How do you know the Bible is inspired?

[cheezerrox]

Is that what 2 Timothy 3:16 really says? Remember that Paul wrote his epistles before the rest of the nt was written. Thus this passage proves at most the inspiration of the old testament. And all the "Thus says the Lord"s assert only inspiration of that particular phrase. There is no "Thus says the Lord, this whole book is inspired." Unless I am missing an important passage, there is no place in the Bible that asserts the its inspiration in totality.

It follows that there must be some other infallible teaching authority that we know inspiration of the Bible from.

Good observation. Paul WAS talking about the Hebrew Scriptures. But, note 2 Peter 3:15-16. According to Peter, Paul's letters are Scripture, and his readers must've thought the same thing, as he didn't write it as an assertion, as if it were some new information, but he said that they were Scripture matter-of-factly, assuming that they were already considered as such.

Every book of the Bible claims to bring with it some kind of knowledge, truth, prophecy, story, teaching, or commandments. They all assume that their readers will accept what they're saying as true, and from G-d.

As far as the Qur'an, it also advocates violence against women, the belief that Jesus of Nazereth wasn't crucified (which is a historical fact), and that Christians believe in a Trinity of Father, Mary, and Son. The extra Scriptures added to the Bible by the Mormons say that black people are cursed descendants of Cain, we live in the center of the universe (impossible), and that Native Americans were Jews and monotheistic. Just because more than one group claims to have G-d-inspired texts, doesn't mean we say, "Oh, well, I guess there's no way to see who's right." It means we see which of them actually make sense and coincide with things we already know are true.

The Bible, the ancient Isra'elites, and the early Christians all consider the Bible inspired. If you don't, that's fine, but to say that the idea isn't found in the Bible is false.

[dellsOfBittersweet]

Is that what 2 Timothy 3:16 really says? Remember that Paul wrote his epistles before the rest of the nt was written. Thus this passage proves at most the inspiration of the old testament. And all the "Thus says the Lord"s assert only inspiration of that particular phrase. There is no "Thus says the Lord, this whole book is inspired." Unless I am missing an important passage, there is no place in the Bible that asserts the its inspiration in totality.

It follows that there must be some other infallible teaching authority that we know inspiration of the Bible from.

Good observation. Paul WAS talking about the Hebrew Scriptures. But, note 2 Peter 3:15-16. According to Peter, Paul's letters are Scripture, and his readers must've thought the same thing, as he didn't write it as an assertion, as if it were some new information, but he said that they were Scripture matter-of-factly, assuming that they were already considered as such.

Good point. I was not aware of this verse, so the Bible claims to be inspired for the OT and works of Paul. Notice that still leaves out about half the nt though.

Every book of the Bible claims to bring with it some kind of knowledge, truth, prophecy, story, teaching, or commandments. They all assume that their readers will accept what they're saying as true, and from G-d.

Let me first state that I agree that the Bible is the inspired word of God. My argument is that we can't have blind faith in the inspiration of the Bible. If we believe that the Bible is inspired because we are Christians, Mormans and Muslims are equally justified in their belief in the inspiration of their own holy books. There must be some certain authority that can infallibly guarantee the inspiration of the Bible.

I see seven main arguments for this, but only two of them are deductively valid, in my opinion.

1. Argument from the Bible itself: The Bible says its inspired, therefore it is. I contest that since no verse exists that speaks to the inspiration of the entire Bible as a whole, nt included, that this argument has a false premise. But assuming the truth of this premise, this is a circular argument. Equally inspired then are the Book of Mormon, Quran, and writings of the founders of Scientology.

2. Argument from the word of God: The Bible is the word of God, therefore it is inspired. I agree that the Bible is the word of God, but how do we know that? The Book of Mormon also claims to be the word of God. The parts of the Bible that directly record Jesus' words can make this argument more easily, but can we be certain that Paul and Peter are speaking God's word also? I posit that the only way we can know this for sure is on the authority of other arguments.

3. Argument from Content: You've expressed this argument beautifully, and I think it works inductively, to an extent. You can judge a good tree by its fruit, and the fruit of the Bible is of the utmost quality. This argument has inductive validity, meaning that it lends credence to the idea that the Bible is inspired. I'm convinced that it does not have deductive validity, meaning that it does not prove the Bible's inspiration. This is because if the entire Bible were subjected to a test as to whether it was inspirational, some parts would fail and need to be removed. The Book of Deuteronomy, for example, had large parts that modern readers won't find useful at all. Also, this test is subjective, meaning that if applied, we would all have different Bibles. Also, while this test is useful in the positive sense, it doesn't help determine what shouldn't be in the Bible. The deuterocanonical books would score about a well as the 66 already accepted by Protostants, and other books, such as the writings of Saint Augustine, are much more inspiring than certain parts of the Bible. By this logic, they also belong in the Bible.

