How We Know the Bible is God's Inspired Word

[rusra02]

A number of posts claim there is no evidence that convinces them the Bible is God's Word. What convinces you that it is, or is not, God's Word?

• Although completed about 2,000 years ago, the Bible is scientifically accurate. What other ancient book can make such a claim?
• The Bible is historically accurate. Time and again archeological discoveries have proved the Bible right and the critics wrong.
• The Bible contains numerous detailed prophecies whose fulfillment is a matter of historical record.
• Written by some 40 men over 1,600 years, its internal harmony is remarkable.
• It is the most widely circulated book in history, with an estimated 4.8 billion copies, and published in more languages than any other writing.
• It has been the target of vicious opposition and hatred for centuries by governments and churches, yet has survived and thrived.
• The Bible has influenced the lives of more people than any other book. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica calls the Bible "probably the most influential collection of books in human history.

 

[outhouse]

It is the most widely circulated book in history, with an estimated 4.8 billion copies, and published in more languages than any other writing.
It has been the target of vicious opposition and hatred for centuries by governments and churches, yet has survived and thrived.
The Bible has influenced the lives of more people than any other book. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica calls the Bible "probably the most influential collection of books in human history.

these are the only ones correct.

the rest are blatantly wrong

 

[outhouse]

What convinces you that it is, or is not, God's Word?

what I find is that god was created and evolved from ancient mens myths.

there is no evidence a god exist what so ever.


the bible contradicts itself in so many places if there was a god one would have to question its intelligence. From how it has been proven to be fiction in places to the history that never happened.

 

[waitasec]

A number of posts claim there is no evidence that convinces them the Bible is God's Word. What convinces you that it is, or is not, God's Word?

• Although completed about 2,000 years ago, the Bible is scientifically accurate. What other ancient book can make such a claim?
• The Bible is historically accurate. Time and again archeological discoveries have proved the Bible right and the critics wrong.
• The Bible contains numerous detailed prophecies whose fulfillment is a matter of historical record.
• Written by some 40 men over 1,600 years, its internal harmony is remarkable.
  

can you provide the evidence for these claims?

 

[Skwim]

can you provide the evidence for these claims?

I don't think he seriously believes they're worthy, only that they're some of the reasons people have given.

 

[dawny0826]

A number of posts claim there is no evidence that convinces them the Bible is God's Word. What convinces you that it is, or is not, God's Word?

• Although completed about 2,000 years ago, the Bible is scientifically accurate. What other ancient book can make such a claim?
• The Bible is historically accurate. Time and again archeological discoveries have proved the Bible right and the critics wrong.
• The Bible contains numerous detailed prophecies whose fulfillment is a matter of historical record.
• Written by some 40 men over 1,600 years, its internal harmony is remarkable.
• It is the most widely circulated book in history, with an estimated 4.8 billion copies, and published in more languages than any other writing.
• It has been the target of vicious opposition and hatred for centuries by governments and churches, yet has survived and thrived.
• The Bible has influenced the lives of more people than any other book. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica calls the Bible "probably the most influential collection of books in human history.

Spiritual confirmation. I'm not as concerned about the aforementioned as I am the spiritual impact that the contents has on my life...the simple truths contained therein.

 

[Jainarayan]

Although completed about 2,000 years ago, the Bible is scientifically accurate. What other ancient book can make such a claim?

Hindu scriptures cite the age of the Earth at about 4 billion years. This was calculated milennia ago.

/End thread.

 

[waitasec]

I don't think he seriously believes they're worthy, only that they're some of the reasons people have given.

i wasn't sure, that's why i held my tongue :drool:
but thanks for clearing that up

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

A number of posts claim there is no evidence that convinces them the Bible is God's Word. What convinces you that it is, or is not, God's Word?

• Although completed about 2,000 years ago, the Bible is scientifically accurate. What other ancient book can make such a claim?
• The Bible is historically accurate. Time and again archeological discoveries have proved the Bible right and the critics wrong.
• The Bible contains numerous detailed prophecies whose fulfillment is a matter of historical record.
• Written by some 40 men over 1,600 years, its internal harmony is remarkable.
• It is the most widely circulated book in history, with an estimated 4.8 billion copies, and published in more languages than any other writing.
• It has been the target of vicious opposition and hatred for centuries by governments and churches, yet has survived and thrived.
• The Bible has influenced the lives of more people than any other book. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica calls the Bible "probably the most influential collection of books in human history.

I'm still waiting for the part where you provide evidence that it is divinely inspired. :beach:

 

[rusra02]

can you provide the evidence for these claims?

yes, of course. One example of scientific accuracy is found in Job 26:7. There it speaks of God as "hanging the earth upon nothing." In 1600 B.C.E, how did Job know that God "suspends earth in the void?" (NEB) Aristotle rejected the concept of a void 1,200 years later. How did Job know what Aristotle didn't know.

