How do we know that the Bible is the "True" Word of God?

[Halbhh]

Spiritually yes. I was referring to empirical evidence. God doesn't seem to mind asking for empirical evidence, considering He provided it to convince Moses and Gideon etc. The empirical evidence for the Bible is multi tiered.

If there was just a clear empirical/conclusive evidence of God that even a skeptic could not deny today, then much of the New Testament would be incorrect in that we are required to have "faith" which is to believe without seeing (if you merely see first and then merely acknowledge that fact, it's not exactly the 'faith' we are to have -- Hebrews 11:1) -- to believe without, before any such outright empirical evidence. God wants those who would trust Him.

 

[Halbhh]

Well said! We need something to base our faith off after all right? Otherwise it would be truly blind faith.

We don't get empirical evidence before belief -- which would just cancel what is the requirement of 'faith' (Hebrews 11:1, and the need for "faith" is a key central message throughout all of the New Testament in general...), but we do indeed have something to base our faith on -- the word of Christ (Romans 10:17).

 

[Ceallaigh]

If there was just a clear empirical/conclusive evidence of God that even a skeptic could not deny today, then much of the New Testament would be incorrect in that we are required to have "faith" which is to believe without seeing (if you merely see first and then merely acknowledge that fact, it's not exactly the 'faith' we are to have -- Hebrews 11:1) -- to believe without, before any such outright empirical evidence. God wants those who would trust Him.

Like I said, in the Bible when someone wanted some kind of proof or a sign, God gave it to them. Now there's no empirical proof of God to be found in the Bible. But there is lot of empirical evidence that the Bible itself is legitimate. Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible continues to gain credibility as time goes on and more things are discovered to back it up as far as the people, places and events described in it go.

 

[Halbhh]

Like I said, in the Bible when someone wanted some kind of proof or a sign, God gave it to them. Now there's no empirical proof of God to be found in the Bible. But there is lot of empirical evidence that the Bible itself is legitimate. Unlike the Book of Mormon, the Bible continues to gain credibility as time goes on and more things are discovered to back it up as far as the people, places and events described in it go.

About "when someone wanted some kind of proof or a sign, God gave it to them", you'd want to remember that's out when the New Testament time begins:

38 Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from you.”

39 He answered, “A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here."

They would after demanding a sign only get the information that Christ rose from the dead after 3 days, and no other proof at all(!)....

But, you were I think on your main point saying: "But there is lot of empirical evidence that the Bible itself is legitimate."

That's certainly right in that such basic things as who was king when and such in the Bible is obviously correct. Also, while we can expect nothing will outright prove God before Christ's return (canceling the requirement of "faith"), nothing also will outright disprove God. ( When someone makes an error such as imagining a verse implies a flat Earth, it's merely the mistake of that individual.)
So, on that we agree of course.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Good question, the fruit of the spirit is ...Galatians 5:22-23

So odds are that spirit that makes you feel relaxed on sunday but then irritable afterwards if asked to do anything is probably a different spirit.

The Holy Spirit does speak to us, but I don't think it's a feeling, an intuition, or some esoteric experience; the Spirit speaks through His word. We hear God in the preaching of the Gospel, this is a matter of faith. Faith beholds God in the suffering and the cross of Jesus Christ; to behold God in faith is to see the friendly face of God in Jesus. Jesus who says, "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father". It is the Holy Spirit who brings faith home into our hearts by the power of the word, that word heard in the preaching of the Gospel, that word connected in and with the water of Holy Baptism, that word connected and with the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

As such I would argue that looking to any interior "proof" or "evidence" or "experience" is looking in the opposite direction. One does not look into themselves, but looks outside of themselves--we behold the external and visible things of God, these are the things of faith. We cannot find God by looking inside of ourselves, God is found in the Cross of Jesus, God is found in His word, in the Scriptures, in the Sacraments.

