Trusting the bible

[nobspeople]

A rather long thread in here is about 'trusting the bible'.
But in reality, if one does trust the bible, what are you really trusting? Some say 'god' as it's the 'word of god'. If that's true, boy... god ain't all that great IMO (unless you equate greatness with murdering, setting up a whole race of being only to complain when they fail, condemning these being to eternal hell (for those that believe that) and writing in cryptic methods).
There is no proof there is any god (or God). But there is proof there is a bible. As such, the bible had to be written by something(s) or someone(s) - it can't just *poof* appear one day (though in this belief system, it's entirely possible I suppose).
Seems, at the very least that's provable, people wrote the bible. Which was then edited by god? What? No, not god? Oh, that's right - by other people.
Sure you can BELIEVE it was god inspired and other (IMO) nonsense, but the FACTS are it was written and edited by people - flawed, imperfect, biased people.
For discussion:
Can you provide support proof (that's testable and verifiable by any other source - ie not your belief) that the bible wasn't written by humans, and later edited by other humans?
If not, are you really, at a fundament level that you can show proof of, trusting the people who wrote and edited the bible?
If that's the case (the bible was written and edited by human beings), how can you trust it if human beings - even on this very forum - can't all agree on topics relating to this religion, much less those of hundred and hundreds of years in the past, were society was vastly different than today?
Is this why christians MUST have faith?

[TRANSPONDER]

Obviously I have only one hobby horse to ride here and it's the one I ride everywhere else; the Bible is not to be trusted in what it says (even if it does base it's preachings, propagandas and polemics on real people, places and even events) and (not that it actually matters) the OT can be shown to be unsound on an historical basis and the NT (which is the only one that matters , as Jesus made all the Rules New) can be demonstrated to be unsound and unbelievable through textural criticism, mainly serious contradiction.

Not the apologist strawman of 'witness discrepancy' (e.g one or two angels) but serious ones like no Transfiguration in John. And I believe that it is a string of conflicting stories, textural blunders and dodgy claims page after page that will demolish the reliability of the NT as a record of events for anyone whose mind is still open.

And a discussion - subject might well be '"What is an 'Open Mind'?" What it Should mean is one whose mind can evaluate the arguments for an against and see which case is the best.

But what it means in the Theist - to English dictionary and phrase -book is "Open to accepting without question whatever claims the believer or their Holy Book make". But more and more people are (or so I hope) open -minded enough to evaluate rival claims but "not so open - minded that their brains fall out".

[Diagoras]

Sure you can BELIEVE it was god inspired and other (IMO) nonsense, but the FACTS are it was written and edited by people - flawed, imperfect, biased people.

I suspect that for some people, believing the Bible to be 'god-inspired' is enough. No further need to debate. However, I am curious about how this 'inspiration' is thought to have actually happened in practice. Was it a case of God appearing in front of someone and dictating every word of Scripture exactly? Maybe some people believe that a book like Leviticus could have been produced this way. Or, maybe the method was closer to just the first writing down of tribal stories handed down orally from previous generations, with God sending the odd 'vision' here and there to clarify a point or two? E.g. Kings and Chronicles.

I could see an argument that for things like tribal genealogies and histories, there's no particular need for God to 'inspire' the work. He'd be more like the Chief Editor, reviewing the final document before it goes to print. "Yes", he might think, "This captures the salient points well enough and casts me in an appropriately divine light."

If anyone would care to surmise how much 'divine inspiration' there is in the Bible, we could then have a stab at deciding which parts are 'most trustworthy', I reckon.

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't see that trying to decide which bits are inspired and which dictated by God is more than a distraction. For me, it stands or falls as a reliable record taken on the most basic level - reliable record, even at second - hand. The Two Donkeys shows clearly that Matthew cannot be an eyewitness or he's know that it was (as the other say) one donkey. That's all you have and all you need and Matthew having two taken along (let along Jesus sitting, uncomfortably and absurdly) on both of them is due only to Matthew's misreading of the prophecy in Greek. Just as he does the virgin birth and indeed the prophecy of the massacre of Innocents, and the mangling of the prophecy of the death of Judas, quite apart from inventing a prophecy of Jesus being a Nazarene which is nowhere found.

There is too much reason to see Matthew as not to be trusted, which means his Gospel is not to be trusted and so the Bible is not to be trusted. That is what the view of any Reasonable person should be (once it's explained to them) should be. Opting to believe it's all true (somehow or other - total denial of everything so far as I can see) on Faith is a rabbit -hole nobody should willing wish to go down.

