How do we know that the information in the Bible is the Truth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blue_Serenity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I do think Christians have been wrong for most (in fact all) of their history. However much you may wish to harmonise the genealogies between Matthew and Luke, not only does it not say anything at all about an ‘adoptive’ father, but also the custom you speak of is not supported by the evidence. In other words, where is there an established custom of writing genealogies in such a way?

To put it another way, if only one of these genealogies existed, do you really think Christians would conclude anything other than that they were the ones of Joseph’s biological father? In any case, your method of harmonising them is not stated in the text. It simply states ‘who was the son (so it was supposed) of…’.

That’s a contradiction as far as I can see it.
 
Spirithound said:
“True” means “not false in any amount”.
This truth applies to whatever it mentions.
wow…that was simple…
Click to expand...
Of course, how silly of me… there is no need to understand the literary form, the circumstances, the time and culture, the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, or the patterns people normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another is there? Just ignore that there are many forms of truth in the bible (historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse) and it is all so simple.

I prefer Pope Paul VI’s words in Dei Verbum indicating that it is not so simple:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
 
mercygate said:
No table of contents necessary? Oh. Right. That’s why Luther took out those books he didn’t want – because the table of contents didn’t count. So the uninspired and unnecessary canon of scripture came from the Reformation. I can buy that.
Click to expand...
Your words, not mine. :rolleyes:
 
Blue_Serenity said:
Your words, not mine. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Blue – I apologize for my sarcasm. I’m a teacher; I’m jaded. Yes, my post was “my” words. But the concept that the table of contents is unnecessary to Scripture is your concept, your words.

THINK. Accepting scripture as “inspired” because the Bible says it, is insufficient.

We don’t believe in the Resurrection because “it’s in the Bible.” We have extra-scriptural corroboration. The table of contents of the Bible is extra-scriptural.
 
I read the original post here, and it appears to answer itself. I don’t really see a question. Am I missing something? I guess, just to add a comment to what you’ve already said in your post, it could be pointed out that the Church set up by Christ through Peter and his apostles, has a magesterium to insure that the Word is correctly interpreted so that believing Christians will be held together in one mind, one heart and one body. That they will not stray off into their own individual interpretations which may be markedly different from one another when looked at with an improper heart, a faulty axiomatic bias or by applying one’s own understanding of definitions without having the richness and fullness of the meaning of the words in their original languages, or in the context of the traditions which they convey, etc. So in addition to all you’ve already said, we know the bible is true because it says it’s true, it is divinly inspired, and there has been a solid succession of Church scholars who have been entrusted through the milennia, to keep it pure, and iterpret it in it’s context with the fullness of all that Christ left with us in His Church.
 
Blue_Serenity said:
Because it says so and scripture can NOT contradict itself.
2 Tim.3:16-17
Click to expand...
But that’s begging the question. If I write a book, and i write in that book that it’s inspired, does that automatically make it inspired? In the case of 2Tim, you’re already working from the assumption that it is indeed inspired.
 
patg said:
Spirithound;1907034:
patg;1906846:
First you have to define what is meant by “true” and what that truth applies to - hardly a simple thing.

Then you have to realize that you can’t possibly “know” you can only accept it as a matter of faith.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
“True” means “not false in any amount”.
This truth applies to whatever it mentions.
wow…that was simple…

Of course, how silly of me… there is no need to understand the literary form, the circumstances, the time and culture, the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, or the patterns people normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another is there? Just ignore that there are many forms of truth in the bible (historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse) and it is all so simple.

I prefer Pope Paul VI’s words in Dei Verbum indicating that it is not so simple:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.
Click to expand...
My apologies…i mistook you for a relativist. Pope Paul’s words refer to different ways of finding the truth, not to different definitions of truth. And i still believe we can know many things spiritual, but we take it on faith from the Magesterium
 
mercygate said:
Blue – I apologize for my sarcasm. I’m a teacher; I’m jaded. Yes, my post was “my” words. But the concept that the table of contents is unnecessary to Scripture is your concept, your words.

THINK. Accepting scripture as “inspired” because the Bible says it, is insufficient.

We don’t believe in the Resurrection because “it’s in the Bible.” We have extra-scriptural corroboration. The table of contents of the Bible is extra-scriptural.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how it is but ok, if that’s what you’re saying. :o What’s in your table of contents? Mine just shows what page each book of the Bible is on.
 
Spirithound said:
But that’s begging the question. If I write a book, and i write in that book that it’s inspired, does that automatically make it inspired? In the case of 2Tim, you’re already working from the assumption that it is indeed inspired.
Click to expand...
No, that doesn’t automatically make it inspired. Take a look at who wrote the Bible. They were men who walked with Jesus or knew Him or those close to Him. Wouldn’t you trust their work to be inspired? Why would God leave us alone to wander the earth with no sense of direction and no stories on how to live? That’s what the Bible is to us.
 
E.E.N.S said:
How do you know it belongs in the Bible?
Click to expand...
You do know that I accept what the CC did with the assembly of the Bible and all that, right?
To answer your question, because that’s what the ECF’s determined to be valid information for us to know.
 
Blue_Serenity said:
You do know that I accept what the CC did with the assembly of the Bible and all that, right?
To answer your question, because that’s what the ECF’s determined to be valid information for us to know.
Click to expand...
By what authority did the early Church have to make this infallible statement?
 
Blue_Serenity said:
I don’t see how it is but ok, if that’s what you’re saying. :o What’s in your table of contents? Mine just shows what page each book of the Bible is on.
Click to expand...
My table of contents gives the names of every Book in the Bible (and so does yours). The point is, who decided, and by what authorioty was it decided which of the many Books purporting to be “scripture” made it into the list?
 
Blue_Serenity said:
No, that doesn’t automatically make it inspired. Take a look at who wrote the Bible. They were men who walked with Jesus or knew Him or those close to Him. Wouldn’t you trust their work to be inspired? Why would God leave us alone to wander the earth with no sense of direction and no stories on how to live? That’s what the Bible is to us.
Click to expand...
This is unsound reasoning. You cannont simply assume that God will inspire certain holy people to write us a bible. However, I see in a later post that you accept the CC’s authority to compile the Bible, and that’s basically what I wanted to hear, so…👍
 
mercygate said:
My table of contents gives the names of every Book in the Bible (and so does yours). The point is, who decided, and by what authorioty was it decided which of the many Books purporting to be “scripture” made it into the list?
Click to expand...
The early CC. I’ve already said that I believe God gave the early CC authority over the Bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top