Please prove that the Bible is true and is God's Word

[Compassionist]

Christians believe that the Bible is true and is God's Word. Can anyone please prove that the Bible is true and is God's Word? Thank you.

[Miles]

What kind of proof are you looking for? The say-so of protestant preachers? The say-so of Popes? The say-so of the Bible itself? The say-so of science? The say-so of ____________fill in the blank_____________. Or just any proof at all?

.

[TRANSPONDER]

Christians believe that the Bible is true and is God's Word. Can anyone please prove that the Bible is true and is God's Word? Thank you.

This is actually 2 questions. The Bible might be true but not God's word. It is not logically impossible (within the parameters) that it is God's word but not true. However that's a can or worms I'd prefer to leave with the ring -pull intact.

The question is one I'd approach wearing my theist hat (the one that frightens horses in the street) and argue that there is enough true in the Bible to at least permit of a credibly plausible claim that what is not provable by the very parameters that secularists appeal to (and there is much that is) is at least as reliable as the old history books which are often dubious, evidently biased, sometimes contradictory and down to the writings of one person.

Take for instance the nativity, and compare it to the battle of Kadesh, give or take the amount of bloodshed. That exists in an obviously biased record in a temple (Medinet Habu as i recall) yet nobody doubts that it was a real event. And in the Bible, we have places - Nazareth, Bethlehem, Judea, Egypt; and people attested by history; Herod, Archelaus, Quirinus and also Chaldean Magi (from the east - Persia) even if we can't rely on the names. Josephus even sets out the circumstances of the census that required Joseph to sign on on his ancestral city as required by Rome as shown in an actual written order (found in Egypt) to go to such a city to register.


https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/medi ... 366F4FFA2A


In the light of this, we may argue about some of the other aspects, but there is more than enough to make the Nativity one of the Touchstone test - cases for Gospel veracity and on the back of that, we get support for one that is almost as good: the resurrection. Attested by not only four witnesses or at least report of witnesses, there is support in Paul's letter to the first Corinthian (possibly the Patron Theophilus that Luke addressed his books to) and you have top and tail validation of Gospel veracity, right there.

It is hardly a surprise that other people and places like Antipas, Pilate, John the Baptist (in Josephus, no less) Caiaphas, Capernaum, Bethsaida and Gadara are validated by history and archaeology and Capernaum not only has a synagogue (even if none is yet known at Nazareth) but fishhooks in the Capernaum houses prove the claim of fishing industry as agreed by all four gospels.

Now, I am not going to make the Theist case look silly or denialist. I will flat out say that Josephus'passage on Jesus is dubious. There are at least additions that look like a Christian mindset which credibly Josephus never was or had. I am not going to deny such evidence so will not lean on Josephus. I would say that Tacitus, flatly saying in a history not at all approving of Christians, states that Pilate executed the founder of Christianity and that is, I might argue as good as extra - Biblical validation as you can ask.

I won't get into a lot of other supportive stuff or the OT, but I might well argue that just presenting such a case, suitably cleaned up and the counters ignored, would be case enough to make many a believer and maybe even a few doubters reckon that, give or take the miracles, this bloke Jesus is history, which even that denialist Transponder can't deny.

[Compassionist]

What kind of proof are you looking for? The say-so of protestant preachers? The say-so of Popes? The say-so of the Bible itself? The say-so of science? The say-so of ____________fill in the blank_____________. Or just any proof at all?

.

I am looking for evidence for the claims in the Bible e.g. the creation story in Genesis should be consistent with what we know from science. The two creation accounts in the Bible do not match what we know from the scientific method i.e. the universe came into being 13.82 billion years ago through a Big Bang, there was a cosmic inflation, stars formed, galaxies formed, our Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, our Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, our Moon formed when a Mars-sized planet collided with the Earth, life evolved on Earth 3.7 billion years ago, etc.

[Compassionist]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #3]

I am looking for evidence for the claims in the Bible e.g. the creation story in Genesis should be consistent with what we know from science. The two creation accounts in the Bible do not match what we know from the scientific method i.e. the universe came into being 13.82 billion years ago through a Big Bang, there was a cosmic inflation, stars formed, galaxies formed, our Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, our Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, our Moon formed when a Mars-sized planet collided with the Earth, life evolved on Earth 3.7 billion years ago, etc.

The historicity of Jesus is questionable. Please see

Also, there is no evidence to support the claims of all the miracles in the Bible.

