How We Know the Bible is God's Inspired Word

[arcanum]

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 don't think there is any doubt that it was written by men inspired by god, they were at least inspired by their idea of god, but they were fallible as all men are. The writings reflect men who were a product of their time, place, and understanding. I've long since stopped believing that the bible was written by god through the channel of man.

 

[outhouse]

I don't think there is any doubt that it was written by men inspired by god

For me it is

I dont think there is any doubt that it was written by men inspired by what other men wrote about what they believe to be a god when they created the concepts handed down through the generations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

BTW, rusra: can you stop replying inside other people's quotes? It makes your posts very annoying to reply to. If you're having trouble with figuring out how to do this, I can find the tutorial and give you a link.

You're twisting what I said. I disagree with your claim that the Bible's saying the earth hangs on nothing is inaccurate. The Bible is NOT a science textbook. However, when it touches on matters of science, it is scientifically accurate.

Anything that is a question of fact is potentially a matter of science. The Earth isn't "hanging on nothing"; it's not hanging at all. The statement is just plain wrong, and this IS a matter of science. Very, very basic science, but still science.

Really?

Yes.

I did discuss the fact that Isaiah named Babylon's conqueror before he was born, and quoted the scriptural reference.

And you also tellingly refused to give any justification for why you think this happened before he was born. You also didn't really give any justification for your claim that the prophecy came true. So far, all we have is your say-so.

Along with what you call the 'vague' prophecy that the good news of God's kingdom would be preached in all the inhabited earth, in verses 7-13 he included additional features of the sign of his "presence and the conclusion of the system of things" or "end of the world". (KJ) (Matthew 24:3,7-14) Jesus prophecied that during the period immediately before the conclusion of the system of things, "nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom", food shortages, earthquakes in one place after another, world-wide persecution of God's people, increasing lawlessness, and lack of love.

You only mentioned verse 14 before, but regardless, let's have a look at your full passage now:

7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.
9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

So... let's see what this predicted:

1. Vague stuff that always happens: wars, earthquakes, famines.
2. Postdictions: stuff that was happening at the time the book was likely written (and if you want to argue that this passage wasn't written by early Christians after Christians started being persecuted, then I'll ask you to provide solid support for whatever dating you claim): Christians being killed, Christians turning away from their faith, false prophets.
3. Untestable claims that either haven't happened yet or we can't expect to see evidence of: salvation, the Second Coming.
4. Self-fulfilling prophecies - things that people have tried to make happen because they were predicted: Christian evangelism.

None of this is remarkable or compelling. More importantly, it can't honestly be said to be a fulfilled prophecy.

Lukes account mentions pestilence (Luke 21:10) All these signs must coexist to mark the time period before this world's end. Who can deny ALL these events have occurred since World War I broke forth in 1914?

What does World War I have to do with anything? What makes you think that the "prophecy" has been any more "fulfilled" since World War I than it was before?

 

[rusra02]

BTW, rusra: can you stop replying inside other people's quotes? It makes your posts very annoying to reply to. If you're having trouble with figuring out how to do this, I can find the tutorial and give you a link.

Yes, please do give the tutorial link. thanks.

Anything that is a question of fact is potentially a matter of science. The Earth isn't "hanging on nothing"; it's not hanging at all. The statement is just plain wrong, and this IS a matter of science. Very, very basic science, but still science.

I disagree of course. That's why I'll leave it to each person to decide if the earth hangs on nothing or not.

Yes.


And you also tellingly refused to give any justification for why you think this happened before he was born. You also didn't really give any justification for your claim that the prophecy came true. So far, all we have is your say-so.


You only mentioned verse 14 before, but regardless, let's have a look at your full passage now:


So... let's see what this predicted:

1. Vague stuff that always happens: wars, earthquakes, famines.
2. Postdictions: stuff that was happening at the time the book was likely written (and if you want to argue that this passage wasn't written by early Christians after Christians started being persecuted, then I'll ask you to provide solid support for whatever dating you claim): Christians being killed, Christians turning away from their faith, false prophets.
3. Untestable claims that either haven't happened yet or we can't expect to see evidence of: salvation, the Second Coming.
4. Self-fulfilling prophecies - things that people have tried to make happen because they were predicted: Christian evangelism.

