Question about the origin/accuracy of the Bible

[MrDude]

I posted this in one of the theology boards, but I thought maybe I could get some insight here too.

How do we know the Bible is correct? The books of the Bible were chosen by men. How do we know they chose the right ones? Man is very fallible, so obviously it's possible we chose the wrong things to put in the Bible. And some people say "you have to have faith God inspired it". Well it never in the Bible says that God said "don't worry, when all this stuff is finished I'm gonna make sure you have an accurate book". It's just kind of hard to believe and know that the Bible is accurate and correct. I mean there are instances where the Bible contradicts itself, such as how many days were in the flood, and stuff like that.

How do we know it's all right?

 

[Breetai]

Dude, in the singles forums???

Essentially, there are no instances where the Bible contradicts itself. There are a few minor areas where there may be errors, but these can easily be explained by copiest errors or else different people are using different methods of counting (ie. only men counted; the Hebrew method of timekeeping is different than the Roman method).

I don't know why you think that the number of days in the flood varies. It's clear that it rained for 40 days and that the flood lasted for 150 days.

I suggest that you take a few history courses in early church history. You're asking for a massive thesis paper here.

Read everything on these links:
http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm
http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=2515

A good handbook that explains a lot of these things is Halley's Bible Handbook. Go and buy it. You can find it on Amazon.com. I also recommend downloading the E-Sword computer Bible, with all of the mods; especially the commentaries. If you are serious about growing in your faith, you should seriously consider reading though all of this stuff.

The best way to answer your original question, especially a question this large, is to do your own research and write yourself a sizable essay on the Bible canon, or on how we got our Bible. You'd learn tons more this way than you ever could by reading spats of information on CF.

 

[MrDude]

Dude, in the singles forums???

Sure why not, figured you people could use a little Biblical discussion. The boundaries/Virgin vs. Non-Virgin/Dating non-believers threads are getting a bit old and repetative don't you think?

 

[Spurling]

Sure why not, figured you people could use a little Biblical discussion. The boundaries/Virgin vs. Non-Virgin/Dating non-believers threads are getting a bit old and repetative don't you think?

LOL! I agree Mister Dude, sir. Those topics have become rather tiresome.

 

[Mr.Cheese]

To make a long story short, don't worry.
Good questions, and you can spend a few years learning answers. Until then, don't worry.
The bible is pretty tight.

 

[boilerblues]

Here's some material to read through:

How the Bible Came into Being​

Types of Material​

As the human authors of the Bible labored with pen and ink, they utilized different sources of material for their compositions. For example, when Moses wrote the Pentateuch, he certainly utilized his own memory of events, but he had to rely on others for information about what he did not witness. Similarly, we know that Luke was present for only a portion of the events he records in the book of Acts. Both were dependent on oral information and, probably especially in the case of Luke, some written information.​

Although some theologians have held that all that was not directly accessible to the writers of the Bible was given directly by God, most today would not hold to such an extreme position. In fact Luke, for example, virtually tells us that he did research in preparation for writing his gospel (Lk. 1:1–3), and presumably did so also for the second part of his work, the book of Acts. Such a view of human activity in recording Scripture does not in any way lessen the extent of the role of the Holy Spirit in supervising the process. The Spirit could just as easily have led Luke to record the details of an event as provided by an eyewitness or by a written document as He could have given it to him directly. There has been much discussion in recent years about writers’ use of oral and written sources—documents especially—in the composition of the Scriptures, particularly the Gospels. The conservative interpreter of the Bible need not fear such concepts concerning sources if he maintains a high view of the accuracy of the Bible and of the clear role of the Holy Spirit.3​

Disclosure from God​

If we look at this from the standpoint of God’s activity, we find that the Bible records different kinds of disclosures from God: dreams, visions, direct writing (the tablets of the Law), messages through prophets, the words of Jesus, the Person of Jesus Himself (Heb. 1:1–2), and others. And clearly God led some to record previously unknown data as they wrote. We might well ask if Paul knew all the details about the rapture as recorded in 1 Th. 4 before he took pen in hand. Perhaps he did, but then again God may have given him the specifics as he wrote.​