4. Argument from personal experience or Divine Revelation: Perhaps God has revealed the truth of the Bible to you personally, but unless you have already established that you are His representative, why should we believe you? Mohammad made the same claim concerning the Quran. You may also have personally experienced the power of the words of the Bible, but that is subjective, meaning that an atheist who sees no value in the Bible is equally justified in thinking it not inspired as you are in believing that it is.

5. Argument from Jesus: Jesus, God incarnate, said that he was leaving us with an inspired book of his words. The problem with this argument is that Jesus didn't actually say that. However, the only authority that can infallibly declare the Bible inspired comes from God himself, therefore...

The Bible, the ancient Isra'elites, and the early Christians all consider the Bible inspired.

The only way to know with certainty that the Bible is the inspired word of God is through accepting one of the following tenants of the Catholic Church-oral tradition, or an infallible teaching authority. You just started sounding Catholic with the quoted text, articulating...

6. Argument from Tradition: The oral Tradition of the Church, which represents Christ here on earth, has always held the Bible to be inspired. We can have confidence that the beliefs passed down orally from the apostles to the first Christians to us today are true, including the inspiration of the Bible. As Paul said in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter."

7. Argument from an infallible teaching authority: Christ left behind a teaching authority in the Church he founded when he gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom, an expression referring to the office of the prime minister. This teaching authority has infallibly declared the Bible to be the inspired word of God.

As far as the Qur'an, it also advocates violence against women, the belief that Jesus of Nazereth wasn't crucified (which is a historical fact), and that Christians believe in a Trinity of Father, Mary, and Son. The extra Scriptures added to the Bible by the Mormons say that black people are cursed descendants of Cain, we live in the center of the universe (impossible), and that Native Americans were Jews and monotheistic. Just because more than one group claims to have G-d-inspired texts, doesn't mean we say, "Oh, well, I guess there's no way to see who's right." It means we see which of them actually make sense and coincide with things we already know are true.

I agree. You can judge a bad tree from its bad fruit. On close examination, the Quran looks pretty worldly and seems to contradict what we think we know God to be like. The Book of Mormon looks a lot like the assembled popular delusions of the 1800s. My point is that we can't just accept something as inspired because many people thinks or because the text says so. We need reasons for our faith, and a certain authority-Christ, or his representive, the Church-to infallibly back us up. Otherwise our opinion that the Bible is inspired is no better than anyone else's.

[bippy123]

You aren't taking the Bible literally. Neither of these passages say that the whole Bible is inspired.

I do take the Bible literally. You refuse the clear statement God made in 2 Tim 3:16 - God, through Paul - because you seem to have an axe to grind. Fine. I'm glad we both agree that the Bible is the inspired Word of God.

FL

The problem here is that the bible wasn't fully ratified and put together until the 3 councils from 393 to 418. It was the church that decided on what was considered inspired and not inspired, and there was only one apostolic church at that time, the catholic church. There were many other passages that didn't have the thus says the lord verse in there. And you can't use the argument that the early Christians new without a doubt what was truely inspired and what was not or else there wouldn't have been a few hundred years of debate within the church as to what belonged in the bible and what didn't .

The bible didn't put itself together. It was the catholic church guided by the holy spirit that decided what books would go into the original bible. That was the authority that ratified the full bible. If someone could name another apostolic church that was there at 393ad I would sure love to hear about it.

[bippy123]

Dell the argument from personal revelation is not only wrong historically but wrong biblically because for the first 1500 years of Christianity , Christians from the earliest church fathers like ignatius of Antioch and polycarp (who were the disciples or students of John the apostle) never believed in private interpretation of scripture but an infallible teaching authority. Without this authority (to bind or loose) we are left with interpreting scripture according to what suits our views. Before 1517 private interpretation was alien to the Christian churches throughout the first 1500 years .

I dont care what revelation I think I may be receiving, if it doesn't line up with the interpretation passed down from the apostles to the very first Christians it's not from God. The apostles were given the authority of teaching infallibly and were guided by the holy spirit .

The bible itself claims that there are verses in scripture that are vague and very hard to understand without a proper teaching authority. Who better then the apostles who then taught and passed down their interpretation to their students who were among the earliest Christians .

