How do we know that the Bible is the Word of God?

[Timz]

To be fair for any impartial observer the Bible cannot be assumed to be God's word because it says so (so does the quran, etc...). The Bible also cannot be the Word of God because of the Spirit's witness, or other spiritual demonstrations (other religions claim the same).

To be objective the bible must be first approached as any other historical document. The manuscript evidence, archeological evidence, etc... let us know it is a reliable historical document.

The NT in particular claims to be eye witness testimony to the Jewish Messiah claiming divinity. The eyewitness testimony is reliable (the witness were contemporaries, who recorded their testimony early, and died rather than retract it). Jesus confirms His divinity claims via the resurrection. Jesus recognized the OT. Jesus also promised to start a church and teach his followers all things (the NT writers). These bodies of believers recognized these documents immeadiately and with relatively very little debate as the word of God. This recognition has existed without interuption for nearly 2000 years.

Theism is true (the classical arguments are solid). Christianity is true (It is the lone religion where God himself came and proved Himself- in a historically reliable way). The Bible is the Book recognized by all Christians as the Word of God.

I think someone could only recognize the Bible as the Word of God after they realized Christianity was true.


Thanks,
Tim

 

[Guest]

How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?

We know it by faith, through saving grace.
The demons believe, but not through faith & not by saving grace, rather thru direct experience.
Even the wicked recieve grace in the form of providence, but only the elect receive saving grace.
So don't let the oxymoronic phrase "faith without works is dead" confuse you into thinking works gain or maintain salvation.
Works justify our faith (the profession thereof) to mankind gor God's glory.
Justification is typicaly confused with salvation in teaching that works are required, whereas in truth, they are the fruits of a living faith generated by saving grace.

I'm not challenging the assertion, just asking for opinions. I mean, the Bible claiming that it is the Word of God doesn't prove that it is. It's a circular argument. So why do you believe in the Bible as the Word of God? Please don't flame me I'm just wondering.

There is no proof, there is only faith or a lack thereof, so arguments are pointless.
Circular arguments are not entirely useless.
All positions require a basis that depend upon one or more assumptions.
Dictionaries are circular "arguments" for definitions, and we don't throw them out for being circular, so don't dismiss circular argumentation unless you can dismiss the assumptions therein.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

How do you know that the Bible is the Word of God?

We know it by faith, through saving grace.

That won't fly with non-believers. That is not a logocal argument you can take to people who are not yet Christian

The demons believe, but not through faith & not by saving grace, rather thru direct experience. Even the wicked recieve grace in the form of providence, but only the elect receive saving grace. So don't let the oxymoronic phrase "faith without works is dead" confuse you into thinking works gain or maintain salvation. Works justify our faith (the profession thereof) to mankind gor God's glory. Justification is typicaly confused with salvation in teaching that works are required, whereas in truth, they are the fruits of a living faith generated by saving grace.

Well, not only is that all wrong, it is also quite off topic. I believe there are threads discussing justification elsewhere. The issue at hand here is: How can one objectively know that the Bible is the Word of God. You have given us "subjective" reasons but no "objective" argument.

Is this the same Rick Otto from Christianforums.com ?

 

[Guest]

That won't fly with non-believers. That is not a logocal argument you can take to people who are not yet Christian

To begin with, it wasn't asked by a non-believer.
Secondly, logic isn't universaly relevant to nonbelievers.
Third, logic isn't relevant even to non-believers well versed in logic, so don't be tenacious or tedious with it.
1Co 1:18 - For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Well, not only is that all wrong, it is also quite off topic.

No it isn't. Sorry if it offends your sensibilities, tho.

I believe there are threads discussing justification elsewhere.

I'm sure there are, but I didn't change the subject.

The issue at hand here is: How can one objectively know that the Bible is the Word of God. You have given us "subjective" reasons but no "objective" argument.

The interjection of "objectivity" is purely your own, not included in the OP.
I'm sure there are discussions on objectivity elsewhere in the forum if you wish to discuss that, or you may start your own thread if you think that is a topic of importance.
Do try to be less offensive & presumptive, thank you.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Okay. I'll re-phrase: What was offered in that post does not make me know the Bible is the word of God. A Muslim can say the same things about the Koran.

 

[Guest]

Okay. I'll re-phrase: What was offered in that post does not make me know the Bible is the word of God.

