How do you know the Bible is the word of God

[CopticChristian]

Wisdom is justified in her children.

No wonder there are barely any non-catholics on this site. They get called heretics for being partial preterists, with no infractions to protect their right of conscience. They are accused of idolatry and deifying the Bible, but when they respond in like manner concerning bread worship - they receive infractions.

I am obviously out numbered here, and you guys therefore have the appearance of strength through the multitude of responses. Most of you guys probably think that Protestants can’t hang and after a while they just drop off and don’t come back - like as if they cannot handle the heat. This is not true. The truth is, they get banned by the administrators. So who is ducking out? With only the appearance of strength - it is the administrators who are the weak ones.

I have been banned from this site 14 times and each time I come back with the clear truth. So please understand that if you soon see me missing, it is not because I somehow cannot take the heat. Trust me. I can take the heat. My forefathers have taken the heat of being burned at the stake by the Romish church all throughout church history. You can deny it all you want, but God knows. Your church has been the greatest persecutor of Christians in all of world history.

The collection of the sacred writings was an infallible collection conducted by a fallible church. The element of infallibility rests not with the church, but in the divine providence of Almighty God, who is able to preserve his word unto every generation of his elect.

This is the truth.

Ad,

Truth? There are elements of truth in some of what you say. You don’t have a Protestant problem, you have a people/communication problem. Radical is a Reformed/ brother I disagree with on many issues. I believe he is brilliant. I would consider visiting him in Canada. There are other Protestants like Abide, John NC, Contarini and others I wild feel the same about.

You are not difficult to deal because of Protestant thought. It is because you appear to have an agenda, an immature mind, inability to be respectful and inability to honor others views. You lack communication skills and if I were you I would spend time studying the communication skills of one young man I pray you come to know. You are called to confirm yourself so that you might be transformed by one man named Jesus. Spend some time studying how Jesus communicated.

 

[po18guy]

Hey, Fatboys, where are you?

 

[kimg901]

My question is for the OP. “How do you know the Bible is the word of God”, how do you call yourself a christian asking such things? Oh yeah, I forgot the book of mormon is the “real word of god” This is why you are not a christian nor will you ever be unless you have a conversion.

 

[CopticChristian]

I have started this thread so I can understand why people can not understand why mormons believe in more of God’s word than other mainstream Christians. And why others can not accept that there is more of God’s word. We are asked why we believe in these books. I ask how do you know that what you believe in is real or more correct than what I have. History is fine, but victors always write the histroy.

Fatboy,

To the Victors belong the spoils…

To the Victors belong the history?

Do you really believe that?

This really does a disservice to all those that have gone to college and studied history. Contarini, on this thread is steeped in history. This is an insult to his efforts. I would appreciate hearing from Contarini, a historian, not a Catholic by the way Fat and see how he views this.

This is truly a skewed view of reality.

 

[Janderich]

I love the Bible it is the word of the Lord. Joseph Smith once remarked:

He that can mark the power of Omnipotence, inscribed upon the heavens, can also see God’s own handwriting in the sacred volume: and he who reads it oftenest will like it best, and he who is acquainted with it, will know the hand [of the Lord] wherever he can see it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 56).

He who can recognize the hand of the lord in nature may also see it in the Bible or in any of God’s word, for his word is spirit and life. The Book of Mormon is nothing more then God’s word delivered to another nation separate from the Jews and I rejoice in it.

Why do not all rejoice with us in more of God’s word? I can only conclude that a hedge has been created to try and limit God and his teachings to the Bible. But it seems to me that once one accepts that God has spoken to man at all, there is little reason, from a logic standpoint, to deny that he may have spoken to other nations and people. This may be some of what Fatboys was originally questioning.

 

[CopticChristian]

I love the Bible it is the word of the Lord. Joseph Smith once remarked: He who can recognize the hand of the lord in nature may also see it in the Bible or in any of God’s word, for his word is spirit and life. The Book of Mormon is nothing more then God’s word delivered to another nation separate from the Jews and I rejoice in it.

