Biblical Truth

[Aryus]

Before I ask my question, it is perhaps necessary that I give some of my background so that you understand where I am coming from and my experience with this question. I was raised in a semi-Baptist household, though I attended many Prostestant churches. I grew increasingly frustrated with the lack of sincerity and direct experience in most of the churches I attended in my youth, and because I was never introduced to Catholicism I assumed that all Christianity was this way. I became a spiritual seeker outside of Christianity, looking at first to philosophy then to Buddhism, Hinduism, and Paganism. As my study and practice progressed I eventually detached myself from these systems. All of this searching lasted through middle school and high school and into college (where I am currently majoring in religious studies), and my quest began to look hopeless for me. I was very confused and pessimistic for a time, until after attending a Catholic funeral for a relative I became interested in Catholicism and began looking into Catholic beliefs, history, and practice. For the first time I felt that I had found true religion. The major thing that has been keeping me from joining the Church is one of the same questions, though, that kept me from falling in with Protestantism: how do we know that the Bible is the revealed and infallible word of God? It is an important question because it is, after all, the backbone of all true Christianity. I would not be able to undergo Initiation with full honesty without first examining this question. Catholic apologist Peter Kreeft, who I admire very much, has said that what makes Christianity unique is that it is a path from God, rather than a path to God; it is a result of divine revelation. However, Muslims and Hindus, for example, say the same of their own religions with just as much faith and fervor. They all claim that their religions are divinely inspired, and that the words in their religious texts are the inspired words of God, directly passed on without change or blemish to this day. I want to know how we know the Bible is the real deal.

One common answer I have encountered is that the Bible is true because it has not been disproven. However, a claim is not made true by the fact that it has not been disproven. Nobody has disproven that Buddha was visited by the evil spirit Mara while meditating under the Bodhi tree, nor that Krishna was mentored by the Hindu god Arjuna, nor that souls are reincarnated, nor that a comet is the herald of an alien spaceship. Yet these are all religious truth statements that various people have held and that are claimed to be divinely inspired. Just because something has not been disproven does not prove that it is true.

Another common answer is that the Bible is true because it is so old and has been accepted by so many people. But some Hindu texts are older, as is the Chinese I Ching. Just because they are old and have been passed down through the generations does not make them true or divinely inspired. And billions of people have read and accepted the Communist Manifesto, the I Ching, and other texts that proclaim truth or prophesy. Just because many people have read and accepted something does not make it true or divinely inspired.

One more common answer is that prophecies appearing in one part of the Bible have been fulfilled in other parts of the Bible and that historical and geographic descriptions in the Bible have been proven by archaeology, history, and anthropology. Yet, once again, the Bible is not the only text to claim these things or have them proven. There are many other ancient historical texts that have been preserved and have been proven true, and this does not make them divinely inspired. We are looking for something that makes the Bible unique.

A final answer is faith. It is not something we can prove, only something we can have faith in. Yet this is still a sort-of begging of the question, because the faith itself is dependent upon the prescriptions and statements within the Bible. And, yet again, the followers of other religions claim just the same, that their texts are to be believed on faith, and, again, they have just as much faith as Christians.

These are some of the answers I have encountered to the question “How do we know the Bible is the revealed and infallible word of God”. None of them have adequately answered the question, and even taken as a whole they do not answer the question as these same answers can be applied to other religious texts. I must emphasize that I am not an atheist attempting to undermine anyone’s beliefs, nor have I ever been one. If my studies have taught me anything it is that humans are not mere matter, that there is something beyond the apparent material world, and that there is a way to experience that. I am an active spiritual seeker on the threshold of adopting Catholicism and accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior. I do not want to approach Catholicism as I have approached other religions, as one who is lightheartedly “shopping” for religion. I see Catholicism as valid, desirable, inclusive, and practicable. I have a strong feeling that all of my spiritual searching has led me to Catholicism. However, I am currently viewing it from an etic perspective, and the reason for that is that this one question has not been answered for me. A part of the definition of a Christian is a person who believes that the Bible is the revealed and infallible word of God. To accept the Bible as infallible is the foundation of Christianity, as church doctrine is derived from the Bible. It seems to me that the best way to develop a good spiritual life and a good understanding of Christianity is to have a strong foundation, to have good reasons to believe and know that the Bible is the infallible word of God

Thank you for reading.

