Why do Christians trust the Bible?

[Mystical]

...this is my first post ever and I hope I did a fair enough job of addressing the OP’s original post. Cheers,

Perhaps you could introduce yourself in the Introductions forum. And geez, what's up with the word wall?

[Anomalocaris]

Name an improvement to the quality of life that could only have been created by Christianity?

The vain hope that what christianity definitely takes away from you in this life it will hopefully suffer to return to you after you have died and could no longer complain to anyone if it doesn't?

[Minimalist]

1) The Bible is not a single “Book” but a collection of books that were written over a large span of time, by multiple authors, with different literary style and all focused on a similar topic (GOD) and culminated with what is the New Testament.

You'll have a much harder time selling that to the jesus freaks.

[Jenny A]

Name one improvement to the quality of life created by Christianity.

Western civilization. Don't even try to pretend that Christianity didn't play a part in the Renaissance, the Scientific revolution, the abolition of slavery, and the rise of constitutional democracies.

Christianity is still a major part of Western Civilization, but The Fall of Rome happened despite the coming of Christianity and with it came a loss of much technical and artistic knowledge which was not revived for the roughly 1000 Christian years that followed. The information revived was Greek and Roman and much of the ancient documents admired and consulted were preserved by Arab nations.

The scientific revolution happened despite, rather than because of the church.

Christianity has been used as a prop for monarchies for many more years than have been western democracies. Similarly, Christianity was used throughout Africa, North and South America to justify slavery. Many Southern churches owned slaves. Further many of the abolitionists were atheists including: William Lloyd Garrison and Ralph Waldo Emerson.

[Exian]

Blee, what archeological evidence have you that supports the bible being accurate?

If the bible was historically accurate, I would be even more suspicious of its writings, as preservation of and faithfulness to past events wasn't a widely utilized concept in the purported times. It's inaccuracy is more consistent with what you'd expect from a document or documents meant to manipulate large masses to act under a unified cause, rather than merely report on recent history without a hint of motive.

[Blee]

Hi, Blee, I guess I missed your introduction thread.

It’s up there now. Sorry everyone for the word wall. I'll try to keep it short in future posts.

Yes we all know it's a collection of books by different authors or groups of authors, some zanier than others. What it is emphatically not, is a historically accurate account. Most of the OT is simply impossible and much of the rest of it improbable. The NT is not much better. Much of it is also improbable, or in the case of the nativity story contrary to the historical evidence.

Can we agree to say that, I don’t know, 40%/50%/60% of the Bible is true? (At least the historical books). Or is the overall consensus of this forum that 0% of it is true? And how does that compare with the analysis of other ancient texts? There will always be factual inconsistencies with historical accounts so at what point does a historical account become fact, especially for works that are waaaaay before our time.

I assume that when you say “simply impossible”, “improbable” and so forth you are referring to the supernatural events (fire raining down from heaven, parting the red sea, sound of trumpets destroying a city, whale eating a man who survives for months). If so, I agree that those things are difficult to believe. But does one story, maybe two stories, that is impossible to believe (based on our understanding of physics and nature and so forth) mean that nothing can be taken as fact?

I guess it’s down to the “I have no proof that XX supernatural event happened other than these words in this book”. Does that mean it definitively never happened? Or could it still POSSIBLY have happened. If we had the right tools and data, we can make a better and more informed conclusion, BUT since we don’t… I guess it is natural that some people would believe, and some people wouldn’t.

So your trust is based on faith in god?

I assume you are saying my trust that God picked the right books. Is it based on faith? Yes, as well as my own personal experiences and exposure to what the Bible says. I don’t read it because God told me to, I read it because I was interested in what the most printed book in all of known history has to say. Why is it that popular? Partly because of persecution (people forced to go to church etc.), but I would say primarily because people thought it definitely was “GOOD NEWS/GOSPEL” and wanted to share it.

The existence of some people, places and things mentioned in the Bible does not suggest it is true. Greek and Roman myths also name real people places and things. So do most novels. Besides there's plenty of evidence that certain bits, like Noah's Flood, the order of the creation of the world, Exodus, conquering the promised land, the census that brought Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem, etc. are factually incorrect.

Again, what do you mean by factually incorrect? Can you point me to some DEFINITIVE finding that refutes that those could have NEVER happened and the account in the Bible is 100% wrong? I could play the devil’s advocate and say even if it was proven 99% wrong, there is still that 1% possibility we could one day find some artifact or law that perfectly explains things in the Bible. That’s a game I don’t want to play, so is there a middle ground that can be reached with respect to this?

