toldailytopic: Why do you believe the Bible is God's word?

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 28th, 2010 10:33 AM

toldailytopic: Why do you believe the Bible is God's word?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

I think we need to specify what "God's Word" means.

-Direct, literally spoken straight from God?
-Inspired human beings experiencing their inspiration from the Spirit?
-Stories of individual's experiences with God, including history, myth, memoirs, poetry, etc.?
-Something else entirely?

I'd go with option 3.
My own literary studies have led me to believe that the current book called the Bible contains many different genres, not all of which can be treated as literal, historical fact.

Not being literal, historical fact does NOT reduce the value of the included documents, as any of them can be used by God at any time, and they each have intrinsic value as art and as cultural pieces from their times.

Jesus, God with a face, considered Scripture to be the Word of God. The incredible unity among various authors over the centuries, prophecy, etc. also support the idea. Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible is the word of God. Jesus is not the Bible.

Inspiration refers to the accurate recording of what God intended to be included. Revelation is truth from God. The devil's words in the Bible are accurately recorded, but they are lies, not truth. God superintended the transmission and canonicity of Scripture.

The original autographs are infallible, authoritative, inerrant. They are no longer extant, but the wealth of MSS evidence ensures that we can translate (textual criticism) and interpret (hermeneutics; exegesis) with a high degree of accuracy (with no deficiencies on any essential area).

The normative literal, contextual, grammatical, historical-cultural, theological approach to Scripture is intended (this also recognizes genres and figures of speech).

2 Timothy 3:16
2 Peter 1:21

http://www.gotquestions.org/bible-god-word.html (see other links at bottom)

http://www.amazon.com/General-Introduction-Bible-Norman-Geisler/dp/0802429165 (click look inside).

The Apocrypha, Qu'ran/Hadith, Book of Mormon/D and C/Ensign, etc., Bhagavad Gita, Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures (Mary Baker Eddy; Christian Science), Dianetics, Satanic Bible, A Course in Miracles, Urantia, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (Pastafarianism), Avesta, The works of Emanuel Swedenborg, Watchtower magazine, etc. are not inspired, but specious.

I applied the principle in James 1:5-6 KJV and that's how I know that the Bible contains the word of God.

godrulz said:

The Apocrypha, ... are not inspired, but specious.

Click to expand...

I wonder if you would have said that back when the Apocryphal books were in every Christian Bible available. The first edition of the KJV contained the Apocrypha and when they were later given the title Apocrypha it was not because they were considered uninspired but because it was thought they contain hidden mysteries which God will reveal to the initiated but they do not have place in the canon which should be used to teach all men.

Personally I'm quite saddened that Ecclesiaticus 38 was removed from most Bibles. That chapter can easily prevent a painful and distressing misunderstanding regarding faith healing and medicine.

Circular reasoning: Because it says it is.

Okay, so that's not why I believe it is.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
And lean not on your own understanding;
In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He shall direct your paths.
-Proverbs 3:5-6

I did that, and that is how I know.

If you discount the historical and archeological evidence showing its truth, I still know it is true in my heart.

This message is deleted and closed.

Nick M said:

If you discount the historical and archeological evidence showing its truth, I still know it is true in my heart.

Click to expand...

Our subjective experience happens to be correct, but this is not the strongest apologetic since Muslims and Mormons also 'feel' their books are true.

Sey: The Bereans searched Scripture for truth, an objective apologetic. James is talking about wisdom relating to persecution, not for testing whether religious writings are true or not. Muslims believe the Koran is true based on prayer and feelings, but it is not. Feelings can be counterfeited or deceptive. Objective evidence for the validity of writings is the true test.

godrulz said:

Our subjective experience happens to be correct, but this is not the strongest apologetic since Muslims and Mormons also 'feel' their books are true.

Sey: The Bereans search Scripture for truth, an objective apologetic. James is talking about wisdom relating to persecution, not for testing whether religious writings are true or not. Muslims believe the Koran is true based on prayer and feelings, but it is not. Feelings can be counterfeited or deceptive. Objective evidence for the validity of writings is the true test.

Click to expand...

Oh you

I know you know that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior and that He was resurrected but to be frank if you claim objective evidence unless you have seen the resurrected Lord you are lying to yourself.

There is no Gospel truth that is commonly objectively proven, if they were we would not require faith nor would we need to rely on God for our knowledge of such truths. If you say "At standard atmospheric pressure water boils at 100 degrees Celsius" I don't need to have to faith because you can duplicate that result right in front of me. If you says "Jesus was resurrected" there is no result you can show to definitively proof it, I must choose to exercise faith whether or not that is a true statement and then study it out for myself.

