Why believe the Bible?

[Walkntune]

To me the Bible is a mirror.Its a reflection of who we are and what we are striving to be.We will become what we meditate on. You can find love in the bible and your heart will search for that the more you meditate on that or you can feel rejected and find hate and fear.You can find a childlike faith and live every day like its an adventure or you can find yourself in doubt and confusion and living in ruts from day to day.
You can find yourself free from practising and living the scriptures or you can find yourself in religious bondage trapped in your own mind.
It will mirror back what you choose to.
If you choose to accept God by faith then his presence will be real to you and you will understand how the word was written from revelation and if you choose not to then the Bible will just be something you read only in a literal sense and probably very uncomfortable at that.
The real message of the gospel is there is no laws to be bound by when you walk in love because love walks above the laws and obeys automatically.

 

[Poet-Troll]

In this case, the type of primary sources you are talking about are not needed. The case for the literacy rate is based on anthropological evidence, and a historic study. It may not have been written down during that time, but it is besides the point.

Again, primary sources are not needed. We know that Jesus was from the village of Nazareth. Studying ancient Nazareth, we can see who would have populated it. It was basically a village that was not important at all. It was filled with peasants, who, during that time, were disposable.

Also, even looking at the Gospel accounts, we see that Jesus is termed as a carpenter, or the child of a carpenter (which would have basically made Jesus a carpenter as well). They were part of the artisan class, which was, at that time, even lowlier than the peasant class. So this is not an assumption. There may not be primary sources declaring these facts, but it is not needed. We have other ways in which researching history.

As for primary sources, look at what we have for many ancient people. Many times, we have no primary sources. However, we can determine that they still existed.

While the earlier claims that Nazareth did not exist at the beginning of the first century may no longer be tenable, the archaeological evidence for Nazareth from the time Jesus was supposed to have lived there is so meagre that conclusions should be only the most tentative. Your remarks also show unfamiliarity with Jewish society in the first century and the level of educated participation in artisan activities.
While you may, like fundamentalist Christians generally, consider that the lack of primary evidence is not significant, I do. Whether Jesus ever lived as a historical personage is cast in doubt by the fact that primary historical evidence is lacking and by the fact that the documents that do exist contain elements that are suspiciously similar to a score of other dying and resurrecting man-gods in Near Eastern mythology. To affirm that Jesus ever existed as a historical personage is a faith statement, and therefore to affirm anything about his as a historical personage is to make a faith statement.

 

[Smoke]

To affirm that Jesus ever existed as a historical personage is a faith statement

Not really. We can reasonably come to the conclusion that Jesus existed, even if we don't believe everything Christians said about him two or more generations after his death.

 

[LittleNipper]

First, Jesus was a man, not a woman. So this article is then void.

Second, he uses Biblical sources; however, not very valid. The main reason is because we have no idea who wrote those scriptures. Plus, he only mentions three people. Even if that is true, then it supports my statement more than it does yours. The idea that they had a scribe even supports the assumption that literacy was not very well spread. If it was, why would scribes be necessary, and why would it be important?

Finally, the seals suggest nothing except that women were able to sign their names. Does not prove literacy. Also though, what type of seals? Most likely, these women were of upper class, which had a marginally higher literacy rate than the peasants. So it is only logical that there would be some woman who could write (again though, signing a seal does not prove a thing accept that one can sign their name. Even illiterate people are capable of signing a seal).

Also, what is more important is the phrase that starts this all out. Some Jewish Women in Antiquity. Much is said just there.

So, it doesn't refute my position.

The Jewish tradition of Bar Mitzvah would tend to suggest otherwise.

 

[fallingblood]

The Jewish tradition of Bar Mitzvah would tend to suggest otherwise.

No they wouldn't. The Bar Mitzvah as we know if didn't come about until sometime in the pre-modern era (500 C.E.). Even just the Bar Mitzvah itself wasn't started until what can be called the Talmudic time which started around 200 C.E. at best. So that Jewish tradition has nothing to do with this.

