Why defend the Bible?

[unknown soldier]

Christian apologetics, understood as a defense of Christian beliefs, keeps busy defending the Bible. Why is it so important to defend the Bible?

I'm sure Christians have many reasons to defend the Bible which we can talk about, but here are four reasons we can begin to debate and discuss:

1. It is the "word of God" that communicates what he wants Christians to know.
2. It inspires and encourages them to remain steadfast in the faith.
3. It provides guidelines for living life wisely and morally.
4. It offers hope to them.

What exactly does the Bible need to be defended from? Again, we can discuss many reasons, but I'd like to start by discussing the following four reasons:

1. The Bible's pages are full of atrocities committed by God that no moral people can condone.
2. The Bible is full of internal inconsistencies that cannot be sensibly reconciled.
3. The Bible is often inconsistent with what we know from science and historical studies.
4. The Bible has failed to let Christians know what it really means, and that's why Christians have disagreed and even fought over it for centuries.

[unknown soldier]

Christian apologetics, understood as a defense of Christian beliefs, keeps busy defending the Bible. Why is it so important to defend the Bible?

Because if the Bible can be shown wrong in too many ways and places it could well raise serious doubts about Christianity's truth, something that can't be allowed. So hopefully it's Christian Apologetics to the rescue.

That's correct, but if we take another step we see that the Bible is not credible. If it was credible, then it could more easily stand on its own--no apologists required.

What exactly does the Bible need to be defended from?

Objections to its truth and soundness.

More broadly, it needs to be defended against tough scrutiny. Apologists are well aware of this vulnerability, and that's why they marshal their forces.

[brunumb]

As we have already demonstrated there are those who simply get their opinions from what others have to say, and have really not done the work themselves, so it should not be a surprise that there would be many Christians who are simply taking the word of others.

In other words it is preferable to successfully delude oneself than to be deluded by others. Got it.

[brunumb]

And that teaching - "the bible is the 'word of god' that communicates what he wants Christians to know" - is a "strongly entrenched thing". Most daughters (sects and denominations) teach this. Even when many leave a former religion (sect or denomination), they take with them these 'strongly entrenched things', without even realizing that these things were never sound (or true) to begin with. And this is true of theists as well. Which is why, if a disciple (of Christ) comes out of a daughter (sect or denomination) and yet wants to come to HIM, then that one should tear everything down, right down to the cornerstone (Christ), then let Him build them back up on Him (the Rock, the foundation, and the cornerstone of our faith).

And in that tearing down one may be eliminating the truth and in the building up one may be replacing it with falsehood. Every different sect would probably say that they have the truth. Unless one can demonstrate the validity of their process they are in no better position to make any claims than anyone else.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #9]

What you're saying here is really strange. Where else is anybody supposed to get Christian theology from if not Christians?

This is really comical! How about one read, and study for themselves instead of taking the word of what Christians tell you that Christianity teaches?

A good example of what? If you've ever read the Bible, you may have read 2 Timothy 3:16 (NRSV):

Yes, I have in fact read the passage, so let's think carefully about what is being said there. This is a letter authored by Paul addressed to Timothy. When Paul authored this letter, was there any such thing as the Bible? Well no, I do not think there was. Okay, when Paul authored this letter to Timothy, this letter that he is writing at the time could not possibly be considered "Scripture", now could it? In fact, most of the whole of what is contained in the NT would not have been written at this point, which would necessarily mean that Paul could not have been referring to anything at all contained in the NT as "Scripture", correct? So then, what could Paul be referring to? Well, he would only be referring to what is contained in the OT, since what is contained in the NT would have still been in the process of being written.

So then, exactly what was it that I said? Well, that would be that the "NT could not possibly fit your description". It seems then that you have demonstrated my point in that you have not really thought through what Paul would have been saying, because Paul could not have possibly been referring to what has been contained in the NT, and he certainly could not have been referring to the letter he was writing to Timothy at that very moment.

Wrong! (See above.) You evidently don't know that Paul (or whoever wrote 2 Timothy) was just such a Christian who believed the scriptures were the word of God.

Wrong! You need to see above, because I was referring only to the NT and made that abundantly clear, and as we have just demonstrated, Paul could not have possibly been referring to the NT as "Scripture".

I do hope you don't find genocide to be funny.

What I found to be funny is, you have to borrow from the Christian world view in that you seem to be under the impression that there is some sort of moral code that would apply to me, which somewhere must say that I must be against "genocide" or else I am immoral? Exactly what is the moral code that you speak of which insist "genocide" is immoral?

You're wrong again. Christians did not invent nor do they own morality, so I'm not "borrowing" morality from Christians.

OH?????? Okay, so exactly what world view are you using which insists that there is some sort of moral code which we must follow, and if we go outside this code, we are immoral?

There are many decent people from many different religions as well as atheists who oppose atrocities, and their reasons for opposing atrocities may have nothing to do with the "Christian worldview."

Your problem here is that fact that you have no way to define what, "decent people" would be, nor what an "atrocity" would be, unless you are suggesting that there is some sort of moral code outside of us we must adhere to? Otherwise, we are all left to what our opinions on these things would be. As an example, there are many folks who consider abortion to be an "atrocity" while there are others who see no problem with it at all. So then, unless you have some sort of moral code outside of us which you can point to, then it seems we are all left to our own opinion as to what would be an atrocity, and one opinion, is no better than the other, unless there is some sort of standard. So, exactly what standard are you using? If it is your own standard, then what would cause your standard to be better than anyone else's standard? As another example, you may believe "genocide" to be immoral, but there may be others who believe it to be moral, because they may be under the impression that this sort of thing will protect the human species from extinction. So then, how would you go about determining who has the moral opinion, without forcing your opinion upon others?