Take ignatius of Antioch for example who was taught by the apostle John himself about how the Eucharist is the real presence of Christ himself at the mass. Ignatius said this in 110ad!! 
Without this extra bible text it would be a little harder to interpret the actual scripture reference of the last supper.

We all agree that the bible is inspired, but what church that was guided by the holy spirit decided which books were inspired, plus without looking outside of the bible how can you tell how the apostles taught the early Christians how to interpret the importance of the Eucharist and the last supper among other things. This is what we call sacred tradition which is different than man made tradition.

Here is an example of sacred tradition.

Ignatius was the 3rd bishop of Antioch .
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 7, 110 A.D.:
I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

[PaulSacramento]

The issue is not whether it is inspired, but what "inspired" means to Us, what it meant to those writing and what it meant to those reading or listening.

So you are citing Tradition as the authority for Biblical inspiration? Very Catholic of you.

Othwise this appears to be a very subjective standand. What I feel to be inspired is different from what you feel vs. what a muslim or hinu feels. In this case we really have no way of knowing what books are truly inspired, since everyone disagrees.

Nope, I am citing auto-responsibility, I am saying that it is up to YOU to decide if it is or isn't and WHY because, in the end, YOU will have to answer to God not anyone else.

If its up to us to decide, what confidence can we have that we decided right? If we are to answer to God for whether he followed the instructions he left in the Bible, how do we decide which books make up the Bible? Christians have disagreed on this issue for centuries. There currently seems to be agreement on the first 66, but should I follow the command to pray for the souls of the dead as found in Macabees, or not?

Self-responsibilty sucks, but such is life.
If one views that, how we follow the bible is crucial for our salvation then would YOU put that in the hands of someone else and follow THEIR view of things?
We do the best we can with what we have AND ask guidence from the Holy SPirit in making the decision.
If it is truly that important to someone, then they should research and learn for themselves and NOT take anyone elses word for it.

[PaulSacramento]

The church did NOT make the bible authoritative when it decided on the Canon, the canon was made authoritative BY virtue of the books and letters within it.
All the church did was confirm the consensus.
While other churches may have different canons, they ALL have the same ones as their core.
What I mean is that, all canon's share a core group of books that recognized by ALL as authoritative.
That some may have more books for historical purposes and such is fine and you will NOT find anything that is heretical in the books that are in the catholic canon as compared to the Ethiopia Canon ( for example).

[dellsOfBittersweet]

Dell the argument from personal revelation is not only wrong historically but wrong biblically because for the first 1500 years of Christianity , Christians from the earliest church fathers like ignatius of Antioch and polycarp (who were the disciples or students of John the apostle) never believed in private interpretation of scripture but an infallible teaching authority. Without this authority (to bind or loose) we are left with interpreting scripture according to what suits our views. Before 1517 private interpretation was alien to the Christian churches throughout the first 1500 years .

Excellent point. In fact, believing in self interpretation is a particularly unbiblical belief based on the exchange between the Ethiopian eunuch and the apostle Phillip in Acts 8:26-40. Phillip sees the eunuch reading scripture, and asks, "Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And [the eunuch] said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?”

If the Holy Spirit is our sole guide to understanding scripture, why did the eunuch need the guidance of a bishop?

[dellsOfBittersweet]

Self-responsibilty sucks, but such is life.
If one views that, how we follow the bible is crucial for our salvation then would YOU put that in the hands of someone else and follow THEIR view of things?
We do the best we can with what we have AND ask guidence from the Holy SPirit in making the decision.
If it is truly that important to someone, then they should research and learn for themselves and NOT take anyone elses word for it.

Well that's an interesting opinion. What evidence do you have outside of your own opinion that it's up to us to determine what writings are inspired, and what these inspired writings mean? The Ethiopian eunuch needs the help of the Apostle and Bishop Phillip to interpret scripture for him. A church with teaching authority makes more sense than going solo.

[RickD]

Dell the argument from personal revelation is not only wrong historically but wrong biblically because for the first 1500 years of Christianity , Christians from the earliest church fathers like ignatius of Antioch and polycarp (who were the disciples or students of John the apostle) never believed in private interpretation of scripture but an infallible teaching authority. Without this authority (to bind or loose) we are left with interpreting scripture according to what suits our views. Before 1517 private interpretation was alien to the Christian churches throughout the first 1500 years .

Excellent point. In fact, believing in self interpretation is a particularly unbiblical belief based on the exchange between the Ethiopian eunuch and the apostle Phillip in Acts 8:26-40. Phillip sees the eunuch reading scripture, and asks, "Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And [the eunuch] said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?”

