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]

[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?