Why do not all rejoice with us in more of God’s word? I can only conclude that a hedge has been created to try and limit God and his teachings to the Bible. But it seems to me that once one accepts that God has spoken to man at all, there is little reason, from a logic standpoint, to deny that he may have spoken to other nations and people. This may be some of what Fatboys was originally questioning.

Jan,

I cannot accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God because to the victors belong the history and there is no history from victors or defeated that it is anything other than plagerism of the King James Bible. I would also add that the Book of Mormon is not where Mormons as I understand believe God speaks. They believe God speaks in the Pearl of Great Price and D&C. This I cannot nor will I believe absent any ability to verify anything by way of historical or archeologic proof. So since history cannot be trusted I am left to my own resources to trust the Church alone with the Bible it produced.

 

[SteveVH]

I love the Bible it is the word of the Lord. Joseph Smith once remarked: He who can recognize the hand of the lord in nature may also see it in the Bible or in any of God’s word, for his word is spirit and life. The Book of Mormon is nothing more then God’s word delivered to another nation separate from the Jews and I rejoice in it.

Why do not all rejoice with us in more of God’s word? I can only conclude that a hedge has been created to try and limit God and his teachings to the Bible. But it seems to me that once one accepts that God has spoken to man at all, there is little reason, from a logic standpoint, to deny that he may have spoken to other nations and people. This may be some of what Fatboys was originally questioning.

Its pretty simple really. The Good News is not a book but a Person. He created a Church with the command to go out teach all of the world, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Church spread to all corners of the earth, including, eventually, the American continent. It preserved the truth given to it by the Apostles and spread this truth all over the globe. He has spoken "to other nations and people" through his Church, in which he promised to remain until the end of time.

We have been specifically warned about accepting “another gospel” which the BoM certainly is. Aside from the contradictions to Sacred Scripture, there is no empirical evidence that anything in the BoM is true. We have been over this a tousand times in various posts, but your question “Why do not all rejoice with us in more of God’s word” assumes too much. We don’t accept it as God’s word and for good reason. False prophets and “other gospels” have been prophesied and have come to fruition in our own generation.

 

[Janderich]

Jan,

I cannot accept the Book of Mormon as the word of God because to the victors belong the history and there is no history from victors or defeated that it is anything other than plagerism of the King James Bible. I would also add that the Book of Mormon is not where Mormons as I understand believe God speaks. They believe God speaks in the Pearl of Great Price and D&C. This I cannot nor will I believe absent any ability to verify anything by way of historical or archeologic proof. So since history cannot be trusted I am left to my own resources to trust the Church alone with the Bible it produced.

There is no historical or archaeological proof that God spoke to Moses, nor to Abraham, nor to Isaiah, etc., etc., etc. I doubt you will ever find such. So while you might find evidence that someone wrote the books of the Bible you cannot independently find evidence regarding the most important truths it contains. Ancient prophets and apostles simply could have lied. Yet you believe God spoke to these people. Your belief that God spoke to man is not based on archaeological proof.

 

[Janderich]

Its pretty simple really. The Good News is not a book but a Person. He created a Church with the command to go out teach all of the world, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. The Church spread to all corners of the earth, including, eventually, the American continent. It preserved the truth given to it by the Apostles and spread this truth all over the globe. He has spoken "to other nations and people" through his Church, in which he promised to remain until the end of time.

We have been specifically warned about accepting “another gospel” which the BoM certainly is. Aside from the contradictions to Sacred Scripture, there is no empirical evidence that anything in the BoM is true. We have been over this a tousand times in various posts, but your question “Why do not all rejoice with us in more of God’s word” assumes too much. We don’t accept it as God’s word and for good reason. False prophets and “other gospels” have been prophesied and have come to fruition in our own generation.

Steve, Would you accept a new book of scripture (not the BofM) if it was found today? Let’s suppose, it was not of the Jews and purported to contain the word of God, what would you do?

