Why Trust The Bible?

[POI]

Many have rejected the Bible, due to the stories of Genesis alone 'proving' false. The ones, who still remain Christian, either reject science in favor of Genesis, or, instead dismiss the Genesis stories as merely being metaphorical/allegorical. Same goes for the Exodus account. And so on and so forth it goes, on through the entirety of the Torah and beyond. And when one gets to the New Testament, quite a bit of apologetics is required/necessary to explain away apparent 'problems/inconsistencies/discrepancies/other'.

For Debate:

As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to POI in post #10]

It's as they say, once you know how the trick works,you can't be fooled by it. I see the trick working. Like 'good things in the Bible'. good things in Startrek LoR and peanuts. Doesn't make them guides for life. They reflect human stuff and make us think. We don't have to slavishly follow what they say. These things are for debate, not blind faith. So the 'trick' is using some human ideas worth discussing to try to sell the Bible and its' 'myths as true. I don't like people who try to scam or con me, and this Bible and Christianity is a scam and a con. I know it just as I know someone telling me online he has won a million dollars but he needs my help.... I know that this claim, that story and the other fact is wrong, and they go into denial with all kinds excuses based on nothing. There's no chance they will fool me, but there's a global misinformation system out there and millions buy into it for social, rather than any other reason. Well, we just have to do what we can and hope the encouraging figures - trend continues. Maybe one day for Islam, too. The day Islam vanishes will be a day to celebrate.

[Diogenes]

(...) why place all your trust in (...)?

... Because the Bible has proven to have been inspired by a power greater than human.

Eloi's answer is typical and not helpful. Not helpful in that it uses a conclusion to explain the reason for the conclusion. It's also factually incorrect in that the Bible has NEVER been 'proven' to be anything but literature from 2000-3500 or so years ago.
What has been proven is that the assertion by a segment of evangelicals that it is the word of God, is just that, an unfoundedclaim.
Rather than rely on evidence or proof of "inspiration by a higher power," science and all other rational systems of analysis have been sacrificed in favor of Biblical claims regardless of how implausible or impossible.

The ONLY reason the Bible is seen as trustworthy is because of the traditions and indoctrination of those traditions. Many Christians and Jews recognize the stories of the Bible constitute allegories, myths that stand for greater truths. But this view is drowned out by the traditionalists who paradoxically damage the message of religion by insisting those myths be taken as literally true and authored by God instead of men.
It is ironic that these, the people who see themselves as the greatest 'Defenders of the Faith,' have become the opposite; they represent the major force that undermines the authority of the Bible by insisting its stories and myths be taken as literally, historically true.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's the dilemma - to bend or stand firm and try not to break. Do they discard Genesis? Some do.They try to pass it off as Metaphor. But engrave this on a board and nail it up in the courthouse: "Metaphorically true means 'Not true at all'" Sure I'll take Eden as a metaphor of the human condition. But it is no more than that - a metaphor (myth, so to speak) about humans and how they are. But it ain't true. Without even questioning Exodus and the conquest, the tales of David, the miracles added to the history of the wars with Babylon and Assyria, the Nativities and most of the rest of the Book. Just Genesis for starters and they try so hard to make it work and I marvel. To make it metaphor is a way of accepting it isn't true without actually admitting it isn't true. Which makes me think of the crim. who pleads madness. If it's true, I feel pity, if it isn't I feel...it isn't really honest.

[theophile]

Many have rejected the Bible, due to the stories of Genesis alone 'proving' false. The ones, who still remain Christian, either reject science in favor of Genesis, or, instead dismiss the Genesis stories as merely being metaphorical/allegorical. Same goes for the Exodus account. And so on and so forth it goes, on through the entirety of the Torah and beyond. And when one gets to the New Testament, quite a bit of apologetics is required/necessary to explain away apparent 'problems/inconsistencies/discrepancies/other'.

For Debate:

As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

For me, the answer is simple. All the metaphor and allegory of the bible you mention is translatable to philosophy, and the philosophy I see being conveyed there is the most all-inclusive, comprehensive, inspiring, and conforming to reality as I know it. Nothing else I've encountered comes close.

