What makes you think the bible is the word of God?

[tigers08]

Obviously no one is born thinking a certain book is God’s revelation. Someone had to tell you that the bible is God’s word. So, other than someone telling you, do you have a reason to believe the bible was inspired by God?

 

[davidv]

Obviously no one is born thinking a certain book is God’s revelation. Someone had to tell you that the bible is God’s word. So, other than someone telling you, do you have a reason to believe the bible was inspired by God?

Yes - the trustworthiness of the ones telling me so.

 

[banjo]

Obviously no one is born thinking a certain book is God’s revelation. Someone had to tell you that the bible is God’s word. So, other than someone telling you, do you have a reason to believe the bible was inspired by God?

St. Augustine said, “I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church.” I agree.

 

[tigers08]

You’re really going to risk eternal damnation (if the Muslims or some other religion is right) on the trustworthiness of some individual? And really, you have to trust the person who told them, and the person who told them…all the way up the ancestry. What if you were born into a Hindu family. I’m sure you’d feel you’re parents were very trustworthy, but as here as a Christian you believe they’re wrong. And as far as trusting the Church…their jobs depend on you believing what they tell you, so of course they’re going to say it’s true. I don’t think you can ever trust an organization that claims to be infallible simply on those grounds.

 

[Paladin_V]

Well, a combination of things, ranging from the Church, to trustworthy people, to reason and intellect. Ultimately, however, one cannot have faith and believe in God except if He gives us the grace to do so. Reason, intellect, information from authority is necessary… but to truly internalize it, to have true faith that it is the Word of God, well that can only happen if God causes us to have that faith. So, ultimately, it is His grace that makes us believe.

 

[tigers08]

Ultimately, however, one cannot have faith and believe in God except if He gives us the grace to do so. Reason, intellect, information from authority is necessary… but to truly internalize it, to have true faith that it is the Word of God, well that can only happen if God causes us to have that faith. So, ultimately, it is His grace that makes us believe.

So does anyone go to hell? From what you’re saying, God basically decides who believes the bible because he has to give them the grace to do so. I really don’t understand how you could believe this, and believe people are punished if they don’t believe the bible. (That’s assuming you do believe that.)

 

[Paladin_V]

Unless I am very very mistaken (and I don’t think I am because I was just reading about this), St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and St. John of the Cross believed this and the Church fathers.

St. Paul states, “For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received?” (1Cor4:7)

“Without Me, you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

From the Council of Orange: “God effects in man several blessings without man’s co-operation, but man can do no good without the help of God, who enables him to accomplish all his good works.” (Denzinger, Enchiridion)

I won’t deny that I don’t struggle with this and that I am not always puzzling over the question of free will. St. Thomas says that God causes in us the movement of our will in such a way that it doesn’t violate our free will. Very lofty and hard to understand, and I really don’t understand it. I am currently reading “Christian Perfection and Contemplation” by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and he describes this in detail.

The point, however, it that we can accomplish nothing without God’s help, nor can we have faith (and consequently believe the bible as the word of God) unless he gives it to us. Clearly, then, he must offer it to all at somepoint and/or we must also trust in his infinite mercy. We can, however, reject that grace; for that our will is sufficient.

If anyone has any answers as to how God can move our will without violating our free will, please respond!

 

[Newbie2]

Obviously no one is born thinking a certain book is God’s revelation. Someone had to tell you that the bible is God’s word. So, other than someone telling you, do you have a reason to believe the bible was inspired by God?

Your question brings up an interesting philosophical consideration:

We believe it to be true because it is true, it is not true because we believe it to be so.

Perhaps this belongs in the philosophy discussion, but other than based on one’s own observation or experience, or the testimony (or instruction) of someone else, is there any other way to know anything?

The only other way would be if such knowledge was inborn, as you mentioned, and I’m pretty sure the Church doesn’t claim that such knowledge is inborn as such.

So that leaves experience or observation. Now, not a single one of us was present for any of the events in Scripture when they happened.

Assuming, for the sake of discussion that all of Scripture is inspired and true, the only to know such is through the experience/testimony/teaching of those who have preceeded us who ***could ***testify based on personal experience.

Of course, if it isn’t true, the only way to know that would be through the testimony of others, as well.

