How Do We Know The Bible is True?

[Gulo]

I don't think so, but I don't need it actually.

My first question to you is that if your creation account is true why has it only been written just then by you?

If your creation account is true, why are there so many other creation accounts that differ from yours? Why is your account of things more true than the differing accounts of others? Why isn't the Koran correct? The Torah/Talmud? Vedas? Greek mythology? Norse mythology?

If Christianity is the only correct religion, which sect of Christianity is the only correct sect? Catholicism? Methodism? The Baptists? Mormons? JWs? Church of England? Rastafarians? Presbyterians? Lutherans? Coptics? Quakers? Amish? Mennonites? Greek Orthodox? Calvinists?

Why?

Enlighten us.

 

[Misunderstood]

Is that the truth you honestly felt I was talking about? Something so subjective that it only occurs in one's mind? REALLY? If so, please don't bother me with any further deliberate misinterpretations. Thank you.
.

OK, I will not bother you any further if you consider that I deliberately misrepresented you.

However, I feel some of the arguments Focus on the Family made had some validity (maybe they were not to strong, but valid, they did say they were going to have other articles addressing the Bibles reliability), which you seem to completely dismiss and misrepresent by saying and quoting this:

It asked "How Do We Know the Bible Is True?" and then went on to answer by essentially saying "because Christians believe it is."

I was not able to find this even with a search, so I am pretty sure it is not in the article: "because Christians believe it is." I know you say it is "essentially saying"; but you are using quotes indicating they said it, whereas, I think it is your opinion of what they are saying.

I feel I did not misrepresent what you said, but was using the only argument that you left open since you dismissed any of the other arguments Focus on the Family made. I was trying to point out that if a thought is nothing, science cannot test it. If it is true a thought is nothing and science is unable to test it, then maybe there could be other areas science cannot see or test. Hence, it could be possible there is a God, because how can science search if its restraints make it impossible to even look for Him.

I can assure you will not find God if you do not even try to look. I hope you all the best and wish you well in your search.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If your creation account is true, why are there so many other creation accounts that differ from yours? Why is your account of things more true than the differing accounts of others? Why isn't the Koran correct? The Torah/Talmud? Vedas? Greek mythology? Norse mythology?

If Christianity is the only correct religion, which sect of Christianity is the only correct sect? Catholicism? Methodism? The Baptists? Mormons? JWs? Church of England? Rastafarians? Presbyterians? Lutherans? Coptics? Quakers? Amish? Mennonites? Greek Orthodox? Calvinists?

Why?

Enlighten us.

Yeah that's one of the things before I left Christianity.

The fact that there's no real discernible direction resulting in all these different denominations and versions of the Bible out there. It tells me there is no divine inspiration much less communication and guidance. If it's not present now, then it certainly wasn't present back when the Bible was compiled and written and it's still even being revised to this day with twists and turns added in or omitted to make a respective "fit" that serves as solid evidence there is no divine preservation to speak of.


Also another poignant fact. And that is Christianity really has nothing special or unique to offer that's any more or less different or unique than other theistic religions that has come on the scene over the course of history. Much less those religions which are far far older than Christianity.

It's funny on how a large number of Christians dismiss other religions as to the reasons why they are false , while the same exact criteria through some strange coincidence, amazingly doesn't apply to Christians themselves in kind in defense of their faith and God.

 

[Skwim]

I was not able to find this even with a search, so I am pretty sure it is not in the article: "because Christians believe it is." I know you say it is "essentially saying"; but you are using quotes indicating they said it, whereas, I think it is your opinion of what they are saying.

First of all, please note that I said "

It asked "How Do We Know the Bible Is True?" and then went on to answer by essentially saying "because Christians believe it is."
​

My highlighted words here indicate that what follows isn't a direct quote, but a rephrasing that indicates: in essence. And this essence comes from the remark in the text that reads:

"These claims the Bible makes either correspond to reality or they do not. Christians believe that they do correspond to reality, meaning that the Bible is true." ​

I feel I did not misrepresent what you said, but was using the only argument that you left open since you dismissed any of the other arguments Focus on the Family made. I was trying to point out that if a thought is nothing, science cannot test it. If it is true a thought is nothing and science is unable to test it, then maybe there could be other areas science cannot see or test. Hence, it could be possible there is a God, because how can science search if its restraints make it impossible to even look for Him.