 

[CopticChristian]

There is no historical or archaeological proof that God spoke to Moses, nor to Abraham, nor to Isaiah, etc., etc., etc. I doubt you will ever find such. So while you might find evidence that someone wrote the books of the Bible you cannot independently find evidence regarding the most important truths it contains. Ancient prophets and apostles simply could have lied. Yet you believe God spoke to these people. Your belief that God spoke to man is not based on archaeological proof.

Jan,

You are wrong, I have the living testimony of Jews, people that confirm this belief unlike your belief in the book of Mormon. Are there descendants that would confirm your fantasy of belief?

 

[dzheremi]

Recipe for the new “True Religion”: Take Islam, make it white, set it in 19th century America…ta daaaaah!

 

[CopticChristian]

There is no historical or archaeological proof that God spoke to Moses, nor to Abraham, nor to Isaiah, etc., etc., etc. I doubt you will ever find such. So while you might find evidence that someone wrote the books of the Bible you cannot independently find evidence regarding the most important truths it contains. Ancient prophets and apostles simply could have lied. Yet you believe God spoke to these people. Your belief that God spoke to man is not based on archaeological proof.

Jan,

You are wrong, I have the living testimony of Jews, people that confirm this belief unlike your belief in the book of Mormon. Are there descendants that would confirm your fantasy of belief?

 

[Janderich]

Jan,

You are wrong, I have the living testimony of Jews, people that confirm this belief unlike your belief in the book of Mormon. Are there descendants that would confirm your fantasy of belief?

So your belief in ancient prophets and apostles is based on modern day testimony of the Jews? This is a rather flimsy foundation. What of the core doctrine of all Christianity, namely, that Jesus atoned for the sins of all men and was resurrected on the third day? Surely you don’t trust modern Jews to confirm this part of your belief.

 

[dzheremi]

While there is no conclusive scientific evidence for the traditional stance of Christianity regarding Christ Jesus (i.e., it’s basically impossible to prove a negative, i.e., that someone who left no earthly remains didn’t die), there is plenty of such evidence against Mormonism, e.g., the Egyptian papyri that Joseph Smith tried to connect to Abraham has been analyzed by Egyptologists and found to be a common funerary text with no connection to Abraham or anything related to ancient Jewry. Same too with the so-called “Reformed Egyptian” that Mormons claim their book was originally written in. And, in anticipation of the expected response (“first you said we can’t prove a negative, then you appealed to the lack of evidence for Reformed Egyptian! Way to shift the goal post mid-play”), we should point out the burden of proof differs something like several orders of magnitude in relation to the evidence needed to sustain that claim. In other words, the belief of the Christian in the person of Christ and the truth of the events of His life need only that someone fitting the traditional descriptions of Him existed (of which ancient writings, both Christian and non, testify that He did). The apologetic that may follow from that is all spiritual claims, not evidential (e.g., He healed the sick, He rose from the dead, etc. These are all beliefs about what He did, in other words, they are attached to His person and the effect it had on others and the world, and hence do not necessarily need to leave behind artifacts in order to be true).

Contrast that, if you will, with the BoM’s fantastic claims of huge battles fought on the American continent by prehistoric Hebrews when there is no material evidence of such having ever happened, nor any material evidence of even the existence of those people as the BoM describes them, or the great civilizations they are said to have built.

Do you not see a difference in the qualitative nature of the claims?

CHRISTIANITY: There was this guy. We believe about Him X, Y, Z.

MORMONISM: There were these HUGE civilizations, which had characteristics X, Y, Z (including forms of metallurgy, agriculture, language [including written language], religion, etc).

One hinges on the belief in a person, who has not been scientifically proven to exist; the other hinges on the belief in a historical narrative which has been proven to be false.

 

[jmcrae]

Steve, Would you accept a new book of scripture (not the BofM) if it was found today?

