Why to believe in god

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I do not believe in a creator because of the bible, I could arge the inconsitencies in the bible and every other religion but that is just a waist of time. I believe because the Universe and the earth are far to complex to have come about by chance.

the universe holds mysteries that go beyond human reason and scientific understanding

So I believe in God or a creator because to not believe is just ignorant

Click to expand...

I do not believe in God because of the Bible. I believe in the Bible because of God. One cannot understand what is revealed in scripture unless God reveals it.

So you don't believe Gods word in the bible is truth. The idea of God as creator is spoken about many times from the book of Genesis to Pauls letters and to Revelations.

Paul refers to God as creator when speaking to the Romans who worshipped their godds as idols of stone and wood. He said that God is the living God who created everything including the stone and wood they worshipped.

Do you not believe Paul ? Acts 14:15

“Friends, why are you doing this? We are merely human beings—just like you! We have come to bring you the Good News that you should turn from these worthless things and turn to the living God, who made heaven and earth, the sea, and everything in them.
Christ also referred to God as the creator. Do you not believe Christ ?.

Colossians 1:16: For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.

What about John. Revelation 10:6

and swore by him who lives forever and ever, who created heaven and what is in it, the earth and what is in it, and the sea and what is in it, that there would be no more delay,

What about Jesus Matthew 19:4
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female

I cannot see any inconsistency. We have a number of people all saying the same thing. None say God is not the creator. One being the Son of God who never lies. Isn't that enough ?

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

Why to believe in god

Click to expand...

Because God is personal. So, He wants us to personally share with Him and personally relate with Him.

God made humans in His image, and humans are personal beings who can personally relate and share. And mankind is a family being, in the image of God who is Father and Son and Holy Spirit > three family Persons . . . like father and child and mother. So, God wants family caring and sharing > with Him, the way He is able to have us discover how to love.

Without God sharing with us how He is loving, we can not genuinely love.

And so, a human needs to deny oneself, in order to be in sharing with God and in His family way of loving with other people who have trusted in Jesus. Part of getting into God's way of loving as family includes how we deny ourselves so we get out of our own ways of isolating only or mainly with others we hope to use for what we want >

"If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me." (in Luke 9:23)

So, there is this consistency of how - - - in order to be with God and share as His family . . . each of us has needed to deny one's own self, in order to get out of our own self's isolating and limited way of loving.

"For if you love those who love you, what reward have you?" (in Matthew 5:46)

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I do not believe in a creator because of the bible, I could argue the inconsitencies in the bible and every other religion but that is just a waist of time. I believe because the Universe and the earth are far to complex to have come about by chance.

the universe holds mysteries that go beyond human reason and scientific understanding

So I believe in God or a creator because to not believe is just ignorant

Click to expand...

I agree with your main point that the complexity and order of the universe point to an intelligent Creator rather than blind chance. Creation itself is a powerful witness that a Creator exists. However, I'm a little confused by your opening statement. When you say, "I could argue the inconsistencies in the Bible," it sounds as though you're saying the Bible actually contains contradictions. If that's not what you mean, you may want to reword it.

I would say that creation gives us good reason to believe that a Creator exists, but it doesn't tell us who that Creator is. The Bible does. One of the strongest reasons I believe the God of the Bible is the true God is because of the many Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in the life of Jesus.
I mean, imagine if I wrote a book, and, in this book, I wrote down over 300 predictions about future events, and every single one of them came true with perfect accuracy? You would recognise something extraordinary was happening, something divine. No human can predict the future with such precision.
Yet that’s exactly what we see in the Bible. The Old Testament was written hundreds of years before Jesus, and it contains over 300 prophecies that were fulfilled within His life. Things like, His birth in Bethlehem, how He entered Jerusalem on a donkey, His betrayal for 30 pieces of silver (that’s really accurate), that He would have nail-pierced hands and feet and most importantly, it foretells that He would die for the sins of the world. And that is only 5 out of the 300. No other book, not even the Quran, has this level of prophetic accuracy. No other book can tell the future like the Bible does.
The Bible stands alone as the divinely inspired Word of God. So, we need to take note of what it says.

So, while I agree that the universe points us to a Creator, I don't think we should separate that from the Bible. Creation tells us that God exists; Scripture tells us who He is.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I do not believe in a creator because of the bible, I could argue the inconsitencies in the bible and every other religion but that is just a waist of time. I believe because the Universe and the earth are far to complex to have come about by chance.

the universe holds mysteries that go beyond human reason and scientific understanding

So I believe in God or a creator because to not believe is just ignorant

Click to expand...

