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?

[Jacob Simonsky]

[Replying to post 59 by help3434]


Yes but it was Jesus who taught the disciples...

[Justin108]

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.

This suggests God made mistakes in communicating with man. That God intended for man to understand one thing and man misunderstood it to mean another. An omniscient God would not make this mistake. He would know exactly how to communicate with man to effectively send the whole message. Also, God's omnipotence would make it possible for man to temporarily have divine comprehension long enough for him to write it down without making mistakes such as the ones supposedly found 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.

Your use of the word "effort" here suggests God tried something but ultimately failed. Again, with an omnipotent God, this is impossible.

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.

Yet God never stepped in and said "No, Moses, that's not what I meant to say". Instead, God is happy with Moses ruining his message and claiming it came from God?

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.

There are just too many problems with this mode of reasoning.

1. Surely God can understand that men like me wouldn't follow the Bible as we see it as merely claims of men. The lack of scientific accuracy only supports this perspective. How can God expect us to actually believe these books peppered with unscientific nonsense? Would you believe a history book that occasionally mentions dragons and unicorns? Or would you just write it off as a whole?

2. If half of the Bible is the product of man's imagination, then how do you know which parts actually came from God? Is homosexuality a sin? Or was the writer just being homophobic? Is there a heaven? Or was the writer just a wishful thinker? Did Jesus come back from the dead? Or were the writers in denial of their leader's passing?

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.

What I'm saying is a book full of mistakes loses its credibility. Especially if this book supposedly came from God - who is perfect. A book from God would have not a single mistake in it.

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.

Well how do you know Jesus is the son of God? If the Bible was wrong about the pillar of salt, how do you know it wasn't wrong about the walking on water or the resurrection?

[Replying to post 59 by help3434]


Yes but it was Jesus who taught the disciples...

And God taught his disciples in the OT. What's the difference? If anything, God should be able to communicate clearer. Jesus could only communicate visually and verbally. God could have divinely implanted truths into his followers' heads.

[Jacob Simonsky]

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.

This suggests God made mistakes in communicating with man. That God intended for man to understand one thing and man misunderstood it to mean another. An omniscient God would not make this mistake. He would know exactly how to communicate with man to effectively send the whole message. Also, God's omnipotence would make it possible for man to temporarily have divine comprehension long enough for him to write it down without making mistakes such as the ones supposedly found 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.

Your use of the word "effort" here suggests God tried something but ultimately failed. Again, with an omnipotent God, this is impossible.

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.

Yet God never stepped in and said "No, Moses, that's not what I meant to say". Instead, God is happy with Moses ruining his message and claiming it came from God?

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.

There are just too many problems with this mode of reasoning.

1. Surely God can understand that men like me wouldn't follow the Bible as we see it as merely claims of men. The lack of scientific accuracy only supports this perspective. How can God expect us to actually believe these books peppered with unscientific nonsense? Would you believe a history book that occasionally mentions dragons and unicorns? Or would you just write it off as a whole?

2. If half of the Bible is the product of man's imagination, then how do you know which parts actually came from God? Is homosexuality a sin? Or was the writer just being homophobic? Is there a heaven? Or was the writer just a wishful thinker? Did Jesus come back from the dead? Or were the writers in denial of their leader's passing?

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.

What I'm saying is a book full of mistakes loses its credibility. Especially if this book supposedly came from God - who is perfect. A book from God would have not a single mistake in it.

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.

Well how do you know Jesus is the son of God? If the Bible was wrong about the pillar of salt, how do you know it wasn't wrong about the walking on water or the resurrection?

[Replying to post 59 by help3434]


Yes but it was Jesus who taught the disciples...

And God taught his disciples in the OT. What's the difference? If anything, God should be able to communicate clearer. Jesus could only communicate visually and verbally. God could have divinely implanted truths into his followers' heads.

The reason you and I see things differently is because I am a liberal thinker and your are a conservative thinker. The liberal will dare to suggest things where the conservative will not. This is the reason so few conservatives major in philosophy. In fact I don't think I ever met one.

More to the point everything in your response is based on the infallibility of God. This is something which is drilled into the believer constantly. My premise is quite similar. Yes.... God is infallible but here is where we differ. Being both infallible and wise beyond anything we can imagine, God disseminates as He wishes knowing full well that the results will not be exactly the same as what He said. Being possessed of infinite wisdom and patience He allows this knowing that the discussions that will ensue through the years will require that men and women think and build their abilities to reason. He knows that through these efforts they will eventually acquire wisdom. Now supposing God causes Moses, for instance, to copy exactly what He says. All that will achieved is that people will be obedient. They will have not had any opportunities to develop their minds. So let's ask... What did God create us for in the first place? Are we just to live, obey the rules and die and go to heaven to sit and be with God for eternity? Or... Did God create humanity with the intent that each soul should have the opportunities to learn through experience and grow finally into wisdom and that much later we would all be prepared to do new things in far away heavens. Which of these is the dynamic, purposeful existence and which is the static and flat-line kind of life? The nature of our destiny requires that we learn to think and reason. We can't do this if God makes it really easy for us. So, back to the OT, God is content to put out the word, come what may, because his purpose is served when we have to work out the details and learn to separate fact from fiction for ourselves.

