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?

[McCulloch]

Prayer. Ask God if He inspired it [the Bible].

I did. Still waiting for a response. :sleep:

OK.

I'm not going to tell you that you 'did it wrong,' or anything else. I'm just saying that this is the only way one CAN find out. Think about it a bit.

Well, I hope not. You mean that the only way I can know if Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice is to ask her? She is dead and not taking any calls, yet we can know that she wrote that novel.

Now I could get snarky and use a radio metaphor here. You know the one....in order to broadcast and receive information, there must be both a working broadcast AND a working receiver....and the guy listening to the radio needs to understand what he's listening to?

I appreciate that you did not get snarky and use that very flawed metaphor. Because then I would have to point out that if the broadcaster was also the designer and builder of the receiver, it would be his fault if the message did not get through. So thank you for not raising that and helping us both avoid being snarky.

I'm simply making a logical argument here; if the only way to authenticate a writing attributable to a living author is to ASK the suspected author, (and in fact, it is....) then why wouldn't the only way to authenticate a book supposedly divinely inspired be to ask the Guy Who is supposed to have inspired it?

As I said, I have asked God in the traditional way, speaking into the empty air a message addressed to God AKA prayer. To my knowledge, he has not responded to my request. I'll let you know if he returns my call. Since he knows me perfectly well, he should be capable of composing a message that I can understand, right?

[dianaiad]

Prayer. Ask God if He inspired it [the Bible].

I did. Still waiting for a response. :sleep:

OK.

I'm not going to tell you that you 'did it wrong,' or anything else. I'm just saying that this is the only way one CAN find out. Think about it a bit.

Now I could get snarky and use a radio metaphor here. You know the one....in order to broadcast and receive information, there must be both a working broadcast AND a working receiver....and the guy listening to the radio needs to understand what he's listening to?

I could do that, and I could let you know that this is, I suspect, the cause of many a misunderstanding in this area. However, I could be wrong about that, so let that go.

I'm simply making a logical argument here; if the only way to authenticate a writing attributable to a living author is to ASK the suspected author, (and in fact, it is....) then why wouldn't the only way to authenticate a book supposedly divinely inspired be to ask the Guy Who is supposed to have inspired it?

Yes, that does mean that the existence of deity is a 'given,' of sorts, but then we aren't talking here about whether one exists. We are talking about whether Deity is responsible, in any way, for the bible.

And Occam says no. There we go, end of religious beliefs. Well done D

Occam's razor is not the correct principle to apply here, Iam.

In fact, Occam's razor isn't the all encompassing way to find truth and reason that some would prefer to think. Sometimes.....it's the complicated answer that is 'true.'

[Justin108]

Prayer. Ask God if He inspired it [the Bible].

A Christian from my high-school told me that God told him that Muhammad and Joseph Smith were two of many anti-christs to come.

a) He was lying
b) He was insane
c) Joseph Smith and Muhammad were both anti-christs

I'm guessing you disagree with c). But on what grounds can you accuse him of a) or b)? If he was insane and hearing voices, how can you be sure that you're not also insane and hearing voices? And if you say he was lying, why should I believe you but not him?

[1213]

So in Genesis 1 it sounds correct when it talks about God dividing the waters with the firmament, and about creating the stars After He as already created light, dry land, and plants?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Genesis 1:1-3

What, it doesn’t say that God created dry land before light or firmament, which probably means “continent�? Are you liar or just ignorant?

As I said, everything Bible says seems to be correct. Light can exist without stars. Planet earth was covered with water, before God formed dry land.

[Justin108]

So in Genesis 1 it sounds correct when it talks about God dividing the waters with the firmament, and about creating the stars After He as already created light, dry land, and plants?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Genesis 1:1-3

What, it doesn’t say that God created dry land before light or firmament, which probably means “continent�? Are you liar or just ignorant?

As I said, everything Bible says seems to be correct. Light can exist without stars. Planet earth was covered with water, before God formed dry land.

Light cannot exist without a source. What was the source of light before God created the sun and the stars?

[help3434]

So in Genesis 1 it sounds correct when it talks about God dividing the waters with the firmament, and about creating the stars After He as already created light, dry land, and plants?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Genesis 1:1-3

What, it doesn’t say that God created dry land before light or firmament, which probably means “continent�? Are you liar or just ignorant?

As I said, everything Bible says seems to be correct. Light can exist without stars. Planet earth was covered with water, before God formed dry land.

I never said that it says that God created dry land before light or firmament. Where did you get that from?

Genesis 1:7 says : And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Firmament means solid materiel. The writers of Genesis thought that the sky was a solid dome.

And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Genesis 1:
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

This is after God already made the earth and the plants. The writers obviously didn't have a very good grasp of what the Sun and the stars are. Do you think that it is correct that the earth and plants were created before the Sun and the stars?

[Jacob Simonsky]

So in Genesis 1 it sounds correct when it talks about God dividing the waters with the firmament, and about creating the stars After He as already created light, dry land, and plants?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Genesis 1:1-3


What, it doesn’t say that God created dry land before light or firmament, which probably means “continent�? Are you liar or just ignorant?

As I said, everything Bible says seems to be correct. Light can exist without stars. Planet earth was covered with water, before God formed dry land.

Light cannot exist without a source. What was the source of light before God created the sun and the stars?

The story of creation which is Genesis in the OT existed in oral and then written form long before the Biblical flood of nearly 13,000 years BPE. Genesis is a re-write of a re-write of yet another re-write. It in no way resembles the earliest versions. If it did the contradictions that we see today would not exist. That few Christians dare to question it is evidence of the inclination that too many have which is to see only what they want to see and to be far will willing to allow others to do their thinking for them.