What is clear, though, is that the Bible says of itself that it is all from God. It is both a revelation and a breathed-out document. We usually think of revelation as only the disclosure of what was previously unknown. But that is only part of what is involved. For example, Luke must have known many historical and geographic details before he wrote the book of Acts. However, their precise combination is a kind of revelation, and is guaranteed by a work of the Holy Spirit called inspiration. In this sense, then, all of the Bible is a revelation, because both the newly given spiritual material and what was known were shaped by God to form a coherent spiritual message. (See ch. 9, The Bible, under “Revelation” and “Inspiration.”)​

We desperately need this kind of revelatory activity centered on Scripture, because we are incapable of apprehending spiritual realities directly by ourselves. To be sure, we can know certain things about God from the heavens (Ps. 19:1–6; Rom 1:19–20) and from our consciences (Rom. 2:15). But we need to know what our spiritual condition is before God, what God is like, and what possibility there is of a remedy for our predicament. The things we can know about God from looking around ourselves or even within—what theologians have called general revelation—are inadequate to help us with our sin problem. The great theologian B.B. Warfield addresses this point:​

Man as finite needs to be told directly by God about the ultimate direction of the course of history. . . .​

. . . Sinful man wants to suppress the truth of God that comes to him. . . . The natural man is at enmity with God. He always seeks to make himself believe that he has not been confronted with God; his forms of worship are ways by which he makes himself believe that God is finite. . . .​

. . . If sinful man is to be saved he must be saved against his will. He hates God. God’s work of salvation must be a work into territory that belongs to him by right but that has been usurped by King Diabolus. . . . So an entrance has to be forced . . . And when God by grace makes friends within the enemy country these friends . . . are as much as was Adam in need of supernatural word revelation. And they are . . . to an extent under the influence of the old man within them and so would even when redeemed never be able to interpret mere revelational facts correctly and fully. Hence the necessity of Scripture.4​

So God has taken some things we know about already—the Roman Empire, the geography of Judea, the elements of poetry, and many more—and combined them with new information in an overall (though limited in certain respects) special revelation of Himself and His purposes for humanity and the universe. God has communicated in ways that meet our spiritual needs totally, and put that message in a book. Old Testament scholar Gleason Archer puts it this way:​

How then can we know God or His will for our lives? Only if He reveals Himself to us! Unless He Himself tells us, we can never know for sure the answers to those questions which matter most to us as human beings. At this point it is important to observe that the Bible presents itself as the written revelation of God. This purports to be a Book in which God gives us the answers to the great questions which concern our soul, and which all the wisdom and science of man are powerless to solve with any degree of certainty.5​

We should worship Him more because in His wisdom He has spoken in grace to us.​

 

[boilerblues]

How We Got the Bible​

Ancient Writing Practices​

To understand the written character of the Bible, we need to know a few things about how ancient writing and copying were practiced. In the twentieth century we are thoroughly conditioned to think of written documents as possessing a high degree of accuracy, due to the printing process, in spite of the fact that almost every book has some errors introduced by the author, editors, or typesetters. We tend to forget that the printing press is a comparatively recent invention. Before that all copying had to be done by hand, with high likelihood of introduction of variations. When we examine the process of producing ancient books and other documents, it is amazing that, given the totally manual nature of the task, there are as few errors as there are.​

We do not know the precise dates for the production of any biblical books. Nor do we know exactly how much oral, how much already written, or how much eyewitness material went into each. However, we do know that each original portion of what is now considered canonical Scripture was initially inscribed and subsequently copied by hand. As we might suspect, copying was a laborious process in which scribes attempted to reproduce as perfectly as possible the manuscript before them. Sometimes groups of copiers (during the Christian era, often in monasteries) worked together, writing from dictation by an individual who read the master copy. One of the most famous (but not for New Testament manuscripts) workrooms used for this purpose is in the ruins of the Essene community at Qumran (see ch. 19, Guide to Bible Study Terms).​

