Why believe the bible?

[Angrboda]

[Mystic]

I believe in it so far is it illuminates God's Name and shows a way that most humans are yet to perceive and how it appeals to sincere intellects searching for wisdom.

Some parts of the Bible don't do that well as far I can perceive and I remain silent. Some of the Bible contradicts it's own illuminating proofs and signs. I reject those.

I believe that which is a light and manifests and reminds of God of the Bible, not by dictation, but by facilitating the way to reflection and bringing the intellect to the right path.

[SteveII]

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.

The Bible makes one central claim: that it contains a progressive revelation of God from way back through the establishment of the first century church. The entire purpose is to get us to the culmination of God's plan: Jesus' life, death and resurrection. That thread that ended in Jesus can be found in almost every book in every time period. 

IMO, for the millions of adult converts every year, belief in the Bible starts at the end and goes backward. It starts with the final revelation of God (Jesus' message):


1. It is obvious that we are somehow wired to believe in God/higher power/supernatural/purpose/destiny etc. 
2. Jesus' main message that forgiveness, personal peace, a relationship with God, and eternal life is possible really resonates with some people. 
     a. there are a lot of people, who have had tough experiences that find the forgiveness and internal peace very appealing.
     b. when you meet somone who has been a Christian a long time and exemplifies Jesus' teachings and shares how God has been a constant comfort and support to them in their daily lives, it is very appealing.
     c. eternal life, how can you beat that? This component also helps you make sense/cope of the shortness of life, tragedies, and pain endured while we are here.
3. Another appealing quality of Christianity is having the question of purpose and place in the universe answered. 
     a. with atheism, at best, you are a happy accident with no purpose that will very shortly die and cease to exist.
     b. contrast that with the purpose of man is to "Glorify God and enjoy him forever". We were created for a reason and daily life has purpose.
4. Jesus modeled his teachings of love, compassion, and forgiveness for your fellow man and in doing so set an example that, if aspired to, would result in a very fulfilling/satisfying life. 

If this message resonates with you and you take what is offered, you have now accepted that the main themes of the NT are true. Notice that you don't actually have to believe the Bible (or have even seen one) to get to this stage. This is important because it shows that believing the Bible is inerrant is not required for salvation. 

From the basic knowledge of the NT themes, you further your understanding of Christianity through the books of the NT. After that, you can see how these themes rely on the OT. You begin to see that thread I mentioned above. There are varying degrees of beliefs about inerrantcy. But, there you have it. It is not that the belief in the Bible is circular, it is compelled by accepting the end result and working backward.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The best thing I've heard recently (from this forum, sorry, can't remember who said it) is that the Bible can either be the claim or the evidence. It can't be both otherwise you rely on circular logic. I've started using that one recently and the theists don't know how to respond.

If it's evidence then we can evaluate it along with all the other evidence and discard most of it as being inconsistent with what we know.

If it's a claim then as in the OP, what evidence is there to back it up? As far as I can tell, there is barely anything. Again, we can discard it.

[brewer]

Wired to believe in a god, paleese. Maybe as children, they have a very rich fantasy life.

Then humans get over playing pretend. The only reason the god concept still exists is indoctrination, for power, control, manipulation and money.

[SteveII]

The best thing I've heard recently (from this forum, sorry, can't remember who said it) is that the Bible can either be the claim or the evidence. It can't be both otherwise you rely on circular logic. I've started using that one recently and the theists don't know how to respond.

If it's evidence then we can evaluate it along with all the other evidence and discard most of it as being inconsistent with what we know.

If it's a claim then as in the OP, what evidence is there to back it up? As far as I can tell, there is barely anything. Again, we can discard it.

I'll discuss the NT since it is the newest and most-studied part of the Bible and it contains all the information that you object to. 

Three points on the New Testament not being the claim:

1. The claim is that the events outlined in the gospels really happened--one in particular: that Jesus Christ, the son of God, came to earth to redeem humanity and provide a way for people to have a relationship with God.
2. The gospels and Acts catalog the claim. The balance are letters discussing and applying the claim.
3. The NT consists of 27 different documents written over 50 years time (give or take) by at least nine authors containing no less than 55 major doctrines and 180 doctrinal concepts centered on one figure – Jesus Christ. It's a little bit of an understatement to describe such a diverse collection of palaeographical gold as if it were one thing: the claim.

