First Premise

[yatcup]

Here's the thing.

I cannot seem to get myself to accept that the Bible is, indubitably, inspired and is inerrant. Unfortunately, it seems that if you subtract the bible from Christianity, the entire edifice of the religion falls.

On one hand you have mainline Protestantism which is tenaciously sola scriptura. On the other hand you have Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy (and a few other "catholic" churches) which place authority on Tradition and scripture.

RE: RCC... The dogma of Tradition & Scripture relies partially on scripture itself for its reasoning.

RE: Protestantism.... Obviously, Jan Hus and Luther and company had their reasons for wanting to de-authoritize Papal Authority. However, placing all of the authority on the book seems ridiculous because all one has to do is doubt the book. (Granted, Luther et al. were arguing with Christians, so it was assumed that everyone accepted Scripture as, minimally, inspired.)

Where is the proof that the Bible is inspired? Alternatively, is there any other ground for Christianity to stand on that does not derive all of its premises and doctrines from Scripture?

Hopefully this makes sense. I feel I wrote this as awkwardly as possible!

 

[drich0150]

It sounds as if you have been trained to make some, or simply repackage some excellent observations made by others, but as such all I have read are the observations themselves. All of which can only be answered with indisputable evidence for God. As you are no doubt aware, no such evidence exists, and even if it did, I'm sure someone, some where looking to make a name for himself would try and find a reason to contest the current data.

Your approach here is Flawed. Primarily because of the very nature what what you seek can not be revealed through the means you seek it. Perhaps this is why members of your community insist on" looking for things that are not there." Giving you the upper hand in conversations like this one.. If you were only to use your eyes to "look" for air would you ever be able to identify any? could you break down it into it's elemental components? Now just because you could not see the air or it's components does it mean it does not exist? You must use the right tool or the right method to identify what it is you seek. Otherwise you are not going to be able to properly experience anything.

If you seek God then I suggest looking for Him in the Realm he resides in.. Seek Him out with Faith.

Why do you think men like Martin Luther risked Everything? Or Why do you think so many have lost there lives defending what they believe? Because at some point all have looked past what they can comprehend, into the realm of faith, and saw something worth defending with all they had. This something can't be measured, weighed or cataloged in anyway, their by placing it in a realm that can always be disputed by people looking for a reason to do so.. I believe for that very reason, it was done this way by design.

If in your heart you do not want to know God with every fiber of your being, you will never find him!!

 

[ArteestX]

I cannot seem to get myself to accept that the Bible is, indubitably, inspired and is inerrant. Unfortunately, it seems that if you subtract the bible from Christianity, the entire edifice of the religion falls. .....Alternatively, is there any other ground for Christianity to stand on that does not derive all of its premises and doctrines from Scripture?

I for one think that one can be a Christian without treating the Bible as inerrant. John Shelby Spong, a former Episopal bishop, wrote a couple of interesting books "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" and "Why Christianity Must Change or Die." He goes out of his way to be provocative, but he does have an interesting viewpoint.

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, talks of the Quadriliateral that Christians should use to make theological decisions: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. So in that view, the Bible is one source of theology but is not limited to that. And many liberal churches do not view the Bible as inerrant, or even that Christianity is the only way to understand God.

So I'll throw that out there as some ideas of how one can ground Christianity on premises and doctrines other than an inerrant Bible.

 

[Tzaousios]

Here's the thing.

I cannot seem to get myself to accept that the Bible is, indubitably, inspired and is inerrant. Unfortunately, it seems that if you subtract the bible from Christianity, the entire edifice of the religion falls.

As mentioned by drich0150, it takes faith to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible.

I will also add that the Scripture tells us that the natural human, in their sinful, unrepentant state, will not even want to believe and will go as far as to find reasons not to do it.

You must prayerfully consider the revelation of Scripture and ask God to draw you to himself and give you the grace to open your mind and heart to divine revelation.

Job 21:14-15

14 Yet they say to God, ‘Depart from us,
For we do not desire the knowledge of Your ways.
15 Who is the Almighty, that we should serve Him?
And what profit do we have if we pray to Him?’

John 8:43-45


43 Why do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it. 45 But because I tell the truth, you do not believe Me.

2 Timothy 2:25-26


25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth, 26 and that they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him to do his will.

 

[yatcup]

It sounds as if you have been trained to make some, or simply repackage some excellent observations made by others, but as such all I have read are the observations themselves. All of which can only be answered with indisputable evidence for God. As you are no doubt aware, no such evidence exists, and even if it did, I'm sure someone, some where looking to make a name for himself would try and find a reason to contest the current data.

