The paradox many of us are faced with

[OnceConvinced]

We have Christians telling us that for us to be able to understand the bible, we need the holy spirit to guide us.

The problem is, this puts us in a Catch 22 situation…

For us to be able to get the holy spirit, we first have to repent and accept Jesus Christ as our savior. Only then can we get the holy spirit.

The thing is to do that we first need to believe what the bible tells us about these things. If we don’t believe, then how can we genuinely repent?

However for us to believe what the bible tells us we need to be able to understand it and we need to be able to see it’s true. We need to be able to resolve the many varied issues we see when it comes to the bible. But how can we do that if we don’t have the Holy Spirit in us?

So we are left in a situation we just can’t possibly resolve.

How do we resolve this paradox?

And before someone suggests prayer, we have the same problem there. The bible seems to us to be full of nonsense, lies and fantasies. For many of us we just don't believe the God of this bible to be real, so why would we pray to something we don't believe in? We must first believe in God to pray to him and then we must first believe the bible about what it says about God. Same vicious circle yet again.

Also please don't try to say I can "Choose to believe", because I know I can't. My mind is not that fickle. I can't choose to believe in the bible God any more than I can choose to believe there are fairies in my garden or boogyman hiding in my closet.

[OnceConvinced]

So let's apply some logic to the bible:

That's sure one way to find its flaws.

Hi OnceConvinced:
Absolutely. The bible is full of flaws, but those flaws can be understood, and seen past, to find a reasonable story.

Sure, one can do a lot of shucking and jiving; justifying the flaws or trying to convince themselves they’re not there. I see no good reason to do any of that though. I'll settle for taking the bible at face value.

[Provoker]

Sure, one can do a lot of shucking and jiving; justifying the flaws or trying to convince themselves they’re not there. I see no good reason to do any of that though. I'll settle for taking the bible at face value.

Hi OnceConvinced:
What if the flaws are there to cover up the real story of the bible? If we ignore the real story of the bible because we concentrate on purposely introduced flaws, we play right into the hands of the con men:-)

[rookiebatman]

What if the flaws are there to cover up the real story of the bible? If we ignore the real story of the bible because we concentrate on purposely introduced flaws, we play right into the hands of the con men:-)

If that were the case, and if God were all-powerful and wanted people to know him, then why wouldn't he have done a better job of getting his message out there, and revealing this false doctrine for the deception that you claim it is? It makes your version of God look kinda impotent.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 182:

What if the flaws are there to cover up the real story of the bible? If we ignore the real story of the bible because we concentrate on purposely introduced flaws, we play right into the hands of the con men:-)

I'm curious to know how one might ever confirm they've found the "real story" by referencing a flawed'n.

I propose such a situation can only come about through speculation.

[Provoker]

From Post 182:

What if the flaws are there to cover up the real story of the bible? If we ignore the real story of the bible because we concentrate on purposely introduced flaws, we play right into the hands of the con men:-)

I'm curious to know how one might ever confirm they've found the "real story" by referencing a flawed'n.

I propose such a situation can only come about through speculation.

I would be happy to explain that to you:-) We should read God's own words in the bible, and we should follow the story which is found in God's own words. We should also compare God's own words, throughout the bible, with what our churches teach.
You see, the idea that the bible is God's complete and inerrant word, is just speculation, because neither God, nor the bible, ever mentions the bible:-)
As for the flaws, anything which conflicts with, or contradicts, God's own words, as recorded throughout the bible, is simply not part of the story God's words tell.
A book which has a clear and continuous story flowing through it, and it also has stuff which clearly contradicts the story, is a flawed book. However, if we rightly divide scripture into (1) the story found in God's own words, and (2) the stuff which is not part of the story told in God's own words, we should be on the right track:-)
Do you see it?

[Provoker]

What if the flaws are there to cover up the real story of the bible? If we ignore the real story of the bible because we concentrate on purposely introduced flaws, we play right into the hands of the con men:-)

If that were the case, and if God were all-powerful and wanted people to know him, then why wouldn't he have done a better job of getting his message out there, and revealing this false doctrine for the deception that you claim it is? It makes your version of God look kinda impotent.

Hi rookiebatman:
I would have thought that before you played the "impotent God" card, that you would have considered how impotent the God of the church looks with churchmen divided into thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations:-)
Nowhere in the bible does it say that God wrote the bible. In fact, the bible says absolutely nothing about "the bible". However, God's own words are recorded throughout the bible, and churchmen don't even know anything which God said. In fact, churchmen don't believe anything which God said, and God did not say anything that churchmen believe.
That's a challenge for you batman:-)

[rookiebatman]

What if the flaws are there to cover up the real story of the bible? If we ignore the real story of the bible because we concentrate on purposely introduced flaws, we play right into the hands of the con men:-)

If that were the case, and if God were all-powerful and wanted people to know him, then why wouldn't he have done a better job of getting his message out there, and revealing this false doctrine for the deception that you claim it is? It makes your version of God look kinda impotent.

Hi rookiebatman:
I would have thought that before you played the "impotent God" card, that you would have considered how impotent the God of the church looks with churchmen divided into thousands of doctrinally disagreeing denominations:-)

One doesn't contradict the other. I can think your God and the "mainstream" Christian God are both impotent at the same time.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that God wrote the bible. In fact, the bible says absolutely nothing about "the bible". However, God's own words are recorded throughout the bible, and churchmen don't even know anything which God said. In fact, churchmen don't believe anything which God said, and God did not say anything that churchmen believe.
That's a challenge for you batman:-)

Sorry if I'm being dense, but I don't understand what the challenge is. Could you rephrase it in interrogative or syllogistic form for easier digestion?