Why the Bible is true... (Revised June 2015)

[davidedmorn]

Awesome information! This is the best explanation why the Bible is true. The word of the God is living and powerful, which is sharpen than any two-edged swords.

[Nicki]

The only faith we should place is in Jesus.
I always remember the likes of Ehrman, who placed his faith in the inerrant and unaltered written word of the bible and when he came to the conclusion that was not the case, his "faith" collapsed.
The bible simply points the way to Christ ( as does the universe), like a finger pointing the way to the moon.
Don't concentrate overly on the finger or you may miss all the heavenly glory.

Do you think the Bible's not inerrant and unaltered? I thought we all believed it was God's Word. Of course we should place our faith only in Jesus but we learn about him (and why we should put our faith in him) from the Bible.

[PaulSacramento]

The only faith we should place is in Jesus.
I always remember the likes of Ehrman, who placed his faith in the inerrant and unaltered written word of the bible and when he came to the conclusion that was not the case, his "faith" collapsed.
The bible simply points the way to Christ ( as does the universe), like a finger pointing the way to the moon.
Don't concentrate overly on the finger or you may miss all the heavenly glory.

Do you think the Bible's not inerrant and unaltered? I thought we all believed it was God's Word. Of course we should place our faith only in Jesus but we learn about him (and why we should put our faith in him) from the Bible.

I believe what the bible is and discard what it is not.
I believe that, in regards to God and the purpose to which the writers of the many books and letters in the bible wrote them, the bible is without errors.

[Nicki]

The only faith we should place is in Jesus.
I always remember the likes of Ehrman, who placed his faith in the inerrant and unaltered written word of the bible and when he came to the conclusion that was not the case, his "faith" collapsed.
The bible simply points the way to Christ ( as does the universe), like a finger pointing the way to the moon.
Don't concentrate overly on the finger or you may miss all the heavenly glory.

Do you think the Bible's not inerrant and unaltered? I thought we all believed it was God's Word. Of course we should place our faith only in Jesus but we learn about him (and why we should put our faith in him) from the Bible.

I believe what the bible is and discard what it is not.
I believe that, in regards to God and the purpose to which the writers of the many books and letters in the bible wrote them, the bible is without errors.

So maybe you're talking about the things that reflected people's mistaken beliefs about the universe at the time. I don't think they are necessarily errors though - people sometimes point out the incident of the sun standing still in the book of Joshua, but I think God could have made the sun appear to stand still without being misleading. We still talk about the sun rising and setting, even though it does nothing of the sort in relation to the earth.

[davidedmorn]

To “glorify” God means to give glory to Him. The word glory as related to God in the Old Testament bears with it the idea of greatness of splendor.

[PaulSacramento]

The only faith we should place is in Jesus.
I always remember the likes of Ehrman, who placed his faith in the inerrant and unaltered written word of the bible and when he came to the conclusion that was not the case, his "faith" collapsed.
The bible simply points the way to Christ ( as does the universe), like a finger pointing the way to the moon.
Don't concentrate overly on the finger or you may miss all the heavenly glory.

Do you think the Bible's not inerrant and unaltered? I thought we all believed it was God's Word. Of course we should place our faith only in Jesus but we learn about him (and why we should put our faith in him) from the Bible.

I believe what the bible is and discard what it is not.
I believe that, in regards to God and the purpose to which the writers of the many books and letters in the bible wrote them, the bible is without errors.

So maybe you're talking about the things that reflected people's mistaken beliefs about the universe at the time. I don't think they are necessarily errors though - people sometimes point out the incident of the sun standing still in the book of Joshua, but I think God could have made the sun appear to stand still without being misleading. We still talk about the sun rising and setting, even though it does nothing of the sort in relation to the earth.

I mean that people should not look at the bible other than for what it is.
It is NOT a science book for example, nor is it a book about the history of the world ( no mention of any races other than those in the ancient near east in the OT for example).
We also need to remember that even though the bible was written FOR Us ( believers) it was NOT written TO Us ( Paul's letters to the congregations in Corinth for example) and to understand them we must understand the social-historical-political environment of the writers AND to WHOM He/They were writing.

[Audie]

Its is a nice post and most noble intentions which I appreciate but it is as you said curricular and entirely useless when talking to non-christians. Every religion can pin a few historical events down, every religion can produce people who will die for their beliefs, just look at the burning monk, and the 400 prophets of Baal against Elijah the prophet, even when their God didn't answer them they still were ready to die for their beliefs and they did die when Elijah ordered all of them to be killed. There is no single claim in there which Islam can't mimic.

Im sure it is well meant.

For someone like me looking from the outside, its pathetic. Grasping for straws. Start with,yes, a circular argument and then make it worse.

Of course archaeology supports some things. But then when it doesnt, or when science in general shows genesis, flood etc is nonsense, well then science msut be wrong.

Citing "life is in the blood" as science? Give me a break. Cavemen knew if you let the blood fall out, it dies.