The lack of evidence in the form sediment, available water, and destruction of all cities on earth is more than plenty of proof there never was a world wide flood.

You say “lack of evidence”, again is this definitive? Are we 100% sure that if there was a flood, there MUST have been some sort of sediment, available water, and evidence of destroyed cities? If not, then I’d suggest that those events still have the possibility of happening without these signs that we don’t fully understand or know yet.

(Today 22:02)Blee Wrote: The fact that we still have Jews today, I take as a sign that the Bible (at least the Old Testament) is true. The fact that they still hold its teachings (in addition to the Talmud) and practices lead me to think that there is some truth to their history that is laid out in the Old Testament.

Really?

Well, why not? It’s not like a bunch of randoms just got up and decided to start shaving off their foreskin at an early age and abstaining from pork. I will agree that it doesn’t affirm the truth of the Bible 100% (I don’t think anything can) but shouldn’t that hold some weight? Who am I to say that the Jewish history is wrong?

(Today 22:02)Blee Wrote: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John writing their own accounts of Jesus. Four accounts of the same story written for different audiences. I think Christopher Hitchens, being a journalist himself, was once asked what the likelihood of 4 different journalists reporting on the same story and writing similar accounts of the story would be difficult, if not impossible. The fact that the four gospels are similar but different gives me a sense of purpose for each book.

Since there is plenty of contextual evidence that the synoptic gospels were all copied from the same source, I don't find their similarity astounding any more than I find the similarity of multiple stories taken from the same AP wire astounding. Nevertheless, the gospels do contradict each other about historical facts.

Fair enough, but do you think that this “source” was a brilliant prankster seeking to misguide people?
The fact that they all come from one source has no bearing on whether or not the account is true. In fact, I’d argue that the more perspectives there are of a certain event, a better picture of the actual event can be seen.

So then it follows that if there are any glaring inconsistencies where one gospel contradicts another, either one of them is wrong, both are wrong, or both are right (depending on the nature of the inconsistency). Can you name some contradictions between gospels? Preferably ones that are not minor in nature.

Yes, the Bible has some common themes. And yes it makes some attempts to explain suffering among other problems. But I don't see how it explains god's part in it in any really useful way.

I could direct you to some sources that talk about God’s role in suffering. Other any other topic for that matter. Let me know if you are interested.

On a side note, I just want to point out that you used “useful” in your answer. I think that is indicative of a core misunderstanding of who/what God is in comparison to us humans. There is evidence that humans USE God in history and even today as an excuse to justify political motives and agendas, and I think a lot of opposition to God stems from this reality. I do not believe that is God’s purpose, nor is it his desire to be used. It suggests that God can be boxed and picked at for the things that we like, and then boxed for things that we don’t like. I don’t think this is a fair view of who/what God is since you’ve already assumed things about him before even trying to understand him.

I'm about as skeptical of Biblical prophecies as I am about any other prophesy, and the Bible does not deliver. There are several thread discussing Biblical prophecy here that you might consider reading before weighing in, but just for starters name one verifiable fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. Choose the best one.

I will take your advice and look at some other threads . You assume that I know the “best one”. I guess that would probably just be Isaiah 53 pretty much in its entirety.

I’d like to learn of the objections as well, hopefully the forums shed some light on those!

The Biblical accounts of Jesus were written a full generation after his death. That's not early enough to be very reliable. Our oldest copies are not that old. The number of copies authenticates the that the manuscripts existed, not that the events described in them are true.

Is two generations fair game? Or three? Genghis Khan existed some 10+ generations ago (my own awful guess)? How do we know that he existed? How do we know he did all those atrocious things and how can we trust that those accounts are in fact true? I’d challenge you to name a number of other historical figures (Alexander, Constantine, William Wallace, Napolean etc etc) and expose them to the same process and scrutiny. Why is scrutiny of the Bible so much more intense than almost every other ancient text?

Yes, but it presents the law as law given from god. That, I would think should be timeless, if really from god.

Your idea of timeless, I assume, can be expanded to mean “genderless”, “non-sexist”, “non-racial”… I guess universal through all time and applicable in all circumstance? So because of a flawed law, you believe it cannot be from what is assumed to be a perfect God. I guess this ties into the argument about fallibility/infallibility? So the Golden Rule is what you would think is a timeless rule? (Depends on the do-er, I’d like to be persecuted so I will persecute).