(Science is great and all, and I don't reject it by any means. But it's too narrow in what it can provide as compared to the bible or other philosophies for that matter. It was originally just a branch of philosophy after all, and I would say still is.)

Sure, you are saying why you think so and that's ok, but I have got to say from where i stand, what that translates into is never mind the facts (because i suspect you know they were got wrong) , let's do worshipful Faithbased speculations and pretend that's 'Philosophy' based on metaphor and allegory. That sounds to me like a recipe for willing self -delusion and I for one don't buy it for a second. I have known for a long time that Believers have used the 'Philosophy' label as mind - experiments to try to make faithclaim -based myths sound plausible, just as Genesis - literalism wangles a parody of science as mind - experiments like tabletop hydroplate models to pretend the flood could have worked, or semi -magical scenarios to make the Ark work, or close to home, making stuff up to try to finagle the resurrection -stories.

Doing this with Metaphor and Analogy (metaphorically true means 'not true at all) as so - called 'philosophy' is simply a delusionary fraud and nobody should fall for it but those who dearly want to. Sorry, if I sound harsh but that is such a smokescreen for making no case sound like a case using waffle. Has to be said. Can't let you just post that without some pushback.

Are you saying that story (metaphor, allegory, whatever) can't convey philosophy? I'm not following your argument if so. You seem to keep thinking that because the bible isn't literal fact that there can be nothing trust-worthy in it. I'm not following why that's the case either. Seems like pure opinion on your side and an effort to cast my views in extreme terms without any real reason as to why.

Last, facts are kind of irrelevant when it comes to trust, which is what the OP asked about. Trust can operate (and is perhaps most operative) when there are no facts or anything else to give one certainty. Something you never seem to acknowledge is that there is a wide range of questions out there for which there is no available fact-base to give us certainty on the answer. Basic and important questions like, what should we do with our lives, or questions of right and wrong. Ultimately such questions come down to choice and judgment. Hence my trust in the bible. Just because you don't see it as compelling doesn't mean there isn't a compelling philosophy there that warrants trust for those who do see it.

[theophile]

Many have rejected the Bible, due to the stories of Genesis alone 'proving' false. The ones, who still remain Christian, either reject science in favor of Genesis, or, instead dismiss the Genesis stories as merely being metaphorical/allegorical. Same goes for the Exodus account. And so on and so forth it goes, on through the entirety of the Torah and beyond. And when one gets to the New Testament, quite a bit of apologetics is required/necessary to explain away apparent 'problems/inconsistencies/discrepancies/other'.

For Debate:

As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

For me, the answer is simple. All the metaphor and allegory of the bible you mention is translatable to philosophy, and the philosophy I see being conveyed there is the most all-inclusive, comprehensive, inspiring, and conforming to reality as I know it. Nothing else I've encountered comes close.

(Science is great and all, and I don't reject it by any means. But it's too narrow in what it can provide as compared to the bible or other philosophies for that matter. It was originally just a branch of philosophy after all, and I would say still is.)

Reads like you are essentially saying.... Sure, much of the stuff in there is probably not true. Which is why it must instead have been meant to be allegorical or philosophical. But, we should still trust the Bible anyways, because it is inspiring, inclusive, and conforming to read?

I don't think anything in the bible is literally true. Or better, I don't really care if it's literally true or not. I don't see what that has to do with the trustworthiness of the philosophy that it conveys.

(The job of philosophy isn't to relay fact, as if it was history or science, but rather to provide a system of ideas to bring everything together into a comprehensive, consistent, and compelling world-view, for lack of a better definition. And story can be a vehicle for it.)

[TRANSPONDER]

Many have rejected the Bible, due to the stories of Genesis alone 'proving' false. The ones, who still remain Christian, either reject science in favor of Genesis, or, instead dismiss the Genesis stories as merely being metaphorical/allegorical. Same goes for the Exodus account. And so on and so forth it goes, on through the entirety of the Torah and beyond. And when one gets to the New Testament, quite a bit of apologetics is required/necessary to explain away apparent 'problems/inconsistencies/discrepancies/other'.