I maintain that there is epistemological certitude that God exists. The problem, for me, is not whether or not God exists, I suppose, but rather if he has communicated to humanity and in what manner and in the form of which religious body.

Your approach here is Flawed. Primarily because of the very nature what what you seek can not be revealed through the means you seek it.

I am not entirely sure what you mean here?

Perhaps this is why members of your community insist on" looking for things that are not there." Giving you the upper hand in conversations like this one..

I don't have a community. That's the problem. And I am truly not someone looking for argumentative "winning records." I am confident in my skills and feel no need to practice or wield them just for show.

If you were only to use your eyes to "look" for air would you ever be able to identify any? could you break down it into it's elemental components? Now just because you could not see the air or it's components does it mean it does not exist? You must use the right tool or the right method to identify what it is you seek. Otherwise you are not going to be able to properly experience anything.

I do agree that it requires use of the correct method. But I am not looking, necessarily, for some experiential proof. That is, I don't need to SEE God with my eyes to make a "ground" for religion.

If you seek God then I suggest looking for Him in the Realm he resides in.. Seek Him out with Faith.

And herein lies the conundrum as I see it. Because faith is a grace from God and if you are not already a member of any religious body, how can you then use faith to seek out that which gives faith? Cart before horse problem. Hence, why I am looking for a solid rational ground, because that actually can be accessible.

 

[JohnDB]

Most of the answers above are good tries. The bible doesn't contradict itself. There are many paradoxes in scripture...but no contradictions. You can't even get one writer to do that with his own writing...much less forty some odd writers over a period of 1500 years to write 66 books that agree perfectly with each other.

So...if you want to remove scripture...that would be like saying remove all of God's miracles....do away with all that He created...do away with all of history.

Guess what...if you do away with all of that then you just removed yourself from the argument because you don't exist. But since you do exist...then the other things that prove God's existance must remain...and must be considered.

 

[drich0150]

I suppose, but rather if he has communicated to humanity and in what manner and in the form of which religious body.

If you do believe in God then it shouldn't be a stretch to believe that He has in fact communicated with His People. Why else go through all of this trouble?

When you say "religious body" I am going to assume that you are speaking of Christianity in general, because of the different forms of christianity you have mentioned in your OP.

So which religious body has it right? first know none of them have it 100% correct. But all Jesus Christ centered churches contain enough of the minimum requirements for anyone to start and maintain a personal relationship with God. This "personal relationship" is the "true church." The Church has members from all denomination and non denominations alike. The True Church has been freed from minds and interpretations of any one group of men.. If God wanted in christianity to establish another religious economy based under one set of rules and guide lines for every aspect of worship, He would have established it as He did with the Jews.

We even have several hundred years examples, of the evil christianity is capable of when all power of this faith is consolidated under one man and his court.

This is why God has taken the power from one man or one group of men, and placed accessibility to Himself in a current state of grace. (far from the reach of any one religion. What I mean is we only have one set of commands to live up to, and that is to Love the Lord God with all of our being. (Mind, body, Spirit, Strength) Love your neighbor as yourself.

If you look at the church's structure it is as diverse as we are as individuals. It has been said that there is a church to fit every personality type. I believe this to be by design. In his command to love him with all of our being, He has provided us a way to love him in away that speaks to us personally. A very animated or physically relatible person would completely waste away in the very same church an intellectual person could give is all to, and vise versa. In a sense we have been given an opportunity to worship him the way we see fit, through the greatest command. To Love the Lord with all of your being. This command says nothing about being 100% correct in the way you worship, Just that you give yourself completely to God.

The same Grace that is extended to you when you purposefully sin, is all the more available to you when you worship God while you are trying to worship Him with all that you have.

And herein lies the conundrum as I see it. Because faith is a grace from God and if you are not already a member of any religious body, how can you then use faith to seek out that which gives faith? Cart before horse problem. Hence, why I am looking for a solid rational ground, because that actually can be accessible.

We are told that if we have faith as small as a mustard seed we could move mountains.. Just think how little we need to first believe in God.

In Luke 11 Jesus tells us this story:


5Then he said to them, "Suppose one of you has a friend, and he goes to him at midnight and says, 'Friend, lend me three loaves of bread, 6because a friend of mine on a journey has come to me, and I have nothing to set before him.' 7"Then the one inside answers, 'Don't bother me. The door is already locked, and my children are with me in bed. I can't get up and give you anything.' 8I tell you, though he will not get up and give him the bread because he is his friend, yet because of the man's boldness he will get up and give him as much as he needs. 9"So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. 11"Which of you fathers, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead? 12Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? 13If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"



All the Faith you need to start this process is to simply Ask, seek and Knock. We ask through Prayer, We seek in scripture and from people who exhibit the fruit of the Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22-26) and we knock by repeating this process till we find what it is our hearts truly seek.