I’ll just say that as Christians, we believe that Jesus came and fulfilled the law and freed us from the grasp or expectations of the law (if that makes any sense to you). Jesus freed us from that grasp, in order for us to be able to live properly (with the right motives inspired by God and the Holy Spirit) under the law. This is like a giant leap into theology…which is fine, but I think there are more qualified people to speak about this than I. I’d gladly redirect interested people to those more qualified people.

Martyrs undoubtedly believe. That doesn't make them right. I'm sure the men in the planes that crashed into the twin towers believed the were right.

So wouldn’t you think that after all the martyrs died, the entire debacle would just… disappear into history? It didn’t. How can that be explained?

Also, I’m sure those men in the planes did believe so. In terms of Islam, Muhammad established a Muslim state by winning his first couple wars with other Arab states and cementing the power in the region, similar to what Constantine did for Christianity. Fighting for their faith is embedded in their teachings. I challenge you to find a similar doctrinal teaching or notion in Christianity that encourages killing others (breaking the law) as a requirement to being good to God.

(Today 22:02)Blee Wrote: Furthermore, if a room full of people claim to have seen a body risen from the dead (mass hallucination is rare with the exception of drugs. I'm not aware of any drugs available back at that time.), all the authorities needed to do was to produce the body that was buried at a known location by a known person. Easy fix, no?

There's no evidence other than books written a generation later that anyone saw any such thing.

Again, what other evidence do we have? Simply just the books. And because it is a generation later, does it discredit the books that much to the point where 100% it must be wrong? Why this excessive scrutiny?

(Today 22:02)Blee Wrote: However, it is also fulfilling and purposeful as evidenced by the quality of life improvements that have happened over the course of history, and are happening all over the world.

Name one improvement to the quality of life created by Christianity and ONLY Christianity

I’m not a scholar remember, but I’d bet to say that freedom is one quality of life improvement supported by Christianity. The Roman Republic, Greek Democracy… I’d argue that they didn’t have what they needed to actually function as it is intended theoretically, that is until Christianity came along. Thoughts?

You do talk about monarchies using the Bible to justify slavery. I'd argue that the literacy rate back in the day was low, the general populace was less educated, slavery had its hold on civilization WAY before Christianity was conceived, and people in power are generally corrupted in some way. Do you agree?

[Minimalist]

Can we agree to say that, I don’t know, 40%/50%/60% of the Bible is true?

Absolutely not.

[genkaus]

Name one improvement to the quality of life created by Christianity.

Western civilization. Don't even try to pretend that Christianity didn't play a part in the Renaissance, the Scientific revolution, the abolition of slavery, and the rise of constitutional democracies.

Don't even try to pretend that "playing a part" is the same as "creating".

[Blee]

Blee, what archeological evidence have you that supports the bible being accurate?

If the bible was historically accurate, I would be even more suspicious of its writings, as preservation of and faithfulness to past events wasn't a widely utilized concept in the purported times. It's inaccuracy is more consistent with what you'd expect from a document or documents meant to manipulate large masses to act under a unified cause, rather than merely report on recent history without a hint of motive.

Do the Dead Sea Scrolls give Biblical accounts any weight?
Do references to the House of David (i.e., Tel Dan Stele) verify the Biblical stories of David?
Do findings like the Nabonidus Chronicle verify historical accounts in Daniel and so forth?
I'll just say that they may not be DIRECT archaeological findings that explicitly prove certain events (a finding like this would be massive), but would the accuracy of the Bible with these other findings give it some weight towards it being a truthful account? Again, at this stage we can be skeptics and just say there is not enough evidence which is perfectly fair.

However, don't these findings give the Biblical accounts some sort of verification?

You say that preserving writing wasn't a widely used concept back in their times, neither was the idea of monotheism. The Israelites lived the Bible, in a sense, so its probably likely that things were transmitted through oral tradition. However, it is likely that important events such as references to their laws, kings and wars were recorded possibly as a trophy or reminder for following generations (i.e., Deuteronomy, 1 2 Kings, Judges etc. etc.)

You say the Bible is written as if it were used to manipulate the masses. How were these masses manipulated, and by whom, and for what reason? Whoever receives the most benefit perhaps? Or maybe by God?

You refer to its inaccuracy, can you provide a couple? Could the inaccuracies in fact just be human error, as opposed to malignant motive?

[The Grand Nudger]

Whose being a skeptic? There -is- enough evidence for a narrative wholly contradictory to the biblical one.