The Bible Claims...

[Godistruth1]

Hello all,

The Bible claims the Bible is given from God. How might one assess such a claim as valid or invalid? If all humans are flawed in reason, logic, and in assessing evidence... If all humans are bias in their assessments.... If no universal human standard exists for determining truth.... If all humans have a brain, and use that brain to assess all claimed information, with no other mechanism to determine reality verses fiction...

By what standard is then used to determine the Bible is given from a higher power?

When I read it, many stories, assertions, and claims seem to more fall in line with what mere humans would think and state; especially from the time period written.

By what specialized method was concluded to determine the Bible is given by God, besides the Bible's say-so?

Thank you in advance!

I believe logic is necessary to know the truth because if God gave us logic its necessary its used to find out about the truth of God!

 

[dysert]

Biblical Prophesy fulfilled !!!

Bingo! To me, this is the #1 way.

 

[Sanoy]

How might one assess such a claim as valid or invalid? If all humans are flawed in reason, logic, and in assessing evidence... If all humans are bias in their assessments.... If no universal human standard exists for determining truth.... If all humans have a brain, and use that brain to assess all claimed information, with no other mechanism to determine reality verses fiction...

If all humans have flawed reason and logic how do you know all humans have flawed reason and logic? You make quite a lot of claims that require the very same epistemic grounding you are claiming doesn't work. Solipsism should be avoided for such reasons. It also raises the question of how can we ground our cognitive faculties in anything other than God for acquiring true knowledge about reality. What else could give us faculties for acquiring true knowledge about the world?

 

[Halbhh]

You saying you can validate the Bible because of a feeling,

I'm afraid you've totally confused me with some other person??

That's so radically unlike anything I've said or ever thought even.

You had clicked on my post, but seem to be answering some other people or past arguments or even just suppositions?

I was the one asking you: "Don't you think Paul had it correct though in Romans 10:17? Also, if the spirit is guiding....Then it's not people doing the choosing of the Word. But when we read what Christ said, then we know it's the real Word, by His power, you just know.
"(It's not sola scriptura I believe in. That's a mere abstraction. It's the living Word, with God since the beginning.)"

Ah, you are guessing that I "know" God (and Christ, the Word incarnate) by only a feeling, without thoughts?

That's pretty far-out radical actually (are protestants thought to be wildly loopy in general??). Rather, I'd suggest we trust what He said about this --

Jeremiah 31:34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Additionally, you can find a wonderful thing done for you in John chapter 17 (in verse 15, but please read more than only a bit!) which will help you realize it's even better than you think as you were writing: "...Jesus did not promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against individuals..." Because our Savior indeed has even prayed this very aid for us, protection against the enemy as individuals who are His!

 

[Halbhh]

Why is the absolute primacy and authority of Scripture "a mere abstraction"? Neither Christ nor His apostles would agree.

Ah, friend, merely read the next sentence there from that same post you quoted.

 

[Steve Petersen]

If it is indeed the Word of God, it is self-authenticating. Jeremiah 2.29.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The Bible evidences itself to be the Word of God through the testimony of the Holy Spirit working in the elect. If God has chosen you for salvation, then by reading the Bible and hearing it preached, you will become convinced that it is the word of God.

Sounds very subjective. Seeing how many interpretations Christians have of various passages, one would think that the Holy Spirit is very confused. Either that or WE ALL ARE.

 

[Tree of Life]

Sounds very subjective. Seeing how many interpretations Christians have of various passages, one would think that the Holy Spirit is very confused. Either that or WE ALL ARE.

Personally accepting the Bible as God’s Word is a subjective experience. But it is based on God’s Spirit working in the subject. The fact that the work of God’s Spirit is needed in order for us to accept the Bible does not imply that we will understand it completely and there will never be disagreement.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Personally accepting the Bible as God’s Word is a subjective experience. But it is based on God’s Spirit working in the subject. The fact that the work of God’s Spirit is needed in order for us to accept the Bible does not imply that we will understand it completely and there will never be disagreement.

Then how do you know if the Holy Spirit is teaching you? A feeling?

 

[Tree of Life]

Then how do you know if the Holy Spirit is teaching you? A feeling?

Cognitive rest in the truth of Scripture.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'm afraid you've totally confused me with some other person??

If so, I'm sorry.

I was the one asking you: "Don't you think Paul had it correct though in Romans 10:17? Also, if the spirit is guiding....Then it's not people doing the choosing of the Word. But when we read what Christ said, then we know it's the real Word, by His power, you just know.

Faith does come by hearing, and by hearing the Word of God preached. I think the underlying thought there was that faith comes by the proclamation of the Good news of Jesus Christ in the assembly of the Church. Not about somehow knowing (or feeling) what you read is validated.

Ah, you are guessing that I "know" God (and Christ, the Word incarnate) by only a feeling, without thoughts?

I had wondered, but only about your opinion of the Scriptures. That is the Mormon basis for their 'burning in the bosom' supposed proof for the validity of their Book of Mormon. And I don't buy that argument from Christians or from Mormons. But once you accept the Scriptures, and it is of course right to accept them, then they are a true basis for knowing Jesus Christ and the Father and their Spirit.