Just believing in God does you absolutely no good in the end. Unless your belief in God leads you to eventually come to believe in Jesus for Eternal Life God's free gift No belief in Jesus for Eternal Life no life for you in the end, only the second death awaits the person with out the Life of God.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I say inconsitencies because the bible the Bible is anthology of 66 distinct books written over thousands of years, Because it has been edited like at The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) it decided what books would be allowd into the bible, and created the bible we read today, it is a book that has been translated into and out of 100s of languages and depending on the language one word or pharse can mean several different things. And I could indepth especially with the old testament but then someone here would complain and get me a ban which has already happened once. I believe in god...but I believe the bible was writen and edited by human beings and humans make mistakes. I look at much the biblical laws and many of them do not look like laws writen by god...they look like laws writen by humans that were passed of as gods laws. I would go deeper but I would get banned, and it does not matter that its true, it matters someone finds teh truth offence. Of course this is debate, but not really. Real debate would not ban you for posting truth. A friend got banned here, he was debating, and he use biblical scripture and someone got there drawer in a twist and he got banned.

Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining your position.
I would just challenge one historical point. The Council of Nicaea didn't edit the Bible or decide which books would be in it. Its main purpose was to address the teaching of Arius about the nature of Christ. There are surviving records from the council, and they don't include debates about the biblical canon.
The books of the New Testament were already being widely recognized and read as Scripture long before AD 325. Later church councils listed the books that Christians had already accepted; they didn't invent the canon.

You're right that humans copied and translated the Bible, but that's different from saying the message has been changed. Because we have thousands of ancient manuscripts, scholars can compare them and identify copying mistakes. That's actually one of the strengths of the Bibl, we can check later copies against much earlier ones.

For me, one of the strongest reasons for trusting the Bible isn't simply that it claims to be God's Word. It's the remarkable fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. That gives me good reason to believe the Bible is more than just a collection of human writings, it is God's revelation.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I say inconsitencies because the bible the Bible is anthology of 66 distinct books written over thousands of years

Click to expand...

Not 66 books. This depends on what church one attended. The Catholic Church has 73 books and the Orthodox Church has 76 to 81. Protestants removed some of books to settle on 66.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

Because it has been edited like at The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) it decided what books would be allowd into the bible,

Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't like that. Nicaea decided which books were written by the Apostles or their disciples. The Old Testament wasn't changed. They used the Septuagint which the Apostles used.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

and created the bible we read today, it is a book that has been translated into and out of 100s of languages and depending on the language one word or pharse can mean several different things.

Click to expand...

The Church used either the Greek or Latin translations until the 15th century.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

. I believe in god...but I believe the bible was writen and edited by human beings and humans make mistakes. I look at much the biblical laws and many of them do not look like laws writen by god...they look like laws writen by humans that were passed of as gods laws.

Click to expand...

I understand but it would help if you researched the writing of the Bible. the Dead Sea scrolls show that Scripture is pretty consistent.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I would go deeper but I would get banned, and it does not matter that its true, it matters someone finds teh truth offence. Of course this is debate, but not really. Real debate would not ban you for posting truth. A friend got banned here, he was debating, and he use biblical scripture and someone got there drawer in a twist and he got banned.

Click to expand...

As I have said, you cannot understand Scripture without God revealing it to you. It would do you a lot of good, talking to God and asking for help. God is very loving and helps his children grow.

God bless

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I say inconsitencies because the bible the Bible is anthology of 66 distinct books written over thousands of years, Because it has been edited like at The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) it decided what books would be allowd into the bible, and created the bible we read today, it is a book that has been translated into and out of 100s of languages and depending on the language one word or pharse can mean several different things. And I could indepth especially with the old testament but then someone here would complain and get me a ban which has already happened once. I believe in god...but I believe the bible was writen and edited by human beings and humans make mistakes. I look at much the biblical laws and many of them do not look like laws writen by god...they look like laws writen by humans that were passed of as gods laws. I would go deeper but I would get banned, and it does not matter that its true, it matters someone finds teh truth offence. Of course this is debate, but not really. Real debate would not ban you for posting truth. A friend got banned here, he was debating, and he use biblical scripture and someone got there drawer in a twist and he got banned.

Click to expand...

Nicea had nothing to do with "editing" or selecting books of the Bible. The Catholic Church's prayer process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit, spanned centuries. The canon of 73 books was finally settled upon in the late 300s.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

The book was still edited, the book has been translated hundreds of time and many words and phrases mean different things depending on the language. And the bible we read today is not the same bible that people read a 1000 or even 500 years ago.

Click to expand...

I think it's important to distinguish between translation, copying, and editing. They aren't the same thing.
Yes, the Bible has been translated into many languages, but translators work from the oldest Hebrew and Greek manuscripts available. They aren't translating English into French into German and so on as I think you are getting at. They go back to the original languages.