[1213]

Christians believe that the Bible is true and is God's Word. Can anyone please prove that the Bible is true and is God's Word? Thank you.

Sorry, I think everything is and remains essentially a matter of belief. I believe, because I see thing going as told in the Bible.

But, could you use this to see, is the teachings of Jesus from God or was he speaking from himself?

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

[TRANSPONDER]

Christians believe that the Bible is true and is God's Word. Can anyone please prove that the Bible is true and is God's Word? Thank you.

Sorry, I think everything is and remains essentially a matter of belief. I believe, because I see thing going as told in the Bible.

But, could you use this to see, is the teachings of Jesus from God or was he speaking from himself?

Jesus therefore answered them, "My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself.
John 7:16-17

To appeal to Faith (which you mean by "belief") looks like an admission that you do not have an evidential case. Backing it up by an appeal to a Biblequote is the most circular of circular arguments - using as evidence that for which you do not have evidence.

It is frankly groanworthy when Believers appeal to faith and quote a Bible passage at us. This is not evidence. This is not a case. The appeal to Faith in a religion is the worst argument you can make. Which god, Faith and Holy Book? There are others, just as good.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #3]

I am looking for evidence for the claims in the Bible e.g. the creation story in Genesis should be consistent with what we know from science. The two creation accounts in the Bible do not match what we know from the scientific method i.e. the universe came into being 13.82 billion years ago through a Big Bang, there was a cosmic inflation, stars formed, galaxies formed, our Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, our Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, our Moon formed when a Mars-sized planet collided with the Earth, life evolved on Earth 3.7 billion years ago, etc.

The historicity of Jesus is questionable. Please see

Also, there is no evidence to support the claims of all the miracles in the Bible.

I'll give that a watch. I note that he initially appeals to 'miracles don't happen'. I don't feel comfortable with that as in the normal world, claims of miracles or the supernatural do indeed require extraordinary support, but Jesus as a being with miracle powers would not be subject to that parameter as with him, miracles did happen. But that Jesus did have such powers is what is being questioned. But the style of writing was a good point to make. It does sound more like narrative than history. But it is what it is. A narrative rather than a history.Though Luke looks more historical than John, say, who very much does narrative.

Originally I put a lot of weight on John's vivid narratives and regarded that as the 'eyewitness' while John preferred to while the long sermons and debates with 'Jews', which were what I called 'The authentic voice of John'. As I've argued about the crucifixion which has remarkable agreement between the writers, when to read it in detail, the whole thing smells of a plot to arrange for Jesus to survive crucifixion, and moreover Matthew supports this in saying 'the disciples stole the body'. Similarly, John's story of the raising of Lazarus, considered in detail, smells of a faked miracle arranged by Jesus to impress his followers. IF it was a true narration.

I now see it as storytelling and (as Carrier says) the very vividness of the scriptwriting makes it look like a story, rather than a history. Mainly because it is not even hinted at in the synoptics (apart from Luke using the name 'Lazarus') and it is not credible that such a stunning miracle could have been not known or, if known, ignored, by the synoptic writers. On that evidence, John made it up.

Which comes down to this: like the Nativities and resurrection (which despite my waggish post above are actually the touchstone cases for NOT believing the gospels) the raising of Lazarus becomes a reason to argue against the gospels being believable, and the topic really requires the believers to explain thes plausibly so such examples can be accepted by doubters and questioners (not the faithful, who will swallow any excuse) as a good reason to believe these stories as a reliable record.

[Compassionist]

If God is real, why doesn't God show himself for all to see? Why would an all-knowing and all-powerful God resort to using ancient books to communicate with us? Makes me think this God is fictitious.

[bjs1]

I am looking for evidence for the claims in the Bible e.g. the creation story in Genesis should be consistent with what we know from science. The two creation accounts in the Bible do not match what we know from the scientific method i.e. the universe came into being 13.82 billion years ago through a Big Bang, there was a cosmic inflation, stars formed, galaxies formed, our Sun formed 4.6 billion years ago, our Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, our Moon formed when a Mars-sized planet collided with the Earth, life evolved on Earth 3.7 billion years ago, etc.

This seems problematic since the first chapter of Genesis is a liturgical prologue employing elevated prose and poetry. It’s not science. The scientific method did not exist when it was written. The goal of the first chapter of Genesis is to praise the God who creates, not to give a scientific account of creation.

You are either asking Genesis to not be Genesis, or you asking science to not be science. Neither is a reasonable request.