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?

[DBMJ]

I am glad that you admit that this reason is subjective. You will forgive those of us who do not share your subjective opinion.

Of course. At the same time I would remind you that subjectivity pervades everyone's beliefs, not just mine. The fact that we disagree about so much tells me that we are not just objective knowledge receptors, but subjective opinion processors. I don't mean to suggest that reality itself is subjective, only that human beings cannot really know any truth unless they are also willing to believe it. I can believe without knowing, but I cannot know without believing. Neither can you. "Knowledge is true opinion," as Plato put it.

Does it really make intuitive sense that the all-knowing creator of the universe would create intelligent beings, set the punishment for disobedience to eternal torment, knowing that obedience would be impossible to achieve. Then to rectify this gross injustice, become a human himself, so that the other humans could kill him thus paying the price for humanity's sin. And then this sacrifice would be only effective to the minority who believe this story? Really?

Much of what we commonly accept as true is counterintuitive, about the physical universe for example: that time is a function of gravity; that the entire universe is expanding like a balloon at an ever-accelerating rate; that light behaves as both waves and particles. Etc. But despite these and many other counterintuitions, we maintain our more basic intuition that the universe exists. If we grant that counterintuitive truths obtain in the natural universe, shouldn't we expect a few in the spiritual-theological realm?

Now to your question: I would have to agree that many particular tenets of New Testament theology are not immediately intuitive or commonsensical. That's why we call it revelation – as in, something not otherwise to be humanly expected or understood. Does everything you mentioned above make sense to the human mind, or as Paul calls it, the "natural" mind? No. Does it make sense that a revelation from God would probably not make immediate sense to the human mind in the first place? Yes.

Yes the writers were intelligent and male. But there is no reason to presume good faith. The writers of the Gospels, for example, were writing with the express purpose of convincing their readers that Jesus of Nazareth who died decades prior to their writing, was the Messiah promised by the Jewish prophets.

Of course they were writing with an express purpose. Otherwise they would not have written anything at all. Are you suggesting that the very act of promulgating a message must be done in bad faith? (Be careful how you answer: It could undermine everything you've said to this point.)

They ripped passages of scripture out of context and distorted their meanings in order to make their case.

I think you may be confusing poetic license with something far more insidious and ill-advised. It's not like the Old Testament was some obscure reference no one would bother to examine upon reading citations in the New.

Paul, who claims authority because of a vision and not having actually met Jesus alive, disagrees publicly with Jesus' own followers and apostles, teaching contrary to Jesus that the law had been set aside for Christians.

That's a decidedly uncharitable reading of all the named parties. By similar proof-texting methods I could argue that Nietzsche was a theist and Darwin a creationist.

Jesus said the he came to fulfill the law. Paul said that faith in Christ fulfills the law. Hardly contradictory. And for what it's worth, Paul claims to have been visited personally by the resurrected Jesus and to have had a rather unpleasant conversation with him. The presence and message of Jesus made such an impact on Paul that he turned from actively persecuting the church to becoming its most famous spokesman. How is that not meeting Jesus alive?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 258 by DBMJ]

We know that there were stars before the Earth was formed and land animals before birds.

[McCulloch]

Anybody else willing to share their reasons for believing in the Bible?

The news.

Human nature.

Math.

DNA.

Reality.

Could you be a bit more specific in your reasons please?

• The news.
  I am entirely unaware that there is anything in the news that validates the Bible.
• Human nature.
  I will grant that many of the writers of the Bible had some insight into aspects of human nature. That does not validate the rest of what they wrote.
• Math.
  I am completely and utterly unaware of any mathematical proof attesting to the truth of the Bible, and I did major in Mathematics at university. Perhaps something has been published recently?
• DNA.
  I have read the entire Bible. I must have missed the bit where DNA is mentioned. Please clarify. DNA is the biochemical molecule responsible for passing on inherited traits. The existence of DNA validates Darwininian evolution over Lamarckian inheritance. The Genesis account of the Fall and our inherited sinful nature seems to support the now discredited idea of Lamarckian inheritance.
• Reality.
  Oh, really?

[McCulloch]

Apart from the revelation of Scripture, what we know about the origins of the universe and life can be boiled down to this:

Very little.

Our scientific extrapolations may plausibly take us back to very near the physical emergence of the universe, yes, and on that there seems to be a consensus. The emergence event itself remains of necessity unreachable by science. Given that investigation of any sort requires a universe, the origin of the universe itself cannot be investigated even in principle. Without a complete and coherent naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe, though, the Christian doctrine of creation remains untroubled by naturalistic views of cosmology.