Although the methodology was simple and primitive by our standards, the pens, inks, and writing surfaces were often quite sophisticated and the subsequent product quite durable and attractive. The fact that we are able to read such documents today, in many cases without any eyestrain at all (if we know the language!) attests to the quality of the materials that were used. In many instances beautiful colored inks have lasted through the centuries. The papyrus and vellum (animal skin) surfaces that were used are usually remarkably well preserved today. The study of ancient writing and copying practices and of the products of such activity is called paleography. This is a fascinating field, and the Bible student interested in pursuing it further is encouraged to consult the works by Ewert and Greenlee listed in ch. 22, Annotated Bibliography.6​

Determining the Text​

Now all of this may seem to be very dry, separated as it is by so many years from our time, especially when we have complete Bibles in abundance. But it is part of a foundational area of biblical study, called textual criticism. This science attempts, through guidelines and procedures, to determine the original content of the biblical books. Actually, textual criticism is needed for any hand-copied document where we do not possess the original and where it is important for us to find out what the author wrote. This is absolutely necessary where two or more copies are in disagreement at any point. Such alternate wording is called a variant. Because the Bible contains variants and is such an important document, textual criticism is essential to biblical studies. As a matter of fact, it is the most foundational of all endeavors related to Bible study, since it determines the nature of the text we study.​

Textual criticism can be defined as the attempt to determine the original words of any literary work for which the original document does not exist. Part of the process involves working backward through variant readings, attempting to determine how changes in the text may have arisen, and deciding what variant has greater claim to originality. It is important to realize that we cannot call a particular variant an error, since we do not know for sure which of two or more alternatives represents the original. However, in order to get anywhere at all, we must assume that one of the variants does correspond to what the author wrote. It is hypothetically possible, of course. that the original at a particular point in the biblical text is not represented. In that case, we would have a text that was not preserved by God during the process of transmission through the ages. It is generally accepted by textual critics that the New Testament text is in such a state of preservation that we have all the material needed to make adequate decisions as to originality. In the case of the Old Testament, however, there are times when even theologically conservative textual critics are willing to agree that the standard Hebrew text and other texts (such as the Septuagint) may not contain satisfactory readings. It should be stressed that the number of such instances is remarkably low, and that textual critics, especially conservative ones, are very reluctant to suggest readings beyond what is contained in manuscript evidence.​

Reasons for Confidence​

The existence of variants in the text and attempts to piece it together might tend to make one uneasy about the trustworthiness of the Bible. Actually, despite the fact that not all the manuscripts of the Bible are in agreement, there are many reasons for being very confident about the state of the text (a manuscript is simply any hand-copied portion of the Bible, whether a few words or a whole testament). To begin with, as compared with other ancient literature, the existing manuscripts of the Bible come remarkably close in time to their sources. For instance, some New Testament manuscripts have been dated at less than a hundred years from the time of writing of the original they represent. In general, copies of classical works in Greek and Latin are much further removed in time from their originals. Also, there are large numbers of manuscripts attesting to the text of the Bible, especially in the case of the New Testament, for which there are probably over five thousand Greek manuscripts alone, not to mention those in other languages, such as Latin and Gothic. These and other factors should lead us to believe that we can proceed confidently with biblical studies that build upon the work of textual critics.​

As with all biblical study, we should keep in mind that anyone who works with the text and expects to put it together accurately must have a high regard for its integrity and inspiration and must allow it to speak for itself. Just as there have been some who have written commentaries and theological studies who do not have a high regard for the text, there have been some who have engaged in textual criticism who have not held to the divine source of the text. However, most textual critics have attempted to be genuinely fair with the text of the Bible. Every Bible student must simply be on guard in this area, as in every other, for teaching and conclusions that are not consistent with a high view of Scripture. Aside from this, the results of textual criticism are indispensable to anyone who seeks to discover the message of the Bible. In fact, without such study down through the ages, we would not have a coherent text to work with in any language.​

We must further assume in all of this that God has preserved for us reliable texts of both the Old Testament and New Testament. Although certainly not all of the textual problems have been resolved, we must believe that God has not led us astray in regard to the words of the text of the Bible. In fact it should always be kept in mind that no variant reading affects a major doctrine. There is always enough information elsewhere for us to determine the full counsel of Scripture on any given teaching.​