I know that Christians hate the simile about "Checking their brains at the Church door" but that has to be what they do, or they could not with integrity enter the door. Unless they haven't heard the arguments.

Yes, the excuses and apologetics can be very convincing. But they rely heavily on less credible explanations, denial or simply not talking about it and hoping that nobody else does. Once they hear the counter -claims, opting for Faith is (though one can understand) no more than willing self - delusion.

[Miles]

Is this why christians MUST have faith?

Only if they're content in living with self-deception. Because faith is the excuse people give for trusting a belief when they don't have evidence, the trust rings exceedingly hollow. But, hey, to each his own survival devices.

.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes, it has to be their own choice in the end. You can take a horse to water (or fill the trough and let the horse choose) and their choice and their freedom to practice and preach and even teach to their kids their own religion has to be respected under law or constitution. But when they preach, whether on line, in public or in the workplace, they can expect to be called on it, and I reckon we skeptics have every right and indeed a duty to do so. I have a deep antipathy for any who want to see that theirs in the only voice and views that should get expressed.

[Diagoras]

I don't see that trying to decide which bits are inspired and which dictated by God is more than a distraction. For me, it stands or falls as a reliable record taken on the most basic level - reliable record, even at second - hand.

<snip>

There is too much reason to see Matthew as not to be trusted, which means his Gospel is not to be trusted and so the Bible is not to be trusted.

This is where I suggest that you might be committing the logical fallacy of composition: just because you have demonstrated one author to be unreliable doesn't logically mean that the entire Bible is unreliable: the Bible was written by many different authors, at different times.

There are enough contemporary accounts and archaeological evidence to support a claim of sufficient reliability for the parts of the Bible that deal with clearly historical facts (geographical and dealing with the reign of kings, for example).

Other parts of the Bible (particularly Proverbs) contain wisdom that is as relevant today as when it was written - I would reject any claim that such were 'not to be trusted'.

To return to the OP: "Can you provide support proof (that's testable and verifiable by any other source - ie not your belief) that the bible wasn't written by humans, and later edited by other humans?"

None of what I've pointed out above provides any proof of divine intervention. The only plausible line for making such a claim that I can see would be in the various prophecies: 'only a god could foretell the future', but that's an inherently weak claim due to both the scope for post hoc interpretation, and just blind human luck. For all we know, there might have been thousands of prophets in the time of Obadiah, furiously predicting events but getting them hilariously wrong and then burning all the evidence of such in shame.

[TRANSPONDER]

Quite correct, except the suggestion of the fallacy you think I may be pulling.

No. It's true that finding an initial 'terminal' contradiction (as I call it) like the Nativities, establishes the principle that the Gospels are and should be open to criticism, it does not mean that because one thing is shown to be false, everything else is. This is why the whole thing - text, contradictions, copying, additions and editings, historical validity and historical invalidity - should all be taken on their merits. I am in fact willing to credit far more of the gospels than you might imagine, even though I have come to the conclusion that nothing that Jesus is represented as saying is (credibly) anything that he actually did say.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Sure you can BELIEVE it was god inspired and other (IMO) nonsense, but the FACTS are it was written and edited by people - flawed, imperfect, biased people.

Hmm, another sensationalized thread. SMH.

Lets see if this passes the syllogism test, shall we?

1. X was written by flawed, imperfect, biased people.

2. Therefore, X cannot be trusted.

Non sequitur.

Fallacious reasoning.

Next.

For discussion:
Can you provide support proof (that's testable and verifiable by any other source - ie not your belief) that the bible wasn't written by humans, and later edited by other humans?

Straw man.

No one is claiming that the Bible WASN'T written by humans.

If not, are you really, at a fundament level that you can show proof of, trusting the people who wrote and edited the bible?

Yes, we (believers) trust that whose who wrote the books of the Bible were God-fearing, God-inspired men who believed what they wrote to be true.

If that's the case (the bible was written and edited by human beings), how can you trust it if human beings - even on this very forum - can't all agree on topics relating to this religion, much less those of hundred and hundreds of years in the past, were society was vastly different than today?
Is this why christians MUST have faith?

It would be nice to live in this wonderful, fanciful world where everyone all agreed on the same things, wouldn't it?

But we do not live in such a world, do we?

Thus, the disagreements.

And guess what; atheists don't even agree on all the same things pertaining to atheism....do they?

No, they don't.

Next..

[brunumb]

And guess what; atheists don't even agree on all the same things pertaining to atheism....do they?

HUH? How does one disagree on not believing in gods?