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

[RedSoxFan]

Well I don’t feel angry exactly cause there’s no one to blame. My parents just believed what their parents did, and they thought they were doing the right thing raising me Catholic. But I did promise myself that if I had kids I would expose them to all types of religions and non-religions, and let them decide for themselves what they believed.

The eureka moment: I had always struggled with believing the contradictions of the bible. I learned about the big bang and evolution, yet the bible says they’re wrong. It was like Winston in 1984 saying O’Brien was holding up 5 fingers when he only saw 4. How can you truly believe that? It had never dawned on me that the bible could be wrong, I had been raised knowing the bible came from God. Even children’s songs use that as their basis: “Jesus loves me, this I know, for the bible tells me so”. No one asks why the bible is trustworthy. But then one day it hit me, the bible doesn’t have to be true. The light bulb went off, and it seemed to explain everything. I thought about that a lot, for months, and the more I thought about it the more it seemed right.

There isn’t a problem with how the world was formed. I took away from reading the book of Gensis that God created all according to his plan. Whether he did so by using the big bang or another method is interesting, but doesn’t make me doubt he was behind it.
I believe that God communicates in ways that people can understand. The story og Genesis is an example of this. The bible is the written inspired word of God. If God had started talking about the “big bang” theory when he inspired the writer of Genesis and had it been included in the book of Genesis many more people would not understand what he was talking about until the 20th Century.

What other contradictions do you see?

 

[tigers08]

However - there is no intrinsic reason why it must be inerrant, merely because it is inspired. AFAICS, the CC does teach that it is inspired, therefore inerrant: even so, there is in principle no reason why inspiration must lead to inerrancy. And AFAICS, no justification for believing it is inerrant, Church or no Church - but that is just MO. ## The Bible is, under one aspect, a wholly human set of texts - therefore, it can & should be & is studied just as any other set of texts is. And just as no one can read Virgil intelligently by supposing him to be writing now, neither are the very varied Biblical texts read intelligently if we insist on reading them as though they were addressed primarily to us. We can apply them to our setting - but they were not written in or to our setting. Which is why it is disgraceful to read them like messages in fortune cookies; they are no such thing. ## Only if they ignore the historical setting of the texts. Parables are not historical texts; creation legends are not gospels; prophecies are not letters. If people can’t be bothered to do some work in order to understand what kind of texts the Bible is made of, they can blame only themselves.​

The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible site makes a hash of the Bible precisely because it reads it in this unintelligent way. Any literature would seem idiotic if read like that No one ignorant of Virgil’s Latin would comment on his Aeneid; & the Biblical texts deserve no less respect than the Aeneid.

Once the literal meaning of the texts is understood, it can be used theologically - but the meaning must, AFAP, be found first.

Very good point. I guess I should rephrase my question to say “What makes you think the bible is inerrant?”, but I would have to think for most people the answer is the same. And I completely agree if you are reading the bible as simply a mix of ancient stories, then of course we need to read it from the perspective of people of that time and culture. My only problem with the whole Christian philosophy is claiming the bible is inerrant, because it’s words would have to be true no matter what culture or time one lives in, which it obviously is not. And the Skeptics Annotated Bible does go out of its way imo to try to show things are wrong. But there are still lots of things I’ve seen on there that have no explanation imo except that the bible is not infallible.

 

[tigers08]

Hi tigers08,

Whilst remaining on the subject of prophecy, please tell, do you think it was a co-incidence that Jesus was cruicified on the day before Passover?

Do you think it is ambiguous to think that the blood red moon described in Joel 2:31 is the lunar eclipse that took place on Friday 3rd April, 33AD?

Yep, probably. That is if he was actually crucified that day. Besides, Jesus knew about the OT and easily could have went into Jerusalem a week before passover on purpose. That’s also assuming no one has “adjusted” the bible to make this fit.

Did you mean solar eclipse? Cause lunar means the moon is covered so I don’t know how that would turn the sun to darkness as claimed by Joel 2:31. Passover occurs on Nisan 15 based on the Jewish calender. This is a lunar calender, so the cycle is always the same for every month. Nisan 15 always is a nearly full moon, but for the moon to cover the sun it would have to be a new moon. So it would have to be around 2 weeks before or after passover. And the maximum time for a solar eclipse is 7.5 minutes, not nearly the 3 hours claimed by the bible.

