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.

[Difflugia]

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

Christian apologetics doesn't defend the Bible per se, but instead defends a particular set of interpretations. It's already a bit of apologetic sleight of hand to have successfully framed arguments against Christian doctrines like divine inspiration, infallibility, or inerrancy as being arguments against the Bible itself.

The Bible is what it is. Claiming that one of authors disagreed with another or was even factually wrong about something doesn't change that. What such a claim does affect is Christian doctrine that requires such claims to be false.

[DavidLeon]

The Bible is what it is. Claiming that one of authors disagreed with another or was even factually wrong about something doesn't change that. What such a claim does affect is Christian doctrine that requires such claims to be false.

The other day I couldn't remember the word door. I was trying to explain a cabinet door and had to describe it as "that thing attached that swings back and forth. Opens and closes." No kidding. I think I need to exercise more often because I'm starting to see the signs of mental deterioration.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain that a little? What is one of authors? I assume is a typo meaning one of the Bible authors. How does the claim affect Christian doctrine that requires such to be false? I take that to mean that dispute over the content of the Bible being contradictory or false can affect Christian doctrine? Or the doctrine, interpretation being contradictory to the Bible itself?

[Difflugia]

The other day I couldn't remember the word door. I was trying to explain a cabinet door and had to describe it as "that thing attached that swings back and forth. Opens and closes." No kidding. I think I need to exercise more often because I'm starting to see the signs of mental deterioration.

Hah! Yesterday I was talking to a coworker and couldn't remember the word "editorial," so I'm right there with you.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you explain that a little? What is one of authors? I assume is a typo meaning one of the Bible authors.

Yeah. In my head there was an "its" meaning "the Bible's."

How does the claim affect Christian doctrine that requires such to be false? I take that to mean that dispute over the content of the Bible being contradictory or false can affect Christian doctrine? Or the doctrine, interpretation being contradictory to the Bible itself?

If some Christian doctrine depends on various authors being in harmony with each other, a demonstrated claim of disharmony would mean that the doctrine is a false one. In that instance, apologetic arguments will often assert that a claim of disharmony is "an attack on the Bible" or some such rather than being an attack on (or at least in conflict with) various doctrines of inerrancy.

[Realworldjack]

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.

It continues to amaze me how many of those who are opposed to Christianity seem to be getting their theology from Christians, instead of actually doing the work themselves in order to have a more informed position.

1. It is the "word of God" that communicates what he wants Christians to know.

Above is a very good example! Now we cannot consider the whole of the Bible, because the Bible contains different types of writings. However, even if there were Christians who held the position above it would not take a whole lot of individual study of these things to understand that the NT could not possibly fit this description. Because you see, the authors contained in the NT were writing to particular audiences at the time, and would not have had any of us in mind as they wrote. In fact, one particular author contained in the NT is writing to a particular individual at the time, and tells this individual exactly why he is writing out this information to him, and how he came about getting this information, and this author never once mentions God as the source of the information, nor that it was God who inspired him to write. Rather, this author explains to this individual that, he is writing out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth of the things which have happened among us".

Now this puts a whole other spin on things now doesn't it? In other words, instead of this author writing to a large audience, claiming to be writing out what God would have us as Christians to know, and getting his information from God, what we are reading here is a letter written by one individual who simply seems compelled to addressed another individual simply out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth". So then, I really do not see how one can actually be a student of what has been called the Bible, and draw such conclusions, which seems to indicate that instead of doing the work themselves, they are relying upon what others have to say.

Now, I am not going to attempt to respond to each point here, but let us look at a couple more.

1. The Bible's pages are full of atrocities committed by God that no moral people can condone.

This is really funny! My friend, you are borrowing from the Christian world view here by insisting that there is some sort of moral standard which would apply to moral people, (whatever that would be)?

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.

I really do not know what you think this would demonstrate, but it surely should not be a surprise? 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. But hey......... if this is the way one decides to reject the information contained in the Bible, that is fine by me.

[tam]

Peace to you!

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #5]

Above is a very good example! Now we cannot consider the whole of the Bible, because the Bible contains different types of writings. However, even if there were Christians who held the position above it would not take a whole lot of individual study of these things to understand that the NT could not possibly fit this description. Because you see, the authors contained in the NT were writing to particular audiences at the time, and would not have had any of us in mind as they wrote. In fact, one particular author contained in the NT is writing to a particular individual at the time, and tells this individual exactly why he is writing out this information to him, and how he came about getting this information, and this author never once mentions God as the source of the information, nor that it was God who inspired him to write. Rather, this author explains to this individual that, he is writing out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth of the things which have happened among us".

Now this puts a whole other spin on things now doesn't it? In other words, instead of this author writing to a large audience, claiming to be writing out what God would have us as Christians to know, and getting his information from God, what we are reading here is a letter written by one individual who simply seems compelled to addressed another individual simply out of concern for this individual "knowing the exact truth". So then, I really do not see how one can actually be a student of what has been called the Bible, and draw such conclusions, which seems to indicate that instead of doing the work themselves, they are relying upon what others have to say.

Now, I am not going to attempt to respond to each point here, but let us look at a couple more.

Spot on!

I could not have said it better, myself. Well done!


**

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).




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

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to tam in post #6]

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.

You are exactly right! I would also point out the fact that there are many former Christians who "take with them these 'strongly entrenched things', without even realizing that these things were never sound (or true) to begin with" and they take these teachings with them as they leave Christianity, because they never really thought about what they believed, or why they believed as they did, and it is very possible they have rejected the bad theology they were exposed to, and have not really rejected Christianity, because they do not even know what Christianity truly teaches.

[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?

Christian apologetics doesn't defend the Bible per se, but instead defends a particular set of interpretations. It's already a bit of apologetic sleight of hand to have successfully framed arguments against Christian doctrines like divine inspiration, infallibility, or inerrancy as being arguments against the Bible itself.

That's an astute observation. Maybe I should have put quotation marks around "Bible" in the OP. Different people, including Christians from competing sects, often arrive at radically different interpretations of the Bible. Atheists, for example, often interpret the Bible's many God-commanded genocides as cruel and evil, but Christians are forced to interpret those passages differently. Their faith cannot allow them to see anything God is said to have done in a Bible story as bad in any way. Christian apologists therefore won't defend the Bible as a collection of stories of God's killing large masses of people but as chronicling his justice upon sinful humanity.

The Bible is what it is. Claiming that one of authors disagreed with another or was even factually wrong about something doesn't change that. What such a claim does affect is Christian doctrine that requires such claims to be false.

Broadly speaking, the Christian interpretation of the Bible can be summarized as the Bible is "the good book" no matter what it says.

[unknown soldier]

It continues to amaze me how many of those who are opposed to Christianity seem to be getting their theology from Christians...

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

...instead of actually doing the work themselves in order to have a more informed position.

What work is that? Ignoring Christians while looking for their theology somewhere else?

It is the "word of God" that communicates what he wants Christians to know.

Above is a very good example!

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

All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness...

...even if there were Christians who held the position above it would not take a whole lot of individual study of these things to understand that the NT could not possibly fit this description.

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.

The Bible's pages are full of atrocities committed by God that no moral people can condone.

This is really funny!

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

My friend, you are borrowing from the Christian world view here by insisting that there is some sort of moral standard which would apply to moral people, (whatever that would be)?

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

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.

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.

Again, I'm wondering what this mysterious "work" might be. How did you get your "opinions" about Christian theology if you never listened to one Christian? Do you hear voices like Tam does? If so, you are still listening to what "others" have to say.

[Miles]

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.

What exactly does the Bible need to be defended from?

Objections to its truth and soundness.


.