As many Atheists have pointed out archeological and historical evidence make the Bible an interesting work of historical fiction, they also point out (rightly) that fictional portions were common to historical accounts of the day. Historical evidence of Jesus the man does prove He is your savior and never will, you either have faith and through that faith gain knowledge from God or you don't.

Of course we praise the Bereans but take it a step back how did they know that the scriptures they were comparing Paul's word to were true? They knew through Faith and through the Spirit.

Anyways we shouldn't detract from this thread further, if you want to discuss it more we should speak privately or start a new thread.

Knight said:

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for June 28th, 2010 10:33 AM

toldailytopic: Why do you believe the Bible is God's word?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Click to expand...

Nothing but it saying so, just like every religions text says. There is no greater proof for the bible than there is for other religious texts.

How much of the bible and other religious texts are to be considered the word of God is the question.

Non-Excluvistic said:

Nothing but it saying so, just like every religions text says. There is no greater proof for the bible than there is for other religious texts.

How much of the bible and other religious texts are to be considered the word of God is the question.

Click to expand...

This is simply not true. I listed other texts and it can be shown that there is lack of evidence (archaeological, Book of Mormon, for e.g.), contradictions, etc. The Bible, despite your ignorance, is defensible on all levels (I have two books that resolve 100s of supposed contradictions).

godrulz said:

This is simply not true. I listed other texts and it can be shown that there is lack of evidence (archaeological, Book of Mormon, for e.g.), contradictions, etc. The Bible, despite your ignorance, is defensible on all levels (I have two books that resolve 100s of supposed contradictions).

Click to expand...

Every religion has their fundamentalist like you. All of them find sources which satisfy their views. So what you have a book that satisfies and tickles your fancy. I have a book that says why the NT is not credible, you believe that too? We know your answer to that, so like I said, there is no greater proof for any text.


No concrete evidence for any religions text exist outside the strong beliefs of it's adherents; this is the reason why our beliefs are faith based. If we had undeniable facts then we wouldn't need to call it faith. You have faith that the book is true and the things in it will come true, it's a :idunno: but hope so until you witness it.


If your proof is greater than any other religion, present it. All I have ever witnessed from you is some circular reasoning that can be used the same for every religion. You need more than that if your claiming the exclusive rights to truth. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Produce that circular reasoning free proof if you have it.

Talking to this Muslim is like talking to the atheists here.

godrulz said:

Talking to this Muslim is like talking to the atheists here.

Click to expand...

Talking to this Christian is like talking to idiots everywhere.

Nick M said:

the historical and archeological evidence showing its truth

Click to expand...

Such as?

Non-Excluvistic said:

Talking to this Christian is like talking to idiots everywhere.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should talk to the hand and this book?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

:singer::baby:

godrulz said:

Perhaps you should talk to the hand and this book?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

:singer::baby:

Click to expand...

Why? It didn't seem to help you too much.

Perhaps you should read it again since it didn't help you the first time

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

:singer::baby:


You must have been under the impression that I was trying to win you as a friend. Not the case.

Btw, I didn't know guys said "talk to the hand" That's a bit feminine don't ya think?

All religious text have flaws.

There is no way to prove one is more reliable than the other, or is the word of god.

From contradictions within the texts them selves, to contradictions with reality.

I have yet to find a religious text free from such things.

However if you find the theology provided within the text or as stated by members of whatever faith, then I think that, for the most part, that is enough.

Do I think the bible is inerrant? nope, do I still like what you can find in it? yes.

The book of mormon? No chance in hell. Do I like the theology? Yep.

Ps. My favorite religious text so far is the Qur'an. Especially attempting to read it in the original arabic.

mr.red said:

All religious text have flaws.

There is no way to prove one is more reliable than the other, or is the word of god.

From contradictions within the texts them selves, to contradictions with reality.

I have yet to find a religious text free from such things.

However if you find the theology provided within the text or as stated by members of whatever faith, then I think that, for the most part, that is enough.

Do I think the bible is inerrant? nope, do I still like what you can find in it? yes.

The book of mormon? No chance in hell. Do I like the theology? Yep.

Ps. My favorite religious text so far is the Qur'an. Especially attempting to read it in the original arabic.

Click to expand...

:thumb: and not because you said you like reading the Quran. You get the thumbs up for everything you said before that. Especially by not being bias neglecting to criticize your own book.