Why do Christians trust the Bible?

[Aractus]

Literacy rates were so high that there is obvious observable difference between competent and less competent writers in the Greek language. I have never heard a historian say they've observed this difference in, say, Egypt.

[Minimalist]

It's simply not true.

http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents....t-century/

Bart Ehrman on Literacy in the First Century
Posted on April 2, 2012 by Mike Gantt

Several significant studies of literacy have appeared in recent years showing just how low literacy rates were in antiquity. The most frequently cited study is by Columbia professor William Harris in a book titled Ancient Literacy. By thoroughly examining all the surviving evidence, Harris draws the compelling though surprising conclusion that in the very best of times in the ancient world, only about 10 percent of the population could read at all and possibly copy out writing on a page. Far fewer than this, of course, could compose a sentence, let alone a story, let alone an entire book. And who were the people in this 10 percent? They were the upper-class elite who had the time, money, and leisure to afford an education. This is not an apt description of Jesus’s disciples. They were not upper-crust aristocrats.

In Roman Palestine the situation was even bleaker. The most thorough examination of literacy in Palestine is by a professor of Jewish studies at the University of London, Catherine Hezser, who shows that in the days of Jesus probably only 3 percent of Jews in Palestine were literate. Once again, these would be the people who could read and maybe write their names and copy words. Far fewer could compose sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books. And once again, these would have been the urban elites.

[Vivalarevolution]

And while I feel that my contribution in this thread is going to come to a close soon (since there isn't any debatable ground left) I would like to thank you all of you for making me challenge myself. I thought up all the answers to your questions in this thread by myself and I must say, I've discovered how much I really know.
Now thanks to debating with you guys and asking myself questions I didn't know the answers to, my faith is stronger than ever :D

Oh I didn't realise Jenny A replied.

But now you've come to the most interesting part of all - is faith a valid and reliable way to know things?

Do you think you have actual knowledge of Jesus doing miracles or are you pretending to know things you don't actually know? And why would that be a valid way of seeing the world?

Your question kept me up all night, trying to think of ways to answer. Really well thought out. I'll come back for a more complete response later, but for now here is what I have to say-

Is faith a valid way of looking at the world? No. It certainly isn't. BUT it certainly is a valid way of comprehending the mysteries in the world until explanations pop up. And seeing as Jesus never wanted to perform the wine miracle in the first place and constantly told everyone to keep the miracles a secret, I don't think believing in miracles is necessary. Believing in spite of that is a different matter.
Jesus said their faith will heal them. Maybe faith really does heal? Confidence something better will happen. Take the lourdes water for example. The water isn't magical. The saint Bernadette said herself that just going into the water won't heal anyone. It takes faith. Thousands go there every year to get "healed" and scientists HAVE accepted that nearly impossible cases have also been healed. Call it law of attraction for a more secular word.
I have no problem accepting Jesus wasn't who he said he was. IF I am given strong evidence that he absolutely did not exist, and that all his actions absolutely didn't happen, I will stop believing. The fact that all those people were willing to die for what they thought was truth is enough for me. If they weren't 100 % sure of being right, or if the apostles knew they had created a false character and attributed a false set of beliefs to the fictional character, KNOWING that they'll have be scourged, insulted, beaten, killed for their made up beliefs on charges of blasphemy, they wouldn't have gone throughout the Roman Empire preaching. That's like ASKING to be killed. For now, I will continue to believe, even if it's just based on faith.

Fun fact #2- I've never heard of Vespasian's miracle, but on his deathbed he said "oh! I think I'm becoming a god!"
Then he stood up from the bed, because gods shouldn't die lying down.

[Exian]

Using faith as a tentative stance becomes permanent when the subject is unfalsifiable.

[Tonus]

Is faith a valid way of looking at the world? No. It certainly isn't. BUT it certainly is a valid way of comprehending the mysteries in the world until explanations pop up.

It was probably just the best option. It's simply the way our minds work-- we have to make a judgment call on anything we don't understand, so that we can take action to deal with it. That rustling in the bushes may be the wind, or it may be a predator... waiting to find out could be fatal, so we make a quick decision (it's a lion!) and take action (run!).

The system doesn't work so well when we're confronted with more mundane issues that nonetheless pique our curiosity. What causes rain? What are those white dots in the night sky? What causes the seasons? And so on. A valid way to comprehend those mysteries is to observe, hypothesize, and test. Thousands of years ago, testing might involve sacrificing a goat or performing a ritual dance, and seeing if the crops failed or thrived. Today, we know that those aren't related in any way.

If god had been there, he would've told those folks that it was a darn shame, wasting a goat like that. On the other hand, dancing was a good aerobic workout, even if it wasn't going to make it rain.

[Aractus]

Min, no one knows the literacy rate. The 10 and 5% "estimates" you hear are just that, guesses. What the facts are is there are a lot of artefacts with greek letters on them. It was in widespread use whatever the actual literary rate was.

[Minimalist]

This was a class-based society, Danny. The overwhelming majority of people were peasant farmers who not only could not read, they had no use for reading and could not have afforded books in any case. Literacy, even today, is an expensive skill to acquire and unless there is a damn good reason for doing so no society is going to waste resources on it.

Then there is the question of "degree" of literacy. Even today a person who scrapes by high school is not going to be able to comprehend an advanced science text or <shudder> philosophical text. OMG CUL8ER uses letters but it doesn't rise to the level of neo-platonist scholars.

[vorlon13]

The religious idolatry in catholicism from virtually all the way back is to illustrate biblical themes for the unwashed masses who could not read. And for folks who didn't understand latin sermons, that was the extent of their religious instruction.

I can imagine some/most/all of the church hierarchy discouraging reading to avoid nuisances like 95 theses being nailed conspicuously to doors.

[Vivalarevolution]

And while I feel that my contribution in this thread is going to come to a close soon (since there isn't any debatable ground left) I would like to thank you all of you for making me challenge myself. I thought up all the answers to your questions in this thread by myself and I must say, I've discovered how much I really know.
Now thanks to debating with you guys and asking myself questions I didn't know the answers to, my faith is stronger than ever

Oh I didn't realise Jenny A replied.

But now you've come to the most interesting part of all - is faith a valid and reliable way to know things?

Do you think you have actual knowledge of Jesus doing miracles or are you pretending to know things you don't actually know? And why would that be a valid way of seeing the world?

Also, just a thought I had; (NOTHING religious). Apart from what I already wrote, I think faith could be beneficial for personal reassurance and comfort.
For example, I have faith that I will make it till tomorrow. I have no proof or can say for sure that I'm NOT going to die before tomorrow, but I have faith that I'll still be alive when I wake up tomorrow.
On the other hand, if I didn't have faith, I'd be depressed. If I didn't have faith I'm going to be alive tomorrow, I can't imagine what that'll feel like.
So faith in god isn't the only thing in which faith isn't included.

Note- I wasn't writing about religion at all, just psychology

[Chad32]

I'm pretty sure the expectation of waking up tomorrow, unless you had a solid reason to believe otherwise, either isn't faith or is a different kind of faith than believing in the existence of a supernatural realm where a god resides. A god that actually gives a shit about you, and how you live your life, and rewards and punishes people as he sees fit.