 

[Van]

Hi Yatcup, first, as you probably know, the body of Christ is splintered into different groups on doctrinal grounds. Some of us believe God provided the Bible and we are to rely upon what it says, making as few assumptions as possible, and certainly not declaring doctrine without a solid foundation in scripture. So rather than tear down the RCC, lets just accept that my view is that doctrine should be based solely on scripture.

You ask, where is the proof that Bible is inspired? The Bible claims to be inspired (all scripture is "God breathed.") As far as I know, the Bible does not claim to be "inerrant." So that is a doctrine based on assumption. The Bible does say that all scripture is "profitable" so it is reasonable to conclude it is trustworthy and reliable, even if the original autographs (handwritten by the author or his scribe) contained say spelling errors or grammar errors. The idea is the message they conveyed is the message God intended for them to convey, thus it is "God breathed" and not the product of the imagination of men.

 

[yatcup]

drich: Your post made a lot of interesting points. Thank you for sharing them. I have not actually considered the idea that the multitude of denominations/churches could be by design in order to provide a suitable match for all sorts of personalities. I can see how some staunch exclusivists would dislike that idea, but there is a lot of appeal to it. It is a very interesting take on religious diversity - particularly within the Christian fold and I do intend to reflect further on it.

It is also noteworthy that you quoted that section from Luke - particularly the famous verses dealing with "ask/knock/receive," because just this week I was reading them (both in Matt. and in Luke). They were the first verses I was inclined to read in the Bible in a very long time - over three months, I think. And I think those verses were in the back of my mind when I made my OP. The verses make such a BOLD promise and offer from God to man. They are really remarkable verses. They make "it" seem so easy, in a sense. But I was struck by their clarity and forthright tone!

Van: Hi friend! Thank you for your response, as well. I am quite familiar with the verses you refer to in Timothy. I have spent countless hours wrestling with them, and I feel they are quite a mess. Its hardly the place in this thread to get into those messy items - allow me to briefly mention them: the text has semantic issues - the specific wording, the Greek, the English, and the various translations all result in divergent meanings. So, while I understand your point, I am unsettled and uncertain about that particular verse in general.

Unfortunately, I respectfully must question your thoughts because it seems poor logic to say that a text IS inspired just because that particular text SAYS so.

 

[Van]

Hi Yatcup, yes I did not offer any proof the bible is inspired. But if the Bible had not claimed to be inspired, you would still have what purports to be the "word of God."
So the issue is not whether or not the Bible is inspired, the issue is whether to trust in what it says: God created everything, you are a sinner in need of salvation and the only way is to trust in Jesus as described in the Bible. And to quote you, it seems "poor logic" to pick around the edges.

Basically, when you strip away the evidence in support of the Bible, it is up to you to "choose" to trust in Jesus, or not. Since lots of people reject Jesus, and lots of other people accept Jesus, it again seems "poor logic" to claim the problem is that there is not enough evidence, rather than simply state that you do not find the evidence sufficient. May God Bless

 

[salida]

First, I would ask myself what makes the Bible stand up compared to other books religious or nonreligious? If one understands the Bible or how it originated they would conclude, if objective, that it could have been only written by God using imperfect man because of its attributes. I will show you some evidence below out of much much more; the bible has overwhelming circumstancial evidence to support it. Again, even if I show you this does it mean that you will believe? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink - is this you? Also, read The Evidence that Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell and Examine the Evidence by Muncaster(a former athiest). What I have showed you here concerning evidence is just the beginning. I'm a christian for spiritual reasons first and intellectual reasons second. And no, it doesn't contradict with good science - I'm in the science field.

Biblical Circumstancial Evidence (Scratching the Surface Only)

Internal Evidences
Prophesies that are confirmed within Bible

- Life of Christ
The Tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10 - Luke 3:23-28
(Genesis was written 4004 BC to 1689 BC)
(Luke's time period is 60-70 AD)

Royal Line of David, Jer 23:5 -Matt 1:1
(Jeremiah 760 to 698 BC)/(Matthew 60-70 AD)

Born of a Virgin, Isaiah 7:14/Matt 1:18-23
(Isaiah 760 to 698 BC)/(60-70 AD)

**I can list at least 20 more of these.
-Rise of Empires
In the book of Daniel, Chapter 2 - four kingdoms are described in the interpretation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greek - Daniel 8:21, 10:20) and a fourth great kingdom to follow - part iron and clay - which is the Roman Empire - during this empire Christ came and the church was established - Daniel 2:44.

