Why believe the bible?

[SteveII]

We are talking about a specific set of miracles chronicled in the NT. They can be substantiated by people who saw them. These people later wrote things down, told other people and had them write them down.

And how can we be sure that what they witnessed was properly recorded? Even in modern society witness testimonial is quite unreliable, yet alone scientific ignorant people living in the bronze age. Or it might have been completely fabricated and packaged along with the claim in order to make it more believable. Fact is, we just don't know. What do we know though is nowhere else outside of the Bible are any of the magic that is claimed to have happened actually recorded.

Something outside the Bible? Okay. There were dozens of churches in dozens of cities across the Roman empire within 20 years of Jesus. They all believed the same thing that later appeared in the Gospels. Evidence for these churches are in first and second century docs like these. The mention of these churches in Acts and the Epistles complete a nice loop.

Fact is, we do know way more that you think. Demanding that we have non-religious-related docs is nonsense. 99.9% of all docs from the first century are gone. It is only docs that people cared about that were painstakingly preserved and copied on materials that had expiration dates.

[Fake Messiah]

Real reason why people believe in Bible is the same why people believe in horoscopes: it gives them false sense of security. Some people simply feel they need it and can't live without it.

[Amarok]

Something outside the Bible? Okay. There were dozens of churches in dozens of cities across the Roman empire within 20 years of Jesus. They all believed the same thing that later appeared in the Gospels. Evidence for these churches are in first and second century docs like these. The mention of these churches in Acts and the Epistles complete a nice loop.

No they didn't all believe the same thing and even if they did it makes no difference
It didn't spread within 20 years and even if it had that's not evidence of a real event 
These documents are of low historical value so another strike out 

Fact is, we do know way more that you think. Demanding that we have non-religious-related docs is nonsense. 99.9% of all docs from the first century are gone. It is only docs that people cared about that were painstakingly preserved and copied on materials that had expiration dates.

No we don't and it's not nonsense you just don't like it because you want the bible to be the evidence .When it's the claim .

[JairCrawford]

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.

Those reason are reason for one who lives by faith. God has a great reward for those who can live a life totally by faith in Him.
I am not one of them. Neither was thomas. Thomas gave a list of things He needed, what did Jesus do? he came to him and let thomas put his "fingers in Jesus holes." But seriously he touched the holes in his hands feet and side. Did Jesus then admonish Thoas for needing this proof? no He blessed Thomas and sent Him on His way, and added a blessing for those who have not see but still believe.

The point is that Jesus/God Gave what Thomas needed.

So then why should you believe in the bible? Because it is a map or set of instruction on how to meet/receive the Holy Spirit. then it is a cipher to discern whether or not it is God who is working with you or someone else. In other words it tells you how to identify God when He does indeed reach out to you, and not just some guy or figment of your own doing.

Belief of the bible comes through validation of it's scripture and passages. all the back logging and checking and cataloging all of the historical stuff helps sharpen our understand, but there comes a point where all of that can become a two edged sword mean rather than cut a path to God you cut a path to the worship of the bible. Your worship ceases to be about God and it becomes about religion and the preservation of the words of God rather than God Himself.

That is a fine line to walk, and for those without God all the have is God's word do the blur the line between the map and the actual destination. meaning don't let the word' holiness exceed the holiness of God. So when you find God use the book to discern who you are with is God then seek to learn from the Spirit as Him to write the word on your heart, then you'll be able to cite verses you may not even be aware of. Once God the Spirit enters your hear the bible become vital to keep you from mohammading off the path or joseph smithing yourself into your own personal level of Hell.

so my reasons 
1 it is a map to all the 'proof of God you will ever need for the rest of your life.
2 It is a standard to measure what you found against the knowable aspects of God. it is a proofing text for those who seek to worship the God of the bible.
3 it is check to help one keep his balance. Because when you have God it is far too easy to let that accessibility corrupt you. allow you to become lukewarm or even self righteous. when you fall into those sins God ceases giving you direction, but that does not mean direction stops comming... Eg mohammad and joseph Smith
4 the bible is direction when God is silent. If you learn to only trust God when He is known to you'd never make it through the night.
5The bible is vetted through finding the Holy Spirit and all of the thing it tells you that will be headed your way as a believer. which is like saying it is a map, but I felt like i needed 5 things.