I could easily cite the many, many very crazy things that appear in the OT. The things that just plain don't make sense. The liberal does this because he dares to. The conservative gets upset when he hears any of it. He is content with things as they are. The conservative will often speak in absolute terms where the liberal always sees shades of gray.

Shall I begin enumerating some of the craziness I alluded to? OK just one thing. Read Genesis and find that God creates the earth and peoples it with men and women and bids them (something like) subjugate the earth. Sounds good but the next day He creates Adam, puts him in a garden and a while later realizes that Adam should have a mate so he puts him to sleep, removes a rib and makes a woman. Plainly God has a problem here. How can Adam be the first man when, on the day before, God filled the earth with people and how can He fail to realize that Adam needs a mate until some time after He created him???? There is lots more. In another passage God refers to a bat calling it a bird. ??? God doesn't know that a bat is a mammal? Wow! You see friend these can only be from a fallible human mind. Inspired by God yes indeed but only inspired....

Finally, I mean no disrespect to you but I see that your age is 22. I am now 71. Life is not a static experience. We learn as we go. As the years go by we develop abilities slowly. The things I write about I've studied all my life since I was a teen.

Peace to you brother.

[1213]

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

Where does the Bible say that sky was solid dome? I think that is your interpretation that has no solid ground.

Do you think that it is correct that the earth and plants were created before the Sun and the stars?

I think it is possible and people have no real proof that it is impossible. And I think God created first seeds of the plants and they didn’t yet grow until first rain. Therefore they didn’t also need yet sun for growing.

No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground,
Genesis 2:5

[1213]

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

All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it.
John 1:3-5

[Jacob Simonsky]

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

All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it.
John 1:3-5

Yes. The NT always makes more sense than the OT. By the way thank you for taking the trouble to learn English. We Americans are language lazy...

[Justin108]

The reason you and I see things differently is because I am a liberal thinker and your are a conservative thinker. The liberal will dare to suggest things where the conservative will not. This is the reason so few conservatives major in philosophy. In fact I don't think I ever met one.

Funny you should say that since I'm doing a double major in psychology and philosophy. Also, I'm not a conservative. Far from it.

More to the point everything in your response is based on the infallibility of God. This is something which is drilled into the believer constantly. My premise is quite similar. Yes.... God is infallible but here is where we differ. Being both infallible and wise beyond anything we can imagine, God disseminates as He wishes knowing full well that the results will not be exactly the same as what He said. Being possessed of infinite wisdom and patience He allows this knowing that the discussions that will ensue through the years will require that men and women think and build their abilities to reason. He knows that through these efforts they will eventually acquire wisdom.

What I see is outlandish reasoning in an attempt to justify the absurdity of the concept of the Biblical God. Have you ever considered for a moment that maybe... God simply does not exist? Or maybe.... he does exist but had no hand in the authorship of the Bible? Both of these possibilities make fewer assumptions and absurd attempts at justification.

Now supposing God causes Moses, for instance, to copy exactly what He says. All that will achieved is that people will be obedient. They will have not had any opportunities to develop their minds.

No the result would be we actually got to hear what God had to say instead of sifting through all Moses' rubbish and playing guessing games about what did and did not come from God.

So let's ask... What did God create us for in the first place? Are we just to live, obey the rules and die and go to heaven to sit and be with God for eternity? Or... Did God create humanity with the intent that each soul should have the opportunities to learn through experience and grow finally into wisdom and that much later we would all be prepared to do new things in far away heavens.

So you think the meaning of life is learning? A few problems:
1. If God wanted us to know something, he could just implant that knowledge into us
2. Babies who die shortly after birth ended up learning absolutely nothing so why did they live to begin with?
3. What did Moses' Genesis bs teach us?

The nature of our destiny requires that we learn to think and reason

What about the mentally handicapped? What is their destiny?

So, back to the OT, God is content to put out the word, come what may, because his purpose is served when we have to work out the details and learn to separate fact from fiction for ourselves.

What makes you think the Bible holds any truth?

Shall I begin enumerating some of the craziness I alluded to? OK just one thing. Read Genesis and find that God creates the earth and peoples it with men and women and bids them (something like) subjugate the earth. Sounds good but the next day He creates Adam, puts him in a garden and a while later realizes that Adam should have a mate so he puts him to sleep, removes a rib and makes a woman. Plainly God has a problem here. How can Adam be the first man when, on the day before, God filled the earth with people and how can He fail to realize that Adam needs a mate until some time after He created him???? There is lots more. In another passage God refers to a bat calling it a bird. ??? God doesn't know that a bat is a mammal? Wow! You see friend these can only be from a fallible human mind. Inspired by God yes indeed but only inspired....

How do you know it's inspired by God?

[99percentatheism]

[Replying to post 1 by help3434]

The news.

[Justin108]

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

All things were made through him. Without him was not anything made that has been made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness hasn't overcome it.
John 1:3-5

I take it you also believe God magically kept plant-life alive for a day before deciding to create the sun. God sure did things backward back then.

[Jacob Simonsky]

Inspired by God yes indeed but only inspired....[/quote]How do you know it's inspired by God?[/quote]


I don't... Religions require that some things be taken on faith. This is such an instance. Christians will often attempt to convince others of their truths by citing various passages in the Bible. I do not do this. The only things in the Bible that can be proved are references to geographical areas of the world and a few other things.

Religions, all religions, exist outside the realm of objectivity.

Thanks...