If the Holy Spirit is our sole guide to understanding scripture, why did the eunuch need the guidance of a bishop?

Perhaps because the eunich wasn't yet a believer, and therefore didn't have the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit?

[dellsOfBittersweet]

Dell the argument from personal revelation is not only wrong historically but wrong biblically because for the first 1500 years of Christianity , Christians from the earliest church fathers like ignatius of Antioch and polycarp (who were the disciples or students of John the apostle) never believed in private interpretation of scripture but an infallible teaching authority. Without this authority (to bind or loose) we are left with interpreting scripture according to what suits our views. Before 1517 private interpretation was alien to the Christian churches throughout the first 1500 years .

Excellent point. In fact, believing in self interpretation is a particularly unbiblical belief based on the exchange between the Ethiopian eunuch and the apostle Phillip in Acts 8:26-40. Phillip sees the eunuch reading scripture, and asks, "Do you understand what you are reading?” 31 And [the eunuch] said, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?”

If the Holy Spirit is our sole guide to understanding scripture, why did the eunuch need the guidance of a bishop?

Perhaps because the eunich wasn't yet a believer, and therefore didn't have the guidance of the indwelling Holy Spirit?

An interesting theory that makes Christianity a mystery religion like buddism if true. If we must already have recieved the holy spirit in order to understand scripture, then how is a non believer to gain a full understanding of our religion, so he can make an accurate judgement of the truth or falsehood of Christianity?

[PaulSacramento]

Self-responsibilty sucks, but such is life.
If one views that, how we follow the bible is crucial for our salvation then would YOU put that in the hands of someone else and follow THEIR view of things?
We do the best we can with what we have AND ask guidence from the Holy SPirit in making the decision.
If it is truly that important to someone, then they should research and learn for themselves and NOT take anyone elses word for it.

Well that's an interesting opinion. What evidence do you have outside of your own opinion that it's up to us to determine what writings are inspired, and what these inspired writings mean? The Ethiopian eunuch needs the help of the Apostle and Bishop Phillip to interpret scripture for him. A church with teaching authority makes more sense than going solo.

He needed help interpreting the prophecies he was reading.
I am not saying that we disregard the church or theologians over the centuries, but that the responsibility to come to a decision about scripture falls on US.
It is obvious from studying the history of Christianity that not all theologians agreed about all doctrines and it i sup to US to decide which views for us to follow and to do that we must research and study for ourselves.
No one can tell you or prove to you that the Bible is inspired or what that even means, it is up to YOU to decide that for yourself.

[dellsOfBittersweet]

No one can tell you or prove to you that the Bible is inspired

If it can't be proved that the Bible is inspired, how I am to have certain faith in something that is uncertain?

Look at it from another angle. Imagine a person living in a country that has both Muslims and Christians living in it. This person in considering joining one of the two religions, and sees two religions that both claim to have the only inspired writings of God. If there is no infallible authority that can determine which books are inspired and which aren't, how can this person decide which religion is true, and have certainty that he is correct?

[bippy123]

No one can tell you or prove to you that the Bible is inspired or what that even means, it is up to YOU to decide that for yourself.

It is up to you to decide if it's inspired or not , but it was the church that ultimately decides what initially was inspired, the holy spirit guided them.
Paul if you considered the bible today to not be inspired would you be considered a Christian?
I can't imagine one Christian church that would consider a person to be a Christian if he said the bible wasn't inspired.
Who was the original authority that decided the canon of the new testament?

Saint Jerome was one of the few back that had a differing opinion originally about the deuteros, but he then basically said that you can't go wrong following the authority of the church that was given to the apostles by Jesus Christ and that authority passed down to the early Christian leaders of the church.
The Church was established by Jesus Christ way before the councils of the late 4th and early 5th century catholic councils put together the bible and finally agreed upon what was inspired scripture and what wasnt inspired scripture.

You either agree with the bible as inspired scripture or you dont.
As far as authoritative teaching some of the early church fathers had different opinions but in the end they submitted their will to the authority of the church which was given to it by Christ himself.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Here is an interesting site:

www.vaticancatholic.com

I post the link only as a curio.

FL

[RickD]

Here is an interesting site:

http://www.vaticancatholic.com

I post the link only as a curio.

FL

From your link, FL:Absolutely no Salvation Outside the Catholic Church
Furstentum Liechtenstein, SHAME ON YOU!!
What kind of trouble are you trying to stir up? FL, the eternal instigator.