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.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #1]

Because the bible is constantly challenged and it can't defend itself. So people have to defend their chosen lifestyle, which means, by proxy, they have to defend the bible.
They know it's not totally true, but that doesn't fit their lifestyle so they take arms against all that oppose it (or even those that sincerely question it). Which speaks to their convictions and faith.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #1]

Because the bible is constantly challenged and it can't defend itself. So people have to defend their chosen lifestyle, which means, by proxy, they have to defend the bible.
They know it's not totally true, but that doesn't fit their lifestyle so they take arms against all that oppose it (or even those that sincerely question it). Which speaks to their convictions and faith.

No argument here! I've noticed that Biblical apologists like to defend the Bible by accusing critics of taking passages out of context which, at least for me, simply isn't true. I'm always careful to consider the context of anything I read. Recently Tanager accused me of taking a passage (Matthew 21:22) out of context, but when I posted that passage in context demonstrating that I had not taken it out of context, he said I didn't have enough context!

Another approach Biblical apologists take is to tell the critic that she doesn't understand the problematical passage. Of course, the apologist understands not only what the problematical passage really means but that it doesn't mean what it says.

I've often wondered; why is it that the Bible passages that say something apparently false actually mean something true while Bible passages that say something obviously true mean just what they say? Is it just a coincidence? I don't know of any instances where an obviously true Bible passage is deemed by apologists to actually mean something different.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #162]

Another approach Biblical apologists take is to tell the critic that she doesn't understand the problematical passage.

Yeah that's a common fall back. Sad but true.

I've noticed that Biblical apologists like to defend the Bible by accusing critics of taking passages out of context

Something they're guilty of as well. But for them, it's OK. Why? Because they have a supernatural understanding of it all

I've often wondered; why is it that the Bible passages that say something apparently false actually mean something true while Bible passages that say something obviously true mean just what they say? Is it just a coincidence? I don't know of any instances where an obviously true Bible passage is deemed by apologists to actually mean something different.

The human mind and its workings are truly mysterious. Who knows why this happens. Likely, they don't even know.

[unknown soldier]

[Replying to unknown soldier in post #162]

Another approach Biblical apologists take is to tell the critic that she doesn't understand the problematical passage.

Yeah that's a common fall back. Sad but true.

Apologists are real smarties, are they not? Or at least they're smarter than us Bible critics. It sure would help me to understand apparently errant or immoral Bible passages if apologists would actually offer a good explanation for why I'm wrong.

I've noticed that Biblical apologists like to defend the Bible by accusing critics of taking passages out of context

Something they're guilty of as well.

It's entirely possible that in some cases critics do take Bible passages out of context. However, I don't think it necessarily follows that pointing out an errant or immoral Bible passage is a case of taking that passage out of context. Maybe the passage is wrong or evil! I can live with some parts of the Bible being wrong, but apologists evidently cannot live with that.

But for them, it's OK. Why? Because they have a supernatural understanding of it all

No doubt about it--having the Holy Ghost on speed dial is a big advantage when it comes to understanding the Bible.

I've often wondered; why is it that the Bible passages that say something apparently false actually mean something true while Bible passages that say something obviously true mean just what they say? Is it just a coincidence? I don't know of any instances where an obviously true Bible passage is deemed by apologists to actually mean something different.

The human mind and its workings are truly mysterious. Who knows why this happens. Likely, they don't even know.

Of course, the bias of the Biblical apologist rules out Biblical errors although some of the more liberal apologists make some exceptions to that rule. Even liberal apologists, though, will accept no errors that can rule out salvation.

[brunumb]

Another approach Biblical apologists take is to tell the critic that she doesn't understand the problematical passage. Of course, the apologist understands not only what the problematical passage really means but that it doesn't mean what it says.

That is such a common accusation. The distribution of intelligence levels among theists an atheists is essentially the same. So how is it that atheists on the whole can fail to understand a particular passage where theists have no such problem? In the absence of any valid explanation the fall back position invariably involves something like assistance from the Holy Spirit. Said being only ever helps believers unfortunately.

[Tcg]

Another approach Biblical apologists take is to tell the critic that she doesn't understand the problematical passage. Of course, the apologist understands not only what the problematical passage really means but that it doesn't mean what it says.

That is such a common accusation. The distribution of intelligence levels among theists an atheists is essentially the same. So how is it that atheists on the whole can fail to understand a particular passage where theists have no such problem? In the absence of any valid explanation the fall back position invariably involves something like assistance from the Holy Spirit. Said being only ever helps believers unfortunately.

The problem of course is that either the Holy Spirit is a trickster or there is more the one Holy Spirit because those who claim to be assisted by the Holy Spirit often can't agree on various teachings of the Bible. In fact, it's not uncommon to see Christian Apologists accusing atheists of misrepresenting some aspect of the Bible only to find that other Christian Apologist view the issue precisely the same way the accused atheists do.


Tcg

[unknown soldier]

Another approach Biblical apologists take is to tell the critic that she doesn't understand the problematical passage. Of course, the apologist understands not only what the problematical passage really means but that it doesn't mean what it says.

That is such a common accusation. The distribution of intelligence levels among theists an atheists is essentially the same. So how is it that atheists on the whole can fail to understand a particular passage where theists have no such problem? In the absence of any valid explanation the fall back position invariably involves something like assistance from the Holy Spirit. Said being only ever helps believers unfortunately.

Many apologists might quote 1 Corinthians 2 (NKJV):

13 These things we also speak, not in words which mans wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

So we non-Christians are inferior "natural men (and women)." We just don't get it because we fail to have spiritual discernment and the mind of Christ. So in the face of tough skepticism when proof is lacking, the Christian can always fall back on these claims while feeling special that they have what unbelievers don't have.