 

[tigers08]

When someone told me that it is the word of God, I wondered: How true is it that it is the word of God? This moved me to make a prayerful study of the book and of the life of some persons who accepted it to be so. How did this persons lived and died? The deep study on the bible would ultimately bring one’s attention to the main character of the whole bible, the Lord Jesus Christ. And then one would realize that Jesus Christ is not only a myth but a historical truth. A man who performed wonders no other man could do. A man who alone ascended in the way He did. The man in whom the prophecies in the bible were fulfilled. That somehow convinced me that those who told me were right after all.

Yes he is historical truth. He’s a man who allegedly performed wonders. Who allegedly ascended. I haven’t seen any prophecies that were at all convincing in the bible. Deep study of the bible has only brought out its contradictions to me.

 

[tigers08]

It seems to me that you’re trying to equate literal and infallible.

Let’s take the historical books in the OT for example; they don’t all agree on the the numbers of people, some locations of events don’t square with each other, etc.

The point of infallibility is not the historical reliability, it’s the message of the text.

For example, does it really matter if God took 6 days or 6 bazillion years to create the earth? The message of the creation story is that he created it. That message is infallible.

In the NT, the Gospel accounts don’t square with each other in a number of areas. Geographical details, were 4 or 5 thousand fed, etc. Does it matter? No, the messge is infallible.

Did Balaam’s *** really talk to him? (I always laugh when I hear this question ) Doesn’t matter. The message is infallible.

Maybe so. But that’s going to happen regardless of whether or not we claim scripture as entirely literal or not…AND, claiming that it is all literal opens it up to scientific and historical criticism, to which many sections of scripture fail to measure up.

The question is whether or not one chooses to read scripture with a literary (not necessarliy literal) mindset or a spiritual one, isn’t it?

How can we know which text that claims to be God’s word is really it, if any? The only way to judge these claims is through checking the stuff we can. Historical data can easily be checked, so it’s one of the ones used most often. It’s pretty obvious a book is not inerrant when unquestionable things like numbers disagree. Of course it’s easy to say only the message is inerrant, because then it’s impossible to prove it wrong.

 

[tigers08]

I understand. Everyone obviously demands a different amount of evidence to accept anything, be it the Bible, or the Koran, or evolution, or gravity or whatever. Why does your belief or unbelief determine truth? Didn’t “everyone” refuse to believe that the earth was round at one time too?

It doesn’t. And the ones who researched and understood why people were beginning to think the Earth was round didn’t refuse. It was the close-minded people who couldn’t accept something they hadn’t been raised with who refused.

None of the 4 gospels quote Jesus last words before His ascension into heaven. They obviously quote Jesus after his resurrection & before his ascension, but only the book of Acts actually states the actual last thing Jesus said before he ascended to heaven. (Acts 1:7-9)

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Yep, probably. That is if he was actually crucified that day. Besides, Jesus knew about the OT and easily could have went into Jerusalem a week before passover on purpose. That’s also assuming no one has “adjusted” the bible to make this fit.

Probably not.

But I don’t want to continue our discussion on probabilities and assumptions.

Did you mean solar eclipse?..

No, I meant lunar eclipse. If you want to research more, click on the links I gave you in post # 37.

I have nothing new to add. And neither did you. I think it’s time for me to give this thread away. See you around in other threads. Thank you and bye-bye.

 

[Newbie2]

How can we know which text that claims to be God’s word is really it, if any? The only way to judge these claims is through checking the stuff we can. Historical data can easily be checked, so it’s one of the ones used most often. It’s pretty obvious a book is not inerrant when unquestionable things like numbers disagree.

Once again, the message is inerrant, not the details of the stories contained therein. Nobody claims that the bible is historically inerrant, not anyone familiar with it, anyway.

So using historical criteria, I guess you could say the bible is not inerrant. What the bible has to say about salvation, is inerrant. Exact numbers have very little to do with the message contained in Scripture.

And no, historical stuff can’t always be easily checked. Some of this stuff is thousands of years old and has come down through oral tradition.

God used human authors, with all their faults and failings to write scripture for us. If it was written by his hand, personally, it would be error-free in terms of history, grammar and what have you.