Evidence for this claim are the authors/documents themselves and the people and events surrounding the life of Jesus that the authors wrote about. It is not as if the gospel writers wrote an essay on what people were saying and gave no opinion on the facts. They were testifying to its truthfulness (as evidenced by their own experience or by interviewing eyewitnesses as they wrote it).

There, your dilemma is broken. The books themselves are the evidence and they individually catalog the same set of claims.  Of course there is more evidence that just the books. 

What do you mean by "discard most of it as being inconsistent with what we know"?

Here's a list of evidence. Respond to that post.

[I_am_not_mafia]

So which parts of the Bible is the claim and which parts are the evidence? Because as far as I have ever seen, xtians treat the Bible as a single entity, as the word of Mr God and I never heard of them differentiating between the two.

Does this mean that we can now discard parts of the Bible which only supply evidence as and when we find that they are incorrect?

And by 'being inconsistent with what we know' I mean, what we have discovered using science and historical research. You know, the kind of science that has created the modern world.

Here's a list of evidence. Respond to that post.

All I see is a list of claims made by you.

[SteveII]

So which parts of the Bible is the claim and which parts are the evidence? Because as far as I have ever seen, xtians treat the Bible as a single entity, as the word of Mr God and I never heard of them differentiating between the two.

Does this mean that we can now discard parts of the Bible which only supply evidence as we find that it's not actually correct?

And by 'being inconsistent with what we know' I mean, what we have discovered using science and historical research. You know, the kind of science that has created the modern world.

The 27 individual books are the evidence. They individually discuss and outline the claim. The Bible is not a single entity no matter who claims it is--it is trivially easy to see that. If someone believes that it is, that is a clear indication that they do not know what they are talking about and their objections are a waste of time. 

What part of the NT is "not actually correct"?

Regarding your last paragraph, that's pretty vague and seems designed to cut off discussion--not promote it. What specific thing in the NT has been disproven by science or historical research? My guess is that you don't really know what you are talking about. Go ahead, answer.

[RoadRunner79]

The best thing I've heard recently (from this forum, sorry, can't remember who said it) is that the Bible can either be the claim or the evidence. It can't be both otherwise you rely on circular logic. I've started using that one recently and the theists don't know how to respond.

If it's evidence then we can evaluate it along with all the other evidence and discard most of it as being inconsistent with what we know.

If it's a claim then as in the OP, what evidence is there to back it up? As far as I can tell, there is barely anything. Again, we can discard it.

I think that is a false dichotomy. First it is important to remember that the Bible is not a single thing, but a collection of writings with a number of authors, over many generations. However even with a single writing, I don’t think it is nescessary to classify it as either a claim or the evidence. They may contain both. If making a distinction, I would describe a claim as the conclusion. If asked how they came to that conclusion, then one could give evidence (and reasons) for why they think that claim is true. The claim is not directly observed, but follows from the evidence and reason. In a writing, we may have a claim, and also support that claim with observation and our thinking to why that is true. It doesn’t need to be either a claim or evidence; it can contain both.

In a writing, one can share the information observed, as evidence for their claim. As well, the evidence may be the claim. I seen a certain man take this women’s purse. The claim is that he stole her purse, and the evidence is that you observed it occur.

If this is not what you mean, then please clarify what you mean by claim, and evidence. And why you think they are exclusive in a writing.

[brewer]

The 27 individual books are the evidence. They individually discuss and outline the claim. The Bible is not a single entity no matter who claims it is--it is trivially easy to see that. If someone believes that it is, that is a clear indication that they do not know what they are talking about and their objections are a waste of time. 

What part of the NT is "not actually correct"?

Regarding your last sentence, that's pretty vague and seems designed to cut off discussion--not promote it. What specific thing in the NT has been disproven by science or historical research? My guess is that you don't really know what you are talking about. Go ahead, answer.

Superman has more than that, way more. We should all believe in Superman. 

Which part is Superman is not actually correct?