 

[JeanneH]

Quite a question. I don’t think you will ever get a satisfactory answer.
a few suggestions–trust in the Church Fathers and the Magisterium.?
Maybe read numbers 105-136 in the CCC?
We find out about God, Jesus and salvation from the Bible. If you believe in God and Jesus why would you question the truth of the bible?
Just a few of my thoughts for what they are worth.

I ,too, would like to hear an answer from some one more educated than I.

Have you considered putting this question in the ask an apologist thread?
Jeanne

 

[Aryus]

Thank you for your response Jeanne!

Yes, it is a a big question, and a fundamental one as well. The main reason I did not “Ask an Apologist” is that they want questions to be short and concise, while I felt my question required explanation of the common answers. But I think it is a very important question for Christians to ask themselves. Most of the Christians I have known believe that the Bible is the word of God simply because their parents believed so, and that is good on a personal level. But imagine trying to explain it to someone completely outside the faith and culture. To quote to them scriptural passages that say the Bible is the word of God assumes that they already believe in the Bible. Doing this would be like a Hindu quoting the Upanishads to a Christian and saying that it was divinely inspired. The result would be confusion, and probably anger at their arrogance. So what do you say to get them to believe? All popular religions claim genuine religious experience or they would not be popular. All popular religions claim to be divinely inspired or they would not be religions. And they all usually claim some textual support for their assertions. Of course, one could say that what makes the Bible special is that it is REALLY the word of God while the others are just misleading, but my point is what do you say to those who believe and profess just the same thing about their own text? You would just be saying the same thing back and forth to one another. This is my big problem when I apply it to myself. I have read and listened to lots of religious people from different faiths who all say that their text is special and superior to the others. They all truly believe it, and they all seem to be greatly benefitted by their own beliefs and to derive great meaning from their texts. It is all very confusing to me and it frustrates me that I cannot seem to just accept on faith that the Bible is the real deal, that this one issue ended up being the thing in my way. I feel as though on my mile-long quest for religion I am at the last inch but that I am stuck here.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Interesting topic. I have not seen any reason other than to accept the bible on faith to believe it is divinely inspired. There are passages in the bible that say that there is divine inspiration in them but they only seem to refer to those specific passages, and not the completed compliled bible that was not finished. There could be a lot of things in the bible that are true. That would not make the bible truth. Fictional writings have truths in them most of the time. I get frustrated with some that will say a passage is literal and another will say it is a metaphor, and I have wondered why God would chose this medium when language and so many other matters complicate a person’s ability to know the correct understanding of the bible. Now, I realize catholics have the three- legged stool I think they call it. But, that also requires faith. So back to square one again, I guess.

 

[Doxiemom]

I would tell you that all of the Old testament points towards the One Whom we call the Christ. Of His Coming and of His Coming Again.

I would tell you that all of the New Testament points to the Old Testament fulfilled, EXACTLY, in minute detail. And it points to the Second Coming of Jesus, well into some minutia that we have seen fullfilled in our own lifetime.

Right now, Buddah is dead. Mohamed is dead. The old pagan gods could die or were vuneral in some way. Nature offers no hope, considering the harm to bestows on all mankind, the good and evil alike. In each story where there was to be a messiah-like boy to be found who would save the village, tribe, race, each of those, each of those , even those who really lived, are all dead.

But Jesus, everyone saw Him die. With His injuries, no one could live. Let alone, speak boldly and loudly “It is finished”. What are the odds that an earthquake and a eclipse happening at the same time? And then the Veil in the temple. It was extremely thick. Impossible for anyone to grab and tear. But it was torn FROM THE TOP DOWN! By whose hands?

They buried Jesus. And He stayed dead. And then He raised Himself up. No magician, no miracle performing apostle, was needed.

He left behind His burial cloth that to this day is unexplainable. But he also left behind His face cloth. Now, it is said in Scripture that when the apostles saw it, they knew He was alive again. I was told that, by reason of Jewish custom of the time, that when a guest has supper at a home, and it was greatly enjoyed, the guest folds the napkin in a certain manner and leaves in in a paticular place on the table. It means something like " thank you. I enjoyed the company. I enjoyed the meal I had with you. I will come back and do this again.". Consider the last Supper, with the folks who were there, and now this “face cloth” placed and when they “saw it” they knew!

He was seen, He was touched, He ate, He spoke, for days and then He was lifted into heaven.

What other person has done that? What other “holy” book can offer up this evidence? This hope?

