Question:
I know this topic has probably come up a thousand times in this forum, but apparenlty I've never heard any really convincing arguments, or they didn't sink in, because I'm still having trouble with it.

This is something I've been struggling with for years, first as a Methodist, then after leaving Christianity and coming back a half-year later, as a Catholic.

After reading some things that God did on the Old Testament (the indiscriminate genocide of infants, for example) it really made me think... would an all-loving God really do that? How do we know the Bible really is what people say it is (the inspired, inerrant Word of God)?

I've observed that most Christians in my own family never question the Bible at all, and they believe in it simply because that's what they've always been taught. The Bible is the Word of God because... that's what it is!

That kind of blind faith does not make sense to me, because if we believe in the Bible simply because that's what we've always been taught, then how are we any different from, say, a Muslim who believes that the Quran is the Word of God because that's what he's always been taught?


This isn't a new question for me... at one time I left Christianity because I couldn't make myself believe that the Bible was the Word of God. When I came back to Christianity, it was to Catholicism, and that allowed me to fall back on Catholic Tradition; I believed that Scripture must be interpreted within the context of the Sacred Tradition. That convinced me for a while, but now I'm wondering how do I know that Tradition is what the Church says it is? Because the Church says so? And where does the Church get authority, if not from Scripture and Tradition? So it's beginning to look like one big elaborate circular argument to me. Hopefully I'm mistaken.

Peace, everyone
Answer:
After reading some things that God did on the Old Testament (the indiscriminate genocide of infants, for example) it really made me thing... would an all-loving God really do that? How do we know the Bible really is what people say it is (the inspired, inerrant Word of God)? I guess that you will have to define all-loving. God also has qualities such as wrath and jealousy. I don't think that it is right for us to put any limitations on God ethical or otherwise. God is the creator. God can do what he wants as he told Israel.
Jeremiah 18[1] The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
[2] Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
[3] Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
[4] And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
[5] Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
[6] O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
[7] At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

I think that people probably worry about death and the physical world a lot more that God. We are all going to die anyway. It is what happens with the soul that is important.
I've observed that most Christians in my own family never question the Bible at all, and they believe in it simply because that's what they've always been taught. The Bible is the Word of God because... that's what it is!
That kind of blind faith does not make sense to me, because if we believe in the Bible simply because that's what we've always been taught, then how are we any different from, say, a Muslim who believes that the Quran is the Word of God because that's what he's always been taught?
I know that I've mentioned this before and it isn't what you want to hear, but as Christians we have the Holy Spirit.
Answer:
I’m not sure if I could answer your question but I will try.
Proving the bible is the word of God to me is irrelevant. (my opinion). I’ve struggled with many questions about the bible, what science says, the church, and even what individual people say. Many people, including the church (any one of them) could come up with answers to my questions and they would support it with scripture and some times their answers would either terrify me or cause doubts, lots of doubts. I set out to seek the truth by reading the bible from cover to cover for myself. The first time around I had many questions and not a lot of answers. Upon the second and third time in reading it a holistic picture started playing out in front of me. A joyful, peaceful and fulfilling life for me depended on my obeying God’s word, no matter what he says. I still have questions and concerns but my hope is in God and trusting in him keeps me sane.
I’ve found that men don’t know everything. Tradition, be it church or family tradition, takes second place to God’s word. Jesus is my foundation and his love letter to me is my guide, MY BLUEPRINT, his Spirit was given to me when I received Christ as Saviour to guide me as well as his word. He will lead me into all truth. What is found in the Bible helps me live a healthy and fulfilling life. Many times, things in the bible are proven by Doctors or Science and this comes as an added bonus to me.
Eg
1 Isaiah 40:22
It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:
Speaks of God sitting on the Circle of the earth. The bible was written long before the earth was thought to be round (or a sphere if I want to be politically correct). Some would through that out because it uses the word circle but I say it’s just semantics.
Doctors a few years ago (maybe 100) did not wash their hands when dealing with several patients. When they started doing this the washed their hands in a basin of water and the death rate of patients increased. In Leviticus it talks about washing in running water to be purified.
2 Leviticus 15:13
And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.
When the Doctors started doing this their success rate increased. I know those are simple things but to me they mean a whole lot.
The bible has been around for thousands of years and many have come to try to destroy it and get rid of it and have not succeeded and they never will.
I’ve read what is in the bible and looked at some (not all ) of what is out there and I’m standing by the Jehovah and the bible. Not any Church. It is important to congregate but that is not my foundation.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Reedolo This isn't a new question for me... at one time I left Christianity because I couldn't make myself believe that the Bible was the Word of God. When I came back to Christianity, it was to Catholicism, and that allowed me to fall back on Catholic Tradition; I believed that Scripture must be interpreted within the context of the Sacred Tradition. That convinced me for a while, but now I'm wondering how do I know that Tradition is what the Church says it is? Because the Church says so? And where does the Church get authority, if not from Scripture and Tradition? So it's beginning to look like one elaborate circular argument to me. Hopefully I'm mistaken.
What do you mean by "prove"? Prove it empirically? Prove it rationally?
Answer:
Honestly, any attempt to do this will be circular. The Bibles claims about itself are what this doctrine is based on. (2 Tim 3 for example)
But ultimately, what standard of proof could determine the Bible's authenticity empirically?
There is a reason Christianity takes faith like a child, not proof like a scientist.
Answer:
Originally Posted by tlj009 I guess that you will have to define all-loving. God also has qualities such as wrath and jealousy. I don't think that it is right for us to put any limitations on God ethical or otherwise. God is the creator. God can do what he wants as he told Israel.
Jeremiah 18[1] The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
[2] Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
[3] Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
[4] And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
[5] Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
[6] O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
[7] At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