So, to answer your OP, no. Other than through the teaching and traditions of the Church and her members, I’ve got no other reason to believe it to be true (except for the fact that it is true). That was kinda the idea that Jesus had when he commissioned the Apostles, wasn’t it?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Obviously no one is born thinking a certain book is God’s revelation. Someone had to tell you that the bible is God’s word. So, other than someone telling you, do you have a reason to believe the bible was inspired by God?

Environment had something to do with it - if one had born in Pakistan, one would probably have been a Muslim.​

Other than that, this is pretty well why:

• V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
  epcew.org.uk/wcf/I.html

As J.B. Phillips (who translated the NT about 60 years ago) said, it has the ring of truth.

External authority can help in guiding one to avoid pitfalls - what it cannot do is work internally, in the heart; not unless the Spirit of God confirms it to the recipient of the authority. For this reason, one cannot prove the authority of the Bible by reasoning - one can only receive its authority, in something of the way that one accepts that the Iliad is an outstanding poem: there is no way of “proving” this - one has eyes to see the greatness of the Iliad, or one has not. And it is the special work of the Spirit to open the eyes to “taste and see” His Presence in the Bible; otherwise, it is nothing but a dead (& deadening) book.

 

[tigers08]

We believe it to be true because it is true, it is not true because we believe it to be so.

Perhaps this belongs in the philosophy discussion, but other than based on one’s own observation or experience, or the testimony (or instruction) of someone else, is there any other way to know anything?

Assuming, for the sake of discussion that all of Scripture is inspired and true, the only to know such is through the experience/testimony/teaching of those who have preceeded us who ***could ***testify based on personal experience.

Of course, if it isn’t true, the only way to know that would be through the testimony of others, as well.

So, to answer your OP, no. Other than through the teaching and traditions of the Church and her members, I’ve got no other reason to believe it to be true (except for the fact that it is true). That was kinda the idea that Jesus had when he commissioned the Apostles, wasn’t it?

I don’t believe it’s true because I don’t have reason to. Otherwise I would have to believe the Koran as well. And Moby **** would become an infallible historical document, too.

And ya, I agree there is no way to prove a religion right, but then there’s no reason to choose Christianity over Hinduism. And I do think you can prove a religion wrong (or at least show that a book isn’t infallible). If something claims to be infallible, then contradicts itself or other known truths, then it cannot be infallible.

But I kind of disagree on the only way to know if it was true was through experience/testimony/teaching. You could also check the book’s historical and scientific accuracy. One would assume a book inspired by God would get the basics right, but if the bible is true then God didn’t even know where rain comes from. And there is absolutely no evidence for a world wide flood, while there is evidence showing the Earth to billions of years to form, not days.

 

[tigers08]

Unless I am very very mistaken (and I don’t think I am because I was just reading about this), St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and St. John of the Cross believed this and the Church fathers.

I won’t deny that I don’t struggle with this and that I am not always puzzling over the question of free will. St. Thomas says that God causes in us the movement of our will in such a way that it doesn’t violate our free will. Very lofty and hard to understand, and I really don’t understand it. I am currently reading “Christian Perfection and Contemplation” by Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange and he describes this in detail.

First of all, citing that other people believe something isn’t a very good argument. And my point was that there is no more reason to believe the bible is true than the Koran or other religious text, not that your understanding of the Church’s teaching on free will were wrong.

 

[TOP]

I believe the bible to be the truth and the living word of God by divine revelation revealed to me Eastereve 2005 during an illumination of conscience and consolation as an intervention to a suicide attempt. My wife put a dusty unused bible in my hands to find a prayer during this event. All I have is my wife’s and my own words as witness on this earth. Tim

 

[tigers08]

I’m glad you at least have a good reason.

 

[tigers08]

Environment had something to do with it - if one had born in Pakistan, one would probably have been a Muslim.​

External authority can help in guiding one to avoid pitfalls - what it cannot do is work internally, in the heart; not unless the Spirit of God confirms it to the recipient of the authority. For this reason, one cannot prove the authority of the Bible by reasoning - one can only receive its authority, in something of the way that one accepts that the Iliad is an outstanding poem

Completely agree with the environment part, which is why I see no reason to believe the bible.

You cannot prove the authority of the bible - completely agree also. So without receiving its authority, theres no reason to believe it holds any more truths than any other ancient document, right? Cause I definitely haven’t received any confirmation of its authority. If anything I’ve received the opposite. I was born into a Catholic family and had blindly believed all the Church’s teaching until about a year ago. That’s when I realized I had no reason to believe it, and there were actually many reasons not to. It wasn’t an immediate switch. For months I prayed for guidance, but every time I went to church I heard something else that I believed was wrong. After all of this, I now realize that without a reason to believe something, you shouldn’t.