Of course it’s easy to say only the message is inerrant, because then it’s impossible to prove it wrong

Well, there ya go. One really cannot “prove” spiritual matters by historical or scientific methods now, can one? Maybe that’s part of the whole point of having a bible. It takes a measure of faith to belive it to be true.

But what’s the motive here, to try to prove it wrong, or to try to find out why it’s right?

 

[tigers08]

There isn’t a problem with how the world was formed. I took away from reading the book of Gensis that God created all according to his plan. Whether he did so by using the big bang or another method is interesting, but doesn’t make me doubt he was behind it.
I believe that God communicates in ways that people can understand. The story og Genesis is an example of this. The bible is the written inspired word of God. If God had started talking about the “big bang” theory when he inspired the writer of Genesis and had it been included in the book of Genesis many more people would not understand what he was talking about until the 20th Century.

What other contradictions do you see?

Well I define God as whatever created the universe so by default he made it. But what bothers me about Genesis is, it could have been written without God’s inspiration and it would have sounded exactly the same. There’s nothing in it that makes you think “wow, how would they have known that back then without God’s help”. Like people still wonder how the Egyptians built the pyramids. But there’s nothing in Genesis like that. And here’s some lists of contradictions: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html and infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
granted, a lot of these are dumb and focus on tiny details, like someone saying God resides in the light, and someone saying God resides in darkness. But there are also a lot that can’t be easily explained away. And remember, one valid contradiction means the book is not infallible (at least literally).

 

[tigers08]

Once again, the message is inerrant, not the details of the stories contained therein. Nobody claims that the bible is historically inerrant, not anyone familiar with it, anyway.

So using historical criteria, I guess you could say the bible is not inerrant. What the bible has to say about salvation, is inerrant. Exact numbers have very little to do with the message contained in Scripture.

And no, historical stuff can’t always be easily checked. Some of this stuff is thousands of years old and has come down through oral tradition.

God used human authors, with all their faults and failings to write scripture for us. If it was written by his hand, personally, it would be error-free in terms of history, grammar and what have you.

Well, there ya go. One really cannot “prove” spiritual matters by historical or scientific methods now, can one? Maybe that’s part of the whole point of having a bible. It takes a measure of faith to belive it to be true.

But what’s the motive here, to try to prove it wrong, or to try to find out why it’s right?

The only way to truly believe something is to genuinely try to prove it wrong in fail. You cannot prove a religion right, you can prove one wrong. But if you can’t test a supposedly infallible book based on the actual events it describes, then how do you know which one, if any, is right? You can’t prove that the message is wrong, so how would you know whether Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc, are right?

 

[agangbern]

Yes he is historical truth. He’s a man who allegedly performed wonders. Who allegedly ascended. I haven’t seen any prophecies that were at all convincing in the bible. Deep study of the bible has only brought out its contradictions to me.

That would not surprise me if it "has only brought out its contradictions" to you.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

They definitely quote his last words, as in before he died. And 3/4 disagree. Check Matthew 27:46, Luke 23:46, and John 19:30.

Ah, I see. You’re talking about Jesus last words before his death on the cross, not his last words on earth.

I agree, John and Luke do give differing statements, although neither Mark or Matthew do.

Matthew 27:50 notes that Jesus spoke again, after the “inconsistent quote” of 27:46. “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.”

The gospel according to Mark agrees, in 15:37 - “With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.”

Both gospels state only that he “cried out”, not WHAT he cried out.

The big band and evolution have evidence to support them. And neither makes the claim at being infallible. My whole point was there’s no reason to believe the bible is the word of God(or infallible). The big bang and evolution are theories, which find more support all the time. The bible finds less and less.

Interesting.

Are you aware that the Big Bang theory was developed and proposed by a Belgian Roman Catholic Priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître?

There’s a TON of evidence supporting the Bible. Do you mean only “scientific” evidence?

Not sure how the evidence supporting the Bible somehow disappears (becomes “less and less”) though.

Sorry but I do care how it was created. With my definition of God as whoever or whatever created the universe, the closest I’m going to get to him is understanding the creation of the universe and the laws that govern it. Evolution can be duplicated, it happens every day. That’s why people are getting taller and smarter. And cows can be bred to make tiny cows. I don’t think you have a very good understanding of evolution.

