How do we know that the Bible is reliable?

[Holly3278]

Just so you all know, I do believe that the Bible is reliable. However, how are non-Christians supposed to know that the Bible is reliable?

 

[pigtown]

If you believe in God and believe that the Bible is the Word of God, then you know that the Bible is reliable.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… how are non-Christians supposed to know that the Bible is reliable?

I think that’s a contradiction. If one knew the Bible is reliable, they wouldn’t be a non-Christian.

If you’re asking how do we teach that the Bible is reliable, I guess the answer is we can’t. That’s why St Francis of Assisi said - “Preach the gospel always. And if necessary use words.”

But, I suppose I know what you mean; If you’re looking for a way to capture people’s attention regarding how awesome the bible is, then may I suggest my favourite topic - prophecy.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Just so you all know, I do believe that the Bible is reliable. However, how are non-Christians supposed to know that the Bible is reliable?

Reliable as to the state of its text, or as to its content ?​

The Bible is a very varied body of literature, so it is difficult to make statements about it that fit it all - apart from statements about its status in theology: saying it’s inspired (for instance) does not touch questions of its text or meaning or other historical issues.

 

[Keith123]

The reliability of the Bible is used as an apologetics for Christianity or if it is viewed as being unreliable to create doubt. I think the question is a good one and I hope to see some good responses.

The RCIA literature I have states that scripture “is free from error in matters that relate to our salvation. This does not mean that the Spirit also protected the Biblical writers from scientific and historical error.”

I have personal faith in the resurrection of Jesus, because I don’t believe that men would purposely die for a lie–so I give credence to the apostles’ message of Jesus.
But a skeptic or someone just hearing about the gospel might ask me why anyone should trust the Bible, especially if it contains errors in it. I trust in it because of the gift of faith? Nothing more?

 

[deanarrca]

What convinced me initially was the fullfilled prophecy. But also a book I read when I was a teenager (OK it is a protestant book- I was protestant for over 20 years) but I think it is still a good book. It is called Evidence That Demands A Verdict by josh McDowell. They have a new version of that book out now called
The New Evidence That Demands A Verdict Fully Updated To Answer The Questions Challenging Christians Today
amazon.com/Evidence-Demands-Questions-Challenging-Christians/dp/0785243631

I have not read the new book and I read the old one many years ago.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Reliable?

If only reliable text IMHO are the oldest surviving Greek texts. Translations are prone to the errors of the translators and the bias slant within the translators mind.

Hence “Favored One” vs “Full of Grace”

and

“Gift” vs “Free Gift”

There are other instances as well.

 

[Erich]

If you’re asking how do we teach that the Bible is reliable, I guess the answer is we can’t.

Actually, as Proving Inspiration points out,

Sir Frederic Kenyon, in The Story of the Bible, notes that “For all the works of classical antiquity we have to depend on manuscripts written long after their original composition. The author who is the best case in this respect is Virgil, yet the earliest manuscript of Virgil that we now possess was written some 350 years after his death. For all other classical writers, the interval between the date of the author and the earliest extant manuscript of his works is much greater. For Livy it is about 500 years, for Horace 900, for most of Plato 1,300, for Euripides 1,600.” Yet no one seriously disputes that we have accurate copies of the works of these writers. However, in the case of the New Testament we have parts of manuscripts dating from the first and early second centuries, only a few decades after the works were penned.

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.

 

[Spirithound]

Just so you all know, I do believe that the Bible is reliable. However, how are non-Christians supposed to know that the Bible is reliable?

Actually, as Proving Inspiration points out,

Yep, that’s Step 1. There are over 24,000 manuscripts, and fragments of manuscripts from 125AD till the invention of the printing press. Within these manuscripts, there is a 99.5% agreement rate. Most of that .5% is due to spelling errors, dropped words, duplicated words, etc No doctrine held by any Christian denomination is in any danger from these discrepancies.

Step 2. The text of the Gospels is what actually happened. The Gospels were written within living memory of Jesus. Ppl who read them may have actually been there and could correct them if necessary. This is part of the Jewish culture of oral literature.
As said above, the Apostles died for their beliefs. If the Resurrection never happened, if Jesus is still in that tomb, if the Apostles spread a lie far and wide over the world, then things turned out very badly for them. They were poor, they were persecuted, they were eventually executed (except John, who was exiled), and yet they were tireless in spreading the Good News.
Does this sound like the action of a liar?

 

[MH84]

The reliability of the Bible is used as an apologetics for Christianity or if it is viewed as being unreliable to create doubt. I think the question is a good one and I hope to see some good responses.

The RCIA literature I have states that scripture “is free from error in matters that relate to our salvation. This does not mean that the Spirit also protected the Biblical writers from scientific and historical error.”

**I have personal faith in the resurrection of Jesus, because I don’t believe that men would purposely die for a lie–so I give credence to the apostles’ message of Jesus. **
But a skeptic or someone just hearing about the gospel might ask me why anyone should trust the Bible, especially if it contains errors in it. I trust in it because of the gift of faith? Nothing more?