Likewise, the Bible has been copied thousands of times over the centuries. Copyists occasionally made minor mistakes, but because we have thousands of ancient manuscripts, those differences can be identified and compared. That's one of the reasons scholars are so confident that we have an accurate representation of the original text.
Saying the Bible has been translated many times doesn't mean its message has been changed. In fact, the large number of ancient manuscripts allows us to verify the text with a very high degree of confidence.

Also, the Bible we read today is not fundamentally different from the Bible Christians read 500 or 1,000 years ago. English translations have changed because the English language has changed, but the underlying Hebrew and Greek text has remained remarkably stable.

So I don't think it's accurate to say the Bible has been "edited" in the sense that its teachings have been rewritten over time. Translation is about expressing the same message in another language, not changing what the original authors wrote.

The protestants removed several books from the Bible because they didn't fit in with their beliefs......The Catholic Bible is the original Canon.....you can't pick and choose which Words of God you keep etc...

Lost4words said:

The protestants removed several books from the Bible because they didn't fit in with their beliefs......The Catholic Bible is the original Canon.....you can't pick and choose which Words of God you keep etc...

Click to expand...

I don't think that's an accurate summary of the history.

Protestants didn't "remove" books from the Bible because they disagreed with them. Rather, they accepted the same Old Testament canon that the Jewish people had preserved for centuries. Since the Old Testament was entrusted to Israel (Romans 3:2), that carries significant weight.

The books you are referring to are commonly called the Deuterocanonical books (or the Apocrypha by Protestants). They were valued by many early Christians, but there was debate about whether they were inspired Scripture long before the Reformation. Even Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, distinguished them from the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Reformers didn't remove books that had always been universally accepted. They followed the Hebrew canon for the Old Testament that Jesus recognised, while the Roman Catholic Church formally declared the Deuterocanonical books to be canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546.

So, the real question isn't, "Who removed books?" The question is, "Which books did God inspire?" That's a historical and biblical question, not simply a denominational one.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

The book was still edited, the book has been translated hundreds of time and many words and phrases mean different things depending on the language. And the bible we read today is not the same bible that people read a 1000 or even 500 years ago.

Click to expand...

That depends on which Bible that you read. The Greek Orthodox still use the same Bible as Council of Nicaea approved. The Catholic Church still has the Latin Bible, though they have translated into several languages.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I lean more to the new testament than the old.

Click to expand...

I used to be like that until God opened my spirit up to the wonders of the OT.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

The laws in the old testament seem more like laws made for the people who lived in a bronze age society 4000 years ago, that laws made from god.

Click to expand...

The Law was meant for the people of Israel from the time of Moses, mainly because they failed to believe God and looked back to Egypt.

1Tonne said:

I don't think that's an accurate summary of the history.

Protestants didn't "remove" books from the Bible because they disagreed with them. Rather, they accepted the same Old Testament canon that the Jewish people had preserved for centuries. Since the Old Testament was entrusted to Israel (Romans 3:2), that carries significant weight.

The books you are referring to are commonly called the Deuterocanonical books (or the Apocrypha by Protestants). They were valued by many early Christians, but there was debate about whether they were inspired Scripture long before the Reformation. Even Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate, distinguished them from the Hebrew Scriptures.

The Reformers didn't remove books that had always been universally accepted. They followed the Hebrew canon for the Old Testament that Jesus recognised, while the Roman Catholic Church formally declared the Deuterocanonical books to be canonical at the Council of Trent in 1546.

So, the real question isn't, "Who removed books?" The question is, "Which books did God inspire?" That's a historical and biblical question, not simply a denominational one.

Click to expand...

Early Catholics eventually incorporated the Gospels and other text as readings at the mass once those books were written. Many texts were in circulation, but there were differences in readings at mass from area to area. At one point the Catholic Church set out to determine a list, a canon, of which texts were deemed Holy Scripture and which were not. The Catholic Church process of choosing the 73 books of the Bible, guided by the Holy Spirit, spanned centuries. Saint Athanasius is credited with the first Biblical canon (NT) containing the same books in the same order we use today. The list is contained in his Thirty-Ninth Festal Letter of 367 A.D. This list was approved by Pope Damasus, and formally approved in the late 300s by the Councils at Hippo (393 A.D.) and Carthage (397 A.D.) . Pope Innocent I wrote a letter to the Bishop of Toulouse in 405 A.D. containing the list. The list was re-affirmed at Carthage in 419 A.D., by the Council of Florence 1442 A.D., and by the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.

