Historical Evidence for the Book of Ruth

[Swoosh]

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...

What is this evidence?

 

 

 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....

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

[Swoosh]

 

 

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.

 

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?

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 29 Nov 2013 - 3:11 PM, said:

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...

What is this evidence?

 

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.

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

 

 

It is generally accepted as true.  That is what the status quo means. It means that is the commonly and conventionally accepted position. 

 

Let me illustrate it this way.   The status quo states that ciggarettes cause lung cancer.  If someone comes along and doesn't agree, the folks who hold to the status quo don't have to prove anything.   The guy who says that ciggarettes don't cause lung cancer is the one with the burden to prove that the previous claims are false.  Otherwise the status quo remains.

 

The same applies here.  Jews and Christias generally accept that Ruth is true.  If you want to say otherwise, you need to provide the evidence for why our claim can't be sustained.  Otherwise we have no reason to believe otherwise.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

 

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.

 

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."

[Guest ninhao]

 

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?

 

 

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.

[Swoosh]

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. 

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 as true.  That is what the status quo means. It means that is the commonly and conventionally accepted position. 

 

Let me illustrate it this way.   The status quo states that ciggarettes cause lung cancer.  If someone comes along and doesn't agree, the folks who hold to the status quo don't have to prove anything.   The guy who says that ciggarettes don't cause lung cancer is the one with the burden to prove that the previous claims are false.  Otherwise the status quo remains.

 

The same applies here.  Jews and Christias generally accept that Ruth is true.  If you want to say otherwise, you need to provide the evidence for why our claim can't be sustained.  Otherwise we have no reason to believe otherwise.

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?

[Swoosh]

 

 

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?

 

 

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.

[Swoosh]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

[Guest ninhao]

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,

 

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 ?

[Swoosh]

 

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,

 

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.