 

[fallingblood]

While the earlier claims that Nazareth did not exist at the beginning of the first century may no longer be tenable, the archaeological evidence for Nazareth from the time Jesus was supposed to have lived there is so meagre that conclusions should be only the most tentative. Your remarks also show unfamiliarity with Jewish society in the first century and the level of educated participation in artisan activities.

Can you explain? Show me why I am wrong instead of just implying it. Are you denying that the artisan class was lower than the peasant class? Are you denying that Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus? If so, then please explain. I would also like to know how my unfamiliarity is shown.

Technically though, I was not talking about Jewish society per se, but more about the peasant class and artisan class of a small village such as Nazareth during the time of the first century, under Roman occupation. To me, that is what is important in this context.

While you may, like fundamentalist Christians generally, consider that the lack of primary evidence is not significant, I do. Whether Jesus ever lived as a historical personage is cast in doubt by the fact that primary historical evidence is lacking and by the fact that the documents that do exist contain elements that are suspiciously similar to a score of other dying and resurrecting man-gods in Near Eastern mythology.

So we can rule that Buddha, Constantine, Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, and many of the Egyptian Pharaohs may not have existed either then too. Each one of them have a miraculous birth story very similar to the man-gods in Near Eastern mythology. And lack of primary evidence is also the case for many ancient figures that we know existed. So many of these characters are on a slippery course. However, that is the nature of ancient characters.

As for the man-gods explanation, it means nothing unless understood in context. We don't believe that these other men such as Augustus Caesar really had a miraculous birth. So why was it made up? The answer is simple. A person who has an important life has to have an important birth. So it is made up to be wonderful, and supernatural. We take this in the case of all of those other individuals I mentioned, but why not Jesus?

The fact is, his birth story was written for the same purpose. If you actually read the two birth stories, you will see that they do not even agree. Both have specific reasons as to why they were created. Both were to exult Jesus over the Old Testament prophets, as he was issuing in a new time. Context is what matters. Also, why do you think paganism never had a rebuttal for his miraculous birth, even though they fought everything else? Because it wasn't impossible, as it "happened" many times before.

As for the resurrection. In context, it is nothing special. It never happened. It was something added after the fact for a specific reason. During the first century, this was not a unique occurrence in the first place. In the Mediterranean culture, it was not impossible for the dead to appear to the living. Paul simply thought it was just the first of many resurrections that would happen at the end of the world (as explained in his letter to the Corinthians).

The main reason for this resurrection though was to establish authority. As said before, it was not uncommon for the dead to appear to the living. The resurrection itself wasn't unique, or even special, it was the message that was given because of it.

So one can not try to understand the Gospel stories by today standards. If one were to do so, yes, it raises many questions. However, in historical context, it is not a big deal. Most importantly though, it does not differentiate between a Biblical Jesus and a Historical Jesus.

To affirm that Jesus ever existed as a historical personage is a faith statement, and therefore to affirm anything about his as a historical personage is to make a faith statement.

That simply is not true. We can know what the life of a historical Jesus would have been like (or someone similar to a historical Jesus, if you want to believe he did not exist). The Bible is not the only place we can find this information from. We can look at other Gospels, as well as surviving Christian documents, we can look at anthropological studies, we can look at historical studies, etc. The Gospels were not written to be taken as biographies. The Gospels, or Good News, were written for specific communities, to teach certain messages. They had some historic value, but can not be thought to be created as complete history.