 

[Nita]

Obviously no one is born thinking a certain book is God’s revelation. Someone had to tell you that the bible is God’s word. So, other than someone telling you, do you have a reason to believe the bible was inspired by God?

In a sense what you are asking for is each person’s “conversion” story. That is probably why you found TOP’s answer meaningful. Some stories are a continuous journey of conversion from youth on; others may be more dramatic, especially if they have abandoned or doubted. I cared only about TRUTH and begged God for it. (Having intelectually determined that Jesus was not God, I was experiencing the bleakest, emptiest, most meaningless emotional period I ever hope to go through.) I remember pleading with God to give me some peace if what I believed was true; but if I was wrong, to please show me the truth.

Immediately after my conversion experience I had an absolute hunger to read every word Jesus ever spoke. That was 40+ years ago. The emotional intensity of the hunger passed with time and was replaced with something even better the longer I read the Bible and the more I studied it - and I don’t know how to describe that properly in words. (Tried in a couple sentences here, but ended up deleting them.)

I am a reader. And something on a very practical level that never ceases to amaze me, is how I can read and reread Scripture and it is always alive; a new insight can come from a passage I may have read/heard as many as 100 times before. As I said, I’m a reader, and there is absolutely no other book I could even stand to read and reread so often ---- let alone continue to find new depths and wonders.

Nita

 

[Mijoy2]

Completely agree with the environment part, which is why I see no reason to believe the bible.

You cannot prove the authority of the bible - completely agree also. So without receiving its authority, theres no reason to believe it holds any more truths than any other ancient document, right? Cause I definitely haven’t received any confirmation of its authority. If anything I’ve received the opposite. I was born into a Catholic family and had blindly believed all the Church’s teaching until about a year ago. That’s when I realized I had no reason to believe it, and there were actually many reasons not to. It wasn’t an immediate switch. For months I prayed for guidance, but every time I went to church I heard something else that I believed was wrong. After all of this, I now realize that without a reason to believe something, you shouldn’t.

Read as much as you can make time for.

Mere Christianity - Lewis
Confessions - Augustine
Imitation of Christ - Kempis
Orthodoxy and Everlasting Man - Chesterton
Many more…

Maybe some apologetic books there are many of good books on the Bible and other issues pertaining to the Church. Search the Catholic Answers web site.

Frankly, I wouldn’t just resort to the answers you may (or may not get on these forums) And, I wouldn’t expect a definitive revelation. It’s a jourrney and a journey worth taking. Very painful at times (at least it is for me). I can understand your doubts. Keep searching and reading.

At the very least, a contimplative read of these and other books will cause you to ponder your questions to a deeper degree.

God Bless

 

[tigers08]

In a sense what you are asking for is each person’s “conversion” story. That is probably why you found TOP’s answer meaningful. Some stories are a continuous journey of conversion from youth on; others may be more dramatic, especially if they have abandoned or doubted. I cared only about TRUTH and begged God for it. (Having intelectually determined that Jesus was not God, I was experiencing the bleakest, emptiest, most meaningless emotional period I ever hope to go through.) I remember pleading with God to give me some peace if what I believed was true; but if I was wrong, to please show me the truth.

Immediately after my conversion experience I had an absolute hunger to read every word Jesus ever spoke. That was 40+ years ago. The emotional intensity of the hunger passed with time and was replaced with something even better the longer I read the Bible and the more I studied it - and I don’t know how to describe that properly in words. (Tried in a couple sentences here, but ended up deleting them.)

I am a reader. And something on a very practical level that never ceases to amaze me, is how I can read and reread Scripture and it is always alive; a new insight can come from a passage I may have read/heard as many as 100 times before. As I said, I’m a reader, and there is absolutely no other book I could even stand to read and reread so often ---- let alone continue to find new depths and wonders.

Nita

I really wasn’t asking for conversion stories, and sorry but I didn’t find his answer meaningful, I just didn’t want to be mean. Nothing personal to anyone but someone else having an “experience” means nothing to me. How can I know whether it’s true or not, let alone whether it was divine intervention. But it is interesting that faced with a similar experience as mine you ended up going back to Christianity. For me, when I realized (imo) that Christianity was wrong I had this great eureka feeling. It was like all the holes in the religion finally melted away when I could see the whole thing was wrong (again imo). The only negative feeling I had was at being (again imo) duped my whole life.

