrant.

6. In errancy provides no guarantee that any account given in Scripture is exhaustive.

Inerrancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened it happened. The authors do not have to give every detail nor do they have to agree with one another verbatim.

 

You are asking for historical corroboration of every detail and no such corroboration exists.  That is not a challenge to the inerrancy of the text.  That doesn't mean that what the Bible says didn't happen as it claimed.   You are simply setting the bar higher than is reasonable for any document because people like you think that if we can't meet such an unreasonable standard that is gives you some kind of victory over us.

 

The truth is that your request is not based on a genuine search for the truth, but is a intellectually empty request, but like I said, you already know that. 

[Swoosh]

Do me a favor, you are asking for the conversations. Find them in the book and post them here for us. You do have a bible at hand do you not?

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?

[Swoosh]

Inerrancy is a separate issue from historical evidence or corroboration. 

 

I think it is necessary at this point to clear up what is NOT required for a text to be "inerrant" in order to understand what the evidence is required to show.

.....

2. Inerrancy does not require strict historical and semantic precision.

......

Inerrancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened it happened. 

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.

 

You are asking for historical corroboration of every detail and no such corroboration exists.

Is there any evidence for the Book of Ruth happening?

 

That doesn't mean that what the Bible says didn't happen as it claimed.

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. 

[Guest shiloh357]

Swoosh,

 

The book of Ruth is a story about an obscure Jewish family from Bethlehem.  It is not likely that it took the notice of any historians of the time period.  It is about one family and about one woman, who at the time, was not a major historical figure and would not have been important enough for other historians to write about.  To set that as the standard for whether the story is true or not isn't an accurate standard of measure.

 

What you would need to look for is inconsistencies between the historicity of the story and any known historical factors perifpheral to the story and see if they agree or contradict.   In other words, you need to look at what was going on at the time and see if the book of Ruth violates historical propriety or makes claims that historians find are  inconsistent with what is known about that given time periods. 

 

For example...  Does it provide erroneous cultural information?   Is it inconsistent with what historians know about Israel during the time of the Judges when the story is purported to have taken place?  

 

If you can't demonstrate a reason that the story should be doubted, then you have no intellectually credible reason to doubt it.  We have nothing to prove.  You are the one implying that there is need for a change in the status quo.  That places the burden of proof on you, not us.   If you can't demonstrate that the story isn't true, then by default it remains true.

[Swoosh]

Swoosh,

 

The book of Ruth is a story about an obscure Jewish family from Bethlehem.  It is not likely that it took the notice of any historians of the time period.  It is about one family and about one woman, who at the time, was not a major historical figure and would not have been important enough for other historians to write about.  To set that as the standard for whether the story is true or not isn't an accurate standard of measure.

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.

 

What you would need to look for is inconsistencies between the historicity of the story and any known historical factors perifpheral to the story and see if they agree or contradict.   In other words, you need to look at what was going on at the time and see if the book of Ruth violates historical propriety or makes claims that historians find are  inconsistent with what is known about that given time periods. 

 

For example...  Does it provide erroneous cultural information?   Is it inconsistent with what historians know about Israel during the time of the Judges when the story is purported to have taken place?  

 

If you can't demonstrate a reason that the story should be doubted, then you have no intellectually credible reason to doubt it.  We have nothing to prove.  You are the one implying that there is need for a change in the status quo.  That places the burden of proof on you, not us.   If you can't demonstrate that the story isn't true, then by default it remains true.

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.

[Swoosh]

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.

You have still not answered my questions. Allow me to repeat them.

 

 

who is the Lord Jesus Christ to you? What does He mean to you?

Jesus is a central figure to various denominations of Christianity. To me, he is just another religious icon. 

[Fez]

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.

You have still not answered my questions. Allow me to repeat them.

 

 

who is the Lord Jesus Christ to you? What does He mean to you?

Jesus is a central figure to various denominations of Christianity. To me, he is just another religious icon. 

Thank you.

[Swoosh]

 

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.

You have still not answered my questions. Allow me to repeat them.

 

 

who is the Lord Jesus Christ to you? What does He mean to you?

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?

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

 

 As I stated, there is evidence, but it won't fit the insanelly impossible standard of having to corroborate every single detail. No historical source could come up with it and even if it could, you would find a way to discredit it without additional corroboration to corrobate the source used corroborate the book of Ruth. You are not the first one to come on this board with such nonsense.  It is intellectualy lazy and unreasonable on your part. 

 

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.

 

 Wrong.  In a standard debate, the one holding the status quo (the truth of the Bible) doesn't have to prove the status quo.  The one challenging the status quo has to prove the legitimacy of the challenge and provide evidence for a need for a change in the status quo.   My claim that the book of Ruth is true is the status quo.  Anyone seeking to challenge the status quo must provide evidence to justify their challenge.  If they can provide no evidence to sustain or support said challenge, the status quo remains as is.

 

I don't have anything to prove to you.  If you are not claiming that the book makes untrue claims, then there is no meaningful discussion here.  The fact that you can't bring yourself to believe that the events are true does not place any obligation on me to defend the book of Ruth as a true story.   You have simply set a standard that is too high for any reasonable, thinking person to meet. 

[Guest ninhao]

 

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?

 

 

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.