In other words, until the scientists have a complete understanding, the Christians are validated in inserting their God into any and all of our gaps in understanding, regardless of the fact that the alleged revelation from that God contradict our understanding of what did happen.

Theories of abiogenesis, on the other hand, abound precisely because there is not a consensus on how life could have begun without a "jump-start" courtesy of divine agency. The way I see it, abiogenesis theorizing is so much special pleading by naturalists against nature's own disclosures, chiefly the law of biogenesis.

Everyone on both sides of the fence agree that abiogenesis happened. We all agree that at one time there was no life on Earth and that now there is life. Something must have happened to get life started. Scientists are looking for an explanation for this event that is consistent with what we already know about biology, chemistry, geology and physics. Believers in the Genesis account, want to attribute this event to a supernatural intervention and dismiss some of what we know about biology, chemistry, geology and physics. Which is the more rational approach?

I remain duly impressed by the fact that two of the biggest mysteries confronting science just happen to correspond with two of the biggest miracles in the Bible.

I also remain unimpressed that two of the historically greatest scientific mysteries are explained away by miraculous intervention in many of humanity's religious myths, including Genesis.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 259 by 99percentatheism]

Speaking of math there are several suspiciously large population figures given in the Old Testament and contadictions on these numbers between Kings and Chronicles.

[McCulloch]

I am glad that you admit that this reason is subjective. You will forgive those of us who do not share your subjective opinion.

Of course. At the same time I would remind you that subjectivity pervades everyone's beliefs, not just mine. The fact that we disagree about so much tells me that we are not just objective knowledge receptors, but subjective opinion processors. I don't mean to suggest that reality itself is subjective, only that human beings cannot really know any truth unless they are also willing to believe it. I can believe without knowing, but I cannot know without believing. Neither can you. "Knowledge is true opinion," as Plato put it.

We are all under the influence of our own subjectivity, but that is no reason to abandon the struggle to get to know the objective truth, to recognize our own biases and attempt to counteract them. Debate, having to defend one's ideas against those who disagree, is an important part of that process.

Does it really make intuitive sense that the all-knowing creator of the universe would create intelligent beings, set the punishment for disobedience to eternal torment, knowing that obedience would be impossible to achieve. Then to rectify this gross injustice, become a human himself, so that the other humans could kill him thus paying the price for humanity's sin. And then this sacrifice would be only effective to the minority who believe this story? Really?

Much of what we commonly accept as true is counterintuitive, about the physical universe for example: that time is a function of gravity; that the entire universe is expanding like a balloon at an ever-accelerating rate; that light behaves as both waves and particles. Etc. But despite these and many other counterintuitions, we maintain our more basic intuition that the universe exists. If we grant that counterintuitive truths obtain in the natural universe, shouldn't we expect a few in the spiritual-theological realm?

Of course there is much truth which is counterintuitive. However, one should only accept that which is counterintuitive by the force of convincing evidence and reasoning. I don't know what you mean by the spiritual-theological realm, what is that? Is there any convincing evidence that anyone can even speak with authority and validity about such a realm?

Now to your question: I would have to agree that many particular tenets of New Testament theology are not immediately intuitive or commonsensical. That's why we call it revelation – as in, something not otherwise to be humanly expected or understood. Does everything you mentioned above make sense to the human mind, or as Paul calls it, the "natural" mind? No. Does it make sense that a revelation from God would probably not make immediate sense to the human mind in the first place? Yes.

Yes, but the more I read theology and study it, the less sense it makes. And with no justification or evidence driving its conclusions.

Yes the writers were intelligent and male. But there is no reason to presume good faith. The writers of the Gospels, for example, were writing with the express purpose of convincing their readers that Jesus of Nazareth who died decades prior to their writing, was the Messiah promised by the Jewish prophets.

Of course they were writing with an express purpose. Otherwise they would not have written anything at all. Are you suggesting that the very act of promulgating a message must be done in bad faith? (Be careful how you answer: It could undermine everything you've said to this point.)

One should try to read every record with as much of an understanding of the biases and the motivations of the writers as one can. As I said, I see no reason to presume good faith on the part of the writers of the New Testament. I try not to presume bad faith either.

They ripped passages of scripture out of context and distorted their meanings in order to make their case.

I think you may be confusing poetic license with something far more insidious and ill-advised. It's not like the Old Testament was some obscure reference no one would bother to examine upon reading citations in the New.