As to historical accuracy, critics raised doubts that Sargon was king of Assyria (Isaiah 20:1) until his palace was uncovered by archeologists. Sargon is now one of the better known kings. The Bible was right, the critics wrong.
Some critics also challenged the historicity of Pontius Pilate because of lack of archeological evidence. That is, until 1961, when a stone bearing Pilates name and rank was uncovered near Caesarea. The Bible was right, the critics wrong.
Archaelologist Nelson Glueck is quoted as saying: "I have excavated for thirty years with a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, and in matters of historical perspective I have never found the Bible to be in error." What a remarkable statement!


As to prophecy, Isaiah 45:1-3 foretold the conqueror of Babylon would be Cyrus, and foretold how he would do this. Why is this remarkable? Isaiah penned this prophecy some 200 years before Babylon's fall, and long before Cyrus was born!

 

[Caladan]

[*]Although completed about 2,000 years ago, the Bible is scientifically accurate. What other ancient book can make such a claim?

The Bible is not a science book. what does the claim 'scientifically accurate' actually means? which scientific material does the Bible promote?

[*]The Bible is historically accurate. Time and again archeological discoveries have proved the Bible right and the critics wrong.

The Bible does deal with the history of the People of Israel, but it's historicity is not only not accurate, it was never meant to be. plenty of the texts are ideological and promote certain images of Israelite kings such as David and Solomon for example, for which we have little to no historical evidence. the Bible does deal with historical people and places on numerous occasions, but again it is not accurate, almost by default and its very nature, since it deals with certain ideological perspectives.

[*]The Bible contains numerous detailed prophecies whose fulfillment is a matter of historical record.

which ones are you thinking of?

[*]Written by some 40 men over 1,600 years, its internal harmony is remarkable.

Yes. and no. the Bible is of course edited, various books have been edited to support a certain agenda, for example show of support and idealization of the Davidic dynasty. however, there are also conflicting agendas in the book, written by different authors who were interested to promote different ideologies.

[*]It is the most widely circulated book in history, with an estimated 4.8 billion copies, and published in more languages than any other writing.

OK. but how does it support that it is the inspired word of God, and not the wonderful literary abilities of Judaic men?

[*]It has been the target of vicious opposition and hatred for centuries by governments and churches, yet has survived and thrived.

It has also been instrumental in the use of churches and monarchies. further more it was finally translated into English 400 years ago which made it accessible to a much larger public.

[*]The Bible has influenced the lives of more people than any other book. The New Encyclopaedia Britannica calls the Bible "probably the most influential collection of books in human history.
[/LIST]

Again. I think it is hard to dispute the role the Bible has taken for itself in history. but how does it have anything to do with divine inspiration?

 

[fallingblood]

I would just like to mention that being God's inspired word does not mean it is 100% accurate. If we start with the assumption that there is a God (which I think is a fine assumption for this case, as there is no evidence a god doesn't exist, and it stays in line with the thread), then it would not be a stretch to say that God inspired a number of authors to write separate books that ended up becoming one collection.

Since the books were written by men, there will be a human element, and that explains why in a divinely inspired work, there are flaws. Humans are flawed, and even in the best researched books, you will find flaws. So it is no wonder, that a book written by humans, be it inspired or not, has flaws, and many of them. That in itself does not rule it from being divinely inspired. When it comes down to it, it is nothing more than faith though.

That is also true for the opposition. I personally am neutral on the subject. It could be inspired or not. However, there really is no evidence one way or another.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

yes, of course. One example of scientific accuracy is found in Job 26:7. There it speaks of God as "hanging the earth upon nothing." In 1600 B.C.E, how did Job know that God "suspends earth in the void?" (NEB) Aristotle rejected the concept of a void 1,200 years later. How did Job know what Aristotle didn't know.

Technically, the Earth isn't "hanging" at all, so that verse is actually scientifically inaccurate. Do you still want to claim that it's trying to state a literal fact?

As to historical accuracy, critics raised doubts that Sargon was king of Assyria (Isaiah 20:1) until his palace was uncovered by archeologists. Sargon is now one of the better known kings. The Bible was right, the critics wrong.

The Wizard of Oz is historically accurate on some points: Kansas does exist, it has tornadoes occasionally, and even some of the details about farming practices and mode of dress that the book/film provides are accurate. Does this lend weight to the idea that the rest of the story is historically accurate as well?

BTW - on the subject of historical accuracy, can you answer two questions for me?

- when did Herod the Great die?
- when did Quirinius serve as Governor of Syria?

As to prophecy, Isaiah 45:1-3 foretold the conqueror of Babylon would be Cyrus, and foretold how he would do this. Why is this remarkable? Isaiah penned this prophecy some 200 years before Babylon's fall, and long before Cyrus was born!

Prophecy is a fool's game: if a prophecy fails, it can always be explained away as describing "the future". It counts the hits and ignores the misses.