None of this is remarkable or compelling. More importantly, it can't honestly be said to be a fulfilled prophecy.


What does World War I have to do with anything? What makes you think that the "prophecy" has been any more "fulfilled" since World War I than it was before?

You consider wars, earthquakes, and famine "vague stuff"?

For decades before 1914, Bible students were pointing to that year as the end of the gentile times or appointed time of the nations, spoken of by Christ. (Luke 21:24)
Since 1914, war has been constant and increasingly lethal. The war of 1914 was the earth's first World war, when entire nations and kingdoms fought each other. Each one can decide whether the prophetic words; "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom" have been fulfilled in our days.

"There will be great earthquakes." (Luke 21:11)
"A tabulation was made in 1984 that included only earthquakes that measured 7.5 on the Richter scale, or that resulted in destruction of five million dollars (US) or more of property, or that caused 100 or more deaths. It was calculated that there had been 856 of such earthquakes during the 2,000 years before 1914. The same tabulation showed that in just 69 years following 1914 there were 605 such quakes. That means that, in comparison with the previous 2,000 years, the average per year has been 20 times as great since 1914." (Quote from Reasoning on the Scriptures P.236) Each person can decide if we live in a time of "great earthquakes."

"In one place after another pestilences and food shortages" (Luke 21:11)
At the end of WWI, Spanish flu killed more people in a short time than any plague in history. Death estimates range between 50-100 million or more. AIDS kills an estimated 2 million every year. Each person can decide if we live in a time of pestilences in one place after another.

Food shortages are estimated to kill between 13 and 18 million people each year. Tens of millions have died due to forced starvation in wartime. This despite the fact there is plenty to feed everyone, if distributed equitably. Each person can decide if we live in a time of food shortages in one place after another.

This is only a partial list of prophecies fulfilled indicating we are living in the last days of this wicked system of things. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) Each person should examine the evidence for themselves rather than take another's word for it, for or against.

​

 

[waitasec]

fail...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, please do give the tutorial link. thanks.

Here you go:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/you-new-religiousforums-com/100086-how-use-quote-feature.html

You consider wars, earthquakes, and famine "vague stuff"?

Yes, I do. We've had wars, earthquakes and famine through all recorded history. In any historical age, it would have taken no skill to recognize that they would continue to happen for the foreseeable future. A prophecy that predicts nothing more than "wars, earthquakes and famines" does not to point to any one age or event more than all the others. Pick any arbitrary point in history and you can find plenty of all three things to go along with it.

For decades before 1914, Bible students were pointing to that year as the end of the gentile times or appointed time of the nations, spoken of by Christ. (Luke 21:24)

Wait - where did Luke come from? We were talking about Matthew.

Since 1914, war has been constant and increasingly lethal. The war of 1914 was the earth's first World war, when entire nations and kingdoms fought each other. Each one can decide whether the prophetic words; "Nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom" have been fulfilled in our days.

You're making no sense.

Since the beginning of recorded history, war has been constant. And it's actually less lethal than it has been in the past; even considering the two world wars and all the other smaller wars, a human being was less likely to die from violence in the 20th century than in any previous era.

"There will be great earthquakes." (Luke 21:11)
"A tabulation was made in 1984 that included only earthquakes that measured 7.5 on the Richter scale, or that resulted in destruction of five million dollars (US) or more of property, or that caused 100 or more deaths. It was calculated that there had been 856 of such earthquakes during the 2,000 years before 1914. The same tabulation showed that in just 69 years following 1914 there were 605 such quakes. That means that, in comparison with the previous 2,000 years, the average per year has been 20 times as great since 1914." (Quote from Reasoning on the Scriptures P.236) Each person can decide if we live in a time of "great earthquakes."

How does a person go about measuring the strength of earthquakes that occurred in an era before an invention of the seismometer?

I'm guessing they didn't measure them at all - seeing how it would be physically impossible and all - which means that if they did this exercise honestly and didn't just make the numbers up (which is a pretty big "if", IMO), then the ancient earthquake tally would have only included earthquakes that were reported at the time - i.e. ones that occurred in populated places. OTOH, that inclusion of the Richter scale criterion means that the modern tally would include earthquakes anywhere, even if they happened in unoccupied places where nobody felt them, like the sea floor in the middle of the ocean.