I think that people probably worry about death and the physical world a lot more that God. We are all going to die anyway. It is what happens with the soul that is important.
But still, it's wrong to kill. How could the same God who in the Old Testament ordered the israelites to kill infant and suckling also be the same one who in the New Testament said that he loved children and said "hinder not these little ones from coming to me, for the Kingdom of God is made of such as these".
Another question I guess that leads to is: can God do evil? We know from our conscience that killing babies is evil. So would it still be evil if God did it?
Also, I think you're missing my main question. Why believe in the Bible at all? What reason is there to assume that it is the Word of God?
I know that I've mentioned this before and it isn't what you want to hear, but as Christians we have the Holy Spirit.
Are you trying to say that Christians know that the Bible is God's Word because the Holy Spirit tells them so? That doesn't mean anything, because by that same logic anyone could make some extraordinary claim and say that a spirit is telling them so. I'm looking for real, objective evidence here.
Answer:
Originally Posted by acrossthesirion What do you mean by "prove"? Prove it empirically? Prove it rationally?
Either one, I guess. ?
Answer:
Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq Honestly, any attempt to do this will be circular. The Bibles claims about itself are what this doctrine is based on. (2 Tim 3 for example)
But ultimately, what standard of proof could determine the Bible's authenticity empirically?
There is a reason Christianity takes faith like a child, not proof like a scientist.
If that's the case, then why have childlike faith in Christianity? Why not have childlike faith in Islam, or Buddhism, or one of thoe gods or goddesses of paganism?
What I'm trying to say is: how can someone be punished or actually tortured for all eternity for failing to believe in something that has no evidence or proof? How do you know you won't go to Muslim Hell for failing to believe in Islam?
Childlike faith isn't good enough. There has to be a real reason for believing what we believe, or else we can never be sure of anything, and all we can do is pick a random made-up religion and hope we picked the right one, or else we might go to some Hell for eternity for not picking the right religion, or maybe be reincarnated or reborn if Hinduism or Buddhism happen to be right.
Does that make any sense?
Answer:
Originally Posted by Reedolo Childlike faith isn't good enough. There has to be a real reason for believing what we believe, or else we can never be sure of anything, and all we can do is pick a random made-up religion and hope we picked the right one, or else we might go to some Hell for eternity for not picking the right religion, or maybe be reincarnated or reborn if Hinduism or Buddhism happen to be right.
Does that make any sense?
There are reasons to believe Christianity, but not proofs. It sounds like you want to remove faith from the equation here. There isn't a way to do that.
Answer:
Originally Posted by Reedolo What I'm trying to say is: how can someone be punished or actually tortured for all eternity for failing to believe in something that has no evidence or proof? You seem to be switching back and fourth between two extremes. You want absolutely certain proof, and you're claiming there is absolutely no evidence. First off, there is evidense and there are reasons to believe. Second, if things were absolutely certain, then faith would be completely removed from the situation.
What emperical evidence do you have that emperical evidence and rational thought are your ultimate burdon of proof?
Answer:
Hey Reed,
I know this is probably not very helpful, but there's a really good book that I've just finished reading which tackles the whole question of "proof", "reason", "faith", "absolute truth", etc, all in the context of pluralism and modernism/postmodernism... To top it off, the guy makes a big deal out of tradition and God's establishment of a people, not just a Book. He's not Catholic (not that there's anything wrong with that ), but I think that you'd respect his position that side of the issue...
It's called The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, by Lesslie Newbigin, and I'd highly recommend it! Just reading it made me feel a lot more confident that my faith in God, his Word and his People was well placed (or at least not any worse placed than anyone else's faith)
On a more personal / less "promotional" note, I know how ya feel here, man. Really well. And I'm praying that God will sustain you, strengthen you and reveal himself to you in the midst of all these questions. I know from experience that some questions he just will not answer (yet, anyway), but that doesn't mean that he is far from you while you are wrestling with coming to grips with them... Bless ya
In Christ
-- Nathan
Answer:
Originally Posted by Reedolo Either one, I guess. ?
Empirically there's not a way. Rationally, any appeal to an ultimate authority must be circular, other wise your putting something above you're purposed authority to judge it. Although now I wish I was more versed in transcendental arguments as the may or may not have a purpose here.
Answer:
And another couple cents from me...
Originally Posted by Reedolo If that's the case, then why have childlike faith in Christianity? Why not have childlike faith in Islam, or Buddhism, or one of thoe gods or goddesses of paganism?
That's a good question. And for me it comes down to "which worldview makes more sense of the world?"