I can assure you will not find God if you do not even try to look. I hope you all the best and wish you well in your search.

Thing is, the Focus on the Family article wasn't dealing in any truth residing solely in the mind, but a truth built on knowledge of the Bible as a book passed along through history, physical evidence of the Bible itself, and claims made about Biblical incidents. Truth not built on a subjective belief residing in the mind. So it's disingenuous or at least erroneous to think that I was about to entertain any notion that the truth of the Bible would rest on the fact that in someone's mind it's true. FOF laid out the nature of the Bible's truth, and that's what I commented on, and should likewise be taken as what I expected to be the basis of any replies.

.



.

 

[Kenny]

Boy, that's putting him in his place.

.

He really didn't give me any information to refute, just a personal opinion of which I expertly countered.

 

[David T]

Nope. "Rational evidence."

.

Rationalizing? This is like carrying in a conversation about jungs redbook with someone whose only understanding is based on believers. I would bever call that "rational" but simplistically "rationalizing" si since you are merely rationalizing with religious believers sorry cant help you with that!!!! That's a personal problem.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I'm talking about Israel being a country again, successive reigns after Nebu, Josiah who wouldl be born to the house of David hundreds of years later that would sacrifice the priests of the high places who make offerings here, and human bones on the grave of Jeroboam. etc.

Not old parroted examples and bad interpretations.

LOL. Citing prophecies that seem to be "fulfilled" is not proof of the inerrancy of the bible. Even *if* those prophecies were correct, it only takes one error for the whole notion of biblical inerrancy to fall like a house of cards. So why does Tyre still exist when the Bible (Ezekiel 26) explicitly said it would never exist again after Nebuchednezzar destroyed it?

 

[Rational Agnostic]

. there were multiple prophecies regarding the destruction of Tyre, and they all were fulfilled. None of them say that Tyre would never exist again, and in fact, one of the prophecies goes on to describe to exactly how it would exist.

Wrong. Read Ezekiel 26.

 

[Kenny]

LOL. Citing prophecies that seem to be "fulfilled" is not proof of the inerrancy of the bible. Even *if* those prophecies were correct, it only takes one error for the whole notion of biblical inerrancy to fall like a house of cards. So why does Tyre still exist when the Bible (Ezekiel 26) explicitly said it would never exist again after Nebuchednezzar destroyed it?

Only if you want it to.

“For thus says the Lord God: ‘When I make you a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited, when I bring the deep upon you, and great waters cover you’”

And it is under water.

"While it is true that a city does currently exist on the island, that city is not a “rebuilt” Tyre and has no real connection to the city condemned by Ezekiel other than its location"


Tyre in Prophecy

So I would disagree with your position, especially since EVERY detail was accomplished way before it happened.

 

[siti]

My first question to you is that if your creation account is true why has it only been written just then by you?

Because I only just thought of it. But then again, nobody had thought of relativity before Einstein (actually that's not really true - but you do catch my drift)...nobody had thought of curing smallpox with injections of cowpox before Edward Jenner, nobody had thought of fixing bacterial infections with moldy bread until Fleming...but the reality of all these possible solutions had been there all the time...so just because some Hebrew scribe about 3000 years ago (maybe less) thought up the Genesis creation myth before I thought of mine doesn't mean his is automatically more accurate or credible than my creation myth does it?

 

[Earthling]

Because I only just thought of it. But then again, nobody had thought of relativity before Einstein (actually that's not really true - but you do catch my drift)...nobody had thought of curing smallpox with injections of cowpox before Edward Jenner, nobody had thought of fixing bacterial infections with moldy bread until Fleming...but the reality of all these possible solutions had been there all the time...so just because some Hebrew scribe about 3000 years ago (maybe less) thought up the Genesis creation myth before I thought of mine doesn't mean his is automatically more accurate or credible than my creation myth does it?

No, I suppose not. But we still have about 23, 144 verses to go . . .

 

[siti]

No, I suppose not. But we still have about 23, 144 verses to go . . .