 

[Quiddity]

I would just like to mention that being God's inspired word does not mean it is 100% accurate. If we start with the assumption that there is a God (which I think is a fine assumption for this case, as there is no evidence a god doesn't exist, and it stays in line with the thread), then it would not be a stretch to say that God inspired a number of authors to write separate books that ended up becoming one collection.

Since the books were written by men, there will be a human element, and that explains why in a divinely inspired work, there are flaws. Humans are flawed, and even in the best researched books, you will find flaws. So it is no wonder, that a book written by humans, be it inspired or not, has flaws, and many of them. That in itself does not rule it from being divinely inspired. When it comes down to it, it is nothing more than faith though.

That is also true for the opposition. I personally am neutral on the subject. It could be inspired or not. However, there really is no evidence one way or another.

I blame the rise of fideism on this. The bible was never intended to stand alone and reason was always intertwined with faith.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

In 1600 B.C.E, how did Job know that God "suspends earth in the void?"

Most scholars date Job between the 6th and 4th century BCE.

 

[Twilight Hue]

yes, of course. One example of scientific accuracy is found in Job 26:7. There it speaks of God as "hanging the earth upon nothing." In 1600 B.C.E, how did Job know that God "suspends earth in the void?" (NEB) Aristotle rejected the concept of a void 1,200 years later. How did Job know what Aristotle didn't know.

All ancient man had to do was look up at the sky. No-brainer why it's worded like that. It just looks like a void.
Aristotle happened to be way ahead of the alleged Job in which he concidered form without matter, matter without form.

As to historical accuracy, critics raised doubts that Sargon was king of Assyria (Isaiah 20:1) until his palace was uncovered by archeologists. Sargon is now one of the better known kings. The Bible was right, the critics wrong.

Nope. That was Sargon II. Little if anything is known about Sargon I. There was also the Sargon of Akkad BTW. The 3 Sargons as it stands. Anyhoo, dunno why this is relevant on basis of an identification alone.

Kids, never rely on the Bible as an "accurate" history book. It's not.

Some critics also challenged the historicity of Pontius Pilate because of lack of archeological evidence. That is, until 1961, when a stone bearing Pilates name and rank was uncovered near Caesarea. The Bible was right, the critics wrong.
Archaelologist Nelson Glueck is quoted as saying: "I have excavated for thirty years with a Bible in one hand and a trowel in the other, and in matters of historical perspective I have never found the Bible to be in error." What a remarkable statement!

Let's see. As sources there are the Canonical Gospels, Tacitus, and the Pilate stone. 3 very brief mentions in all. At least it's better than nothing.

As to prophecy, Isaiah 45:1-3 foretold the conqueror of Babylon would be Cyrus, and foretold how he would do this. Why is this remarkable? Isaiah penned this prophecy some 200 years before Babylon's fall, and long before Cyrus was born!

Yep. Somebody definitely wrote it out that way. To bad there is nothing available about Isaiah being actually a real person other than as alleged through religious literary works. Looks like a lot of work to do yet..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Kids, never rely on the Bible as an "accurate" history book. It's not.
Let's see. As sources there are the Canonical Gospels, Tacitus, and the Pilate stone. 3 very brief mentions in all. At least it's better than nothing.

Also, Josephus... not the Testimonium Flavianum, but the other reference. But since it refers to Jesus as the brother of James, it seems to point to the Bible being wrong on the details if anything.

 

[not nom]

[*]Although completed about 2,000 years ago, the Bible is scientifically accurate. What other ancient book can make such a claim?

yeahhhhh... like the sun moving around earth ^^

And Isaiah said: 'This shall be the sign unto thee from the LORD, that the LORD will do the thing that He hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees? And Hezekiah answered: 'It is a light thing for the shadow to decline ten degrees; nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.' And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the LORD; and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down on the dial of Ahaz.

... or that mountain from which jesus was shown all kingdoms of the earth by the devil, or like a trillion other things not even moderately smart children would buy, like noah's ark.

[*]It has been the target of vicious opposition and hatred for centuries by governments and churches, yet has survived and thrived.

hahahahahahahahahaha.

 

[rusra02]

yeahhhhh... like the sun moving around earth ^^

Reference please: where does the Bible say the sun moves around the earth?

... or that mountain from which jesus was shown all kingdoms of the earth by the devil, or like a trillion other things not even moderately smart children would buy, like noah's ark.

So is it your position that the miracles recorded in the Bible could not have occurred because they are miraculous and miracles don't occur? That Noah didn't build the ark because you don't believe he could?

hahahahahahahahahaha.

The Bible has also been subjected to relentless efforts to discredit it. But still, it endures.

 

[rusra02]

Also, Josephus... not the Testimonium Flavianum, but the other reference. But since it refers to Jesus as the brother of James, it seems to point to the Bible being wrong on the details if anything.

Sorry, I'm not following. Jesus did have several brothers, one of which was James.