Historical Evidence for the Book of Ruth

[Guest shiloh357]

Swoosh, I think we need to cut through all of the peripheral issues and get down to the heart of the problem, once more.  Your request that we corroborate every single detail of the story of Ruth is unreasonble and impossible.

 

No historian on earth sets the bar for truth or honesty in reporting up to that level.  Historians accept the validity of the account that Hannibal crossed the Alps with his army and war elephants.   We don't have contemporary historical corroborations of the precise details of that story, but that doesn't keep historians from accepting it as a true and historical account. 

 

There are other historical accounts for which there is no way to corroborate every single detail of the story, and no reasonable historians expects that.

 

Not even our legal and criminal justice system operates from that kind of standard of proof.   When taking multiple witness accounts of an event, there is an expectations that witnesses will not agree on many of the secondary details of an event they witnessed.   The more the witnesses agree on the details the less likely it is that they are telling the truth.  There is a range of discrpencies that law enforcement investigators  looks for and if witnesses agree too much on secondary details, it appears they were coached or they conspired together.

 

So if you had multiple historical accounts that agreed comletely on the same details of a story, it would appear more contrived and less like historical corroboration. 

 

yea, I take a very skeptical approach to historical claims as far as whether these events actually happened.

 

This makes no sense in light of your request.   You want historical corroboration of every detail of the story of Ruth.   But in order to do that, I would have to consult historical sources contemporary to that time period that also have first hand knowledge of the details of the events of the book of Ruth.  But if you are skeptical of ancient historical claims in the first place, you would be skeptical of the claims made by any historical sources of corroboration as well, which only serves to further demonstrate the absurdity and internal inconsistency that seems to characterize your requests and responses in this  thread.  

 

Again, you have tried to set forth an evidentiary standard that cannot be met by any reasonable, rational person or objective historical source. 

[Guest ninhao]

 

Swoosh, on 01 Dec 2013 - 6:33 PM, said:

 

It's actually not as strange as it may seem. Many people have different definitions of their different divine beings. Even among Christians, there are some that distinguish "God" using different descriptions. I have to know your specific one to answer your question. I'm asking what makes an object "God". What is the defining qualities of this being that separates it from things that are not "God"?

 

 

Ok I see. Yahweh is Holy, righteous, merciful, and loving to name some qualities. Yahweh is the only God of course.

 

 

In general though, the god/Yahweh presented in the Bible is one that I don't believe in the existence of, so asking me if he created evil is like asking me if Dracula bites people. btw, some may take that comparison as disrespectful, but I only said that to illustrate my view of it.

 

 

Do you believe in any god/s ?

 

 

It would depend on this supporting data. If it's of the type that has been described already (genealogies and cultural consistency), then I would disagree. Is this the type of supporting evidence you are talking about?

 

 

 

Genealogies and cultural consistency are supporting data as well as the consistency of the Books with the theme of the Bible. You have said you view all ancient history with skepticism so I’m not sure what data will appease you. Can you give some examples?

 

 

I have read parts of the Bible. Could hardly call myself an expert though.

 

The world is sinful and we will go to hell unless we make ourselves believe the claim that Jesus is the son of God and died to take our sins? At least, that's one way it's presented.

 

 

Actually God loves you and Jesus died for you so that you may inherit eternal life.

 

Joh 3:16  For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

 

If  you seek Him diligently you will find Him.

[Swoosh]

No historian on earth sets the bar for truth or honesty in reporting up to that level.  Historians accept the validity of the account that Hannibal crossed the Alps with his army and war elephants.   We don't have contemporary historical corroborations of the precise details of that story, but that doesn't keep historians from accepting it as a true and historical account. 

I appreciate you and some of the others for bring to my attention that that may be how historians actually decide what is true or not. I will have to look into that. 

 

Just for clarification, you're saying that any culturally consistent story written about a person that is confirmed to exist (using genealogies or anything else) is considered true by historians unless they have another story that conflicts with it?

 

 When taking multiple witness accounts of an event, there is an expectations that witnesses will not agree on many of the secondary details of an event they witnessed.   The more the witnesses agree on the details the less likely it is that they are telling the truth.  There is a range of discrpencies that law enforcement investigators  looks for and if witnesses agree too much on secondary details, it appears they were coached or they conspired together.

 

So if you had multiple historical accounts that agreed comletely on the same details of a story, it would appear more contrived and less like historical corroboration. 

But even the courts make room for the possibility that they may have been wrong about a ruling when they rule partly based on eye witness accounts. They make room for things like appeals and, with the court's apology, may free a man who is wrongfully punished.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but historians make room for their conclusions possibly being wrong as well. 

 

When it comes to the way most Christians view the Bible, there is no room for being wrong as there is for historians and court cases. They completely believe it is true. Every detail. Not subject to change. My reason for asking the original question was to understand the source of this confidence.

[Swoosh]

 Do you believe in any god/s ?