For Debate:

As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

For me, the answer is simple. All the metaphor and allegory of the bible you mention is translatable to philosophy, and the philosophy I see being conveyed there is the most all-inclusive, comprehensive, inspiring, and conforming to reality as I know it. Nothing else I've encountered comes close.

(Science is great and all, and I don't reject it by any means. But it's too narrow in what it can provide as compared to the bible or other philosophies for that matter. It was originally just a branch of philosophy after all, and I would say still is.)

Sure, you are saying why you think so and that's ok, but I have got to say from where i stand, what that translates into is never mind the facts (because i suspect you know they were got wrong) , let's do worshipful Faithbased speculations and pretend that's 'Philosophy' based on metaphor and allegory. That sounds to me like a recipe for willing self -delusion and I for one don't buy it for a second. I have known for a long time that Believers have used the 'Philosophy' label as mind - experiments to try to make faithclaim -based myths sound plausible, just as Genesis - literalism wangles a parody of science as mind - experiments like tabletop hydroplate models to pretend the flood could have worked, or semi -magical scenarios to make the Ark work, or close to home, making stuff up to try to finagle the resurrection -stories.

Doing this with Metaphor and Analogy (metaphorically true means 'not true at all) as so - called 'philosophy' is simply a delusionary fraud and nobody should fall for it but those who dearly want to. Sorry, if I sound harsh but that is such a smokescreen for making no case sound like a case using waffle. Has to be said. Can't let you just post that without some pushback.

Are you saying that story (metaphor, allegory, whatever) can't convey philosophy? I'm not following your argument if so. You seem to keep thinking that because the bible isn't literal fact that there can be nothing trust-worthy in it. I'm not following why that's the case either. Seems like pure opinion on your side and an effort to cast my views in extreme terms without any real reason as to why.

Last, facts are kind of irrelevant when it comes to trust, which is what the OP asked about. Trust can operate (and is perhaps most operative) when there are no facts or anything else to give one certainty. Something you never seem to acknowledge is that there is a wide range of questions out there for which there is no available fact-base to give us certainty on the answer. Basic and important questions like, what should we do with our lives, or questions of right and wrong. Ultimately such questions come down to choice and judgment. Hence my trust in the bible. Just because you don't see it as compelling doesn't mean there isn't a compelling philosophy there that warrants trust for those who do see it.

You are either totally missing the point or being crafty...let me see... I'll cut you some slack as maybe I'm not clear. Yes, the Bible can contain all kinds of ideas, questions and arguments: what you might tinsel - spray as 'philosophy', but is human and social discussion points that we might find in many other books. It even is (as Prof Stavrakopulou says), a fascinating look into the world and thought of the Iron age (not bronze age, folks ) Middle east. But that is all. What it does not do is make a credible case for God, Jesus or Christianity, and that, not ferretting out Biblical humanist social philosophy. is what's important as I'd far rather go to Charles Schultz than the Bible for my philosophic musings. To sum up, as reliable fact, the Bible is not here; as a life guide, it is worth no more than any other book, and less than a lot.

I suspect that you may have realised that it isn't factually reliable or you wouldn't be trying to save it as some social mentor, or that might just be your schtich.

P.S.while I think of it - relevant here or not. "Just because you can't find what you're looking for as you are searching in the wrong spot, does not mean that you can say that We can't find it (when I suspect we have) and you won't listen but insist we must join you looking in the wrong place".As a spoiler or crib, Philosophy is never going to get beyond speculation when it tries to do the job of science.

[POI]

Many have rejected the Bible, due to the stories of Genesis alone 'proving' false. The ones, who still remain Christian, either reject science in favor of Genesis, or, instead dismiss the Genesis stories as merely being metaphorical/allegorical. Same goes for the Exodus account. And so on and so forth it goes, on through the entirety of the Torah and beyond. And when one gets to the New Testament, quite a bit of apologetics is required/necessary to explain away apparent 'problems/inconsistencies/discrepancies/other'.

