Non-Circular reasons for believing in the Bible.

[help3434]

I often see people quote Bible verses about scripture when asked why they believe in the Bible. Of course arguing that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true is circular. Are there any non-circular reasons for believing in the Bible?

[Peter]

but He WAS listened to, directly, by quite a number of people, who wrote down what He had to say.

Wasn't it like 40 years later before anything was written down? That seems like a big problem if you want to believe the written record is accurate. 40 years of storytelling will have a major negative effect on accuracy.

Can, if you aren't dealing with an oral culture. Of course, the culture Jesus was dealing with wasn't strictly that, but the folks He spoke to the most WERE immersed in oral traditions. So it's not a great stretch to figure that an oral account would be accurate within the lifetime of the hearer. As well....well, let's put it this way. I have several family diaries recording the daily lives of three polygamous families. They are day to day accounts from the women in those families, written at the time. If I published them now, would future critics say that they couldn't possibly be accurate because they were 'written' (by me) a hundred and fifty years later?

The point is, that we first know about them considerably after the events, or 'written down' for public consumption, is no guarantee...or even real evidence...that their sources are not accurate, or even written down themselves. It's not proof that those sources WERE accurate, either...by the same token, and that's the problem everybody has to deal with.

An oral culture in that very few people knew how to read or write. I'm not sure that mitigates the problem. Let's say that the typical person then was twice as good at remembering a story compared to people today. That's still 40 years of chances to get the story wrong and sometimes strong motivation to get the story wrong or just flatly make it up. So on the whole I would still have to remain highly skeptical of even the first writings about Jesus let alone those that came later.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 166 by dianaiad]

You are getting Aristotle mixed up with Socrates. Aristotle was taught by Plato and wrote quite a bit. Socrates taught Plato, and we don't have any written work of Socrates'.

[dianaiad]

but He WAS listened to, directly, by quite a number of people, who wrote down what He had to say.

Wasn't it like 40 years later before anything was written down? That seems like a big problem if you want to believe the written record is accurate. 40 years of storytelling will have a major negative effect on accuracy.

Can, if you aren't dealing with an oral culture. Of course, the culture Jesus was dealing with wasn't strictly that, but the folks He spoke to the most WERE immersed in oral traditions. So it's not a great stretch to figure that an oral account would be accurate within the lifetime of the hearer. As well....well, let's put it this way. I have several family diaries recording the daily lives of three polygamous families. They are day to day accounts from the women in those families, written at the time. If I published them now, would future critics say that they couldn't possibly be accurate because they were 'written' (by me) a hundred and fifty years later?

The point is, that we first know about them considerably after the events, or 'written down' for public consumption, is no guarantee...or even real evidence...that their sources are not accurate, or even written down themselves. It's not proof that those sources WERE accurate, either...by the same token, and that's the problem everybody has to deal with.

An oral culture in that very few people knew how to read or write. I'm not sure that mitigates the problem. Let's say that the typical person then was twice as good at remembering a story compared to people today. That's still 40 years of chances to get the story wrong and sometimes strong motivation to get the story wrong or just flatly make it up. So on the whole I would still have to remain highly skeptical of even the first writings about Jesus let alone those that came later.

Peter, I'm a linguistics student, and have studied literature, with some emphasis on oral cultures. The thing is, the story keepers of those cultures aren't twice as good at remembering a story compared to people to day. They were many, many times better. They had to be. Yes, stories changed...but not nearly to the extent we would expect, given that WE are the product of centuries of written records.

I would not expect you to be anything but a skeptic...but please don't be skeptical for the wrong reasons. MY problem with these stories isn't so much that they weren't written down immediately, but that those that DID had their writings modified by the scribes that came after them. As well, we have problems in what was selected to include in the final 'bible,' ..and who selected them.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 166 by dianaiad]

You are getting Aristotle mixed up with Socrates. Aristotle was taught by Plato and wrote quite a bit. Socrates taught Plato, and we don't have any written work of Socrates'.