I mean what I say sincerely and with no malice. God gave us minds to use, not to tuck away in dark corners...

[Justin108]

So in Genesis 1 it sounds correct when it talks about God dividing the waters with the firmament, and about creating the stars After He as already created light, dry land, and plants?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Genesis 1:1-3


What, it doesn’t say that God created dry land before light or firmament, which probably means “continent�? Are you liar or just ignorant?

As I said, everything Bible says seems to be correct. Light can exist without stars. Planet earth was covered with water, before God formed dry land.

Light cannot exist without a source. What was the source of light before God created the sun and the stars?

The story of creation which is Genesis in the OT existed in oral and then written form long before the Biblical flood of nearly 13,000 years BPE. Genesis is a re-write of a re-write of yet another re-write. It in no way resembles the earliest versions. If it did the contradictions that we see today would not exist. That few Christians dare to question it is evidence of the inclination that too many have which is to see only what they want to see and to be far will willing to allow others to do their thinking for them.

I mean what I say sincerely and with no malice. God gave us minds to use, not to tuck away in dark corners...

So the Holy Bible is flawed? Well if this particular part of Genesis is false, how do you know other parts of the Bible aren't? How do you know Jesus really was the Son of God? How do you know God really gave the 10 commandments? How do you know exactly which commandments are true? A Holy text peppered with mistakes loses its credibility and authority. Christians tell me the Bible was inspired by God. Why didn't God inspire those who did the writing to get these details right?

[Jacob Simonsky]

So in Genesis 1 it sounds correct when it talks about God dividing the waters with the firmament, and about creating the stars After He as already created light, dry land, and plants?

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep. God's Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters. God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
Genesis 1:1-3


What, it doesn’t say that God created dry land before light or firmament, which probably means “continent�? Are you liar or just ignorant?

As I said, everything Bible says seems to be correct. Light can exist without stars. Planet earth was covered with water, before God formed dry land.

Light cannot exist without a source. What was the source of light before God created the sun and the stars?

The story of creation which is Genesis in the OT existed in oral and then written form long before the Biblical flood of nearly 13,000 years BPE. Genesis is a re-write of a re-write of yet another re-write. It in no way resembles the earliest versions. If it did the contradictions that we see today would not exist. That few Christians dare to question it is evidence of the inclination that too many have which is to see only what they want to see and to be far will willing to allow others to do their thinking for them.

I mean what I say sincerely and with no malice. God gave us minds to use, not to tuck away in dark corners...

So the Holy Bible is flawed? Well if this particular part of Genesis is false, how do you know other parts of the Bible aren't? How do you know Jesus really was the Son of God? How do you know God really gave the 10 commandments? How do you know exactly which commandments are true? A Holy text peppered with mistakes loses its credibility and authority. Christians tell me the Bible was inspired by God. Why didn't God inspire those who did the writing to get these details right?

Truths are seldom simple and clear. Even scriptural ones. In the NT Jesus uses stories to illustrate truth instead of being more direct. The reason is that what is said must suit the ability of the listener to comprehend. That was as regards Jesus and His methods in speaking. He was possessed with a much clearer connection to the Father than any prophet of old.

The trouble with God's Word as it is known in the OT is that it was necessary for the Word to be filtered through the fallible, less than perfect, mind of a man. This meant that errors could occur. It accounts for those passages which confound, especially in Genesis. Example: Moses no doubt had his own ideas about the origins of the sun and stars. Then God speaks to him giving more information. Moses was only a man. The result of God's effort was a blend of truth with the pre-existing ideas of the man. We all note how the OT is more story-like in it's form. Involvement of a fallible mind is the reason. Eg: Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt? Really? Sounds like the fearful reasoning of a mere human to me.

Compare the OT and the NT and find that the NT is written in so much more direct and believable a manner. These differences reflect the times from which each sets of writings come.

The liberal Christian understands all this and therefore does not get bogged down in debates about Genesis and whether or not the timeline of Creation seems plausible or not. They know that, Word of God or not, men were also involved.

The conservative Christian is more inclined to support whatever appears claiming that since it is the Word of God it is true and I believe it and it is inerrant.

Liberal thinkers differ from Conservative thinkers. This is a fact upon which we all probably will agree. Liberal and conservative.... without them internet forums would be a series of major duds.

So.... Set aside the NT and read the OT. My belief, since I am a liberal, is that the importance is in the underlying stories and the messages they carry to us. When I read something that doesn't jibe with scientific opinion I bypass it without fuss.

In your response above you seem to be suggesting that if any one part of the OT is not literally true that the NT is also not true. This is not what I am saying. Remember please the NT is more directly from God because of the involvement of His Son, Jesus who was not burdened by the small mind of a man.

It is my opinion that Christianity would be better off not accepting the OT as a part of their body of scripture and using the NT (which really is a directly pre-Christian era document) instead. I think it's too bad that we see a mix of Judaism and Christianity. The two would be better off separate.

Final note regarding the ten commandments. Those ten in the OT are only a sample of the real number of commandments. To see them all study Judaism in depth. There were more than one hundred, all from Moses. This conflict typifies the trouble with scripture when men are involved.

[help3434]

Remember please the NT is more directly from God because of the involvement of His Son, Jesus who was not burdened by the small mind of a man.

What involvement? No part of the New Testament is claimed to have been written by Jesus. Everything was written years after the supposed events.