For Debate:

As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

For me, the answer is simple. All the metaphor and allegory of the bible you mention is translatable to philosophy, and the philosophy I see being conveyed there is the most all-inclusive, comprehensive, inspiring, and conforming to reality as I know it. Nothing else I've encountered comes close.

(Science is great and all, and I don't reject it by any means. But it's too narrow in what it can provide as compared to the bible or other philosophies for that matter. It was originally just a branch of philosophy after all, and I would say still is.)

Reads like you are essentially saying.... Sure, much of the stuff in there is probably not true. Which is why it must instead have been meant to be allegorical or philosophical. But, we should still trust the Bible anyways, because it is inspiring, inclusive, and conforming to read?

I don't think anything in the bible is literally true. Or better, I don't really care if it's literally true or not. I don't see what that has to do with the trustworthiness of the philosophy that it conveys.

(The job of philosophy isn't to relay fact, as if it was history or science, but rather to provide a system of ideas to bring everything together into a comprehensive, consistent, and compelling world-view, for lack of a better definition. And story can be a vehicle for it.)

Then your response lends virtually nothing to the topic. I'm asking Christians why they can trust the Bible? Are you a Christian? Or, are you just placing your 2 cents in here, as to how you feel the Bible is the best collection of allegorical philosophy books ever authored?

[theophile]

Many have rejected the Bible, due to the stories of Genesis alone 'proving' false. The ones, who still remain Christian, either reject science in favor of Genesis, or, instead dismiss the Genesis stories as merely being metaphorical/allegorical. Same goes for the Exodus account. And so on and so forth it goes, on through the entirety of the Torah and beyond. And when one gets to the New Testament, quite a bit of apologetics is required/necessary to explain away apparent 'problems/inconsistencies/discrepancies/other'.

For Debate:

As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

For me, the answer is simple. All the metaphor and allegory of the bible you mention is translatable to philosophy, and the philosophy I see being conveyed there is the most all-inclusive, comprehensive, inspiring, and conforming to reality as I know it. Nothing else I've encountered comes close.

(Science is great and all, and I don't reject it by any means. But it's too narrow in what it can provide as compared to the bible or other philosophies for that matter. It was originally just a branch of philosophy after all, and I would say still is.)

Sure, you are saying why you think so and that's ok, but I have got to say from where i stand, what that translates into is never mind the facts (because i suspect you know they were got wrong) , let's do worshipful Faithbased speculations and pretend that's 'Philosophy' based on metaphor and allegory. That sounds to me like a recipe for willing self -delusion and I for one don't buy it for a second. I have known for a long time that Believers have used the 'Philosophy' label as mind - experiments to try to make faithclaim -based myths sound plausible, just as Genesis - literalism wangles a parody of science as mind - experiments like tabletop hydroplate models to pretend the flood could have worked, or semi -magical scenarios to make the Ark work, or close to home, making stuff up to try to finagle the resurrection -stories.

Doing this with Metaphor and Analogy (metaphorically true means 'not true at all) as so - called 'philosophy' is simply a delusionary fraud and nobody should fall for it but those who dearly want to. Sorry, if I sound harsh but that is such a smokescreen for making no case sound like a case using waffle. Has to be said. Can't let you just post that without some pushback.

Are you saying that story (metaphor, allegory, whatever) can't convey philosophy? I'm not following your argument if so. You seem to keep thinking that because the bible isn't literal fact that there can be nothing trust-worthy in it. I'm not following why that's the case either. Seems like pure opinion on your side and an effort to cast my views in extreme terms without any real reason as to why.

Last, facts are kind of irrelevant when it comes to trust, which is what the OP asked about. Trust can operate (and is perhaps most operative) when there are no facts or anything else to give one certainty. Something you never seem to acknowledge is that there is a wide range of questions out there for which there is no available fact-base to give us certainty on the answer. Basic and important questions like, what should we do with our lives, or questions of right and wrong. Ultimately such questions come down to choice and judgment. Hence my trust in the bible. Just because you don't see it as compelling doesn't mean there isn't a compelling philosophy there that warrants trust for those who do see it.