When you also consider that the historical tally wouldn't include earthquakes if the record of them has been lost to history and that we've been really diligent about cataloguing seismic events all through the 20th century, I think it becomes obvious that the modern tally is going to be much, much higher than the ancient tally.

So... if the numbers did come out higher, I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't think this actually points to us having more earthquakes. It just points to the fact that we have - and have always had - fairly large earthquakes all the time, but most of them happen in places where people wouldn't normally notice.

BTW: what's the magic number, anyhow? What's the rate of "great earthquakes" that we need before we can say "yes, this is the 'time of great earthquakes'"? How many earthquakes per year does the Bible say we need to meet the requirement?

"In one place after another pestilences and food shortages" (Luke 21:11)
At the end of WWI, Spanish flu killed more people in a short time than any plague in history. Death estimates range between 50-100 million or more. AIDS kills an estimated 2 million every year. Each person can decide if we live in a time of pestilences in one place after another.

The 1918 flu pandemic killed between 50 and 100 million people, or about 3% of the world's population at the time. The Black Death killed between 75 and 100 million people, or about 20% of the world's population at the time. Our age is no more a "time of pestilences" than any other.

There have always been pandemics, though thanks to modern medicine, we're much better at fighting them (and at preventing them from happening in the first place) than we ever have been before.

Food shortages are estimated to kill between 13 and 18 million people each year. Tens of millions have died due to forced starvation in wartime. This despite the fact there is plenty to feed everyone, if distributed equitably. Each person can decide if we live in a time of food shortages in one place after another.

We're currently reaping the harvest of the Green Revolution. While there certainly is still hunger in the world, we're much better at feeding people than we ever have been.

This is only a partial list of prophecies fulfilled indicating we are living in the last days of this wicked system of things. (2 Timothy 3:1-5) Each person should examine the evidence for themselves rather than take another's word for it, for or against.

But they're not fulfilled! Each of your claims that they are fulfilled is just an example of a failure of critical thinking, or to put blinders on and look at individual facts without considering their context!

For instance, take 1 Timothy 4 (one of my favourite parts of the Bible):

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. 4 For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.

When I read the bit about "forbidding people to marry", my gut reaction is to think "aha! They're talking about same-sex marriage!" After all, the passage says that in "later times", there will be those who "forbid people to marry"... and look what we find today: those who forbid people to marry! Does this count as another "prophecy fulfilled"?

 

[outhouse]

This is only a partial list of prophecies fulfilled indicating we are living in the last days of this wicked system of things

that is hysterical LOL


please go on LOL ha ha

 

[YmirGF]

that is hysterical LOL


please go on LOL ha ha

Maybe we could hook him up with Call_of_the_Wild, so they can create a Theory of Everything. That would be entertaining, to say the least.

 

[Koala]

If the Bible was not inspired by God there would be mistakes and contradictions. However, taken in context and remembering traditions and values, there is not ONE mistake in the entire Book. It may seem that there is, and people will grasp at straws trying to prove some, but in 40 years I have not been able to substantiate any. If we research and logically look for answers, God will give them, since He understands we are intelligent thinkers and it's not enough just to be told.

The only reason I became interested in Christianity is because i just could not fault The Bible.

Koala

 

[Quagmire]

If the Bible was not inspired by God there would be mistakes and contradictions. However, taken in context and remembering traditions and values, there is not ONE mistake in the entire Book. It may seem that there is, and people will grasp at straws trying to prove some, but in 40 years I have not been able to substantiate any. If we research and logically look for answers, God will give them, since He understands we are intelligent thinkers and it's not enough just to be told.

The only reason I became interested in Christianity is because i just could not fault The Bible.

Koala

Here ya go:

2 Samuel 24:1
[ David Enrolls the Fighting Men ] Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

as opposed to:
1 Chronicles 21:1
"[ David Counts the Fighting Men ] Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel."

Two accounts of the same event, one attributing the incident to God, the other attributing it to Satan.

Can't get much more contradictory than that.

