Why do Christians trust the Bible?

[Jenny A]

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.

No, we really cannot. Science contradicts the creation story and Genesis. Everything we know about language contradicts the story of Babel. The stories of patriarchs are full of anachronisms that describe nomad life at the time of the Babylonian captivity, not earlier. All of Exodus and Deuteronomy are clearly fantasy and not just the supernatural bits. The archeological record and Egyptian records contradict it. No defeat of the Egyptian army. No fleeing of more people than existed in the area really. No 4o years in the desert. The archeological record doesn't support the concurring of Isreal and Judea either. It's not until Kings and Chronicles that there's even a semblance of history.

As noted earlier, the gospels are clearly not reliable and the lack of any
ANY sources for Jesus within twenty years of his life time is telling. I grant you some of historical information in the Epistles is probably true. But they aren't about history, they are sermons by letter.

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?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to believe. The Bible provides less than adequate evidence for ordinary claims, i.e. claim contradicted by science, archeology, and contemporary sources. So I can't take the Bible as anything approaching proof of miracles.

It's claim of miracles doesn't doesn't create confidence for it's purely historical material. But as noted above, historically, the Bible is bunk.

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.

99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% or more sure the miracles didn't happen. See above.

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 Bible is much purchased and rarely really read. It's even more rarely read in whole books instead of favorite verses.

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?

Prove that it is 100% wrong? No I couldn't do that and wouldn't claim it. Proving a negative is impossible. But sensible people believe that which is proven correct and dismiss that for which there is no evidence or for which there is only evidence to the contrary.

For example, if there had been a world wide flood there would be a single layer of sediment demonstrating that. It would be uniform world wide and easy to see. It's not there.

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.

Yes anyone who knows anything about physics, geology, or biology is really really really sure.

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?

That Jewish people exist proves Jewish people exist. It does not prove that their legends about their origins are true. Rome existed a long long time but I don't believe in the legend of Romulus and Remus, do you?

Can you name some contradictions between gospels? Preferably ones that are not minor in nature.

There's the date of Jesus' birth, which may be minor to you, but suggests to me a whole lot of fabricating was going on:

According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_...tions.html

There are many many discrepancies in the final days of Jesus and his resurrection:

How many women came to the tomb?
- Matthew – 2
- Mark – 3
- Luke – 5
- John – 1

Who were the messengers at the tomb?

- Matthew – One angel
- Mark – Men
- Luke – Men
- John – Two angels

Who did the women tell?

- Matthew – Disciples
- Mark – No one
- Luke – Disciples and others
- John – Mary Magdalene told the disciples

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.

Thanks, but I've probably read more theology than you have.

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.

emphasis mine.

I don't oppose god because people use him to justify themselves. I oppose people using him to justify themselves. What I don't see is any evidence of an actual god to oppose. I'm not against him anymore than I'm against unicorns.

But I do find the god described in the OT a despicable character notworthy of worship in the unlikely event he existed. The OT god is not much better.

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.

Interesting choice. Did you know that the Jews interpret "my servant" as the nation of Israel? http://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_...rvant.html Do read the link, it is interesting. Beyond that ask yourself if these verses describe Jesus?

"He was despised and rejected by others;
a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity;
and as one from whom others hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him of no account." Isaiah 53:3

Doesn't sound like Jesus of the Gospels to me.

How about this?

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with disease.
When you make his life an offering for sin,
he shall see his offspring, and shall prolong his days;
through him the will of the Lord shall prosper." Isiah 53:10

Jesus had kids? Died of disease? Really?

"Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;
because he poured out himself to death,
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors." Isiah 53:12

Jesus was one of the sinners?

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?

Everyone you name has multiple contemporary sources attesting to their deeds and existence even William Wallace though I had to google to find out who he was. In the cases of Napoleon and Constantine, there are an insane number of them. There are none, zip, zero, for Jesus. Why would that be?

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.

My objection, stated as simply as I can, is that the law is said to be god's law and it was immoral requiring the execution of raped woman and continencing slavery. Looks like a product of the times not god to me.

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.

I'm not arguing that Christianity encourages killing others (although the crusades and the inquisition suggests it can) but rather that martyrs prove nothing other than the martyrs' faith. Christians and Muslims both believe strongly enough to die for their beliefs. Who's to choose between them?

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? <snip>

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?

No, but the lack of contemporary evidence merely makes not just the event, but the witnessing of the event improbable.

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?

Christianity did not create freedom. There was very little freedom for the first 1000 years of Christianity. Romans had a Republic before the empire and the Athenians a Democracy. Christianity saw no such thing until the 1700s.

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?

No, I talked about Christians justifying slavery with the Bible. Monarchies justified the right of kings with the Bible.

Slavery existed long before Christianity, that I grant you. And
I'd agree that the rate of literacy was low until the 1900s, but not among those priests and officials arguing in favor of slavery, nor among the slave holders. Certainly not among the Jesuits and certainly not among the preachers and other slave holding citizens of the Southern United States. And they used the OT to great affect. Nor does the NT prohibit slavery. There were Christians on both sides of the issue.