 

[RedSoxFan]

Do you feel angry at being duped?

You just had this eureka moment?

What happend?

 

[Newbie2]

If something claims to be infallible, then contradicts itself or other known truths, then it cannot be infallible.

But I kind of disagree on the only way to know if it was true was through experience/testimony/teaching. You could also check the book’s historical and scientific accuracy. One would assume a book inspired by God would get the basics right, but if the bible is true then God didn’t even know where rain comes from. And there is absolutely no evidence for a world wide flood, while there is evidence showing the Earth to billions of years to form, not days.

First, we have to understand that the bible is not a scientific document(s). Second it’s crucial to understand that the bible is like a newspaper; there’s some objective reporting, there’s some allegory, some fiction, some humor. So it’s not all meant to be read “literally”.

For example, where did the creation accounts come from? Nobody was there to report them, so they cannot be objective eyewitness accounts.

Same thing for the flood accounts. As far as they (Noah and his family) could see, the entire world was flooded. But was it, or was it just as far as the known inhabited world at that time?

There will always be more problems, in terms of contradictions, when all of scripture is read with a literal focus, than if read as to how the author intended.

A NT example would be that if our eye causes us to sin, best to pluck it out. Was this meant to be taken literally? No. Otherwise we’d all be blind!

As far as “You could also check the book’s historical and scientific accuracy.”, how would you do that? If you weren’t there as an eyewitness yourself, you have to depend on someone else’s knowledge or witness of some historical event.

As far as scientific principles, you have to depend on someone else’s scientific discovery and take that as truth, otherwise you’d have to reproduce all their discoveries to have firsthand knowledge of that.

For example, we know that condensing water vapor causes water droplets to form in the upper atmosphere to cause rain. How do we know this? By seeing rain. No. Because somebody figured it out by researching it. We take their word on it, we believe it and it makes logical sense because it’s what we’ve been taught in school, not because we made or researched the discovery ourselves.

 

[tigers08]

First, we have to understand that the bible is not a scientific document(s). Second it’s crucial to understand that the bible is like a newspaper; there’s some objective reporting, there’s some allegory, some fiction, some humor. So it’s not all meant to be read “literally”.

For example, where did the creation accounts come from? Nobody was there to report them, so they cannot be objective eyewitness accounts.

Same thing for the flood accounts. As far as they (Noah and his family) could see, the entire world was flooded. But was it, or was it just as far as the known inhabited world at that time?

There will always be more problems, in terms of contradictions, when all of scripture is read with a literal focus, than if read as to how the author intended.

A NT example would be that if our eye causes us to sin, best to pluck it out. Was this meant to be taken literally? No. Otherwise we’d all be blind!

As far as “You could also check the book’s historical and scientific accuracy.”, how would you do that? If you weren’t there as an eyewitness yourself, you have to depend on someone else’s knowledge or witness of some historical event.

As far as scientific principles, you have to depend on someone else’s scientific discovery and take that as truth, otherwise you’d have to reproduce all their discoveries to have firsthand knowledge of that.

For example, we know that condensing water vapor causes water droplets to form in the upper atmosphere to cause rain. How do we know this? By seeing rain. No. Because somebody figured it out by researching it. We take their word on it, we believe it and it makes logical sense because it’s what we’ve been taught in school, not because we made or researched the discovery ourselves.

I would agree with just about everything except that Christians claim the bible was inspired by God. The book is said to be infallible, so there should be no qualifications like “well, it was true for what they saw”. If God inspired it, and it’s considered infallible, it should just be the truth, period. You can prove the accuracy of an ancient text by comparing it to archaeological and historical records. You’re right, you can’t know anything for certain, but with consensus in lots of different evidence, we can be pretty sure. For instance, we know a lot of things in the bible actually occurred, because we have found evidence for them outside the text. But there are some parts that, if true, would be very easy to show happened (the flood), yet there is no evidence for. And scientists provide evidence for their findings, which can be repeated by anyone to test if it is correct. They don’t write a thesis and call it infallible.

And about it being literal, if any of it’s not literal, who decides which parts are and which parts aren’t? Who’s to say the resurrection wasn’t metaphorical? Saying the whole thing is not literal just gives people a way to manipulate the text to spread their own agenda.