Besides, you misunderstand the four criticisms that I posted in the OP. Those four criticisms of the Bible are not necessarily my own view or at least I didn't originate them. Those criticisms are common ways that many people throughout history have objected to the Bible.

I think we have clearly established that much of what you say did not originate from you, but rather that you rely upon what others have to say. I have refuted several of these things you refer to which others have to say, and am not willing to go through everyone of them because of the time, and space. The question here is, what causes you to believe that these complaints are any more legitimate, simply because you are not the one from which they originate? Makes no sense to me?

Again, I'm wondering what this mysterious "work" might be.

My friend, there is nothing "mysterious" about it. It is called, reading, and studying for yourself, and not simply taking the word of others, and coming to your own conclusions which you can defend, without the help of others. I know this may be foreign to many, but it is well worth the effort, especially if one wants to spend their time on a debate site.

How did you get your "opinions" about Christian theology if you never listened to one Christian?

This may be foreign to many as well, but there is a tremendous difference between reading, and listening to others, as opposed to simply allowing these others to think for you.

Do you hear voices like Tam does? If so, you are still listening to what "others" have to say.

Well, I do hear many voices, and the loudest voice I continue to hear is the voice of my wife, and I can assure you that I listen to what she has to say, because I have no choice. Other than that, my being convinced Christianity is true, has nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of voices inside my head, but rather the real facts, and evidence which are outside of me.

[Tcg]

4. The Bible has failed to let Christians know what it really means, and that's why Christians have disagreed and even fought over it for centuries.

This is why in some ways it is incorrect to speak of Christianity in the singular. There are in reality many Christianities.

This can be seen in something as mundane as the method of baptism. Should it be sprinkling, immersion, infant baptism, or baptism of adult believers? Christianity can't reach agreement on this near meaningless issue. It of course also can't reach agreement on what is required to gain eternal life. Most would consider this a rather important issue.

This chart documents the major divisions:


Some may claim that these are the result of minor disagreements, but as I've already mentioned the path to eternal life is far from minor and Christianity can't reach an agreement what it involves. Some of that can be blamed on specific church traditions, but the key cause is that the Bible itself isn't clear on the issue.

Some may accuse those who reject Christianity of not understanding it. There is some truth to this statement, but not in the way it is intended. The reality is that Christianity can't even figure itself out. How can individuals be blamed for the same failure?


Tcg

[tam]

Peace to you,

And that teaching - "the bible is the 'word of god' that communicates what he wants Christians to know" - is a "strongly entrenched thing". Most daughters (sects and denominations) teach this. Even when many leave a former religion (sect or denomination), they take with them these 'strongly entrenched things', without even realizing that these things were never sound (or true) to begin with. And this is true of theists as well. Which is why, if a disciple (of Christ) comes out of a daughter (sect or denomination) and yet wants to come to HIM, then that one should tear everything down, right down to the cornerstone (Christ), then let Him build them back up on Him (the Rock, the foundation, and the cornerstone of our faith).

And in that tearing down one may be eliminating the truth and in the building up one may be replacing it with falsehood.

And what is it that you suggest a person do with regard to these 'strongly entrenched things' (biases and falsehoods that people carry, that are strongly entrenched, that they may not even be aware has shaped their understanding or lack thereof?)

I suppose person could examine every detail, but at some point, the rot might be so bad (and so hard to even see), that it becomes wiser just to tear the house down to the foundation and build anew.

Every different sect would probably say that they have the truth.

Sure, though I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.

Unless one can demonstrate the validity of their process they are in no better position to make any claims than anyone else.

What claim are you referring to? I am again unsure what this has to do with what I wrote?


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Realworldjack]

As we have already demonstrated there are those who simply get their opinions from what others have to say, and have really not done the work themselves, so it should not be a surprise that there would be many Christians who are simply taking the word of others.

In other words it is preferable to successfully delude oneself than to be deluded by others. Got it.

The problem here is, you have not demonstrated how they would be self deluded?

[JehovahsWitness]

What exactly does the Bible need to be defended from?

Objections to its truth and soundness.


.

As one of Jehovahs Witnesses is is my honour and privilege to take the bible's message to those that wish to hear it; the truth therein can take care of itself.

For more go to other posts related to...

GOD, TRUTH and ...RELIGION

[brunumb]

And what is it that you suggest a person do with regard to these 'strongly entrenched things' (biases and falsehoods that people carry, that are strongly entrenched, that they may not even be aware has shaped their understanding or lack thereof?)

You have predetermined that these 'strongly entrenched things' in others are biases and falsehoods. How have you established that? Isn't it just as likely that you are the one with strongly entrenched biases and falsehoods?

[Miles]

What exactly does the Bible need to be defended from?

Objections to its truth and soundness.


.

As one of Jehovahs Witnesses is is my honour and privilege to take the bible's message to those that wish to hear it; the truth therein can take care of itself.

For more go to other posts related to...

GOD, TRUTH and ...RELIGION

.

.