As catholics our center of worship remains on the Last Supper. We have a constant reminder of Christ suffering for us on the Cross.

We remember the Lord’s prayer. It is vital to our worship. It too is as Bibical as it gets.

And as always, , we are reminded each Mass that he will Come Again in Glory.

 

[StrawberryJam]

“But Jesus, everyone saw Him die.”

I don’t think the scriptures even claim this. Who is everybody?

 

[Tetiaroa]

. The major thing that has been keeping me from joining the Church is one of the same questions, though, that kept me from falling in with Protestantism: how do we know that the Bible is the revealed and infallible word of God?

I want to know how we know the Bible is the real deal.

A final answer is faith. It is not something we can prove, only something we can have faith in. Yet this is still a sort-of begging of the question, because the faith itself is dependent upon the prescriptions and statements within the Bible.

Faith does not come from reading the Bible. It comes from listening to the teachings of the Church because Bible was absent in the beginning of the Church.

.
To accept the Bible as infallible is the foundation of Christianity, as church doctrine is derived from the Bible. It seems to me that the best way to develop a good spiritual life and a good understanding of Christianity is to have a strong foundation, to have good reasons to believe and know that the Bible is the infallible word of God

Thank you for reading.

You cannot know unless you believed that God revealed a path to mankind first through the Prophets, then through Jesus his only begotten Son and then through the Church established by Jesus and through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

There were many written books about God, and about the teachings of Christ but the Catholic Church which is the Church established by Christ was the one who determined the canon of scriptures through the guidance of the Holy Spirit and compiled the many books into One Book, the Bible. In 390-400AD, the Catholic Church councils of Hippo and Carthage determined which scripture is an inspired book and does belong to the Bible.

Therefore, through the infallible decisions of the Catholic Church from these councils we get the Bible.

I must correct you that Church doctrine must come from the Bible. That might be true with Protestant doctrines like “sola Scriptura”, “sola fide”, “Pastor not allowed to smoke”, “Minister should not be Priests”, “only confess your sins to God”, “do not baptize infants” “the Bible is the word of God” etc etc in which ironically speaking you cannot find in the Bible.

Catholic doctrines existed before the Bible ever existed. It was the books in the bible that must conform with the doctrines of the Church. That’s why we don’t have the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary etc because they did not conform to the teachings of the Catholic Church. In other words, all Catholic Church doctrines are presented explicitly and implicitly in the Bible and it’s the reason why those books are in the Bible.

So to answer your question “how do we know that the Bible is the revealed and infallible word of God?”

We know that the Bible is the revealed and infallible word of God because the Catholic Church through her infallible decision under the guidance of the Holy Spirit revealed it to us. PERIOD.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Old testament scriptures were available to the early christians, if even only by memory.

 

[anon5216]

…
Therefore, through the infallible decisions of the Catholic Church from these councils we get the Bible.
…
Catholic doctrines existed before the Bible ever existed. It was the books in the bible that must conform with the doctrines of the Church. That’s why we don’t have the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary etc because they did not conform to the teachings of the Catholic Church. In other words, all Catholic Church doctrines are presented explicitly and implicitly in the Bible and it’s the reason why those books are in the Bible.

So to answer your question “how do we know that the Bible is the revealed and infallible word of God?”

We know that the Bible is the revealed and infallible word of God because the Catholic Church through her infallible decision under the guidance of the Holy Spirit revealed it to us. PERIOD.

And we “know that the CC is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit” because the book the CC itself came up with says so?
Wow!

And we should believe this circular argument why?

 

[NHInsider]

I am an active spiritual seeker on the threshold of adopting Catholicism and accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior. I do not want to approach Catholicism as I have approached other religions, as one who is lightheartedly “shopping” for religion. I see Catholicism as valid, desirable, inclusive, and practicable. I have a strong feeling that all of my spiritual searching has led me to Catholicism.

Welcome!

However, I am currently viewing it from an etic perspective, and the reason for that is that this one question has not been answered for me. A part of the definition of a Christian is a person who believes that the Bible is the revealed and infallible word of God. To accept the Bible as infallible is the foundation of Christianity, as church doctrine is derived from the Bible. It seems to me that the best way to develop a good spiritual life and a good understanding of Christianity is to have a strong foundation, to have good reasons to believe and know that the Bible is the infallible word of God

Thank you for reading.