And? I could easily add to mine historical narratives about, say, Alexander the Great's conquests, the building of the pyramids, the assassination of JFK and Manchester City's Premier League Title in 2011 - and I could every single detail 100% spot on - it still wouldn't prove my creation myth true would it?

 

[Earthling]

And? I could easily add to mine historical narratives about, say, Alexander the Great's conquests, the building of the pyramids, the assassination of JFK and Manchester City's Premier League Title in 2011 - and I could every single detail 100% spot on - it still wouldn't prove my creation myth true would it?

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Zita]

First I would like to say that this is my own understanding and belief and how I feel about it we each have a right to our own opinion, that is what this is asking: How do we know the Bible is true. I have seen many of you are good at quoting scriptures to prove your point that the bible is real, but it doesn't for you see, how do you prove that the scripture is written in truth and that is is the word of God or what Jesus said!! you wasn't there to witness the saying of the words,nor were you there to see the writing of this story or who and when exactly it was written you are going by what you have read or have been told by people who have read it or also told to them,so really you can't prove its real, sure after the words have been read and studied my millions of people, those people align themselves with the scripture and begin to feel the emotion of the words and put it in your belief system and live according to these words written on paper and when you believe something with passion you call in to existence what the words say is so,and go by the accounts of others who have done the exact same thing and call it evidence it's real. But this is still not proof.Did you see moses part the sea,there was anyone taking the picture and the people who were said to be there aren't around so how do you even know it happened?you don't. Were you there to see the burning bush and God talking through it?Nope so how do you know it happened?you don't. I could go on and on with all the stories in the bible that is said to have occurred,that you have proof its real cause you wasn't there.I am a writer and I can make you believe that everything I say in my words are absolutely believable and true, but guess what it's a account of my very vivid and descriptive wild imagination!! I will have you hanging on every word, but it's not real at all, so how do you know that the bible is not just a story book written out of someone's imagination and the desire to control a mass of people,which it did and still is doing, with all it's many dogma and scare tactics.The bible that is present now could have been written only 200 years ago, but claiming to have been written thousands of years ago, it sounds more powerful and more interesting to the people,but how do we know!! We don't.!! and if the bible is suppose to be this powerful spiritual object filled with the truth then why do you have so many denominations all believing different about the same scriptures!! If it was the true word of God it's power would be so strong that it would be received and felt the same by everyone, and everyone would be on one accord!!But they aren't. I was brought up in a Christian home and I can remember saying to myself "that just doesn't sound right" and being scared to death to look the wrong way scared God was going to punish me and then I might go to hell. I was taught to fear God!! cause that isi what the bible taught. Really? Oh I could go on, but I won't I think yall know my take on this whole bible thing. I'm just glad I believe in the Loving and just God,the God that doesn't kill a multitude of people by water because of the actions of a few. and I'm glad I believe in a God who will protect me from hurt, harm or danger not but me through tests and trials to prove he is God and he's real.Or one to be feared rather then know he is a understanding God and doesn't want me to be scared of him.I have a personal spiritual relationship with God, I talk to him directly, I don't have to go through Jesus to get to him! I hear and feel him for myself.And he forgives my mistakes whenever I need forgiveness so therefore I know there is no need for judgement day to see if I'm going to heaven or hell for my wrong doings,he took care of that for the asking and sometimes I didn't have to ask for forgiveness he did it cause he knows my heart and needs. You keep on serving God through the words of that bible, and I will keep serving God by knowing what he does in my life,for my life and how he speaks to me in the spiritual realm of his divine order that leads me to live a beautiful and meaningful happy life and picks me up when I have problems like a Loving Father does for his daughter. That I can prove.

 

[9-18-1]

We know it's not.

There was no Hebrew Moses - this mythological figure is based on the historical Egyptian king Akhunatun: same basic life story as Moses. He tried to install monotheism in Egypt, got kicked out, came back and tryed to reclaim his rule. Egypt kicked him out again but he was allowed to take his monotheistic ATUN followers into the desert. This mixed with the Canaanite god el and essentially "Judaism" was born: b'resheet bara elohim et hashemayim v'et ha'aretz (GEN1:1).