Obviously, you are not alone in caring how universe was created.

You’re probably right. I don’t really understand evolution.

I know the term “evolution” is used to refer to variation within a species, & I even agree with it that such variation occurs, as in skin color, size, personal traits, etc., like you describe.

Then again, the term “evolution” seems to be more often used to describe speciation (the change of a species over time into another one), which I find quite hard to believe, since speciation (or the hypothesis of “Common Descent”) has neither been witnessed, nor can it be replicated.

I welcome the opportunity to be proven incorrect by anyone who can take a sunfish & a squirrel, and evolve them into a horse.

In any case, the Bible doesn’t state exactly how the universe was created anyway, and neither supports nor contradicts the theories that exist. (Again, note that the Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest - who also believed that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God.)

And if the evidence you have found is good enough for you then that’s fine, but I’ve seen far too much evidence against the bible to believe it.

Just curious, but is your only Biblical reference the “skeptics bible”? If so, then it is hardly surprising that you are skeptical of it. There are skeptics of all stripes about all kinds of things, from biblical accuracy, to the properties of physics, to whether aliens exist. Read the right kind of stuff, and you can “disprove” anything you want. Heck, read anything you want to the right way, and we can often “prove” or “disprove” anything.

My argument is a book that claims infallibility/inspiration from God cannot ever be wrong.

I agree. However, I find the evidence supporting it, combined with the authority of the Church enough to believe that the Bible is both inspired and inerrant - All of it, whether I understand everything or not.

The Bible is much harder to understand than people seem to think, especially in it’s entirety. None of us can even HOPE to compete in the understanding department with a Church that has studied it for 1600 years.

I used to simply say, “See, that is wrong”, or “It contradicts itself” when I found something. But then, nearly all such items are, or have been, shown to be due to misinterpreting the passage(s), or not knowing enough to understand them.

Do you do the same thing? Just look for “contradictions”, and “errors”, or do you research them to find out if they really are contradictions & errors?

Doing so helped me to resolve my own problems and questions about such “errors”.

Respectfully,

Chris

 

[RedSoxFan]

Well I define God as whatever created the universe so by default he made it. But what bothers me about Genesis is, it could have been written without God’s inspiration and it would have sounded exactly the same. There’s nothing in it that makes you think “wow, how would they have known that back then without God’s help”. Like people still wonder how the Egyptians built the pyramids. But there’s nothing in Genesis like that. And here’s some lists of contradictions: skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html and infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html
granted, a lot of these are dumb and focus on tiny details, like someone saying God resides in the light, and someone saying God resides in darkness. But there are also a lot that can’t be easily explained away. And remember, one valid contradiction means the book is not infallible (at least literally).

So you would call the Big Bang God?

Sorry I think something would have to create, purposely, everything. I believe their was a conscious thought before even the big bang. If that is indeed how the universe was formed. I can’t picture a time before “time” without God. I would go nuts thinking what makes something out of nothing. I’ll try to check out those sites you list, but it would be nice to hear more about what drives you nuts (the specifics that annoy you), Thanks!

 

[tigers08]

Ah, I see. You’re talking about Jesus last words before his death on the cross, not his last words on earth.

I agree, John and Luke do give differing statements, although neither Mark or Matthew do.

Matthew 27:50 notes that Jesus spoke again, after the “inconsistent quote” of 27:46. “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.”

The gospel according to Mark agrees, in 15:37 - “With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last.”

Both gospels state only that he “cried out”, not WHAT he cried out.

I would have to think “a loud cry/voice” is a scream or moan. Otherwise they would have said the words he said, not just that he yelled something.

Are you aware that the Big Bang theory was developed and proposed by a Belgian Roman Catholic Priest, Monsignor Georges Lemaître?

No I wasn’t, but I don’t see how that applies. Did you know the first reliable percussion caps were invented by Rev. Forsyth in Scotland?

There’s a TON of evidence supporting the Bible. Do you mean only “scientific” evidence?

Tons of evidence supporting specific events in the bible. No one ever claimed that NOTHING in the bible was true. But there is absolutely no evidence to show EVERYTHING in the bible is true. Obviously that is impossible, but there’s not even evidence to support the big stuff, like most of Exodus.

