Historical Evidence for the Book of Ruth

[Guest shiloh357]

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.

 

Yes, but the point is that not everyone has access to all of the data.   So they trust the word of the doctors and those who have studied it out.  It's not like every person has been to the lab and done the experiments and can explain the data.  There is a simple consensus among the masses that ciggarettes  cause cancer, even if they are not familiar with all of the data.

 

If you were to come to anyone of those regular people on the street and claim that the consensus is wrong, YOU are the one who would have to provide a reason for them to change their mind. .  You would be expected to provide evidence that would lead them to change their minds.

 

 

 

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?

 

I have already provided that information in an earlier post.

[WillfromTexas]

Well the book of Ruth is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which is the oldest copy of scriptures.  They didn't have the internet back then you know much less literate people.

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/search#q=composition_type_en:'Scripture'

 

How we as Christians know it is true is because Ruth is the direct blood line to Jesus Christ.  So she obviously existed.  Many things were destroyed in the Temple 70 AD.  Land deeds and the such destroyed by those who stole the land.

 

If you're wanting eye witnesses- well they've been dead for a few thousand years now.

[Guest]

The burden of proof rest on anyone who makes a claim....

 

 

Yes Indeed Beloved

 

O taste and see that the LORD is good: blessed is the man that trusteth in him. Psalms 34:8

 

It Does

 

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:15

[MorningGlory]

 

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.

 

 

The 'corroborating evidence' IS the Biblical account.  The Bible is inerrant and not subject to the judgment of man.

[Swoosh]

So then you do not believe in Alexander the Great's exploits? 

Correct. I don't know enough about the evidence of Alexander the Great's exploits to 100% accept the claims as true.

 

So then you do not believe that life evolved from non-living matter? Good! There is zero, zilch, nada, evidence as you would accept as a definition for what constitutes evidence...but you probably believe it without question...

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.

 

 

I could go on with more examples but this should suffice to show the foolishness of your position...you do the very thing you claim is inadequate...

 

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?

[Swoosh]

Now then, having got past that clarification...Shiloh rightly pointed out "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."

 

And this is one of the ways actual historians validate the ancient past, but there are also other cultural considerations...for example, the Israelites were sticklers for genealogies. This was a personal quality of their peoples from long before David. His genealogy which leads up to him is recorded both before him and after him and this keeping of historical records could therefore not have ever been contrived after him.

 

Now someone could surmise this is circular in proving the point, IF they thought of the Bible as one book (like using the Bible to prove the Bible), and IF it were true then indeed this would be like trying to "prove" Freud's Principles of Psychoanalysis from Freud's Principles of Psycho analysis alone (which would indeed prove nothing)...

 

But it is not true...the Bible is 66 different books, written by over 30 different authors, over a period of 1500 years, from every social strata, on three continents....this would be like saying we have validated Freud's Principles because over 30 different people, from different countries, at different levels of accademia have also confirmed the Principles in their own works...now certainly they are not going to confirm every passage from Freud's text (that they are agreeing is assumed except where they question it)

 

Now because this has indeed happened in the case of Freud's work people respect the truth of it whether they agree with it or not...however NO ONE in their rational mind can say it was made up and the content of this book is false because no one can now go back and find all these people and all these case details...that would be ludicrous! So in addition to what Shiloh pointed out (David being an actual person) combined with genealogical evidence from a half dozen sources (where his line begins can be found in the Torah...then go to Kings...then there is Chronicles...the fact his son Solomon also was real and we know about him...and then there are genealogies in Matthew and Luke....dude this is more evidence of the likely hood the story is true then we have for many ancient personages (that are totally accepted)....their is no reason to believe it is possibly made up...why? For what purpose? Why include it in the Bible? What purpose would it serve? 

 

Paul

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.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Swoosh

[Swoosh]

Well the book of Ruth is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls which is the oldest copy of scriptures.  They didn't have the internet back then you know much less literate people.\

 

How we as Christians know it is true is because Ruth is the direct blood line to Jesus Christ.  So she obviously existed.  Many things were destroyed in the Temple 70 AD.  Land deeds and the such destroyed by those who stole the land.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you understand what I'm asking for? While it may or may not be true that Ruth actually existed, that doesn't tell me how you know that the stories written about her are true or not. 

Edited November 30, 2013 by Swoosh

[Swoosh]

Yes, but the point is that not everyone has access to all of the data.   So they trust the word of the doctors and those who have studied it out.  It's not like every person has been to the lab and done the experiments and can explain the data.  There is a simple consensus among the masses that ciggarettes  cause cancer, even if they are not familiar with all of the data.

The studies done on this issue have been published and the researchers' methods are recorded just in case someone would like to retest to see if they get the same results. The fact that these researcher's results are systematically testable and observable make me more likely to believe their word and hold it as the status quo, especially when many other tests by different people verify the results. With the idea resources, I can see firsthand if the researchers were wrong.

 

Could I be wrong in accepting this? Yes, there's a possibility. But that's more reasonable and very different from accepting genealogies as evidence for the truthfulness of stories about a person in the genealogy. That doesn't seem to be a reasonable method for determining if the stories are true.

 

What if there are different stories about Ruth with those same "evidence", but those stories were in conflict with the stories you already accept as true? You can't accept both as true, so which do you reject?

[Guest ninhao]

What if there are different stories about Ruth with those same "evidence", but those stories were in conflict with the stories you already accept as true? You can't accept both as true, so which do you reject?

 

 

This is interesting young Mr Swoosh.

 

Firstly; do you have any stories about Ruth which are in conflict with the Bible ?

 

Secondly; do you believe the Holocaust of  WW2 occurred and if so why ?

[Fez]

Swoosh, did Xerxes, the king in the movie 300, the one that fought the Spartans at Thermopylae exist? Did you see the movie?

 

Did Leonidas exist? Did Esther exist?

 

I am asking because there are people on this site who study history, and you seem to have little knowledge of the history that occurred during the time of the bible being written? 

 

It would help your argument if you knew a bit of history.