The whole Jesus myth, as you are purporting has one large flaw, it is not looking into history itself. It is not doing the proper research in order to prove their points.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

In this case, the type of primary sources you are talking about are not needed. The case for the literacy rate is based on anthropological evidence, and a historic study. It may not have been written down during that time, but it is besides the point.
Again, primary sources are not needed. We know that Jesus was from the village of Nazareth. Studying ancient Nazareth, we can see who would have populated it. It was basically a village that was not important at all. It was filled with peasants, who, during that time, were disposable.
Also, even looking at the Gospel accounts, we see that Jesus is termed as a carpenter, or the child of a carpenter (which would have basically made Jesus a carpenter as well). They were part of the artisan class, which was, at that time, even lowlier than the peasant class. So this is not an assumption. There may not be primary sources declaring these facts, but it is not needed. We have other ways in which researching history.
As for primary sources, look at what we have for many ancient people. Many times, we have no primary sources. However, we can determine that they still existed.

It is noteworthy that the Bible does Not call Nazareth a Village, but always as a 'City'. -Luke 1:26; 2:4,39.

Nazareth is associated with En Nasira (Nazerat) in Galilee.
The people sought to throw Jesus from the brow of the mountain- Luke 4:29
Some identified that with a rocky cliff some 40 feet high located SW of the City.

At Luke 4:16 the literate Jesus stood up to 'read' from Isaiah 61.

Zacharias (Luke 1:63) asked for a writing tablet and wrote on it. Tablets made of wood with a wax surface covered smooth with bee's wax was common and could be written on with a writing stylus.

How is it that a skilled carpenter (Mark 6:3) would be lower than a peasant class?_____ Besides working on houses and synagogues beams and doors and furniture, plows and threshing sledges were made of wood.
Just like today, a skilled carpenter was in demand.

Tacitus wrote that Nero blamed Christians......Christus [Christ] suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius and the hands of one of their procurators, Pontius Pilatus.

 

[fallingblood]

It is noteworthy that the Bible does Not call Nazareth a Village, but always as a 'City'. -Luke 1:26; 2:4,39.

I don't really think it is noteworthy. The ancient "city" of Nazareth has been discovered. However, it wasn't a city by today's standards. We know the approximate size, we know who lived there, and we know of the culture. Village or city, that title really doesn't matter as we know so much about it without that title.

I'm not covering the literacy quote again though. I have already covered that exact verse by someone else who brought it up, so there is no use for me to repeat myself unless something new is brought up.

How is it that a skilled carpenter (Mark 6:3) would be lower than a peasant class?_____ Besides working on houses and synagogues beams and doors and furniture, plows and threshing sledges were made of wood.
Just like today, a skilled carpenter was in demand.

First, it never says he was a skilled carpenter. That is besides the point though; however, referring to him as skilled simply can not be supported. Also, you are not looking at the subject in context. Carpenter indicated lower-class status. Basically, there was a divide generally between people who had to work with their hands, and those who didn't. The fact is, carpenters were not considered upper class (and there was no middle class).

The society they were living in was an agrarian society. That is very important in this context. In that society, a carpenter would never be considered very important. Especially when they were simply recruited and replenished from the Degraded and Expendable classes. There was no shortage of carpenters, as they could be recruited in high numbers.

Also, plows were made of iron.

Tacitus wrote that Nero blamed Christians......Christus [Christ] suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius and the hands of one of their procurators, Pontius Pilatus.

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at with this.

 

[Poet-Troll]

Not really. We can reasonably come to the conclusion that Jesus existed, even if we don't believe everything Christians said about him two or more generations after his death.

Yes, we can reasonably come to the conclusion that Jesus existed without appeal to religious faith. But to do so we have to have faith in secondary historical sources and we have to ignore the similarities between the life of Jesus as described in the Gospels and a number of mythological figures. That requires, at least for me, a leap of faith. Perhaps there is too much positivism in my academic formation.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, we can reasonably come to the conclusion that Jesus existed without appeal to religious faith. But to do so we have to have faith in secondary historical sources and we have to ignore the similarities between the life of Jesus as described in the Gospels and a number of mythological figures. That requires, at least for me, a leap of faith. Perhaps there is too much positivism in my academic formation.