• Which of these worldviews is internally consistent?
  
• Which fits with what my eyes see and my ears hear, and the basic notions which almost everybody in the world takes for granted (ie: "right and wrong / conscience", "justice" or "beauty")?
  
• Which of these is backed up by historical events, and a continuing community whose faith and actions have remained the same for centuries and have been a voice of radical change in hearts, minds and actions in the entire world?

Originally Posted by Reedolo What I'm trying to say is: how can someone be punished or actually tortured for all eternity for failing to believe in something that has no evidence or proof? How do you know you won't go to Muslim Hell for failing to believe in Islam?
Childlike faith isn't good enough. There has to be a real reason for believing what we believe, or else we can never be sure of anything, and all we can do is pick a random made-up religion and hope we picked the right one, or else we might go to some Hell for eternity for not picking the right religion, or maybe be reincarnated or reborn if Hinduism or Buddhism happen to be right.
Does that make any sense?
Yeah, this does all make sense. But I think that what everyone is saying here is that there *are* real reasons. Otherwise no one would believe in it except those who are willing to check their brain at the door. But if what you are looking for are absolute "proofs" that you can point to and end all debate on the matter, then you won't find it. Another Catholic (Blaise Pascal) said it really well, actually -
"the world that we live in suggests that there is neither an obvious or an absent God, but rather a hidden God. Everything in creation bears this mark"
God has chosen not to reveal himself in all glory and all majesty to all people. Yet. Instead, "the heavens declare his glory", but in such a way that those who insist on explaining it some other way will, and the Bible declares his eternal truth in such a way that wicked men may distort and misuse it, to their own destruction. We don't have all truth at our fingertips right now. But we have enought to point us to the Source of all truth, and the Saviour of our souls.
God's revelation is a mysterious thing, as it is something which calls for both reason and faith. No sane person has faith in something which is not reasonable. But it isn't faith if it is proven without a doubt. We as Christians live in that tension between the two. And it's alright. It's OK. Seriously.
God bless ya,
-- Nate
Answer:
Originally Posted by acrossthesirion Although now I wish I was more versed in transcendental arguments as the may or may not have a purpose here.
What do ya know, TAG can be useful!
Seriously, you seem to know enough to handle yourself alright... I think that knowing *too much* of that stuff will make you less effective at talking with "real" people...
-- Nate
Answer:
Originally Posted by PartTimeLurker What do ya know, TAG can be useful! Well, it was the first thing that came to my head when I read the opening post, but I've never heard it used in this way. Although, I would be interested in anyone who has, it seems it might provide some benefits, at least on the surface.
Originally Posted by PartTimeLurker Seriously, you seem to know enough to handle yourself alright... I think that knowing *too much* of that stuff will make you less effective at talking with "real" people... I understand the idea of TAG at least, but when it comes to actually using it I'm pretty much lost.