That's pretty far-out radical actually (are protestants thought to be wildly loopy in general??).

There are loopy Protestants and normal Protestants and I don't have a guidebook at my side to help me figure them all out. I will be happy that you are not loopy.

Additionally, you can find a wonderful thing done for you in John chapter 17 (in verse 15, but please read more than only a bit!) which will help you realize it's even better than you think as you were writing: "...Jesus did not promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against individuals..." Because our Savior indeed has even prayed this very aid for us, protection against the enemy as individuals who are His!

OK. I was addressing belief and not whether an individual might lose their faith. Even if an individual is OSAS they can make a mess of their beliefs. But that does not address how a person can trust the Bible as the Word of God. For that I referred to Jesus saying that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Which means on matters like this you can trust the Church. And because of 1 Tim 3:15.

And v 14 of Jn 17 gives a clue. It says "I have given them thy word". Jesus conveyed the Father's truth to his followers. He started their assembly, the Church, discipling them closely for three years. That 'word' was active in the Church. Before a bit of the NT was written. And at a suitable time much of that word found it's way into written form as the Church wrote the NT. And preserved it, and copied it, and scrutinized it, and canonized it, and read from it in the liturgy. They didn't just find a Bible laying on the ground, pick it up, look at it, say this is self-authenticating, or this provides a 'burning in the bosom', or whatever, and start passing out copies. The Church wrote the NT. The Church became custodian of the OT. It is the Church which validates the Bible. That was Augustine's point. Everything else is icing on the cake as far as validating the Bible goes.

 

[Halbhh]

If so, I'm sorry.

Faith does come by hearing, and by hearing the Word of God preached. I think the underlying thought there was that faith comes by the proclamation of the Good news of Jesus Christ in the assembly of the Church. Not about somehow knowing (or feeling) what you read is validated.

I had wondered, but only about your opinion of the Scriptures. That is the Mormon basis for their 'burning in the bosom' supposed proof for the validity of their Book of Mormon. And I don't buy that argument from Christians or from Mormons. But once you accept the Scriptures, and it is of course right to accept them, then they are a true basis for knowing Jesus Christ and the Father and their Spirit.

There are loopy Protestants and normal Protestants and I don't have a guidebook at my side to help me figure them all out. I will be happy that you are not loopy.

OK. I was addressing belief and not whether an individual might lose their faith. Even if an individual is OSAS they can make a mess of their beliefs. But that does not address how a person can trust the Bible as the Word of God. For that I referred to Jesus saying that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. Which means on matters like this you can trust the Church. And because of 1 Tim 3:15.

And v 14 of Jn 17 gives a clue. It says "I have given them thy word". Jesus conveyed the Father's truth to his followers. He started their assembly, the Church, discipling them closely for three years. That 'word' was active in the Church. Before a bit of the NT was written. And at a suitable time much of that word found it's way into written form as the Church wrote the NT. And preserved it, and copied it, and scrutinized it, and canonized it, and read from it in the liturgy. They didn't just find a Bible laying on the ground, pick it up, look at it, say this is self-authenticating, or this provides a 'burning in the bosom', or whatever, and start passing out copies. The Church wrote the NT. The Church became custodian of the OT. It is the Church which validates the Bible. That was Augustine's point. Everything else is icing on the cake as far as validating the Bible goes.

Well, surely the 'Church' -- meaning believers guided from above by the Holy Spirit -- is indeed able to discern what is truly God's Words and what is not. I take it you'd agree(?) this doesn't mean we believers, us the Church, 'validate' God Himself or His Words, of course, but merely we validate only that in fact we have His authentic Words here in this Bible. That is, we don't validate the Word, Christ Himself -- how could any but Christ or God or the Spirit -- but we have (the Church has already) validated that these are indeed real gospel accounts, and this is indeed a real transcription of the Holy Word. Yes? Is that what you mean? Of course if "Church" is taken to mean not only the Body of Christ -- all who believe -- but also Christ Himself, then it's a given with a broad definition like that then of course the "Church" then validates even the Holy Word (which is above, superior, to you and I and all living here). But if we take "Church" to mean all that believe and follow Christ, Who is Himself the Head of the Church, then the Body cannot judge the Head of course. So, it's a matter of what is meant by "Church" then, and I think of the term as referring to all believers in Christ -- believing as in the Apostles Creed -- who follow Him, keeping His Word, Christ Himself as separately the Head, or Groom. Instead of being a member of the Church, Christ is the separate Groom, and the Church His Bride.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Well, surely the 'Church' -- meaning believers guided from above by the Holy Spirit -- is indeed able to discern what is truly God's Words and what is not. I take it you'd agree(?) this doesn't mean we believers, us the Church, 'validate' God Himself or His Words, of course, but merely we validate only that in fact we have His authentic Words here in this Bible. That is, we don't validate the Word, Christ Himself -- how could any but Christ or God or the Spirit -- but we have (the Church has already) validated that these are indeed real gospel accounts, and this is indeed a real transcription of the Holy Word. Yes? Is that what you mean?

Maybe we are close finally.