You are ignoring all of the other Gospels and documents that we have on Jesus that do not claim the mythological ideas. Also, you are relying on a false assumption, that we can use today's standards to judge the society in which Jesus lived. Those sources, the Gospels that you are talking about, have to be viewed in the context in which they are written.

Also, you fail to realize that many historical figures are based on secondary sources.

It is not just a matter of faith. We can reasonably conclude that Jesus existed. However, one has to differentiate between a historical Jesus and a Biblical Jesus.

 

[Poet-Troll]

Can you explain? Show me why I am wrong instead of just implying it. Are you denying that the artisan class was lower than the peasant class? Are you denying that Nazareth existed during the time of Jesus? If so, then please explain. I would also like to know how my unfamiliarity is shown.

Technically though, I was not talking about Jewish society per se, but more about the peasant class and artisan class of a small village such as Nazareth during the time of the first century, under Roman occupation. To me, that is what is important in this context.

This is the crux of the difference in our views. You are placing a great deal of importance on class in Roman society. Doubtless you are correct in regard to societies under Roman rule generally. In the area of literacy, the synagogue institution among Jews suggests a development that is largely untouched by class under Roman occupation. I may be wrong in this, as I have not made a particular study of it, but I understand the synagogue institution to have been rather important in first-century Palestinian Judaism. This would indicate a higher level of literacy among Jews than in provinces where a comparable institution was lacking.

 

[javajo]

I believe the Bible, it says:

These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life...1 John 5:13a

I kinda like that, since I trusted in Jesus, I can know I have eternal life...anybody can...that's very cool.

 

[Poet-Troll]

Repentance is the condition. Unless God in sovereign grace has given the gift of repentance, there is no hope of eternal life. Just my belief.

 

[fallingblood]

This is the crux of the difference in our views. You are placing a great deal of importance on class in Roman society. Doubtless you are correct in regard to societies under Roman rule generally. In the area of literacy, the synagogue institution among Jews suggests a development that is largely untouched by class under Roman occupation. I may be wrong in this, as I have not made a particular study of it, but I understand the synagogue institution to have been rather important in first-century Palestinian Judaism. This would indicate a higher level of literacy among Jews than in provinces where a comparable institution was lacking.

The synagogue institution was not really important until the later half of the first century. During the first half, or before 70 C.E, as before the Temple was destroyed, the synagogue did not hold much importance. In a village or town such as Nazareth, there would have been no synagogue. The reason is because Jewish life was dominated by the Temple and priests. That is where the religion was focused around.

It wasn't until after the Temple was destroyed that the synagogue started taking a place of importance.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Those that follow the bible tend to belong to religions which require one to believe with "blind faith." When one thinks for themselves they usually wind up in other religions. :yes:

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The synagogue institution was not really important until the later half of the first century. During the first half, or before 70 C.E, as before the Temple was destroyed, the synagogue did not hold much importance. In a village or town such as Nazareth, there would have been no synagogue. The reason is because Jewish life was dominated by the Temple and priests. That is where the religion was focused around.
It wasn't until after the Temple was destroyed that the synagogue started taking a place of importance.

The temple was located in Jerusalem but that does not rule out synagogues being available so people would only have to go to Jerusalem for the festivals.

Synagogues are mentioned before the year 70 at:
Matthew 4:23; 6:2,5;9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54; 23:6, 34
Mark 1:21,23,29, 39;3:1; 5:22,35,36,38; 6:2; 12:39; 13:9
Luke 4:15,16,20,28,33,38,44; 6:6; 7:5; 8:41,49;11:43; 13:10, 14; 20:46; 21:12
[Luke 4:16 is the mention of the synagogue at Nazareth]
John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2; 18:20

Also Acts mentions Synagogues at:
Acts 6:9; 9:2,20; 13:5, 14,15,43; 14:1; 17:1,10,17; 15:21; 18:4,7,8, 17,19,26; 19:8; 22:19; 24:12; 26:11

 

[fallingblood]

The temple was located in Jerusalem but that does not rule out synagogues being available so people would only have to go to Jerusalem for the festivals.