Science certainly does not confirm that a rock makes a good cure for snakebite. Nor that clams are bad to eat.
Nor that there was any "flood". The stars are not there for our convenience.

[Audie]

The only faith we should place is in Jesus.
I always remember the likes of Ehrman, who placed his faith in the inerrant and unaltered written word of the bible and when he came to the conclusion that was not the case, his "faith" collapsed.
The bible simply points the way to Christ ( as does the universe), like a finger pointing the way to the moon.
Don't concentrate overly on the finger or you may miss all the heavenly glory.

Do you think the Bible's not inerrant and unaltered? I thought we all believed it was God's Word. Of course we should place our faith only in Jesus but we learn about him (and why we should put our faith in him) from the Bible.

I believe what the bible is and discard what it is not.
I believe that, in regards to God and the purpose to which the writers of the many books and letters in the bible wrote them, the bible is without errors.

So maybe you're talking about the things that reflected people's mistaken beliefs about the universe at the time. I don't think they are necessarily errors though - people sometimes point out the incident of the sun standing still in the book of Joshua, but I think God could have made the sun appear to stand still without being misleading. We still talk about the sun rising and setting, even though it does nothing of the sort in relation to the earth.

I mean that people should not look at the bible other than for what it is.
It is NOT a science book for example, nor is it a book about the history of the world ( no mention of any races other than those in the ancient near east in the OT for example).
We also need to remember that even though the bible was written FOR Us ( believers) it was NOT written TO Us ( Paul's letters to the congregations in Corinth for example) and to understand them we must understand the social-historical-political environment of the writers AND to WHOM He/They were writing.

Of course it is not a science book. Its not a history book either, nor a math text nor yet a psychology book.

Youd sorta think, if you were me, tho, that if a god was behind it he'd get things right. Why the deliberate and seemingly gratuitous introduction of nonsense?

[Audie]

Neo, how do you show non-believers the truth effectively?

You ever ask an atheist that?

[Audie]

Welcome CW.

I agree with many things that you've said and many certainly help to reassure those of us Christians who believe in the truth of Scripture.

Something I learnt long ago and caused me much disappointment was my own attempts to justify Scripture and use it as an apologetic.
I fell flat on my face many times debating to truth of Scripture with non-Christians -- not because I couldn't rebuff what they said, but rather because it didn't make a difference to them. BUT, I did learn much so I gained personally.

Certainly defend parts when challenged, but there is a blindness that needs to first be cured before Scripture even has an allure.
That blindness is something that can only be cured in Christ. Then everything else starts falling into place and becoming evident although not all things.

So really, the one thing I'd say to a non-Christian who asks.
Is that I respect Scripture as truth because Christ did.
Simple as that. It directs attention to what is most important -- Christ Himself.
And really, my reason simply boils down my faith in Christ and not necessarily rational arguments.

The Bible is deep down the basis of our faith however. We believe things because the Bible says them. I can't say that I'd had an experience of Christ before I became a Christian but (this was at the age of 12 or so) I believed the Bible was true because I'd been taken to church when I was younger and then I believed what a children's gospel correspondence course said because it was based on the Bible. What I didn't have at the time was the evidence for the Bible actually being true - something I've become more interested in in recent years. If people think a lot of the Bible is fiction, why would they believe what it says about Jesus and about salvation?

Regarding the martyrs, the difference with the earliest Christian martyrs was that they had actually been there when Jesus was around, died and rose from the dead, so they not only died for their beliefs, they knew whether they were true or false.

See the part in bold? A tip from the land of the atheists: That is just about the worst thing you could think of to say to one of us.

[RickD]

Audie wrote:
Of course it is not a science book. Its not a history book either, nor a math text nor yet a psychology book.

Youd sorta think, if you were me, tho, that if a god was behind it he'd get things right. Why the deliberate and seemingly gratuitous introduction of nonsense?

Audie,

Let's see if you're truly open minded, and are willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Why don't you create a thread outlining some of the "nonsense" you see in the bible?

[RickD]

Welcome CW.

I agree with many things that you've said and many certainly help to reassure those of us Christians who believe in the truth of Scripture.

Something I learnt long ago and caused me much disappointment was my own attempts to justify Scripture and use it as an apologetic.
I fell flat on my face many times debating to truth of Scripture with non-Christians -- not because I couldn't rebuff what they said, but rather because it didn't make a difference to them. BUT, I did learn much so I gained personally.

Certainly defend parts when challenged, but there is a blindness that needs to first be cured before Scripture even has an allure.
That blindness is something that can only be cured in Christ. Then everything else starts falling into place and becoming evident although not all things.

So really, the one thing I'd say to a non-Christian who asks.
Is that I respect Scripture as truth because Christ did.
Simple as that. It directs attention to what is most important -- Christ Himself.
And really, my reason simply boils down my faith in Christ and not necessarily rational arguments.