Of course if "Church" is taken to mean not only the Body of Christ -- all who believe -- but also Christ Himself, then it's a given with a broad definition like that then of course the "Church" then validates even the Holy Word (which is above, superior, to you and I and all living here). But if we take "Church" to mean all that believe and follow Christ, Who is Himself the Head of the Church, then the Body cannot judge the Head of course. So, it's a matter of what is meant by "Church" then, and I think of the term as referring to all believers in Christ -- believing as in the Apostles Creed -- who follow Him, keeping His Word, Christ Himself as separately the Head, or Groom. Instead of being a member of the Church, Christ is the separate Groom, and the Church His Bride.

The Church is the bride of Christ, and not actually Christ. We both know that.

But the Church is more than just the summation of believers independently discerning the lead of the Holy Spirit. In fact there are many models of the Church which one should keep in mind, all relevant, none exclusive, some more relevant at times than others. The great Avery Cardinal Dulles wrote the book on this in 'Models of the Church' in 1974. He describes the Church as institution, mystical community, sacrament, herald, and servant.
Five Models of the Church - Chris Castaldo
Dulles' Models of Church (1974)

The Church does not judge the Lord, but does, as part of it's mission, testify to the Lord. And that includes giving testimony to what Jesus said and did, to what the Holy Spirit taught and teaches, to what is right and true and just and beautiful. It is the job of the Church, the community of the disciples, to testify, in this case to testify to the truth of the Bible so the waiting world can believe what it says. It testifies as a community of believers in the Word, an institution dedicated to the Word, a sacrament of the Word, a herald of the Word, and as a servant of the Word.

Jesus presented Himself with testimony. The Church which he founded gives testimony to the Bible as the true and faithful record of Jesus, written by apostles and apostolic men in the Church, for the Church, scrutinized for accuracy by the Church, approved by the Church. The OP can know the Bible is trustworthy because the Church, whose job it is to say so, has said so. Not because they are judging God but because they knew God and they know the Biblical record is true to the God they knew and know.

 

[cvanwey]

The Bible evidences itself to be the Word of God through the testimony of the Holy Spirit working in the elect. If God has chosen you for salvation, then by reading the Bible and hearing it preached, you will become convinced that it is the word of God.

Thank you for your response. However, in all honesty, what I'm interpreting from this reply states that if I read the Bible, I may become convinced? How might this be any different that someone from Saudi Arabia continuing the read the Qur'an, whom eventually becomes 'convinced', by the same exact means of hearing and reading?

 

[cvanwey]

Moses wrote the words of the Lord, and it tells us that Moses wrote all the words of the Lord. When the NT claims the bible was inspired by God, it isn't talking about the NT (which I believe to be inspired as well), rather, it is talking about the Scripture of that day. The NT wasn't even compiled and not all of it even written, when Paul said, "All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God." He was referring to what we call the OT.

I've studied your claim, and it would appear that Moses did not write anything from the OT. If this is true, then by what standard might one determine the Bible was actually given by God?

 

[cvanwey]

I can't do common sense for you, so I can't elaborate, which puts us right back to the same square one that telling you it's all a matter of faith would, but at least adds a little something that we know exists and gives us answers even when we can't find them the conventional way.

But evidently what seems sensible to me, doesn't to you. Have you tried comparing the bibles way to the alternative?

Thank you. But if 'common sense' tells me that many supernatural claimed stories from the Bible are not factual (i.e) a speaking serpent, a flood, tower of babel, man living in a giant fish, a sea parting, a talking donkey, etc..., then how might I determine which parts are actual, verses fictional?

This is not mockery. This is me wrestling with the factual 'claimed' accounts from the Bible.

 

[cvanwey]

Biblical Prophesy fulfilled !!!

Please list the best Bible prophecy fulfilled (chapter and verse), so I may compare. TY

 

[cvanwey]

Can I ask you a couple questions?

Not about the bible but the existent of God.

Sure

 

[Danielwright2311]

Sure

Ok, first question

Who owns your body?

You or the earth?

Now this will lead to something so please play along.

Also do one more thing ok?

TYPE "demons" backwards into Google search " Snomed "

 

[cvanwey]

Hi there, my first question is to find out why you have made this assumption.

Because anytime I disagree with a Bible verse, I am repeatedly told that my human mind is limited and cannot understand "God's" ways.

Do you believe it is impossible for a human to be perfect in reason, logic and assessing evidence? If so, could you explain what you think is responsible for that condition?

Let me demonstrate how this question might appear a bit malformed...

500 years ago, the world was stated to be flat. Even scientists agreed. Since then, evidence now demonstrates otherwise. The world is spherical.

Now moving forward, though slight changed might 'conclude' altering finite shapes of our earth in the future (different spherical shapes), do YOU think ANY new 'evidence' will ever come to light, demonstrating the world 'is' flat again, justifying the claim from 500 years ago to be correct?

Same goes for some stuff in the Bible. There exists too much evidence to ever again conclude the Bible's long ago assertions. So if I'm being honest with myself, where does one go from there?

Many claims from God, as we discover more, appear not to align with reality.

So now what?