Not sure how the evidence supporting the Bible somehow disappears (becomes “less and less”) though.

I said support, not evidence.

Then again, the term “evolution” seems to be more often used to describe speciation (the change of a species over time into another one), which I find quite hard to believe, since speciation (or the hypothesis of “Common Descent”) has neither been witnessed, nor can it be replicated.

Yes, but it can be traced through the fossil record.

I welcome the opportunity to be proven incorrect by anyone who can take a sunfish & a squirrel, and evolve them into a horse.

Not exactly how evolution works. In fact that wouldn’t be evolution at all.

In any case, the Bible doesn’t state exactly how the universe was created anyway, and neither supports nor contradicts the theories that exist. (Again, note that the Big Bang theory was developed by a Catholic priest - who also believed that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God.)

Darwin was Christian, too. And Copernicus. Doesn’t mean much.

Just curious, but is your only Biblical reference the “skeptics bible”? If so, then it is hardly surprising that you are skeptical of it. There are skeptics of all stripes about all kinds of things, from biblical accuracy, to the properties of physics, to whether aliens exist. Read the right kind of stuff, and you can “disprove” anything you want. Heck, read anything you want to the right way, and we can often “prove” or “disprove” anything.

No, I go to church every week. (My parents make me) I here the Catholic version, but I still see the errors in the book.

Do you do the same thing? Just look for “contradictions”, and “errors”, or do you research them to find out if they really are contradictions & errors?

No, whenever I first see a contradiction, I usually read the surrounding paragraphs first. Then if it still seems like a contradiction, I look at the Christian responses. (On skepticsannotatedbible.com, most of their contradictions link to Christian responses so that’s where I go)

 

[tigers08]

So you would call the Big Bang God?

Sorry I think something would have to create, purposely, everything. I believe their was a conscious thought before even the big bang. If that is indeed how the universe was formed. I can’t picture a time before “time” without God. I would go nuts thinking what makes something out of nothing. I’ll try to check out those sites you list, but it would be nice to hear more about what drives you nuts (the specifics that annoy you), Thanks!

No, I meant whatever started the Big Bang. I lean towards a conscious God too, but it’s most likely do to the limits of my imagination.

Specific things (I’ll keep this bible related since that’s the name of the thread):

Every statistic that refers to the same thing yet has different numbers. There’s really way too many to list so I’ll give just a few skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/300or800.html
skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/ahaziah_age.html
skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/bebai.html

Impossible things (the flood, creation story, parting Red Sea, etc)

Moral code in OT, (stone a woman if she’s raped and doesn’t scream loud enough, slavery is OK, etc)

Sources (Moses talks to burning bush…lol, great source; Joseph only hears Mary is virgin in a dream)

Different stories (gospels disagree on a lot, like women going to tomb, Jesus’ last words, etc)

I’m not saying all of these are contradictions, but all it takes is one.

 

[davidv]

I’m not saying all of these are contradictions, but all it takes is one.

But, you must identify the one. I don’t find any of them to be true contradictions as they relate to my salvation, so I wouldn’t know which one is “it”.

 

[tigers08]

But, you must identify the one. I don’t find any of them to be true contradictions as they relate to my salvation, so I wouldn’t know which one is “it”.

OK, I’ll pick one at random off the list. Were the angel(s) inside or outside the tomb when the women went to anoint Jesus?
skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/inside.html

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

OK, I’ll pick one at random off the list. Were the angel(s) inside or outside the tomb when the women went to anoint Jesus?
skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/inside.html

Who really cares? Our faith is not based on whether angels were inside or outside.

 

[tigers08]

Who really cares? Our faith is not based on whether angels were inside or outside.

I care. If I am to believe that a book is inspired by God, it can have no errors. Period. I disagree with the whole “only the meaning is inerrant”. There is no way to know whether the meaning was inspired by God if we can’t judge the book based on its literal words.

 

[agangbern]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWRIT View Post
Then again, the term “evolution” seems to be more often used to describe speciation (the change of a species over time into another one), which I find quite hard to believe, since speciation (or the hypothesis of “Common Descent”) has neither been witnessed, nor can it be replicated.

Yes, but it can be traced through the fossil record.

No missing link? Please show us how the fossils satisfactorily and completely establish the theory that man evolved from “apes”.