At the heart of your unanswered question is this misunderstanding. Christianity is not faith in the Bible. Christianity is faith in Jesus Christ - it is, in fact, a relationship with Jesus Christ. And that relationship is passed on, like any human relationship - you meet someone who knows someone, and they introduce you. This is what Jesus told His Apostles and Disciples to do, and they did, and those to whom they introduced Jesus, who chose to follow Him, continued to introduce people, across the globe and down the ages.

As the eyewitnesses to Jesus began to die, those who had learned from them compiled their teachings, both written and oral, in order to better preserve and pass on what they had learned. These writings were proclaimed in public worship, along with the Hebrew Scriptures, and eventually that combination formed what we call the Bible.

The definition of a Christian cannot be “a person who believes the Bible is the revealed and infallible word of God” because the Bible as an entity did not even exist until several centuries after the Resurrection. Anyone who tells you differently is disregarding the historical facts. All of the converts who became Christians during the Apostolic age died before the discussion about the canon even began - and yet there is no doubt that they were Christians. Most of the Christians who have lived in the two millenia since the birth of Christ never saw a Bible, much less read one.

The authenticity of the faith is guaranteed by the gift of Jesus to His Apostles. We know about that because it was recorded in Scripture. But Irenaeus became a Christian because he learned from Polycarp who learned from John the Apostle who received his authority from Jesus, NOT because he had read the book of Matthew, or even John’s letters, although he undoubtably had.

“To accept the Bible as infallible is the foundation of Christianity, as church doctrine is derived from the Bible” is precisely backwards. We accept the Bible because the Church, with the authority of Jesus, has preserved it for us.

So rejoice that all your studies have brought you to this place, to the church which is the pillar and foundation of truth. Do continue your exploration and studies of the rich bounty that two thousand years of study has left for you. God has given you your intellect and honors your effort. But know that ultimately, you (and each of us) must choose to enter a relationship, not with the written Word but with the Living Word - Logos. Someday you will be ready to step out in faith, to say “Lord, I believe, help Thou my unbelief.” And then the indwelling Holy Spirit will speak to you, to help you resolve your doubts and fill you with the confidence that the Apostles who saw Him face to face had, and shared.

 

[JeanneH]

“But Jesus, everyone saw Him die.”

I don’t think the scriptures even claim this. Who is everybody?

John 19:25-27
The people that witnessed the death of Jesus were Mary his mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala and the beloved disciple John. I would venture a guess that many more people witnessed His death that are not mentioned in the Bible. I am sure Jesus death was a big event for the time.

 

[StrawberryJam]

John 19:25-27
The people that witnessed the death of Jesus were Mary his mother, His mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas and Mary of Magdala and the beloved disciple John. I would venture a guess that many more people witnessed His death that are not mentioned in the Bible. I am sure Jesus death was a big event for the time.

Hello JeanneH,

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were implying all humanity somehow saw this event take place.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Aryus, here is an excerpt (or really, some excerpts) from the arcticle Proving Inspiration.
I recommend you read the following (to get the basic outline) and then read the entire article.

Some Fundamentalists say they believe the Bible is inspired because it is “inspirational,” but that is an ambiguous term. On the one hand, if used in the strict theological sense, it clearly begs the question, which is: How do we know the Bible is inspired, that is, “written” by God, using human authors as instruments?..

…The Catholic method of proving the Bible to be inspired is this: The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work…

…Not only are the biblical manuscripts that we have older than those for classical authors, we have in sheer numbers far more manuscripts from which to work. Some are whole books of the Bible, others fragments of just a few words, but there are literally thousands of manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other languages. This means that we can be sure we have an authentic text, and we can work from it with confidence…

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

A Spiral Argument

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired…

…First, the inspiration is really proved, not just “felt.” Second, the main fact behind the proof—the reality of an infallible, teaching Church—leads one naturally to an answer to the problem that troubled the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:30-31): How is one to know which interpretations are correct? The same Church that authenticates the Bible, that attests to its inspiration, is the authority established by Christ to interpret his word.​

catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

For more info on different Catholic beliefs and apologetics, you should see the tracts Catholic Answers provide: catholic.com/library/faith_tracts.asp. Here is the articles on Scripture (and Tradition).

 

[catholic1seeks]

And we “know that the CC is infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit” because the book the CC itself came up with says so?
Wow!

And we should believe this circular argument why?