The Hebrew Torah has at least 4 different (human) authors - J, E, P, D reflecting rivaling political division "Israel" would suffer (ie. Judah).

The entire "historical" framework for the OT is essentially falsified history - and it began with morphing an Egyptian ruler into a Hebrew prophet of god: the basis of Judaism/Christianity/Islam.

This is another reason why:

"Belief" is not a virtue - it is the most principle vice enslaving humanity, and the most degenerated version of this monotheism is destroying the human civilization, woman by woman.

The "Edenic" state began with one man, one woman in a garden provided for. The Abrahamic pantheon continues the original sin: trying to blame women for the iniquity of men, which culminates into Muhammad and his polygamous "example" is as far removed from the Edenic state as one can get for being a so-called "prophet" of the same god. This is reflected in his sentiment that hell is mostly full of women - that is identical to the attitude Adam would have if he were to blame Eve for his own eating of the tree / iniquity. Like Adam, Muhammad exported the blame/shame on to women. The world suffers this more than any other thing today.

When man attempts to blame/shame the woman, it manifests in the form of forcing the woman to cover herself (ie. hijab), absolving the man of having to take responsibility for his own iniquity.

When the lower organ (ie. Eve; sex) commands the higher organ (ie. Adam; brain) this is whence evil manifests: man sexually objectifies woman and makes satiating his lust the most principle object(s) to be pursued.

 

[1213]

Well. . . . . ?

The Focus on the Family web site has tried to answer this question but fails miserably. It asked "How Do We Know the Bible Is True?" and then went on to answer...
.

I think people don’t know anything, they believe many things. History is a good example of matter that is belief, even though many think they know what happened in history.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Well. . . . . ?

The Focus on the Family web site has tried to answer this question but fails miserably. It asked "How Do We Know the Bible Is True?" and then went on to answer by essentially saying "because Christians believe it is." Nice, but hardly convincing. Nothing becomes true simply because we believe it is. Of course other characteristics were cited that supposedly confirm the Bible's truth: "it corresponds to reality," it's "internally consistent," and it's "coherent." But as we all know, this can be equally true of a whole lot of BS.

Then they presented a basket full of specious evidence such as, "copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately," "the Christian worldview is robust, reasonable and grounded in history," and "making a case for the truth of the resurrection also makes a case for the truth claims of Jesus and, in turn, the reliability and truth of the Bible." and what makes the case for the truth of the resurrection? They say it's Paul's admission that "if the resurrection did not happen, Christian faith "is futile; you are still in your sins."

Sound like rational arguments to you? They sure don't to me,

But perhaps Focus on the Family is simply inept at making a case for the truth of the Bible, and inadvertently botched the job. So I ask:,

What rational evidence do you have that the Bible is true?
(No need to bother yourself with things such as the Flood or Jonah in the "big fish." I'm dismissing them as tall tails)

.

Talking snakes and donkeys too.

 

[Zita]

Yeah that's one of the things before I left Christianity.

The fact that there's no real discernible direction resulting in all these different denominations and versions of the Bible out there. It tells me there is no divine inspiration much less communication and guidance. If it's not present now, then it certainly wasn't present back when the Bible was compiled and written and it's still even being revised to this day with twists and turns added in or omitted to make a respective "fit" that serves as solid evidence there is no divine preservation to speak of.


Also another poignant fact. And that is Christianity really has nothing special or unique to offer that's any more or less different or unique than other theistic religions that has come on the scene over the course of history. Much less those religions which are far far older than Christianity.

It's funny on how a large number of Christians dismiss other religions as to the reasons why they are false , while the same exact criteria through some strange coincidence, amazingly doesn't apply to Christians themselves in kind in defense of their faith and God.

Very well said I agree with you a 100%.That's why I left it also,that and the fact I always had that pull that I am more than what I was being taught, every since I was about 7 years old.That I am divinely created for a higher purpose.

 

[metis]

I tend to treat all scriptures and verses as being allegorical, so I really don't get too hung up on "Did this really happen?". I'm much more interested in the morals and values taught and whether any of them are at least potentially useful. However, here at RF, I have been known to play devil's advocate at times.