Synagogues are mentioned before the year 70 at:
Matthew 4:23; 6:2,5;9:35; 10:17; 12:9; 13:54; 23:6, 34
Mark 1:21,23,29, 39;3:1; 5:22,35,36,38; 6:2; 12:39; 13:9
Luke 4:15,16,20,28,33,38,44; 6:6; 7:5; 8:41,49;11:43; 13:10, 14; 20:46; 21:12
[Luke 4:16 is the mention of the synagogue at Nazareth]
John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2; 18:20

Also Acts mentions Synagogues at:
Acts 6:9; 9:2,20; 13:5, 14,15,43; 14:1; 17:1,10,17; 15:21; 18:4,7,8, 17,19,26; 19:8; 22:19; 24:12; 26:11

Looking from a historical perspective, there is no evidence for any synagogue existing in Galilee during the time of Jesus, or even in the first century. They simply were not there. There has only been one synagogue even to be discovered in any Jewish city during the time of Jesus. Simply, they were not of much importance. It was a temple centered religion.

Synagogues did exist in a separate way though. The term synagogue, during the time of Jesus, referred to a gathering. However, it did not focus on scrolls, and would not have been a place where individuals would have learned reading or writing at. It wasn't until after the Temple was destroyed that a focus on rabbis (instead of priests) and scrolls really occurred.

Do deal with Luke 4:16 specifically, it must be assumed that it a creation of Luke. The reason we can come to this conclusion is by looking at his work (one has to look at Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, as they are a dual volume). It was created as an advanced warning to the rejection that the fledging faith would have (as Acts describes, it started as a message to fellow Jews, Jews rejected it, and only then did Christianity go and spread the message to pagans).

Furthermore though, Luke shows a clear lack of knowledge about Nazareth. If you continue reading past Luke 4:16, you end up seeing the villagers wanting to throw Jesus off a cliff on the hill that the town was built. There is no such cliff.

Also, one has to look at the fact that it is only in that Gospel that it appears. Luke is based off of Mark, yet Mark does not have that story.

Finally, Luke was writing during a time that synagogues were starting to become important (the actual building). He also was in the upper class, and was writing for a more upper class audience. This would have effected his story.

 

[Poet-Troll]

Looking from a historical perspective, there is no evidence for any synagogue existing in Galilee during the time of Jesus, or even in the first century. They simply were not there. There has only been one synagogue even to be discovered in any Jewish city during the time of Jesus. Simply, they were not of much importance. It was a temple centered religion.

Synagogues did exist in a separate way though. The term synagogue, during the time of Jesus, referred to a gathering. However, it did not focus on scrolls, and would not have been a place where individuals would have learned reading or writing at. It wasn't until after the Temple was destroyed that a focus on rabbis (instead of priests) and scrolls really occurred.

Do deal with Luke 4:16 specifically, it must be assumed that it a creation of Luke. The reason we can come to this conclusion is by looking at his work (one has to look at Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, as they are a dual volume). It was created as an advanced warning to the rejection that the fledging faith would have (as Acts describes, it started as a message to fellow Jews, Jews rejected it, and only then did Christianity go and spread the message to pagans).

Furthermore though, Luke shows a clear lack of knowledge about Nazareth. If you continue reading past Luke 4:16, you end up seeing the villagers wanting to throw Jesus off a cliff on the hill that the town was built. There is no such cliff.

Also, one has to look at the fact that it is only in that Gospel that it appears. Luke is based off of Mark, yet Mark does not have that story.

Finally, Luke was writing during a time that synagogues were starting to become important (the actual building). He also was in the upper class, and was writing for a more upper class audience. This would have effected his story.