How does one come to accept that the Scriptures are holy and inspired word of God? Faith. A faith that comes from outside of ourselves, by the grace of God, at work through the power of the Gospel, "For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). Thus the word of the Gospel is "living and active, and sharper than any two-edged sword, even penetrating as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

We must therefore be careful not to rely on our own intuition or reason, not because intuition is bad, or because reason is bad; but because neither intuition nor reason can bring us one step closer God. God comes down to us in Christ, God meets us in Christ, and He continues to meet us in Christ through the Gospel and through the Sacraments.

If we preach that man must come up to find God by his own power, then man is forever lost in the wilderness of himself. But if we take the Gospel seriously, we know that this isn't the case: we don't go up to find God, God comes down to find us.

The question is therefore never "Have you made a decision for Christ?" but rather, "Has Jesus made a decision for us?" And the answer to that question is a resounding yes. God accepts us in Jesus. That is the Gospel, that is what saves us, that is what heals us, that is what gives us faith.

It is therefore not our job to convince others to believe as we do, but to be a people of Good News, that through the word God continues to liberate captive hearts and bring them into the freedom of His love and kindness.

This is God's work, not our own.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gregory Thompson]

This is God's work, not our own.

I can agree with that, in a sacramental kind of way, we play a part, but God does it through us.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Hi,

Quick question. How do we know (you guys in particular) that the Bible is the true word of God? Likewise, How do you know that it is indeed the true word of God instead of other writings such as the Quran and etc?

The Bible is backed up by far more scientific, historical, and philosophical evidence than any other religious book. And has had the greatest impact on the world for good.

 

[ldonjohn]

Thanks for your post! I really resonated with this. I agree that the bible is big and complicated and ancient, and it's very hard to know if it's true on its face, even when taking in all the interesting history surrounding the book and all the good fruits that have come from it. But how can one come to know Christ without at least a little bit of faith in Him and how can we have even a little faith in Him if we know nothing about Him? I'm really glad you put an emphasis on a real relationship with Christ. That is the priority for sure.

Good question!
Your answer can be found in God's Word, the Bible. That is where I found him reading the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John tells who Jesus is and what He did for us.

Regards,

John

 

[ldonjohn]

God's Word is not a book of mere words. If you read it in earnest, truly seeking the truth that is there, then you will find that it is a powerful living document that can change your life through the Spirit of the One who gave it to us.

John

 

[BNR32FAN]

It would be pretty impossible to make a case for Jesus Christ. Isn't all the knowledge about him written in the gospels, which are located in the bible? Doesn't a preacher communicate a message that is from the bible?

No there are several mentions of Jesus in other ancient writings even writings of hostility against Him which is pretty compelling when it’s coming from people who did not support or endorse Christianity but instead condemned it.

 

[throughfiierytrial]

Hi,

Quick question. How do we know (you guys in particular) that the Bible is the true word of God? Likewise, How do you know that it is indeed the true word of God instead of other writings such as the Quran and etc?

I believed or had faith in the Word spoken to me. As an adult however I see from both quotations given me from the Quaran and reading some of it myself that it certainly lacks the profundity of the Christian Bible. The Bible contains prophecy...huge amounts of prophecy all fulfilled in Christ (which is beyond the laws of probability). The Bible writings have been passed down to us through forty plus prophets whose writings all agree and build upon one another. ..this speaks of the miraculous. The Bible also contains much symbolism in the OT fulfilled in NT; some of which is pointed out by Jesus in the Gospels and some by the Apostles in their letters/Epistles of the Bible, some we continue to find personally and enjoy for our own edification in the faith...the OT accounts are both real and symbolic of things to come.
Passages and accounts point to one another and are reinforced by each other and doctrines are developed by one another (I am speaking of different groups of passages). Passages are multifaceted in that they point to various truths at the same time.
I can list examples of each, but it would take some time for me to post them.
Finally, I believe the Scriptures because they live in me and stir my soul.