 

[waitasec]

If the Bible was not inspired by God there would be mistakes and contradictions. However, taken in context and remembering traditions and values, there is not ONE mistake in the entire Book. It may seem that there is, and people will grasp at straws trying to prove some, but in 40 years I have not been able to substantiate any. If we research and logically look for answers, God will give them, since He understands we are intelligent thinkers and it's not enough just to be told.

The only reason I became interested in Christianity is because i just could not fault The Bible.

Koala

so there was a context that allowed slavery?
and a context of the subjugation of women...a pretty convenient notion considering the context was a jewish god who condoned jews to have slaves (non jewish slaves were bound to it for life while jewish slaves were freed every 6 yrs) and was written by men.

 

[waitasec]

Here ya go:

2 Samuel 24:1
[ David Enrolls the Fighting Men ] Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

as opposed to:
1 Chronicles 21:1
"[ David Counts the Fighting Men ] Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel."

Two accounts of the same event, one attributing the incident to God, the other attributing it to Satan.

Can't get much more contradictory than that.

no it can't...

 

[rusra02]

Here ya go:

2 Samuel 24:1
[ David Enrolls the Fighting Men ] Again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”

as opposed to:
1 Chronicles 21:1
"[ David Counts the Fighting Men ] Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel."

Two accounts of the same event, one attributing the incident to God, the other attributing it to Satan.

Can't get much more contradictory than that.

This is an example of how people who have already decided the Bibe is not inspired by God ignore evidence and quickly jump to unwarranted conclusions. Thus they falsely claim the Bible contradicts itself, without bothering to carefully check the facts.

The following quote shows how these two accounts can be understood:
"2 Samual 24:1 states: "Again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David [or, "when David was incited,"footnote] against them, saying: 'Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.'" But it was not Jehovah who moved King David to sin, for 1 Chronicles 21:1 says: "Satan [or "a resister,"footnote] proceeding to stand up against Israel and to incite Dvaid to number Israel." God was displeased with the Israelites and therefore allowed Satan the Devil to bring this sin
upon them. for this reason, 2 Samuel 24:1 reads as though God did it himself. Interestingly, Joseph B. Rotherham's translation reads: "The anger of Yahweh kindled against Israel, so that he suffered David to be moved against them saying, Go count Israel and Judah." w92 7/15p.5

​

​

 

[filthy tugboat]

This is an example of how people who have already decided the Bibe is not inspired by God ignore evidence and quickly jump to unwarranted conclusions. Thus they falsely claim the Bible contradicts itself, without bothering to carefully check the facts.

The following quote shows how these two accounts can be understood:
"2 Samual 24:1 states: "Again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David [or, "when David was incited,"footnote] against them, saying: 'Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.'" But it was not Jehovah who moved King David to sin, for 1 Chronicles 21:1 says: "Satan [or "a resister,"footnote] proceeding to stand up against Israel and to incite Dvaid to number Israel." God was displeased with the Israelites and therefore allowed Satan the Devil to bring this sin upon them. for this reason, 2 Samuel 24:1 reads as though God did it himself. Interestingly, Joseph B. Rotherham's translation reads: "The anger of Yahweh kindled against Israel, so that he suffered David to be moved against them saying, Go count Israel and Judah." w92 7/15p.5

So it was written down incorrectly? Your conclusion here doesn't remove the contradiction from the words, it just blames the scribe for creating a contradiction. If God did not directly order the census then whoever wrote the passage did a very poor job of conveying that.

In Samuel, it blatantly states that God ordered David to take a census of Israel. In Chronicles, it blatantly states that Satan incited David to take a census of Israel. Whatever mental gymnastics you tried to do did nothing to address the contradiction, it simply suggests that Chronicles was right in it's recording and Samuel was wrong.

 

[Caladan]

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?

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

Let me try to touch this again, because the other criteria in the OP are not meaningful. to say that the Bible is true because it is widely circulated says nothing.
but regarding the historical and archaeological record, this criteria above is misleading.
the Bible is correct in basic and background information. it is correct in Israelite and Judahite king lists, it is correct about their years of reign, it is correct in listing general events in the Near East, when does Sargon captures Ashdod, when do the Assyrian do that. but the content itself at large, as I have repeatedly said here is ideological, it is from the POV of the scribes or of classes. just like an Assyrian record will not say anything wrong about the Assyrian king, some Biblical passages are by default ideological, they will paint a certain image, and they will add theological content which is by default NOT HISTORICAL.
for example, the Bible describes historical events regarding the Assyrian empire, BUT, and this is a big BUT, there is plenty of theological content, such as saying that the angel fo the Lord killed soldiers in the Assyrian camp which is of course not historical, is theological, and cannot be supported by any archaeological case.