 

 

Well, you have those people that say "God = the universe" or "God = love" or "God = ice cream". In that case, I guess I would believe in their god, although I think it's useless to define those terms in that manner. 

 

It's safe to say that what most people mean as "God/gods" is likely not believed in by me.

 

 

Genealogies and cultural consistency are supporting data as well as the consistency of the Books with the theme of the Bible. You have said you view all ancient history with skepticism so I’m not sure what data will appease you. Can you give some examples?

I'm not sure what would convince me either. I can't really give any examples that would work with historical claims.

 

Do you believe the supposed consistency of the Bible is evidence of a divine origin? Why so?

 

 

Actually God loves you and Jesus died for you so that you may inherit eternal life.

But the part about him torturing me forever in hell for not believing that Jesus died for my sins is part of it, right? Or if you wanna say I send myself to hell somehow. I've heard that one before too.

 

 

If  you seek Him diligently you will find Him. 

I'm not sure where to start seeking this god. I've done the whole asking him to reveal himself to me in a way that I wouldn't be able to honestly doubt his existence. Apart from that, I don't see much else I can do. If he is truly so far above me, there is probably nothing I can do apart from what I've already done. Unless he's just expecting me to believe in his existence without him revealing himself to me in that manner.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just for clarification, you're saying that any culturally consistent story written about a person that is confirmed to exist (using genealogies or anything else) is considered true by historians unless they have another story that conflicts with it?

 

What I am saying is that historians don't have to confirm every single detail of every story in order to view the story as true.   My point is that your original request is unreasonable, in part, because even the most diligent historian doesn't have to have multiple sources containing the exact same details in order to believe the account is true.  I can read a multiple books on the life of George Washington and different historians place differing levels of value on certain details of his life.  Not all historians will write the same history.  Some historians are more interested in his life before He was president.  Others write only about his presidency and so on.  So even if I could produce separate histories on the life of Ruth, they would not likely contain the same details.   Some would emphasize her life in Moab, some would only concern her life after marrying Boaz.   Your request simply isn't reasonable and it doesn't appear you have thought this through very well.

 

But even the courts make room for the possibility that they may have been wrong about a ruling when they rule partly based on eye witness accounts. They make room for things like appeals and, with the court's apology, may free a man who is wrongfully punished.

 

But that is beside the point.   The point is that eye witness testimony from multiple witnesses don't have to have all of the same secondary for their testimony to excepted as true. You are wanting historical accounts where EVERY single detail is corroborated by each account and my points is that no one operates from that standard, not even in a court of law where the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but historians make room for their conclusions possibly being wrong as well. 

Yes, but the Bible isn't a mere history book.  It is the Word of an infallible God who doesn't lie.  It is as infallible as He is.  I don't have to provide any extra historical accounts of every detail because the truth of the information the Bible contains stands independent of who believes it. It is true whether you feel you have sufficient reason to believe what it says or not.

When it comes to the way most Christians view the Bible, there is no room for being wrong as there is for historians and court cases. They completely believe it is true. Every detail. Not subject to change. My reason for asking the original question was to understand the source of this confidence.

 

The Bible is the Word of God.  It is wholly inspired by Him and inerrant and that includes the story of Ruth. 

[Swoosh]

What I am saying is that historians don't have to confirm every single detail of every story in order to view the story as true.

Stories are made up of individual details.  You're saying it makes sense to view a particular unconfirmed detail as true?

 

 

The Bible is the Word of God.  It is wholly inspired by Him and inerrant and that includes the story of Ruth.

I see now.

[Guest shiloh357]

Stories are made up of individual details.  You're saying it makes sense to view a particular unconfirmed detail as true?

 

Stories are made up of facts.  Some facts form a primary historical core.  Other facts are secondary and as long as the secondary facts don't damage the historical core there is no need to discard the story as untrue.  Most secondary facts are not going to be confirmable, anyway.  There is no way you can find historical sources that confirm every  detail of a story like what  person wore, or what they had for dinner, what time they went to bed unless those details are material to primary historical core.  If a person choked to death at dinner, then the menu would be part of the historical core and an important part of the record.  But if the detail is mentioned in passing then it is likely not something that is going to be of any interest to anyone and is not really material to the story.

[Swoosh]

 

Stories are made up of individual details.  You're saying it makes sense to view a particular unconfirmed detail as true?

 

Stories are made up of facts.  Some facts form a primary historical core.  Other facts are secondary and as long as the secondary facts don't damage the historical core there is no need to discard the story as untrue.  Most secondary facts are not going to be confirmable, anyway.  There is no way you can find historical sources that confirm every  detail of a story like what  person wore, or what they had for dinner, what time they went to bed unless those details are material to primary historical core.  If a person choked to death at dinner, then the menu would be part of the historical core and an important part of the record.  But if the detail is mentioned in passing then it is likely not something that is going to be of any interest to anyone and is not really material to the story.

 

Just for clarification, I never discarded the story as untrue.