The Bible is deep down the basis of our faith however. We believe things because the Bible says them. I can't say that I'd had an experience of Christ before I became a Christian but (this was at the age of 12 or so) I believed the Bible was true because I'd been taken to church when I was younger and then I believed what a children's gospel correspondence course said because it was based on the Bible. What I didn't have at the time was the evidence for the Bible actually being true - something I've become more interested in in recent years. If people think a lot of the Bible is fiction, why would they believe what it says about Jesus and about salvation?

Regarding the martyrs, the difference with the earliest Christian martyrs was that they had actually been there when Jesus was around, died and rose from the dead, so they not only died for their beliefs, they knew whether they were true or false.

See the part in bold? A tip from the land of the atheists: That is just about the worst thing you could think of to say to one of us.

Only to the closed minded atheists. Those who aren't willing to see if there's a reason why we believe the bible is reliable.

[Audie]

Audie wrote:
Of course it is not a science book. Its not a history book either, nor a math text nor yet a psychology book.

Youd sorta think, if you were me, tho, that if a god was behind it he'd get things right. Why the deliberate and seemingly gratuitous introduction of nonsense?

Audie,

Let's see if you're truly open minded, and are willing to put your money where your mouth is.

Why don't you create a thread outlining some of the "nonsense" you see in the bible?

I dont think you get to define for me what being open minded is.

do you need more than a st one for snakebite and the "flood", already mentioned?

[PaulSacramento]

Welcome CW.

I agree with many things that you've said and many certainly help to reassure those of us Christians who believe in the truth of Scripture.

Something I learnt long ago and caused me much disappointment was my own attempts to justify Scripture and use it as an apologetic.
I fell flat on my face many times debating to truth of Scripture with non-Christians -- not because I couldn't rebuff what they said, but rather because it didn't make a difference to them. BUT, I did learn much so I gained personally.

Certainly defend parts when challenged, but there is a blindness that needs to first be cured before Scripture even has an allure.
That blindness is something that can only be cured in Christ. Then everything else starts falling into place and becoming evident although not all things.

So really, the one thing I'd say to a non-Christian who asks.
Is that I respect Scripture as truth because Christ did.
Simple as that. It directs attention to what is most important -- Christ Himself.
And really, my reason simply boils down my faith in Christ and not necessarily rational arguments.

The Bible is deep down the basis of our faith however. We believe things because the Bible says them. I can't say that I'd had an experience of Christ before I became a Christian but (this was at the age of 12 or so) I believed the Bible was true because I'd been taken to church when I was younger and then I believed what a children's gospel correspondence course said because it was based on the Bible. What I didn't have at the time was the evidence for the Bible actually being true - something I've become more interested in in recent years. If people think a lot of the Bible is fiction, why would they believe what it says about Jesus and about salvation?

Regarding the martyrs, the difference with the earliest Christian martyrs was that they had actually been there when Jesus was around, died and rose from the dead, so they not only died for their beliefs, they knew whether they were true or false.

See the part in bold? A tip from the land of the atheists: That is just about the worst thing you could think of to say to one of us.

Really?
Because, for a Christian, the bible is trustworthy and has "authority".
So it would be like saying, "we believe that Einstein said this and believed that because the Encyclopedia says so".

See what I mean?

[Audie]

Welcome CW.

I agree with many things that you've said and many certainly help to reassure those of us Christians who believe in the truth of Scripture.

Something I learnt long ago and caused me much disappointment was my own attempts to justify Scripture and use it as an apologetic.
I fell flat on my face many times debating to truth of Scripture with non-Christians -- not because I couldn't rebuff what they said, but rather because it didn't make a difference to them. BUT, I did learn much so I gained personally.

Certainly defend parts when challenged, but there is a blindness that needs to first be cured before Scripture even has an allure.
That blindness is something that can only be cured in Christ. Then everything else starts falling into place and becoming evident although not all things.

So really, the one thing I'd say to a non-Christian who asks.
Is that I respect Scripture as truth because Christ did.
Simple as that. It directs attention to what is most important -- Christ Himself.
And really, my reason simply boils down my faith in Christ and not necessarily rational arguments.

The Bible is deep down the basis of our faith however. We believe things because the Bible says them. I can't say that I'd had an experience of Christ before I became a Christian but (this was at the age of 12 or so) I believed the Bible was true because I'd been taken to church when I was younger and then I believed what a children's gospel correspondence course said because it was based on the Bible. What I didn't have at the time was the evidence for the Bible actually being true - something I've become more interested in in recent years. If people think a lot of the Bible is fiction, why would they believe what it says about Jesus and about salvation?

Regarding the martyrs, the difference with the earliest Christian martyrs was that they had actually been there when Jesus was around, died and rose from the dead, so they not only died for their beliefs, they knew whether they were true or false.

See the part in bold? A tip from the land of the atheists: That is just about the worst thing you could think of to say to one of us.

Only to the closed minded atheists. Those who aren't willing to see if there's a reason why we believe the bible is reliable.

Good, good, ignore it, and make up more things about people you dont know.

And I see you are back to name calling, but this time being underhanded about it. Why dont you put your real thoughts out there in bold font, as would be the courageous thing.