Other religions with their associated "holy" books do nothing to address sin and how we deal with it in such a way as to have peace with God. They do not in my view give us an account of the beginning and the end either...not even to one's psychological satisfaction much less one's intellectual satisfaction.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Ive never noticed this before. I think you may be right. I’ve never realized that in both John and Matthew they are always refer to in the third person. That seems really strange for an author to refer to himself in the third person in an eyewitness testimony.

Jesus referred to himself in the third person a lot. Paul also referred to himself in the third person. And even Bart Ehrman says Paul's letters were written by Paul.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Paul's letters are copies of copies as well, but even Ehrman says Paul wrote them. I doubt that there's an original manuscript of any ancient author. But how many question if Plato's writings were written by Plato for example. In the case of Luke, Luke was most likely there and chronicled everything he witnessed and was told about at the time it happened during the ministry of Jesus, and then during the formation of the church. But as far as flawless rock solid proof goes, it's not there. There's just is enough evidence to be convincing. But of course not convincing to everyone.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Another thing to consider is the formation of and the history of the Christian church which started right after the crucifixion. There's a line of succession starting from the founding apostles. So that gives us a great deal of continuity.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Jesus referred to himself in the third person a lot. Paul also referred to himself in the third person. And even Bart Ehrman says Paul's letters were written by Paul.

Paul specifically introduced himself in every one of his epistles and referred to himself in the first person as did all the authors of the epistles except for Hebrews.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Paul specifically introduced himself in every one of his epistles and referred to himself in the first person as did all the authors of the epistles except for Hebrews.

When he talked about his trip to heaven, and said "who is Paul?" etc it was third person. But it was obviously him writing it.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Of course they are copies of copies. We have very few originals of documents from that period. It’s sort of irrelevant.

I e read several of Ehrman’s books. I think he overplays this. The gospels are anonymous in the sense that the text doesn’t identify the author. But the traditional attribution for Mark is fairly well accepted. Luke is more controversial, but I’d accept that as well. While Luke is strictly speaking anonymous, it obviously expects that the person it is addressed to knows the author. I’m not sure how much knowing the names of the authors would help. Even if we knew their names, we wouldn’t have enough information about them to judge their credibility or their biases. We can only deduce that from the gospels themselves.

I've heard it suggested that Mark was actually dictated by Peter to Mark. But that wouldn't really be a detraction.

 

[TedT]

Quick question. How do we know (you guys in particular) that the Bible is the true word of God?

We live by faith, an unproven HOPE, not proof.

 

[Jaedan]

I had to accept that the Spirit who contacted me was GOD, not a demon...etc etc

I don't know if this is rude to say but, wouldn't a Muslim in a Middle Eastern country say the same exact thing about their God (or spirit)?

 

[coffee4u]

It would be pretty impossible to make a case for Jesus Christ. Isn't all the knowledge about him written in the gospels, which are located in the bible? Doesn't a preacher communicate a message that is from the bible?

Scripture itself claims to be God's breathed word and that it holds power to change hearts.
2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

People have been saved by reading scripture alone.
Now either it is all true or none of it is since God wouldn't put his name on half truths.

Then there is the matter of Jesus himself, either he is God or he isn't. Other religions often say that Jesus was just a great teacher, but Jesus never claimed that, he claimed in a variety of ways that he actually was God come in the flesh.

When Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” The Jews who heard Him took up stones and said that he was blaspheming and that “You, a mere man, claim to be God”
There were other occasions like when he said “Very truly I tell you, . . . before Abraham was born, I am!” Only God called himself the "I am" as a title.
Exodus 3:14

14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”

Some Christians made the Bible to be their idol, for example the KJV only, flat earthers/YEC and similar. Taking every word from it as "the Word of God" and spending more time in it than in a real life.

Every word from it is the word of God, that is what scripture itself claims.
The same way it proclaims that Jesus is God come in the flesh.
We don't pray to scripture, we pray to God.