How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?

[Della]

It is irrational, unscientific, cruel, unethical, illogical and full of contraditions, obviously human made.
Since you asked why I don’t believe, with no offence made to those who believe, sometimes it can has nice things, like some of Jesus teachings, as a part of human nature to be good or evil, not because it is from God, but still mostly I see it as superstitions and mythologies only.

I take it then that you have studied the Bible in depth–the historical, theological, philosophical context of each of it many writings, understood with the time and culture in which each was written? I have to assume you’ve made some effort for you to make such sweeping condemnations of a literary library that spans 6000+ years. And do you even know what a myth is? It’s not what you think. If you had studied classical mythology, would know what I mean.

 

[ANV]

I take it then that you have studied the Bible in depth–the historical, theological, philosophical context of each of it many writings, understood with the time and culture in which each was written? I have to assume you’ve made some effort for you to make such sweeping condemnations of a literary library that spans 6000+ years. And do you even know what a myth is? It’s not what you think. If you had studied classical mythology, would know what I mean.

I did, and it is equal in my perception to it, where the stories often seem unrealistic and mythological.

 

[Della]

I did, and it is equal in my perception to it, where the stories often seem unrealistic and mythological.

You have a degree of some kind? I have a B. A. in Bible.

 

[ANV]

You have a degree of some kind? I have a B. A. in Bible.

I don’t need a degree to see this but yes I have, it is more a passion for knowledge, religions and history, as a person who studied middle eastern religions and mythologies, I saw the similarities between what other religions created and what my own did, couldn’t seperate between modern religions and what we call ancient mythologies or the religions of the past.

 

[reggieM]

I don’t need a degree to see this but yes I have, it is more a passion for knowledge, religions and history, as a person who studied middle eastern religions and mythologies, I saw the similarities between what other religions created and what my own did, couldn’t seperate between modern religions and what we call ancient mythologies or the religions of the past.

Just curious - what was your own at the time?

 

[ANV]

Just curious - what was your own at the time?

Catholic.

 

[reggieM]

Catholic.

Ok, thanks. You couldn’t see a difference between the Gospels and ancient religious texts?

 

[Della]

I don’t need a degree to see this but yes I have, it is more a passion for knowledge, religions and history, as a person who studied middle eastern religions and mythologies, I saw the similarities between what other religions created and what my own did, couldn’t seperate between modern religions and what we call ancient mythologies or the religions of the past.

And came to very wrong conclusions. I too have studied ancient mythologies, etc. and realized how God worked in and through all of them to bring his truth to all peoples as they were able to accept it. I think you need a refresher course at a good Catholic college where you will learn the difference between similarity due of God’s natural law and revelation, and why knowing the difference is so important.

 

[Wesrock]

Answering the original question: Because the Church has defined the Bible as Scripture.

If the books are taken first, not as scripture, but at least some form of historical witness to what was going on in the first century movement, and given other historical testimony and the explosion of Christianity, and taking this all in the context in which I’m rationally confident that there is a God who is at least capable of interacting with the natural order, I’m led to believe that there was a historical Jesus Christ who claimed rather extraordinary things about himself. And I’m led to believe that he was crucified, resurrected, and established an authoritative, visible Church who had the authority to act in his name, set disciplines, teach on faith and morals, etc… and so I trust the Church’s authority in declaring the books of the Bible scripture.

Is this circular reasoning? No. The following would be circular. “I believe in the Bible because it’s the Word of God and so is absolutely true. I know it’s the Word of God because the Bible says so and is absolutely true.”

I’m not starting by taking the New Testament books as absolute truth or the Word of God. I’m taking those books, along with other early Christian works and history, as evidence of some type of historical witness (supported by the quantity of them), reliable insofar as such ancient works can be reliable. I then find the most rational explanation for the explosion of testimony and other actions to be that the primary events contained in them are true. It’s only after coming to this, and belief that the most rational explanation is that the establishment of a Church is also true, that I accept the Church’s position that these are more than just a regular witness to some type of history, but as Scripture.

Hopefully I’ve been at least a little coherent in this admittedly rushed post.

EDIT: Actually, it seems porthos has already explained this much better than I have.

 

[porthos11]

Answering the original question: Because the Church has defined the Bible as Scripture.

If the books are taken first, not as scripture, but at least some form of historical witness to what was going on in the first century movement, and given other historical testimony and the explosion of Christianity, and taking this all in the context in which I’m rationally confident that there is a God who is at least capable of interacting with the natural order, I’m led to believe that there was a historical Jesus Christ who claimed rather extraordinary things about himself. And I’m led to believe that he was crucified, resurrected, and established an authoritative, visible Church who had the authority to act in his name, set disciplines, teach on faith and morals, etc… and so I trust the Church’s authority in declaring the books of the Bible scripture.

Is this circular reasoning? No. The following would be circular. “I believe in the Bible because it’s the Word of God and so is absolutely true. I know it’s the Word of God because the Bible says so and is absolutely true.”

I’m not starting by taking the New Testament books as absolute truth or the Word of God. I’m taking those books, along with other early Christian works and history, as evidence of some type of historical witness (supported by the quantity of them), reliable insofar as such ancient works can be reliable. I then find the most rational explanation for the explosion of testimony and other actions to be that the primary events contained in them are true. It’s only after coming to this, and belief that the most rational explanation is that the establishment of a Church is also true, that I accept the Church’s position that these are more than just a regular witness to some type of history, but as Scripture.

Hopefully I’ve been at least a little coherent in this admittedly rushed post.

EDIT: Actually, it seems porthos has already explained this much better than I have.

Thanks but still, this is the gist of it.

And about circular reasoning, it is also equally circular to use this argument:

I believe the Bible is the Word of God because the Church says so.
I believe the Church has authority because the Bible says so.

The atheist will rightly call this circular, but you won’t believe how often Catholics resort to a variant of this argument.