---

If we're talking about a one hundred percent literal reading combined with a viewpoint of complete and utter literal innerancy of the Bible, then the investigating reader will run into problems very quickly. The first contradiction is in Genesis 2. It contradicts a passage in Genesis 1, if both are read literally.

That is not true.

The only thing you need to do to make sense of Genesis 1 or 2 is remove all numerical orentation as that was not apart of the orginal text. then you will discover a completely different message.

for instance Genesis two should begin in chapter 2 verse 3 ater all the first 3 verses are about the seventh day which concludes the 7 day creation. Onc the seveth day is complete then chapter two should begin how does it begine?
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.

5 Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth[a] and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, 6 but streams[b] came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground. 

What does this mean? 
4This account/ This story happen between the point no shrub had grown and no rain but there was water and streams.. so we then go back to chapter one and we see that this story gen 2 is happening between day 3 and day 4. So between day three and day 4 in God's spare time he created a man and a garden and everything else that happened in genesis 2.

Everything else after the garden happened outside the garden. meaning there are two creations going on man in the garden start and finishing between day 3 and 4 and everything else in genesis 1 ncluding a version of man out side the garden with no soul (evolved man, the man who built the cities cain ran off to and the husband and wifes of Adam)

What else you got?

---

In the UK and the rest of Europe for that matter Christianity is dieing on its arse.
With the demise of one more old generation the church will be finished and an added bonus is there will be no one left to pen such desperate lies.
It is over, and they know it, this utter trash they write is a result of blind panic.

don't you have some refrigeration homework you should be working on?

Oh I know the second account starts at chapter 2 verse 4. But it's not the shrub I was talking about, but that in the first account, Elohim creates all the animals -first-, then creates mankind.

In the second account, YHWH Elohim creates the man first, and puts him in the garden, then creates all of the animals and brings him to the man before finally making a woman out of the mans rib.

First account all animals are created first. Second account the man is created before any of the animals.

That's what I meant by the first literal contradiction.

[The Valkyrie]

Programming.
Fear.
Indoctrination.

[Mister Agenda]

Something outside the Bible? Okay. There were dozens of churches in dozens of cities across the Roman empire within 20 years of Jesus.

I don't think that it's in much dispute that there were Christians then. It's not in dispute at all that the Branch Dravidians were real, but it does not imply that David Koresh was a real prophet.

[Ravenshire]

I don't think anyone is claiming that you are claiming they are natural, rather that the 'supernatural' claims cannot be substantiated by any experience people can be proven to have,  if one merely has to make the claim followed by eye witness accounts then why not believe the claims of the Indian guru's who are alive today and have many like miracles said about them.

While you can claim they are supernatural in origin they are definitely able to be empirically observed if true.

We are talking about a specific set of miracles chronicled in the NT. They can be substantiated by people who saw them. These people later wrote things down, told other people and had them write them down. There is no proof. Only whether you believe the evidence and have additional reasons to think the evidence is true. Christian belief does not happen because you read about a miracle and believed it to be true. It is a process I outlined in my very first post in this thread. 

Bringing up people who purportedly perform miracles today is a red herring. I have no knowledge of or access to these claims.

That you accept hearsay claims from decades after the purported events as evidence of said events says more to your credulity than anything else.

Hearsay is not evidence Steve-o. No matter how much you deperately want it to be.

[SteveII]

-- We are wired to believe in the supernatural

[CITATION REQUIRED]

Inferring from the nearly 6.8 billion people (almost 9 out of 10) who believe in the supernatural AND the 10,000 years of history where we see the same. Of course I might be wrong and it's all because of the superb evidence we are hiding from the little atheist population. 

-- To most people, a miracle, a story, listening to people's experiences with the supernatural is not considered impossible. 

[CITATION REQUIRED]

Follows logically from above.

[Amarok]

Something outside the Bible? Okay. There were dozens of churches in dozens of cities across the Roman empire within 20 years of Jesus.

I don't think that it's in much dispute that there were Christians then. It's not in dispute at all that the Branch Dravidians were real, but it does not imply that David Koresh was a real prophet.

Indeed lots of people coming to accept a cult is not evidence what the cult believes is so .And Christianities was not all that remarkable.

[Mister Agenda]

It didn't spread within 20 years and even if it had that's not evidence of a real event 

Surely it spread somewhat within 20 years though within 20 years of exactly what isn't clear.