You are quite correct. Brain fade. Chemo brain. Senior moment. Idiot instant. (blush)

[help3434]

No one has brought up any new non-circular reasons for believing in the Bible for a while. Have people given up?

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 166 by dianaiad]

You are getting Aristotle mixed up with Socrates. Aristotle was taught by Plato and wrote quite a bit. Socrates taught Plato, and we don't have any written work of Socrates'.

You are quite correct. Brain fade. Chemo brain. Senior moment. Idiot instant. (blush)

I'm with you. I can't remember which is which when it comes to Locke, Hobbes, and all those political philosophers...

[Dantalion]

We should redirect our focus back to Theodore A. Jones.
It really sounded as if he had something groundbreaking to say.

[dianaiad]

No one has brought up any new non-circular reasons for believing in the Bible for a while. Have people given up?

What possible 'non-circular' reason can there BE for believing in the bible (or anything that claims to have a divine origin) but the one I brought up?

If that's the only real way to do it, then how many times must it be said, to populate the thread?

But, just because...

The only way to confirm the divine origin of scripture...including the bible...is to get independent confirmation from the deity involved, in a manner apart from the words of the scripture being considered.

Basically, ask the deity and get an answer. That is usually done through prayer and the response to prayer, whatever that is.

If you want independent confirmation of non-divine aspects of scripture, such as geography, confirmed historical events or the like, then archeology and independent accounts will work. Except....those do not address the divine, scriptural nature of any work.

I do have a problem with:

God exists because
the bible says so
The bible is true because
God wrote it.

That is an example of circular reasoning used a LOT in explanations of logical fallacies, and quite rightly.

The way to solve it...the ONLY way to solve it, is to rewrite it:

The bible is scripture
Because I asked God and
He told me He did.

EXACTLY like saying:

The author of "Twilight" is listed as Stephanie Meyer
This is true because
I asked her and she confirmed it.

But you do have to actually ask Him. Most people don't, for various reasons.

[Dantalion]

No one has brought up any new non-circular reasons for believing in the Bible for a while. Have people given up?

What possible 'non-circular' reason can there BE for believing in the bible (or anything that claims to have a divine origin) but the one I brought up?

If that's the only real way to do it, then how many times must it be said, to populate the thread?

But, just because...

The only way to confirm the divine origin of scripture...including the bible...is to get independent confirmation from the deity involved, in a manner apart from the words of the scripture being considered.

Basically, ask the deity and get an answer. That is usually done through prayer and the response to prayer, whatever that is.

If you want independent confirmation of non-divine aspects of scripture, such as geography, confirmed historical events or the like, then archeology and independent accounts will work. Except....those do not address the divine, scriptural nature of any work.

I do have a problem with:

God exists because
the bible says so
The bible is true because
God wrote it.

That is an example of circular reasoning used a LOT in explanations of logical fallacies, and quite rightly.

The way to solve it...the ONLY way to solve it, is to rewrite it:

The bible is scripture
Because I asked God and
He told me He did.

EXACTLY like saying:

The author of "Twilight" is listed as Stephanie Meyer
This is true because
I asked her and she confirmed it.

But you do have to actually ask Him. Most people don't, for various reasons.

Can't ask somebody/something I don't think exists.
Well, I CAN, and at this very moment I did, but no one's answering my call.
Ofc I choose not to interpret absolute silence as a sign from above

[dianaiad]

Can't ask somebody/something I don't think exists.

Sure you can.

Well, I CAN, and at this very moment I did, but no one's answering my call.
Ofc I choose not to interpret absolute silence as a sign from above

Well, you do have to be a little serious about it.

Perhaps put as much effort as you would getting the phone number of someone you don't know and actually dialing it to see if that person will answer.

At least that level of serious.


Not that you have to believe God exists....just that if He does, AND He has promised to answer you if you do this and such, that He will probably keep his promise. That level of 'serious.' Not a throw away yell at the blue sky not only knowing that there won't be an answer, deliberately blocking any hint of one; Be serious.

So it's an experiment. You might feel incredibly silly. So what? You'll live through that and nobody needs to know but you, after all.