It wasn't meant to, nor can anything said by any man make another know.

Corinthians 2:6-16
6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

 

[Timz]

Okay. I'll re-phrase: What was offered in that post does not make me know the Bible is the word of God.

It wasn't meant to, nor can anything said by any man make another know.

If the Bible corresponds to reality (is true), then there is objective standards to verify it.

That won't fly with non-believers. That is not a logocal argument you can take to people who are not yet Christian

To begin with, it wasn't asked by a non-believer.
Secondly, logic isn't universaly relevant to nonbelievers.
Third, logic isn't relevant even to non-believers well versed in logic, so don't be tenacious or tedious with it.
1Co 1:18 - For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

I hope that is not how you witness to skeptics!


-Tim

 

[Veritas]

The Bible also cannot be the Word of God because of the Spirit's witness, or other spiritual demonstrations (other religions claim the same).

Which ones? The only religions I'm aware of that have a such a personal emphasis on God are the ones that spun from Christianity. I know that the various New Age religions claim that, but I suspect they borrowed the notion from Christianity.

Anyways, I don't think I'm really in disagreement with you because I too believe the Bible should be approaced as a historical document, especially when witnessing to unbelievers. However, even with the strong historical support there is enough unknowns as well to leave doubt in the minds of those who don't want to believe.

So I would say that initially, the Spirit must be working within man to allow the Truth to be accepted. That is what I meant by "we know the Bible is the Word of God because of the Spirit's Witness" ...but I don't believe God just lets us hang there either, for it is validated through the Church and the History of the Church, and the historical veracities of the manuscripts and various archeologies themselves.

 

[Vic C.]

So I would say that initially, the Spirit must be working within man to allow the Truth to be accepted. That is what I meant by "we know the Bible is the Word of God because of the Spirit's Witness" ...but I don't believe God just lets us hang there either, for it is validated through the Church and the History of the Church, and the historical veracities of the manuscripts and various archeologies themselves.

Well said Craig. For me though, it's historical aspects hold little water if they too are not Spirit-inspired.

 

[Guest]

There is no verifiable historic validity to the Gospel outside itself.
It fails miserably by any sensible standard of objectivity.

" For all his influence on the world, there's better evidence that he never even existed than that he did. We have absolutely no reliable evidence, from secular sources, that Jesus ever lived, or that any of the events surrounding his life as described in the four Gospels ever happened.

Indeed, when scholars apply the Negative Evidence Principle, it begins to look like the Jesus we know from the New Testament is the result of late first-century mythmaking.

The Negative Evidence Principle is, of course, not foolproof. It is not a proof in itself, but is rather a guideline, a good rule of thumb. How useful and reliable it is, of course, is subject to debate among logicians. Here's how the N.E.P. works - it states that you have good reason for not believing in a proposition if the following three principles are satisfied: First, all of the evidence supporting the proposition has been shown to be unreliable. Second, there is no evidence supporting the proposition when the evidence should be there if the proposition is true. And third, a thorough and exhaustive search has been made for supporting evidence where it should be found.
As for the first point, the only somewhat reliable, secular evidence we have for the life of Jesus comes from two very brief passages in the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. And Josephus was a prolific writer - he frequently wrote several pages on the trial and execution of individual common thieves, but on Jesus, he is silent except for two paragraphs, one of which is a known interpolation, and the other is highly suspect. Other references to Jesus in secular writings are ambiguous at best, or known to be later interpolations, or both. The earliest references to Jesus in the rabbinical literature come from the second century, even though known historical figures such as John the Baptist merit considerable discussion, even though his impact on Judaism was minimal. There are no references to Jesus in any of the Roman histories during his presumed lifetime. That he should be so thoroughly ignored is unlikely given the impact the gospel writers said he had on the events and politics of the Jewish kingdom."

from:http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

It is illogical to try and satisfy a spiritual hunger with the intellectual food of logic.

 

[Timz]

" For all his influence on the world, there's better evidence that he never even existed than that he did. We have absolutely no reliable evidence, from secular sources, that Jesus ever lived, or that any of the events surrounding his life as described in the four Gospels ever happened.

Are you serious?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

" For all his influence on the world, there's better evidence that he never even existed than that he did. We have absolutely no reliable evidence, from secular sources, that Jesus ever lived, or that any of the events surrounding his life as described in the four Gospels ever happened.

What about Josephus?