[font=Georgia]Then the Jews, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), asked Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away. So the soldiers came, and broke the legs of the first man and of the other who was crucified with Him; but coming to Jesus, when they saw that He was already dead, they did not break His legs. But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out. And he who has seen has testified, and his testimony is true; and he knows that he is telling the truth, so that you also may believe. For these things came to pass to fulfill the Scripture, “Not a bone of Him shall be broken.� And again another Scripture says, “They shall look on Him whom they pierced.�
[/font]

The first bit may be in reference to Exodus 12:46 or Numbers 9:12, instructions regarding the Passover. A bit which, up to that point, no one had seen as being prophetic and when read in context cannot be viewed that way without disregarding the obvious intent of the authors. Or it could be in reference to Psalm 34 which speaks to God's protection of the righteous, not to let them be harmed nor killed by evildoers and the wicked. Hardly an apt reference considering what had just happened.
The second bit may be in reference to Zechariah 12. Read the context. Does this sound at all like a prophetic reference to a slain messiah?

[font=Georgia]
The burden of the word of the Lord concerning Israel.

Thus declares the Lord who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him, “Behold, I am going to make Jerusalem a cup that causes reeling to all the peoples around; and when the siege is against Jerusalem, it will also be against Judah. It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it. In that day,� declares the Lord, “I will strike every horse with bewilderment and his rider with madness. But I will watch over the house of Judah, while I strike every horse of the peoples with blindness. Then the clans of Judah will say in their hearts, ‘A strong support for us are the inhabitants of Jerusalem through the Lord of hosts, their God.’

“In that day I will make the clans of Judah like a firepot among pieces of wood and a flaming torch among sheaves, so they will consume on the right hand and on the left all the surrounding peoples, while the inhabitants of Jerusalem again dwell on their own sites in Jerusalem. The Lord also will save the tents of Judah first, so that the glory of the house of David and the glory of the inhabitants of Jerusalem will not be magnified above Judah. In that day the Lord will defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the one who is feeble among them in that day will be like David, and the house of David will be like God, like the angel of the Lord before them. And in that day I will set about to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

“I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only son, and they will weep bitterly over Him like the bitter weeping over a firstborn. In that day there will be great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning of Hadadrimmon in the plain of Megiddo. The land will mourn, every family by itself; the family of the house of David by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Levi by itself and their wives by themselves; the family of the Shimeites by itself and their wives by themselves; all the families that remain, every family by itself and their wives by themselves.
[/font]

Poetic license indeed!

Paul, who claims authority because of a vision and not having actually met Jesus alive, disagrees publicly with Jesus' own followers and apostles, teaching contrary to Jesus that the law had been set aside for Christians.

That's a decidedly uncharitable reading of all the named parties. By similar proof-texting methods I could argue that Nietzsche was a theist and Darwin a creationist.

Jesus said the he came to fulfill the law. Paul said that faith in Christ fulfills the law. Hardly contradictory. And for what it's worth, Paul claims to have been visited personally by the resurrected Jesus and to have had a rather unpleasant conversation with him. The presence and message of Jesus made such an impact on Paul that he turned from actively persecuting the church to becoming its most famous spokesman. How is that not meeting Jesus alive?

Jesus told his followers to obey the Law, not just the letter but the spirit of the law. Jesus said that not one bit of the Law would pass away. Jesus is not ever recorded as even hinting at the idea that the Law would be set aside for his followers. Paul, on the other hand, teaches that Christ's fulfilling the Law somehow releases his followers from their responsibility to obey it. In any legal sense that is totally absurd. Fred pays my parking tickets for me, so it is OK for me to park in front of a fire hydrant. Jesus paid the price for my disobedience to, among others, the Sabbath law (third or fourth of the ten commandments depending on how you count them). Therefore, I no longer am obligated to observe the Sabbath. Right? Substitute eating meat sacrificed to idols, homosexual behavior, bacon cheeseburger, mixed fabric or any other particular law. Does that make sense to you?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 236 by dianaiad]

Danaiad, before I stopped attending church I took an institute class on the Old Testament. Reading the violence and genocide commanded by God, and hearing members try to justify this made me feel sick inside. Could this be the Spirit telling me the Bible is not the word of God?

[DBMJ]

We are all under the influence of our own subjectivity, but that is no reason to abandon the struggle to get to know the objective truth, to recognize our own biases and attempt to counteract them. Debate, having to defend one's ideas against those who disagree, is an important part of that process.

That sounds quite reasonable and even noble on the face of it. But again, how can one possibly "get to know" the objective truth and at the same time consciously counteract one's own tendency to accept it as such? Or how can one defend a proposition apart from some commitment to its truth? (Note that most formal debates begin with, "Resolved…) I mean, it's not like I'm arbitrarily biased toward theism even though I hold it to be false or without sufficient rational justification. To the contrary I have a strong bias toward what I believe to be true precisely because I believe it to be true. I am unbiased only about that which I do not already have good reasons to hold an opinion.