As to the O.T, while there were different sets of books recognized as Holy Scriptures by different groups of Jews during the time of Jesus and the Apostles, by the time the Catholic Church was closing in on the canon one group of Jews predominated. It was decided by the Catholic Church that the Church has no obligation to go along with this group who had rejected not just the Gospels, but Jesus himself. Jerome brought up the fact that those Jews had their own canon and noted it as any good scholar would. But Jerome, as did other Catholics who had varying opinions about what books should comprise the Bible, recognized and went along with the decision of Christ’s Church. As to criticism of his note Jerome stated:

What sin have I committed if I followed the judgment of the churches? But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the Story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant. For I was not relating my own personal views, but rather the remarks that they [the Jews] are wont to make against us. (Against Rufinus, 11:33 (402 A.D.)).

I recognize the reality that Catholics and Protestant Christians do not agree on the Bible's historical development or its Canon, but find it even more disheartening when the Bible's authority is undermined by someone posting as a Christian in this forum. Unfortunately, this has become prevalent in today's church family.

I expect atheists and sceptics to make the typical unfounded criticisms of contradictions, inconsistencies, translation errors, etc when attacking the Bible, but any believer that embraces such ideology exibits some serious problems in my view.

First, if you dismiss one part of the Bible as being in error, you've deemed yourself judge over all of God's Word. Now you can pick and choose whatever passages, doctrines, or moral values you like and dismiss the others. Isn't this what liberal Christians and churches are doing today as they reject the authorship and historicity of Genesis, the existence of objective morality, the legitamacy of Paul's teachings, and other culturally offensive issues? Consider the unbeliever's view of this inconsistent ideology: If Genesis, which has abundant scientific evidence to support it, is not real history, then why should anyone believe that the virgin birth or miraculous resurrection of Jesus, which defies all known scientific laws, is true? No, the wise, mature Christian understands that his faith stands upon the authority of the Bible - the whole Bible. Either it's the inspired Word of God as 2 Timothy says and we're stuck with all of it as the foundational scriptures of the Christian faith, or it's a man-made book with errors deeming it entirely inadequate to base any religion upon. Pick your side; being in the middle is popular today, but irrationally wrong.

Second, the Christian or Catholic that agrees with the Bible sceptic charges against the historicity, accuracy, and authority of the Bible not only betrays the very foundation of their faith and misleads others, but is sadly ignorant of the overwhelming evidence showing just the opposite. The apologetic books, articles, and videos from highly respected scholars is readily available today in mass media. I'd suggest time is warranted delving into this subject, along with all of the Christian apologetic topics, in order to bolster one's faith and be prepared to defend it, rather than criticize it.

Lost4words said:

The protestants removed several books from the Bible because they didn't fit in with their beliefs......The Catholic Bible is the original Canon.....you can't pick and choose which Words of God you keep etc...

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Protestants did not remove any books from scripture but merely relegated the deuterocanonical books to their own section just as Jerome did in the first editions of the vulgate. If you look at the first printings of the KJV you will find the deuterocanonical books included.

Dublin.Rules.89 said:

I say inconsitencies because the bible the Bible is anthology of 66 distinct books written over thousands of years, Because it has been edited like at The First Council of Nicaea (325 AD) it decided what books would be allowd into the bible, and created the bible we read today, it is a book that has been translated into and out of 100s of languages and depending on the language one word or pharse can mean several different things. And I could indepth especially with the old testament but then someone here would complain and get me a ban which has already happened once. I believe in god...but I believe the bible was writen and edited by human beings and humans make mistakes. I look at much the biblical laws and many of them do not look like laws writen by god...they look like laws writen by humans that were passed of as gods laws. I would go deeper but I would get banned, and it does not matter that it’s true, it matters someone finds teh truth offence. Of course this is debate, but not really. Real debate would not ban you for posting truth. A friend got banned here, he was debating, and he use biblical scripture and someone got there drawer in a twist and he got banned.

Click to expand...

Here is a nice article by a writer that asked the top AI system how accurate was the Bible in terms of transmission.

“I asked Claude's Fable 5 what the statistical likelihood is that the Bible is a factual historical document.

For context, Fable 5 is one of Anthropic's newest and most powerful models. It's so powerful, the U.S. government shut it down for three weeks because they were afraid of the cybersecurity implications if someone found a jailbreak that could bypass its safety guardrails.”

The question was: Was the text transmitted in a trustworthy manner over the centuries...beyond a shadow of a doubt?


“It said there are over 5,800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament alone, with fragments dated within decades of the originals, and nothing else in ancient history comes close to being as historically trustworthy.

Even the skeptics agree we can reconstruct what was originally written with well over 99% confidence.”


Your theory in your post is no tenable. Even if we go outside of Fable 5 AI the facts of its answer still remains and the scholarship agrees.