I don't know where you are getting your information. One cannot base an entire theory that flies in the face of the whole body of Jewish documented tradition on the basis of the meagre archaeological evidence at Nazareth or other negative arguments. The synagogue tradition is supposed to go back at least to the Babylonian captivity and focused on reading at least from the time of Ezra. The second temple never existed but alongside the synagogue institution. The report in Luke 16:4 does not conflict with what is known of the area at the time. Far from the synagogue becoming more important at the destruction of the second temple, Jewish sources report the simultaneous destruction of three to more than four hundred synagogues. Granted, it is not primary evidence, but you have not shown a concern with the necessity for primary evidence earlier in regard to the historical existence of Jesus, so it is a bit late now to require it when it does not suit your theory.
I was quite willing to admit that Jesus may never have existed. But given that you insist he did, solely based on secondary evidence mostly from the Gospels, then there is really no reason to doubt it when a canonical Gospel reports him to have been literate. The fact that only one Gospel reports the story is evidence to the contrary only by grasping at straws. The report of literacy is not a miracle story, and it does not depart from what was very possible among Jews at the time.
The evidence on your side is low general literacy in the Roman provinces and meagre archaeology in Nazareth. The evidence on the other side is a relatively high literacy in the Jewish population of the first century and the Gospel statement. Neither is conclusive from a scholarly point of view, but the latter in my opinion carries rather more weight. Don't discredit yourself by insisting on something that cannot be proven. Relatively high literacy among Palestinian Jews before 70 CE and the importance of reading in the synagogue institution long before that date are documented facts (if I am to believe scholars specialized in the field). You have come close to denying both.
The claim that ,if Jesus existed, it was not unlikely that he was literate, is not unreasonable. The insistence that Jesus did exist but could not read goes beyond reasonable evidence.

 

[fallingblood]

I don't know where you are getting your information. One cannot base an entire theory that flies in the face of the whole body of Jewish documented tradition on the basis of the meagre archaeological evidence at Nazareth or other negative arguments. The synagogue tradition is supposed to go back at least to the Babylonian captivity and focused on reading at least from the time of Ezra. The second temple never existed but alongside the synagogue institution. The report in Luke 16:4 does not conflict with what is known of the area at the time. Far from the synagogue becoming more important at the destruction of the second temple, Jewish sources report the simultaneous destruction of three to more than four hundred synagogues. Granted, it is not primary evidence, but you have not shown a concern with the necessity for primary evidence earlier in regard to the historical existence of Jesus, so it is a bit late now to require it when it does not suit your theory.
I was quite willing to admit that Jesus may never have existed. But given that you insist he did, solely based on secondary evidence mostly from the Gospels, then there is really no reason to doubt it when a canonical Gospel reports him to have been literate. The fact that only one Gospel reports the story is evidence to the contrary only by grasping at straws. The report of literacy is not a miracle story, and it does not depart from what was very possible among Jews at the time.
The evidence on your side is low general literacy in the Roman provinces and meagre archaeology in Nazareth. The evidence on the other side is a relatively high literacy in the Jewish population of the first century and the Gospel statement. Neither is conclusive from a scholarly point of view, but the latter in my opinion carries rather more weight. Don't discredit yourself by insisting on something that cannot be proven. Relatively high literacy among Palestinian Jews before 70 CE and the importance of reading in the synagogue institution long before that date are documented facts (if I am to believe scholars specialized in the field). You have come close to denying both.
The claim that ,if Jesus existed, it was not unlikely that he was literate, is not unreasonable. The insistence that Jesus did exist but could not read goes beyond reasonable evidence.

First, the term synagogue has to be realized. Before the Second Temple was destroyed, the term synagogue primary use was to define a gathering. There were some buildings that this occurred in, but the synagogue, as we know it, did not happen until the Temple was destroyed.

The idea of the synagogue, a gathering place, did start after Solomon's temple was destroyed. However, it was, for the most part, not a stationary building. It allowed a more portable Judaism, as to protect their individuality. It was not used for what a modern synagogue is used for.