Not to speak for Steve, but I would not, simply because the Church has closed the canon of the New Testament, in 405 AD, and closed the canon of the Old Testament at Trent, during the late 1500s. We know that Jesus established the Church and gave its Bishops the authority to loose and to bind in all matters pertaining to faith, morals, and the discipline of the Sacraments. The canon of the Scriptures certainly falls under that purview.

Let’s suppose, it was not of the Jews and purported to contain the word of God, what would you do?

Recognize it as the product of some heresy or other, and not bother with it, other than to warn other members of the Church to avoid it.

 

[CopticChristian]

So your belief in ancient prophets and apostles is based on modern day testimony of the Jews? This is a rather flimsy foundation. What of the core doctrine of all Christianity, namely, that Jesus atoned for the sins of all men and was resurrected on the third day? Surely you don’t trust modern Jews to confirm this part of your belief.

Jan,

Your problem is clear. Generalization. Originally the issue was OT history and to that you added Apostles. Tell a Jew their testimony is flimsy and get back to me.

 

[Janderich]

Not to speak for Steve, but I would not, simply because the Church has closed the canon of the New Testament, in 405 AD, and closed the canon of the Old Testament at Trent, during the late 1500s. We know that Jesus established the Church and gave its Bishops the authority to loose and to bind in all matters pertaining to faith, morals, and the discipline of the Sacraments. The canon of the Scriptures certainly falls under that purview.

Recognize it as the product of some heresy or other, and not bother with it, other than to warn other members of the Church to avoid it.

Jmcrae, This would appear to me to be very short sighted. Wouldn’t you at least read the book? Certainly there is nothing in Catholic teaching that restricts one from reading such a book is there? Even if the Old and New Testament cannon’s were closed isn’t this different since it is a new book?

 

[jmcrae]

Jmcrae, This would appear to me to be very short sighted. Wouldn’t you at least read the book? Certainly there is nothing in Catholic teaching that restricts one from reading such a book is there? Even if the Old and New Testament cannon’s were closed isn’t this different since it is a new book?

Hardly. It took nearly 300 years for the Church to discern the canon of the Scriptures. They then closed it. It’s not “short sighted” to leave the discernment of the canon of Scripture to those who know what they’re doing. (I also leave things like brain surgery and rocket science to those who know what they’re doing.)

On the contrary, I think it would be very arrogant and prideful for me to think that I can discern something in one sitting that all of the world’s Bishops wrangled over for 300 years.

I also don’t consider it possible that God would send a new book that is not already in the canon of Scripture, since He already gave the Church the authority to close the canon. “What you bind on earth,” Jesus promised them, “I will bind in Heaven.” So if the earthly Church has closed the canon of the Scriptures, then God considers it closed, too.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, Would you accept a new book of scripture (not the BofM) if it was found today? Let’s suppose, it was not of the Jews and purported to contain the word of God, what would you do?

No, I would not accept it. Especially when it became obvious that nothing in the book could be verified by actual empirical evidence and parts of it contradict what I believe to be Sacred Scripture. I know that Jesus Christ is the Truth and that God has fully revealed himself in him. If God has fully revealed himself in Christ, what possibly is left to be revealed? So no, I expect other books to rear their heads and mislead many more people. The Muslims have a book that they certainly consider to be the word of God. I do not accept it for the reasons already given. I expect that you don’t either. Why?

 

[SteveVH]

Jmcrae, This would appear to me to be very short sighted. Wouldn’t you at least read the book? Certainly there is nothing in Catholic teaching that restricts one from reading such a book is there? Even if the Old and New Testament cannon’s were closed isn’t this different since it is a new book?

Sorry, but I want a shot at this one. No there isn’t anything that would restrict us from reading such a book. What you don’t understand is that there is nothing that would motivate most of us to read such a book. This would be like someone speculating on the end of a story that you have already read. Why would I care? I don’t think you understand what we mean when we say that God has revealed all that he has to reveal in his Son, Jesus Christ. We await nothing else but his coming. He has given us all that we require in order to be saved through his Church. Another way to put it is that I am in love and am not looking around, not even sneaking a peak.