You are either totally missing the point or being crafty...let me see... I'll cut you some slack as maybe I'm not clear. Yes, the Bible can contain all kinds of ideas, questions and arguments: what you might tinsel - spray as 'philosophy', but is human and social discussion points that we might find in many other books. It even is (as Prof Stavrakopulou says), a fascinating look into the world and thought of the Iron age (not bronze age, folks ) Middle east. But that is all. What it does not do is make a credible case for God, Jesus or Christianity, and that, not ferretting out Biblical humanist social philosophy. is what's important as I'd far rather go to Charles Schultz than the Bible for my philosophic musings. To sum up, as reliable fact, the Bible is not here; as a life guide, it is worth no more than any other book, and less than a lot.

Let me try to summarize and hopefully move the conversation forward. (Bear with me.)

The general argument I've been making is that the bible as a set of stories conveys a philosophy that can be trustworthy even if devoid of literal fact. And yes, we could generalize this argument even further by replacing the bible with Peanuts, Calvin and Hobbes, or any other fictional 'account'. Again, the lack of literal truth does not necessarily mean the account, once conceptualized as philosophy, is not trustworthy. I don't think you disagree so far as I can see.

Your issue seems more to be that the bible, even considered as philosophy, "does not make a credible case for God, Jesus or Christianity." To this point, I would ask whether that is its job as story, which is its primary genre. As story, it strikes me as perfectly reasonable that the bible be more presumptive and declarative in nature, and that it's on us as readers (as is the case with most other fictional literature) to do the hard work of abstracting / conceptualizing and ascertaining the case for what's being said. So this feels like an unfair burden to put on the bible that we don't put on other fictional accounts (like Peanuts). Put otherwise, the bible as story conveys philosophy, but its genre doesn't match that of most philosophical writings which come more in the form of logical exposition and direct case-making, which is what you seem to want of it.

That said, now we're moving the discussion into new territory (and a very open-ended one at that), which is, even if the bible itself doesn't make a case for the philosophy that it conveys, there should still be a case for that philosophy. I would agree with that, and that case (insofar as I have personally construed it) is ultimately what makes the bible compelling to me. But that case requires two things: (1) alignment on the philosophy or concept being conveyed -- a matter of hermeneutics, and (2) the case for that philosophy / concept. My suspicion is we will never agree on (1) let alone (2) which is dependent on it.

For example, you identified 'God' as a key concept of the biblical philosophy. I would agree. But I'm pretty certain we have different concepts of God in mind and that if I was to look at yours, I would agree there is no case for it. i.e., God as some sort of omnipotent, creator Being looking down on us from another plane of existence. My concept of God (simplifying for the sake of argument), is far more evolutionary in nature, and doesn't come with all the upfront baggage of your God for which I agree there is no basis. It is more a God of possibility than actuality, which starts to make the concept itself far more reasonable in nature and therefore trustworthy.

Again, that is very much an oversimplification, but the point is we'd have to work through such questions before we could make your rather bold claim that there is no case for such things as God let alone the broader biblical philosophy.

I suspect that you may have realised that it isn't factually reliable or you wouldn't be trying to save it as some social mentor, or that might just be your schtich.

No. I have genuinely never cared or been bothered by the lack of literal truth in the bible. I have been bothered by the concepts, and whether they comport with reality, but not the literal truth of it all. ('God' as a concept being the big one there, and being able to trust that God actually exists, which I do now after many years conceptualizing.)

P.S.while I think of it - relevant here or not. "Just because you can't find what you're looking for as you are searching in the wrong spot, does not mean that you can say that We can't find it (when I suspect we have) and you won't listen but insist we must join you looking in the wrong place".As a spoiler or crib, Philosophy is never going to get beyond speculation when it tries to do the job of science.