For me, then, the enemy is not bias but falsehood. The difference is subtle but important: If I try to rid myself of any and all bias I may inadvertently jettison any number of rationally justified beliefs. If I try instead to continually affirm truth and reject falsehood, I can remain reasonably sure that my biases are rationally justified.

Of course there is much truth which is counterintuitive. However, one should only accept that which is counterintuitive by the force of convincing evidence and reasoning.

Okay, but consistency would then require one to approach the evidence and reasons for the resurrection of Jesus, say, or fine-tuning of the universe without the constraint of a skeptical intuition.

I don't know what you mean by the spiritual-theological realm, what is that? Is there any convincing evidence that anyone can even speak with authority and validity about such a realm?

Good question. I would say that some measure of tentative belief, or at minimum a benefit of a doubt, has to be in place to even recognize evidence as such. Think of the Christian faith as a sort of religious hypothesis. Facts, fossils, objects in motion, and the like, all mean next to nothing for theoretical science apart from the hypotheses and theories which incorporate them. If I think the whole idea of evolution from a common ancestor to be patently absurd, for example, then phylogenetic nested hierarchies or speciation events will not convince me otherwise. In the same way my appeal to evidence for the resurrection or fulfilled prophecy is destined to lead you nowhere if you have already decided that the very idea of a nature-transcending God is nonsense.

Yes, but the more I read theology and study it, the less sense it makes. And with no justification or evidence driving its conclusions.

We have already agreed that what constitutes evidence and justification here is largely subjective. That may explain why countless highly intelligent philosophers and theologians would disagree with you on this point.

One should try to read every record with as much of an understanding of the biases and the motivations of the writers as one can. As I said, I see no reason to presume good faith on the part of the writers of the New Testament. I try not to presume bad faith either.

That's balanced, at least – perhaps too balanced. As a believer in democratically-derived jurisprudence I would go a bit further and suggest that we should presume the NT writers innocent of bad faith until proven guilty.

Jesus told his followers to obey the Law, not just the letter but the spirit of the law. Jesus said that not one bit of the Law would pass away. Jesus is not ever recorded as even hinting at the idea that the Law would be set aside for his followers.

Sure he did. He deliberately led his followers to eat grain on the Sabbath, explained that "the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath," healed the sick and rescued trapped animals on the Sabbath, and then declared himself to be Lord of the Sabbath. He offered extended critiques of ceremonial hand-washing ordinances, dress regulations and tithing obligations observed at the expense of the "weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith."

Paul, on the other hand, teaches that Christ's fulfilling the Law somehow releases his followers from their responsibility to obey it. In any legal sense that is totally absurd. Fred pays my parking tickets for me, so it is OK for me to park in front of a fire hydrant. Jesus paid the price for my disobedience to, among others, the Sabbath law (third or fourth of the ten commandments depending on how you count them). Therefore, I no longer am obligated to observe the Sabbath. Right? Substitute eating meat sacrificed to idols, homosexual behavior, bacon cheeseburger, mixed fabric or any other particular law. Does that make sense to you?

No, but only because you have confused the moral law with the ceremonial law, and confused the practice of the law with the purpose of the law. When a practicing Jew under the Old Covenant refused to eat pork he was reminded that God called him to be set apart from the immorality and idolatry of surrounding nations. So he was also encouraged to be pure and to worship God alone. At the same time, when he consistently failed to be pure and to worship God alone, he was reminded of a yet deeper truth: that his attempts at holiness were ultimately destined to fall short.

Paul picks up on this latter self-evident truth ("all have sinned and fall short of God's glory") and runs with it, especially in Romans and Galatians. In the process he repudiates antinomianism in resounding terms. Paul explained that the higher purpose of the moral law, ironically enough, was to demonstrate the moral weakness of men. The law, he said, was our "tutor" to lead us to Christ. The strong evidence of universal human depravity leads us to "repent and believe the gospel," as Jesus said. We thus apprehend Christ, and Christ's righteousness, by faith. This new life of faith under the power of the Spirit inspires us and enables us to be "crucified with Christ" – to abandon our love for the world and put to death the desires and deeds of the flesh.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 264 by help3434]

And of course math is also a good reason to reject the Noah's Arc story. All of those animals wouldn't have been able to fit on the ark, much less live on it.

[TheTruth101]

Anybody else willing to share their reasons for believing in the Bible?

Because the Bible is the truth and the word.