In doing various reading, I came across the following statement from Creation Ministries:

"The truth claims of theology based on sound exegesis of the biblical text (using the historical-grammatical method of interpretation upon which all meaningful human communication is based) are superior to all other competing truth claims, and scientific truth claims are only valid and reliable when they describe natural processes or phenomena where God has not chosen to directly act or intervene."

That's certainly a bold claim, that the bible itself is superior to all other truth claims. However it seems to pre-suppose believing in the truth of the bible to begin with. My question is, what reason do we have for believing in the bible in the first place?

Casting about for answers, I came across the following article, Why I Believe the Bible, which details five supposed reasons for believing the bible. I must confess I found the reasons less than persuasive. There's also this article, Why should I believe the Bible?, which attempts to answer the same question.

As best I can gather from this brief survey, the reasons are:

1. The bible says so;
   
2. The bible is internally consistent;
   
3. The bible successfully describes historical events;
   
4. The bible predicted specific archaeological discoveries;
   
5. The bible changes lives;
   
6. Jesus said to believe the bible.

Are these really the reasons why one should believe the bible? Have I missed important reasons for believing the bible? What say you, Christians? Anybody? Why do you believe the bible?

For an alternative view, one might examine Richard Carrier's recounting the history of canonization of the New Testament, The Formation of the New Testament Canon, to see how prior belief has guided the formation of, at least, the New Testament.

Quote:

1. The bible says so;
   
2. The bible is internally consistent;
   
3. The bible successfully describes historical events;
   
4. The bible predicted specific archaeological discoveries;
   
5. The bible changes lives;
   
6. Jesus said to believe the bible.
   

1.  All holy books (so called) and a lot of non-holy ones say you should believe what they have to say.  Like you, I find this less than compelling.

2.  Fail. Matthew 1:23  'Behold! The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call Him Immanuel'.  Matthew 1:25  'But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a Son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.'

3.  Right enough, it gets a few right.

4.  I'm unaware of any.

5.  'Moby Dick' changes lives as well (puts people off Melville for life).

6.  As Jesus was a known liar, I wouldn't take this one too seriously.

All in all, I think I'm more inclined to believe 'A Practical Guide To Blacksmithing' than the Bible.

Boru

(June 27, 2018 at 7:42 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 7:10 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: 4. The bible predicted specific archaeological discoveries;

4.  I'm unaware of any.

Quote:The Bible’s truth claims concerning world history have also been substantiated. Skeptics used to criticize the Bible for its mention of the Hittite people (e.g., 2 Kings 7:6). The lack of any archaeological evidence to support the existence of a Hittite culture was often cited as a rebuttal against Scripture. In 1876, however, archaeologists discovered evidence of the Hittite nation, and by the early 20th century the vastness of the Hittite nation and its influence in the ancient world was common knowledge.

Why should I believe the Bible?

If we're talking about a one hundred percent literal reading combined with a viewpoint of complete and utter literal innerancy of the Bible, then the investigating reader will run into problems very quickly. The first contradiction is in Genesis 2. It contradicts a passage in Genesis 1, if both are read literally.

In the UK and the rest of Europe for that matter Christianity is dieing on its arse.
With the demise of one more old generation the church will be finished and an added bonus is there will be no one left to pen such desperate lies.
It is over, and they know it, this utter trash they write is a result of blind panic.

(June 27, 2018 at 8:29 pm)JairCrawford Wrote: If we're talking about a one hundred percent literal reading combined with a viewpoint of complete and utter literal innerancy of the Bible, then the investigating reader will run into problems very quickly. The first contradiction is in Genesis 2. It contradicts a passage in Genesis 1, if both are read literally.

I'm thinking something along the lines of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy rather than any necessarily slavish literality. I don't know if that does or doesn't cover your objection. There seems to be plenty of debate about what should and should not be interpreted literally. A fellow member, Catholic_Lady, holds that as a Catholic, she is free to interpret the entire Old Testament as allegorical, and I don't believe she considers that at odds with the bible's authoritativeness as a whole. (She's not around lately, unfortunately.)

(June 27, 2018 at 8:55 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(June 27, 2018 at 8:29 pm)JairCrawford Wrote: If we're talking about a one hundred percent literal reading combined with a viewpoint of complete and utter literal innerancy of the Bible, then the investigating reader will run into problems very quickly. The first contradiction is in Genesis 2. It contradicts a passage in Genesis 1, if both are read literally.

I'm thinking something along the lines of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy rather than any necessarily slavish literality. I don't know if that does or doesn't cover your objection. There seems to be plenty of debate about what should and should not be interpreted literally. A fellow member, Catholic_Lady, holds that as a Catholic, she is free to interpret the entire Old Testament as allegorical, and I don't believe she considers that at odds with the bible's authoritativeness as a whole. (She's not around lately, unfortunately.)

Even though I'm much more Protestant leaning myself, I would tend to agree with that interpretation. The Old Testament, is after all, first and foremost the religious text of Judaism, and I am not Jewish.

Unintentional dp.

The Bible did not write itself. It was written by believers, not doubters. I practice doubt.

(June 27, 2018 at 7:10 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: In doing various reading, I came across the following statement from Creation Ministries:

"The truth claims of theology based on sound exegesis of the biblical text (using the historical-grammatical method of interpretation upon which all meaningful human communication is based) are superior to all other competing truth claims, and scientific truth claims are only valid and reliable when they describe natural processes or phenomena where God has not chosen to directly act or intervene."

---

That's certainly a bold claim, that the bible itself is superior to all other truth claims.  However it seems to pre-suppose believing in the truth of the bible to begin with.  My question is, what reason do we have for believing in the bible in the first place?

Casting about for answers, I came across the following article,  Why I Believe the Bible, which details five supposed reasons for believing the bible.  I must confess I found the reasons less than persuasive.  There's also this article, Why should I believe the Bible?, which attempts to answer the same question.

As best I can gather from this brief survey, the reasons are:

1. The bible says so;
   
2. The bible is internally consistent;
   
3. The bible successfully describes historical events;
   
4. The bible predicted specific archaeological discoveries;
   
5. The bible changes lives;
   
6. Jesus said to believe the bible.
   

Are these really the reasons why one should believe the bible?  Have I missed important reasons for believing the bible?  What say you, Christians?  Anybody?   Why do you believe the bible?

For an alternative view, one might examine Richard Carrier's recounting the history of canonization of the New Testament, The Formation of the New Testament Canon, to see how prior belief has guided the formation of, at least, the New Testament.

---

bold mine

I like this part. Bye bye creation/creator of earth/nature.