It’s not a circular argument. Here’s an excerpt from my previous post:

We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired

Proving Inspiration

 

[Aryus]

Thank you all for your responses. I will look into all the things you have suggested.

 

[anon5216]

It’s not a circular argument. Here’s an excerpt from my previous post:

Note that this is not a circular argument. We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired

Yes, I’ve come across the “spiral argument” idea before. While it sounds nice when first presented if you’re inclined to just accept it, it doesn’t really hold up under closer examination.

To conclude the writings were not intentionally dishonest accounts (at least the NT) is one thing.
To assume the writers were qualified to come to the conclusions and interpretations of events they did, and to assume they got all the quotes word for word 100% accurate is entirely another.

To jump from this to “From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded” does not follow.
You can’t reach that conclusion unless you’re basing it on the assumption that the texts later collected as “The Bible” are inerrant and inspired by God.
This hasn’t been proven, (and actually can’t be - it’s purely a matter of faith).

Saying the Church is what proves the Bible as being inspired/inerrant brings us right back to the circular argument problem.

The “spiral” argument really is only useful to a person wanting to believe, but having a minor issue with the question of circular argument.
It then can comfort them and give a measure of confidence in their faith - as long as they don’t inquire more deeply into the validity of the “spiral” argument.

 

[anon5216]

Aryus,

I may not be Catholic, but at the same time I clearly see that specific individuals throughout the past 2,000 years have achieved tremendous spiritual results via the Catholic Church.

If you are drawn to the Church as your spiritual home, I would look at these “fruits” (the saints), as proof of a valid spiritual path.
And of course these saint’s lives as being various demonstrations of how to get spiritual results on this path.

To sweat over theological claims that can’t be objectively proven just doesn’t seem very productive.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Yes, I’ve come across the “spiral argument” idea before. While it sounds nice when first presented if you’re inclined to just accept it, it doesn’t really hold up under closer examination.

To conclude the writings were not intentionally dishonest accounts (at least the NT) is one thing.
To assume the writers were qualified to come to the conclusions and interpretations of events they did, and to assume they got all the quotes word for word 100% accurate is entirely another.

To jump from this to “From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded” does not follow.
You can’t reach that conclusion unless you’re basing it on the assumption that the texts later collected as “The Bible” are inerrant and inspired by God.
This hasn’t been proven, (and actually can’t be - it’s purely a matter of faith).

Saying the Church is what proves the Bible as being inspired/inerrant brings us right back to the circular argument problem.

The “spiral” argument really is only useful to a person wanting to believe, but having a minor issue with the question of circular argument.
It then can comfort them and give a measure of confidence in their faith - as long as they don’t inquire more deeply into the validity of the “spiral” argument.

I understand where you’re coming from; but it’s not just the biblical writings that tell us about Christ establishing a Church and the nature of it, but it’s the writings of the early Church leaders and Christians (much of which come prior to the biblical canon) that explain a God-guided Church.

Also, I did skip around in the article; to see it in context would be better (as you say “To jump from this to ‘From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded’ does not follow.”

 

[Ginger2]

How do we know the Bible is true? The inerrant Word of God?

That really is a wonderful question.

If I remember correctly, there is not one original writing that has survived until today. They are all copies of the originals and many many copies of copies and translations of copies and translation of translations…whew.

We already know human translators are prone to errors and subject to choosing the best word to translated a meaning from a foreign language when an exact match doesn’t exist.

Not to mention all the different and varying human interpretations for a single verse.

How can we can depend on even knowing what God really said, let alone understanding the correct meaning?

I would say the Holy Spirit. But that raises new questions.

How can two people read the same passage, come up with two different meanings and both claim the Holy Spirit guides them?

Because one or both are being guided by their own desires and not the HS. Because God can reveal a multitude of information thru a single verse - each person has been shown part of the message but not the whole.

So, the question is deeper than simply, “How do we know the Bible is true?” It is also “How do we know we understand and are not deceiving ourselves?”

The Bible clearly states those who are deceived don’t know it, so how can you know you are not deceived?

That’s why I decided to put all my trust in God, do what He has suggested to keep from being deceived and leave the rest to Him.

Mark 11:24 whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

I’ve asked God to keep me from being deceived, and since God always keeps His promises, I can rest assured.

 

[JeanneH]

How do we know the Bible is true? The inerrant Word of God?

How can two people read the same passage, come up with two different meanings and both claim the Holy Spirit guides them?