This was true until after the time of the destruction of the Second Temple (which, synagogues as we know, became more popular, and important). This did not happen overnight, but happened over time.

A portable Judaism was important, and that is why the idea of the synagogue was important. They did not have a home land, yet they did not want to be assimilated into the culture that conquered them. So they did what they needed in order to protect their individuality.

During the time of Jesus, a synagogue was a communal gathering where such events as marriage, circumcisions, and town gatherings occurred, and the scripture was translated from Hebrew to the vernacular Aramaic. The rest had not yet been developed. There was no teaching one how to read the scriptures. That happened after the Temple was destroyed. Even so though, most of the tradition of Judaism was taught from the family.

So synagogues did not hold a high importance in a religion that was temple oriented, where the Temple dominated the religion. Synagogues did exist, but not in the form that they do today.

As for literacy, the best specific work on Jewish literacy rate is 3 percent. The reason for this is simple, it was not important. One did not have to read and write to be intelligent.

Looking at the story in Luke, the fact that it only appears in that Gospel is significant. We know that Luke is based off of Mark. Since Mark does not have the story, there are really only two options. Luke had another source, or it was a creation. I have already explained why it was a Lukan creation, as it helped further his position.

Also, archeological study is important in discovering a historical Jesus and the world in which he lived in. It is known that Nazareth was an insignificant hamlet during the time of Jesus. Its population was most likely around 200-400 people. It was a very poor community of peasants.

The peasant class had no real time to learn how to read or write, and most likely would not have cared to read what the literate (upper class) had to write. It simply was not important. Especially when they were struggling just to survive. Again, they were poor, and had to work to survive. It would have been counterproductive, and simply illogical to waste that precious time trying to learn how to read the scripture (which was in Hebrew, and their language was Aramaic).

With all of this put together, we know that there was no synagogue building in Nazareth. Which supports the idea that the story in Luke was simply his own creation.

 

[AxisMundi]

Obviously, this question is for those that do, or did. Why do you believe the Bible to be the unfallible and inspired word of God? I used to believe that, because growing up I was taught that it was so and not to question it.
Years down the raod, and I decided to investigate it on my own. My question was simply "why do we believe the bible is Gods word?" The Bible itself certainly doesn't say so, since it was not written as a single book and could therefore make no such claim.
Jesus made no mention of a book that would contain the words of God,and be 100% accurate and true. You'd think if he had wnated this to be, he'd have taken the time to write it himself so that there was no dispute over authorship,timeline,authenticity etc.
We don't know who wrote th bible,or even when, and yet we are to believe thsi is the one true word of God? All we know is that it was written and edited by men. How many things have men gotten their hands on that they didn't screw up or corrupt in some way? Many will claim that God protected the word so that is was not corrupted. Yet today we ahve many translations of the bible, and since they are different they can't all be right. How come Gods power no longer protects the Bible now?
Also, since we're speaking of holy scripture, what makes the Bible more reliable,true and trustworthy than the Jewish books, the Qur'an, or any of the other religions texts?
Perhaps I'm missing something, but fail to see how the Bible stands up under scrutiny as teh one true word of God. I think this could probably be applied to any book(s) that claim to be Gods one true word, I'm just more familiar with the bible
I wonder sometimes if perhaps everyone of the different cultures/religions got a little piece of the puzzle,and instead of examining everything to try to solve the mystery,everyone clings to their little piece as the whole and unvarnished truth.

I was brought up Roman Catholic, and taught that the bible was infallable and the word of god as well.

When I was in my early teens, I began to notice many inconsistancies and began investigated more thouroghly, a rather difficult excersise as normally trusted sources like Encyclopedia Britanica still treated Noah's Ark as factual, for example.

Luckily I would much rather watch a documentary than a cartoon, and I was able to gather some good information. Gensis 1 led me to leave Christianity.

It is my firmest opinion that indoctrination of youth is the only thing that has kept the two younger Abrahamics viable.