On the last point, I see science as a branch of philosophy, and don't mean to suggest that philosophy should do the job of science in some non-scientific way. My prior suggestion, which I stand by, is that there are certain questions or domains where science just isn't possible -- hence there is no job for science to do -- but where we still want answers. I agree that any answers philosophy provides in such domains will be speculative in nature. Hence my earlier point that it ultimately comes down to judgment and choice whether to trust what the philosophy says or not. But this is true even of science itself, which as a branch of philosophy is circumscribed by it. At some level, you have to trust (i.e., choose to believe) that the world around us isn't all just an illusion, including all the evidence that science has gathered.

[theophile]

Many have rejected the Bible, due to the stories of Genesis alone 'proving' false. The ones, who still remain Christian, either reject science in favor of Genesis, or, instead dismiss the Genesis stories as merely being metaphorical/allegorical. Same goes for the Exodus account. And so on and so forth it goes, on through the entirety of the Torah and beyond. And when one gets to the New Testament, quite a bit of apologetics is required/necessary to explain away apparent 'problems/inconsistencies/discrepancies/other'.

For Debate:

As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

For me, the answer is simple. All the metaphor and allegory of the bible you mention is translatable to philosophy, and the philosophy I see being conveyed there is the most all-inclusive, comprehensive, inspiring, and conforming to reality as I know it. Nothing else I've encountered comes close.

(Science is great and all, and I don't reject it by any means. But it's too narrow in what it can provide as compared to the bible or other philosophies for that matter. It was originally just a branch of philosophy after all, and I would say still is.)

Reads like you are essentially saying.... Sure, much of the stuff in there is probably not true. Which is why it must instead have been meant to be allegorical or philosophical. But, we should still trust the Bible anyways, because it is inspiring, inclusive, and conforming to read?

I don't think anything in the bible is literally true. Or better, I don't really care if it's literally true or not. I don't see what that has to do with the trustworthiness of the philosophy that it conveys.

(The job of philosophy isn't to relay fact, as if it was history or science, but rather to provide a system of ideas to bring everything together into a comprehensive, consistent, and compelling world-view, for lack of a better definition. And story can be a vehicle for it.)

Then your response lends virtually nothing to the topic. I'm asking Christians why they can trust the Bible? Are you a Christian? Or, are you just placing your 2 cents in here, as to how you feel the Bible is the best collection of allegorical philosophy books ever authored?

What does it mean to be Christian? Is it to trust the bible? Is it to believe the biblical God exists? My answer is 'yes' to both of those, but I don't align myself to any Christian church. So if I'm not your target audience because of that, so be it.

As to what I'm trying to lend to the topic, see my last response to Transponder for a more detailed view. In sum, it's that my trust is not based in the literal fact of what the bible says, but in the concepts that the bible as a fictional account conveys, and how those concepts comport to reality. You seem to think that the lack of literal truth precludes any trust whatsoever, which I think is a narrow view of the matter.

For example, God. Once properly conceptualized, I can trust that God exists. But this doesn't mean that God literally did everything the bible says. No different, say, from Einstein's thought experiments to convey special relativity. Just because there was no literal train actually moving at the speed of light doesn't mean the concept being conveyed isn't real or at work in the world.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #18]

All I got from that was Ok the Bible isn't demonstrably true,and yes maybe other books or ideas deal with the same or similar matters, but if we just start with a Bible - enthusiastic mindset,one can still validate the Bible, God and maybe Christianity as somehow true. Is that it comes down to or not?

To look at it another way, or maybe the outcome of that is that the only common ground I can see is that there is no validation of the Bible as factually true, and the other stuff is humans living in the world that all religions and none deal with in thought, literature and religion. From there, you may say that having a mindset leaning towards Jesusgod, Bible and Christianity, one can see that as more significant than any other stuff,or at least a personal preference for talking about that other stuff. That's as far as I can go without being asked to invest unjustified Faith in the Bible, Jesusgod and Christianity.

I invite your comments. This is a discussion forum, so I hope there is something we can find to discuss, because I do not discuss Religious Faith other than to show its' invalidity.