How do you know the Bible is from God? (page 3)

cognac

Where does the Bible get its authority from, the Bible? Where does it say that the Bible never lies, in the Bible?

When something gets its authority from itself, it is time to start questioning if it is even valid.

That's a very good question. I guess the thing to research first would be if there is any historical proof of whether or not Jesus was here. And what does history outside the bible state about the miracles he performed. If those support the scriptures, then I would think the promises he made and the authority that what is stated in the bible as from God would also hold out as true also.

Does any know anything about that? I'll research it also. What are yout thoughts on that WT and others?

PSacramento

The bible (chose a canon) was written by men who believed they were writting the "word of god" and as such, many were truly inspired by God.

The Bible is NOT to be taken liteally, at least not ALL the parts of it, it does fall on the individual to decide which parts he or she will take literally and it falles on he or she to decide that through not only study of the bible ( not being told by someone but finding out on theri own) but by asking God for guidence. This must be done with NO precconceived ideas or notions, with an open and critical mind.

Some parts of the bible seem cruel and spiteful and quite at odds with even human common sense much less divine common sense, again we need to remember that NOT all that was written was about God, miuch of it is historical stuff and written by people that, at time, were trying to justify their actions.

AMomentWeBothKnew

The Witlesses says that the Bible is "inspired of God" because it itself says it is inspired. Fine, but my next question would be, and a question that I have proposed to many Witlesses is "Then why don't we accept other books based on the fact that they claim some kind of divine backing?" I am talking about the Koran, the Vedas, and other writings that claim some type of divine backing. Accepting divine inspiration for any book solely based on its own claim is illogical at best, preposterous at its worst.

My belief is that if the Old and New Testaments were divinely inspired, then there wouldn't be any evidence to the contrary and, trust me, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.

cognac

Nice comments Psac and Amoment! I would think the only think that we could really trust as from God would be specifically what Jesus states and that is even depending on what outside sources can prove to us regarding Jesus.

Probably the whole bible is simply written by man, however; did they capture what Jesus did state as from God? Also, if Jesus can in some ways be proven wouldn't that mean that the lineage leading up to his birth and the fulfilled prophecies regarding his birth and life would have to be inspired by God??? And if that is true, then maybe some parts are and some parts are not directly inspired from God as AGuest said?

AMomentWeBothKnew

Well, Cognac, thanks. To reply to your question regarding Jesus' lineage and the fulfilled prophecies, I would argue that the "prophecies" are nothing more than the Gospel writers either deliberately falsifying facts about Jesus' life, embellishing, or misinterpreting such facts. I'm not one of those who believe the Gospels are entire fabrications, but I do believe the writers, whoever they were, desperately wanted to believe that this Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish messiah, so they wrote the Gospels to that effect. I also hold to the belief that each Gospel was meant for the Greco-Roman world at large, but each had a particular segment of the Greco-Roman population in mind. The writers weren't idiots, and I don't think there was deliberate deceit; I think they meant well, but I think they also took great pains to portray Jesus as a divine figure, i.e. one who performed miracles, one who was resurrected from the dead, etc. Who in the Greco-Roman world would accept a Savior who wasn't divine? There were already plenty of divine or semi-divine figures in the Greco-Roman mythologies. Jesus had to stand out somehow.

As far as his lineage is concerned, I'm not familiar with what current scholarship says about that.

OnTheWayOut

Not to jump into such a debate and run, but I really don't want to argue. I just want to comment on that last comment, Cognac.

If the story of Jesus is literal (pick a Gospel as three slightly disagree and John is completely different) and the lineage is "inspired" as literal, then most of the rest should be literal too. Adam really is just over 6000 years old, a worldwide flood really did happen, God really did confuse the languages and approve of genocide, rape, pillaging, etc.

It is alot to consider.

Argue away, folks. Count me out of that.

moshe

How could Saddam Hussein prove he didn't have any WMD's buried somewhere in the vast deserts of Iraq? Short of digging up every square meter of ground, he couldn't. Likewise, religionists can't come up with any solid outside proof that the Bible is inspired, so they say, "prove to us that it isn't from God" and just as Saddam Hussein discovered, you can't really prove a negative. That is a very convenient catch-22 for the clergy, otherwise they would be out of work.

cognac

lol, OTWO... I'm happy that this thread is so far not an argument!

I've noticed that a lot of the comments are sincere and well thought out! Gives a person a lot to consider when trying to reason and logically think through multiple perspectives.

I think they also took great pains to portray Jesus as a divine figure, i.e. one who performed miracles, one who was resurrected from the dead, etc. Who in the Greco-Roman world would accept a Savior who wasn't divine? There were already plenty of divine or semi-divine figures in the Greco-Roman mythologies. Jesus had to stand out somehow.

hmmm, I will remember this perspective when I go to research the history of it all. Thanks!

If the story of Jesus is literal (pick a Gospel as three slightly disagree and John is completely different) and the lineage is "inspired" as literal, then most of the rest should be literal too. Adam really is just over 6000 years old, a worldwide flood really did happen, God really did confuse the languages and approve of genocide, rape, pillaging, etc.

I would think that humans wrote the bible as uninspired, however; specific times when God actually spoke to humans would have been inspired. They just recorded specifically what God said along with a bunch of other stuff, there own point of views, etc.

A lot of different things to weigh out when I go to do research.

Deputy Dog

cog

Why can't he just state how it is and then let us decide whether or not to go with him?

As a believer I have to ask, have you ever stopped to think that maybe he has stated how it is, and you don't like what you see?

AMomentWeBothKnew

Cognac, I can give you some resources if you're interested. When I was a witness, I read extensively on the topics of the historical Jesus, history of the ancient world, and historical and critical analysis of the Bible. I guess I am still interested in these, I just haven't pursued it in recent years. What I found interesting is that even the most "conservative" Bible scholars have views that differ from the WTBTS's teachings. The WTBTS and its rank and file adherents don't know anything about, what I would broadly term, "the historical context of the Bible." Why do you think they don't want you to research outside of their publications?

How do you know the Bible is from God?

Share this