 

[Ketzer]

Just compare in the NT which ladies came to the tomb on sunday morning, how many men (or angles?) where in the tomb?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is an example of how people who have already decided the Bibe is not inspired by God ignore evidence and quickly jump to unwarranted conclusions. Thus they falsely claim the Bible contradicts itself, without bothering to carefully check the facts.

Proverbs 26:4-5

4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

So... should one answer a fool according to his folly or not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Another one I just came across:


1 Corinthians 12:3:

[N]o one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 7-21:23:

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

 

[Quagmire]

This is an example of how people who have already decided the Bibe is not inspired by God ignore evidence and quickly jump to unwarranted conclusions. Thus they falsely claim the Bible contradicts itself, without bothering to carefully check the facts.

This is an example of someone who hasn't got a viable rebuttal trying to get the focus off the fact that they don't have a viable rebutal.

The following quote shows how these two accounts can be understood:
"2 Samual 24:1 states: "Again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David [or, "when David was incited,"footnote] against them, saying: 'Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.'" But it was not Jehovah who moved King David to sin, for 1 Chronicles 21:1 says: "Satan [or "a resister,"footnote] proceeding to stand up against Israel and to incite Dvaid to number Israel." God was displeased with the Israelites and therefore allowed Satan the Devil to bring this sin
upon them. for this reason, 2 Samuel 24:1 reads as though God did it himself. Interestingly, Joseph B. Rotherham's translation reads: "The anger of Yahweh kindled against Israel, so that he suffered David to be moved against them saying, Go count Israel and Judah." w92 7/15p.5

​

​

Sorry, that's just silly.

I'll try to come up with a more indepth analysis when I have the time.

 

[Quagmire]

The following quote shows how these two accounts can be understood:
"2 Samual 24:1 states: "Again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David [or, "when David was incited,"footnote] against them, saying: 'Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.'" But it was not Jehovah who moved King David to sin, for 1 Chronicles 21:1 says: "Satan [or "a resister,"footnote] proceeding to stand up against Israel and to incite Dvaid to number Israel." God was displeased with the Israelites and therefore allowed Satan the Devil to bring this sin
upon them. for this reason, 2 Samuel 24:1 reads as though God did it himself. Interestingly, Joseph B. Rotherham's translation reads: "The anger of Yahweh kindled against Israel, so that he suffered David to be moved against them saying, Go count Israel and Judah." w92 7/15p.5

​

​

(emphisis mine)

What version of the "Bibe" are you even using here? I just searched through 15 different versions on Biblegateway to find your version of 2 Sam 24:1 (the one I bolded in your quote)) and it wasn't there. Then I tried a phrase search and it didn't show up in any of the versions on the menu. In fact, when I googled it, the only places I could find this version of the passage were on Yahoo Answers and here.

Looks like you either just made it up, or you decided to go with Yahoo answers because whoever made it up and posted there (and I'm guessing it wasn't God) was telling you what you wanted to hear.

Edit: LOL! You were quoting Yahoo Answers,

Second Samuel 24:1 states: “Again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David [or, “when David was incited,” footnote] against them, saying: ‘Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.’” But it was not Jehovah who moved King David to sin, for 1 Chronicles 21:1 says: “Satan [or, “a resister,” footnote] proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel.” God was displeased with the Israelites and therefore allowed Satan the Devil to bring this sin upon them. For this reason, 2 Samuel 24:1 reads as though God did it himself. Interestingly, Joseph B. Rotherham’s translation reads: “The anger of Yahweh kindled against Israel, so that he suffered David to be moved against them saying, Go count Israel and Judah.

In any case, your version of 2 Sam. 24:1 doesn't seem to exist anywhere outside of Yahoo Answers, this thread, and the imagination of whoever first came up with it.