 

[Vic C.]

I believe Josephus is a reliable source for sure. More of us should read his works. His Jewish War Books are very interesting, especially if one studies eschatology.

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

 

[Guest]

Are you serious?

About what?
Are you even aware it is a quote?

I apologize.
I now realize how insufferably long what I in all seriousness quoted, must've been to read all the way through, so I'll repost it with the part addressing Josephus' contribution emboldened for your convenience:
by Rick Otto on Sun May 11, 2008 12:35 pm

There is no verifiable historic validity to the Gospel outside itself.
It fails miserably by any sensible standard of objectivity.

" For all his influence on the world, there's better evidence that he never even existed than that he did. We have absolutely no reliable evidence, from secular sources, that Jesus ever lived, or that any of the events surrounding his life as described in the four Gospels ever happened.

Indeed, when scholars apply the Negative Evidence Principle, it begins to look like the Jesus we know from the New Testament is the result of late first-century mythmaking.

The Negative Evidence Principle is, of course, not foolproof. It is not a proof in itself, but is rather a guideline, a good rule of thumb. How useful and reliable it is, of course, is subject to debate among logicians. Here's how the N.E.P. works - it states that you have good reason for not believing in a proposition if the following three principles are satisfied: First, all of the evidence supporting the proposition has been shown to be unreliable. Second, there is no evidence supporting the proposition when the evidence should be there if the proposition is true. And third, a thorough and exhaustive search has been made for supporting evidence where it should be found.
As for the first point, the only somewhat reliable, secular evidence we have for the life of Jesus comes from two very brief passages in the works of Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian. And Josephus was a prolific writer - he frequently wrote several pages on the trial and execution of individual common thieves, but on Jesus, he is silent except for two paragraphs, one of which is a known interpolation, and the other is highly suspect. Other references to Jesus in secular writings are ambiguous at best, or known to be later interpolations, or both. The earliest references to Jesus in the rabbinical literature come from the second century, even though known historical figures such as John the Baptist merit considerable discussion, even though his impact on Judaism was minimal. There are no references to Jesus in any of the Roman histories during his presumed lifetime. That he should be so thoroughly ignored is unlikely given the impact the gospel writers said he had on the events and politics of the Jewish kingdom."

from:http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm

It is illogical to try and satisfy a spiritual hunger with the intellectual food of logic.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

.
.
I invite peopole to read this very good tract called:
Proving Inspiration
Link: http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

.
.

 

[Guest]

Thank you brother, but it is full of errors about the protestant faith and is of little substantive value for that reason.
But I appreciate your intention & effort. 8-)

 

[Guest]

http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm Hi Rick Otto;____ I took the liberty of linking back to Mr. Bidstrup's Home page. If you really are a Christian interested in seeking truths, I suggest you do a more thurough job of checking your sources.FYI; This man is an openly gay rodeo cowboy. Not that that makes his statements untrue but it does devalue them slightly when viewed from the perspective of a Christian (imo)______in peace; Deardogma

 

[Guest]

Hi Dear Dogma.

I took the liberty of linking back to Mr. Bidstrup's Home page

I would consider it more of a responsability than a liberty, but good for you!

If you really are a Christian interested in seeking truths,...

Casting aspersions is easy.

I suggest you do a more thurough job of checking your sources.

Address the issue if in fact you are able. I will accept any plausible information regardless of the source. BTW how did you come by the liberty to assume I didn't check?
More importantly, what part of what I quoted from him isn't true?
Would you also have dismissed Balaam's ass? It would seem so from your comment.
Do you have anything of value to say about the subject at hand, or are you content to question my sincerety & moraly indict the person I quoted?
Do you know the meaning of the word "sanctimonious"?

 

[Catholic Crusader]

....This man is an openly gay rodeo cowboy....

Oh man, I wish you had posted this before I promised Vic not to make any wise cracks :crazyeyes:

 

[Guest]

Crusader take it easy, Rick Otto seems sincere so we'd be best to consider what he has to say and rebutt effectively._____Rick I've been through this too many times before. I will stop now re-read your post, pray and respond later and although it apears to me your post is off topic, I don't think it doesn't deserve discussion. I'm glad you've affirmed that you are aware and still supportive of your source. I think you'll find I try my best not to be sanctimonious or offensive when dialouguing with others, I hope to expect the same from you______in peace D.D.