-Historical Accuracy
The Bible is loaded with historical statements concerning events hundreds of years ago, yet has not been proven incorrect on any.
(Bible compared to other ancient documents):
New Testament - starts at 25 years - between original and first surviving copies
Homer - starts at 500 years
Demosthenes - at 1400 years
Plato - at 1200 years
Caesar - at 1000 years

Number of Manuscript Copies
New Testament - 5,686
Homer - 643
Demosthenes - 200
Plato - 7
Caesar - 10

Consistency
Written by at least 40 men over a period of time exceeding 1400 years, and has no internal inconsistencies.

Claim of Inspiration
It claims to be spoken by God, 2 Tim 3:16-17). No other religious book makes such claims.

External Evidences
(Prophesies Outside the Bible)
These cities were prophesied to be destroyed and never be built again.
Nineveh - Nahum 1:10, 3:7,15, Zephaniah 2:13-14
Babylon - Isaiah 13:1-22)
Tyre (Ezekiel 26:1-28)

Bible before Science
He hangs the earth on nothing - Job 26:7
(Job was written at least 1000 years ago - some scholars think it could be even 3000 years ago)
Note: Man only knew this for 350 years
Earth is a sphere, Isaiah 40:22
Air has weight, Job 28:25
Gravity - Job 26:7, Job 38:31-33
Winds blow in cyclones, Eccl 1:6

Documents that Prove Bible is True
Gilgamesh Epic, The Sumerian King List, Mari Tablets, Babylonian Chronicles

Archealogoical Finds
Excavations of Ur, Location of Zoar, Ziggurats and the foundation of Tower of Babel

 

[Tzaousios]

yatcup, please see my reply on the first page. Thank you!

 

[yatcup]

Basically, when you strip away the evidence in support of the Bible, it is up to you to "choose" to trust in Jesus, or not. Since lots of people reject Jesus, and lots of other people accept Jesus, it again seems "poor logic" to claim the problem is that there is not enough evidence, rather than simply state that you do not find the evidence sufficient.

Yes. It does seem to come down to a choice. But I want to make an informed choice. In fact, I want to push the issue further and seek proof of the religion. (I am pressing forward on all religions on this front.)

A choice implies options, so maybe we could examine them? I have the choice to accept all the tenets and practices of Christianity. These tenets and practices derive from the Bible. What compels me to accept anything the Bible contains - is the Bible inspired? I cannot determine this based on the evidence that I have. Rather than throwing my hands in the air and giving up on the religion as a whole, I want to search tirelessly for another ground (Cp. OP) that would enable me to accept the tenets and practices of Christianity.

 

[Van]

Hi Yatcup, others accept the Bible based on the evidence available, so for you to require proof is your choice to repudiate the Word of God. The issue is not external, but internal. The Bible suggests that by your choice, you have judged yourself unworthy of eternal life.

By the numbers, you are without excuse for God has made His divine attributes known to you by what He has made. You have heard the Gospel yet did not understand, thinking Christianity is about adopting "tenets and practices" rather than trusting in Christ.

Your choice now is to be as good as you can be, and thus minimize the wrath you are storing up for yourself. Who knows, maybe something will come along in your life and cause you to revisit your choice? May God bless.

 

[drich0150]

They make "it" seem so easy, in a sense.

It's as easy or difficult as we as an individuals wish to make it. Everything revolves around loving God with all we have to offer.. Seemingly the more we have the more we have to devote. In reality God's requirements for us are far less than what we may require from Him.. It is in this "pride of Life/search for definitive proof, that we can loose true prospective on how little it actually takes to have all the "proof" we could ever need.

I can see how some staunch exclusivists would dislike that idea, but there is a lot of appeal to it. It is a very interesting take on religious diversity - particularly within the Christian fold and I do intend to reflect further on it.

There is a lot of plain text scripture that focuses on the Relationship we are supposed to have with God.. Rather than all of the pomp and empty tradition that filled God's people before Jesus.
​

Even so, Somehow we tend to gravitate to the strict and stringent, mix that with some pride and now we have a potential recipe for your "Staunch exclusivists."

Remember there's room for the type of person who strictly believes his views are the only one's that are acceptable, in God's grace. But also know that God Promises to use the "Measure" we uses on others, on us. In this case it would be our religion. If we are the type of person who shows no grace or mercy in our beliefs, in the same way none will be shown to us, in what we believe..