 

I agree, it is practically impossible to get every so called secondary detail for a person's life. From my understanding and your agreement, historians make room for mistakes in these type of details. They don't call themselves "infallible" and "inerrant". There are those who claim that the Bible is infallible though.

 

Where it seems you and I part ways is that I think holding believers' claims up to a higher standard than most historical documents is fair because believers claim infallibility, where as most historians don't do that with their claims. If I claim I can break the javelin throw record, it's fair to hold me up to a higher standard than you would a high school thrower.

 

For summary, I gather that you hold the Bible to be infallible, therefore you believe every detail of every story, whether those details are confirmed or not. When I brought up the room for error that historians and courts leave, you answered that by reaffirming your belief in the infallibility of the Bible. I appreciate the conversation.

 

I got my answer, but if there's anything else you have to add, I'm down for listening and responding.

[Guest ninhao]

 

Swoosh, on 02 Dec 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

Well, you have those people that say "God = the universe" or "God = love" or "God = ice cream". In that case, I guess I would believe in their god, although I think it's useless to define those terms in that manner. 

It's safe to say that what most people mean as "God/gods" is likely not believed in by me.

 

 

Yahweh  is a living being not a thing, of course.   

 

 

I'm not sure what would convince me either. I can't really give any examples that would work with historical claims.

 

 

If you have no barometer for the level of data you require to be convinced of a historical event I’m not sure I understand how you can be objective.

 

 

Do you believe the supposed consistency of the Bible is evidence of a divine origin? Why so?

 

 

I believe the consistency of the Bible is one thing that supports divine origin. This consistency is then coupled with historical data, accurate assessment of the human state, prophecy fulfilled, and several revelations which become apparent though the Holy Spirit.  

 

 

But the part about him torturing me forever in hell for not believing that Jesus died for my sins is part of it, right? Or if you wanna say I send myself to hell somehow. I've heard that one before too.

 

 

You get the choice of your destination in the next life do you think this is fair or do you think you aren’t accountable for your choices?

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure where to start seeking this god. I've done the whole asking him to reveal himself to me in a way that I wouldn't be able to honestly doubt his existence. Apart from that, I don't see much else I can do. If he is truly so far above me, there is probably nothing I can do apart from what I've already done. Unless he's just expecting me to believe in his existence without him revealing himself to me in that manner.

 

 

God will reveal himself to anyone who diligently seeks Him. I suggest you read the Offence of the Cross thread which will explain why you may be confused about God’s assessment of your position of rebellion against Him.

 

 

God has revealed Himself to you sufficiently to give you good reason to seek him diligently. It’s now your choice to do this or remain in rebellion.

[Swoosh]

If you have no barometer for the level of data you require to be convinced of a historical event I’m not sure I understand how you can be objective.

I don't know of any tests or evidence that can be performed that can convince me. That doesn't mean I'm not objective. I can objectively look at the evidence already presented and judge it as unconvincing.  If a scientist in a lab can't think of an experimental design to test a hypothesis, that doesn't mean he's not objective. Just means his creativity is limited in that respect.

 

 

I believe the consistency of the Bible is one thing that supports divine origin. This consistency is then coupled with historical data, accurate assessment of the human state, prophecy fulfilled, and several revelations which become apparent though the Holy Spirit.

I see. Thank you.

 

 

You get the choice of your destination in the next life do you think this is fair or do you think you aren’t accountable for your choices?

Yes, I am accountable for my choices to an extent. If I know the consequences of my actions and I perform that action, then I am responsible for that.

 

But I would never willingly choose to be tortured forever. Who would? That's absurd. If my actions somehow lead to consequences I honestly didn't know would happen, I can't necessarily say I'm responsible for those consequences,especially when the consequences are brought on by someone else such as God who didn't adequately explain the consequences in a clear manner. Kind of like rules to a game. If the rule maker doesn't adequately explain the rules, how can he hold people who break them accountable?

 

 

 

God will reveal himself to anyone who diligently seeks Him. I suggest you read the Offence of the Cross thread which will explain why you may be confused about God’s assessment of your position of rebellion against Him.

 

... But you cannot treat a sickness or disease without first coming to terms with the fact that you are indeed sick and need of a remedy for it. Just as some people will go for months or even years living in denial that they are diabetic, have cancer or have heart disease, many live in denial about their sin-sick condition. And like cancer, and heart disease and diabetes, the consequence for ignoring it can be fatal....

 

Is it not the doctor's/God's job to give me a diagnosis of this sickness? He supposedly knows more about this sickness than I do. Where is this doctor? I'd like to meet him so we can discuss this sickness in a rational manner. There, I expressed my desire to meet him. If he doesn't come, he either doesn't want to come or can't. Or he may just not exist.

 

As for what is called the "sickness", perhaps the doctor's apparent absence in the face of a direct request to meet him means we should stop relying on him to fix it and start fixing it ourselves.