Suicide bombers believe they are dying for the truth as well don’t they?

 

[thistle]

Suicide bombers believe they are dying for the truth as well don’t they?

Purposely dying for something you know to be a lie is totally different from purposely dying for something you think to be true (but is a lie).
Nobody would do the former but muslim terrorists do the latter.

 

[MH84]

Purposely dying for something you know to be a lie is totally different from purposely dying for something you think to be true (but is a lie).
Nobody would do the former but muslim terrorists do the latter.

Are you saying that terrorists know that killing “infidels” is wrong, but they do it anyway? Come on, their parents even support what they are about to do; they consider them to be martyrs.

 

[Keith123]

Suicide bombers believe they are dying for the truth as well don’t they?

The way I see it, Paul could have died for a lie and believing it to be the truth and I wouldn’t be quite convinced based on him being martyred. He wasn’t there to know Jesus. However, when Peter or one of the other inner circle, who ate with Jesus and knew him before his death, were there for his death and claim to have seen him afterwards as risen, if they sacrifice their lives for their beliefs that is different. As best we can tell most of the apostles died as martyrs. None of them recanted, not that I have read. If they had, I think both Roman officials and the religious leaders would have broadcast that the whole thing was a hoax. So the apostles each stood by their story even separated by years and some distance and still sacrificed theirs lives for this belief. That I consider significant. I didn’t make that point clear earlier.

 

[Erich]

Are you saying that terrorists know that killing “infidels” is wrong, but they do it anyway? Come on, their parents even support what they are about to do; they consider them to be martyrs.

The way I read what Thistle is saying, Muslim terrorists purposely die for something they think to be true (killing “infidels”) but is a lie. I don’t know of any terrorists, Muslim or otherwise, who know that killing “infidels” is wrong but they do it anyway.

 

[Erich]

But a skeptic or someone just hearing about the gospel might ask me why anyone should trust the Bible, especially if it contains errors in it. I trust in it because of the gift of faith? Nothing more?

Proving Inspiration goes on to say the following:

Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels. We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries, together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy. (The one thing we know he could not have been was merely a good man who was not God, since no merely good man would make the claims he made.)

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax. Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do.

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.

 

[Keith123]

Proving Inspiration goes on to say the following:

We are able to eliminate the possibility of his being a madman not just from what he said but from what his followers did after his death. Many critics of the Gospel accounts of the resurrection claim that Christ did not truly rise, that his followers took his body from the tomb and then proclaimed him risen from the dead. According to these critics, the resurrection was nothing more than a hoax.** Devising a hoax to glorify a friend and mentor is one thing, but you do not find people dying for a hoax, at least not one from which they derive no benefit. Certainly if Christ had not risen his disciples would not have died horrible deaths affirming the reality and truth of the resurrection. The result of this line of reasoning is that we must conclude that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Consequently, his claims concerning himself—including his claim to be God—have credibility. He meant what he said and did what he said he would do. **

Wow! That statement pretty much states why I believe in the resurrection. Great!

I went and read the whole article that is linked to that paragraph and I like the article. I personally would like a further discussion on the reliability of the Bible. This point is fundamental in apologetics and I hope for a fuller reference and discussion of the subject.
I would love to see some more Catholic or Orthodox apologetics on this. Ones that give details–I know there are protestant sources such as Josh McDowell. Maybe I will have to go there.

 

[thistle]

Are you saying that terrorists know that killing “infidels” is wrong, but they do it anyway? Come on, their parents even support what they are about to do; they consider them to be martyrs.

You must have trouble with the English language because you have failed to read properly and understand what I said. Read my comments again.
Muslim terrorists murder people thinking that their cause is true but WE know it is a lie.

 

[MH84]

You must have trouble with the English language because you have failed to read properly and understand what I said. Read my comments again.
Muslim terrorists murder people thinking that their cause is true but WE know it is a lie.

ok I can see what you said. Sorry if I upsetted you. But I commented mainly in regard to this:

I have personal faith in the resurrection of Jesus, because I don’t believe that men would purposely die for a lie–so I give credence to the apostles’ message of Jesus.

Certain Muslims obviously believe that they know the truth. They probably think that when their people are willing to die for their faith, it must be ‘right’.

But yes as Catholics we ‘know’ the truth now don’t we. We ‘know’ the truth, but our belief, in whatever or whoever, doesn’t neccessarily prove anything, does it. What you said in bold as a Catholic, now that I know what you meant, is an obvious statement.

 

[Keith123]

I have personal faith in the resurrection of Jesus, because I don’t believe that men would purposely die for a lie–so I give credence to the apostles’ message of Jesus.

I should have said know to be a lie. In addition, they really don’t benefit from that lie. They might die because they are deceived or misinformed, or mistaken, but not for something they would have known to be a lie.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Originally Posted by Keith123 forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif I have personal faith in the resurrection of Jesus, because I don’t believe that men would purposely die for a lie–so I give credence to the apostles’ message of Jesus.

Oh yes men would die for a lie. When the person believes that maintaining the lie is for the betterment of mankind then if the truth be told.