 

[aiki]

Here's the thing.

I cannot seem to get myself to accept that the Bible is, indubitably, inspired and is inerrant. Unfortunately, it seems that if you subtract the bible from Christianity, the entire edifice of the religion falls.

Quite right. The Bible is the source of all that we as Christians believe concerning God and His relationship to us. If you deny that the Bible is the Word of God, that it contains the truth about those things to which it speaks, then you are left with the individual making their own "truth" about who God is and what His purpose in making us might be.

Where is the proof that the Bible is inspired? Alternatively, is there any other ground for Christianity to stand on that does not derive all of its premises and doctrines from Scripture?

To answer your last question first: No. Certainly, as you yourself have already noted, there are evidences of God in Creation. But Creation paints the picture of God in very broad strokes; the image of God is not clear when one views Him solely through the lens of Creation. This is why the Bible is so valuable, so necessary to Christians: it reveals God to us as a particular Being with distinct attributes, character traits, and purposes. The Bible shows God to us as a particular Person, distinct and defined, rather than some vague, malleable entity or force one may conform to suit one's own disposition and thinking. This particularity that the Bible brings to the question of God also defines the nature of the relationship between Creator and creature. The Bible reveals that we are accountable to God; that He as holy God will judge us; that we are profoundly dependent upon our Maker; that we were made for God's purposes, not our own. Not surprisingly, many people object to these facts as restrictive, and/or oppressive; they object to a dogmatic declaration of who God is because it leaves no room for the individual to maneuver on the matter.

Now, to answer your other question: Where is the proof that the Bible is inspired?

A quick net search turned up the following sites which answer your question (some more exhaustively than others):

Why the Bible Is the Word of God - Historical Evidence for the Bible
The Divine Inspiration of the Bible by A.W. Pink, Arthur W. Pink
The Bible | Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

Peace.

 

[yatcup]

Interesting - I started the Introduction of the text by Pink, and he literally states the same thing as I. Or, well, since he wrote the text in 1917, I reckon I am echoing him.

The starting point of all doctrinal discussion must be the Bible. Upon the foundation of the Divine inspiration of the Bible stands or falls the entire edifice of Christian truth.

The first chapter of Pink's text, though, has some good and bad parts. Yes, it is reasonable to suppose that (as Pink writes): "He whose name and nature is Love shall provide us with a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path, than to leave us to grope our way amid the darkness of a fallen and ruined world?" However, I do not think that there is any necessity that it need be written.

Pink also makes a mistake in saying that the only way mankind would know that God pardons sinners is via a written revelation. This presumes already existent knowledge of sin and its ramifications. Cart before horse.

Blot the Bible out of existence and what should we know about His character, His moral attributes, His attitude toward us, or His demands upon us?

This last quote, too, is poetic, but hardly valuable. From Plotinus to Aquinas to Spinoza, it has been entirely possible to derive conclusions about God without using any Scriptural source whatsoever.

Ultimately, I will read Pink's text. And again, this thread has given me the same expected answer: without the Bible, there is no Christianity. However impossible it may seem, I shall continue to look for a ground.

 

[aiki]

The first chapter of Pink's text, though, has some good and bad parts. Yes, it is reasonable to suppose that (as Pink writes): "He whose name and nature is Love shall provide us with a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path, than to leave us to grope our way amid the darkness of a fallen and ruined world?" However, I do not think that there is any necessity that it need be written.

My choice of references was specifically in answer to your question regarding biblical inspiration. Other issues you may have with the Christian worldview may not find satisfactory resolution in what you will read on the sites I gave you.

Pink also makes a mistake in saying that the only way mankind would know that God pardons sinners is via a written revelation. This presumes already existent knowledge of sin and its ramifications. Cart before horse.

Well, I expect that Pink, as a Christian, is drawing particular attention to God's pardoning of sinners because of its eternal importance. He may simply assume that it is obvious that a knowledge of sin and its ramifications also originates in the Bible.

This last quote, too, is poetic, but hardly valuable. From Plotinus to Aquinas to Spinoza, it has been entirely possible to derive conclusions about God without using any Scriptural source whatsoever.

Yes, I said as much already. Pink's point in the quotation you gave was similar to my own in may last post. Some things may be known of God simply by examining the Universe but they are relatively vague, open to debate, and inevitably subjective. The Bible makes God a very specific Being with very specific interests and goals. The remarkable thing about what the Bible tells us of God is that its revelation of the divine both narrows and expands what we know of Him.

Peace.