It is historically and theologically realistic to acknowledge that some textual criticism on the Bible is necessary, and the Bible student should not glibly accept the verdict of those who assert that it isn’t. Even those who hold that the type of text underlying the AV is homogeneous, and therefore the mainstream text preserved by God, must face the fact that some textual criticism on that type of text is necessary (see ch. 3, The Language of the Bible, regarding translations).​

Some Examples of Textual Criticism​

In attempting to determine the original text, modern textual critics use two main lines of evidence. Manuscripts have individual characteristics (handwriting style, a history of circulation and use that may be known, etc.), can often be located as to time and place of writing or use, and can sometimes be grouped with other similar manuscripts. Such features are said to constitute external evidence. On the other hand, there are details in the text itself at the point of variant readings. These particulars, such as grammatical elements, similarity to other passages, pronunciation of words in question, etc., are called internal evidence. Most textual critics today work with a combination of internal and external evidence in making decisions at particular points in the text.7​

A description of the whole process is beyond the scope of this book. However, we will look at two examples that are found in some translations. Scribes introduced changes in the texts they were copying for two basic reasons. They may have altered wording intentionally, or may simply have copied incorrectly. The latter class of changes is far more frequent than the former. Intentional changes may have occurred because a scribe knew of a passage parallel to the one he was copying and attempted to bring his text into line with the other, thinking that a scribe before him had erred and caused a divergence between the two texts. Such a change is called a harmonization. Another reason was to introduce a particular doctrinal feature that the scribe wished to present. This type of change was, as far as we can tell, very infrequent. Scribes who were very conscious of grammatical niceties such as spelling variations, alternative suffixes, etc., sometimes made alternations in the text, again, in order to reverse what was felt to be a place where an earlier scribe had made an error, since only in the rarest instance would a scribe change what he believed the author wrote.​

Some changes introduced by scribes are entirely unintentional, and involve such mundane things as reading and writing the same suffix or other letter sequence twice (dittography), eliminating one of two repeated elements (haplography), misreading letters that looked alike (such as the Hebrew equivalents of English d and r; the Greek equivalents of English a, d, and l; e and s), or confusing two letters or sequences of letters that sounded similar or alike (such as Greek omicron and omega), a practice called homoeoteleuton.​

For example, in Gen. 10:4 some Hebrew manuscripts and the Septuagint have, as in 1 Chr. 1:7, rodanim, i.e., a reference to the Rhodians of the Aegean Sea. Other Hebrew manuscripts have dodanim. The AV adopts dodanim, while the NIV and NASB opt for rodanim. The textual problem is apparently due to the confusion of the Hebrew equivalents of English r and d. The reading rodanim is taken by most today to be the better reading, due to the possibility of connection with the Rhodians.​

In Eph. 5:9 there are two variant readings, “spirit” (pneumatos) and “light” (phōtos). The NIV and NASB regard “light” as the better reading. “Light” could have arisen under the influence of the presence of the same word in the preceding verse, but it is more likely that “spirit” was introduced as an intentional or unintentional harmonization to Gal. 5:22, where “the fruit of the Spirit” occurs (see marginal note in NASB at Eph. 5:9).8​

 

[boilerblues]

The Gathering of Inspired Scripture: The Canon​

A question foundational to all Bible study concerns what books we consider to be authoritative in spiritual things. Conservative Protestants view the present sixty-six books of the Old Testament and New Testament as forming a complete revelation from God. Yet there are other groups within the broad umbrella of nominal Christendom that hold different views. Further, agreement as to the acceptability and desirability of the sixty-six did not come instantly.​

The collected books that are considered (by anyone) to be spiritually authoritative for Christianity are called the canon. This is actually a transliteration of a Greek word that means “rule” or “standard.” As employed in reference to the Bible, it denotes the set of writings that are taken as normative under some set of guidelines or principles for evaluating spiritual worth. The existence of a canon is a fact. The questions, then, are what elements went into decisions made many centuries ago, and how guidelines vary for different groups. Practically speaking, the answers to these questions involve a study both of the history of the gathering of books, and of views that we have access to concerning reasons for compiling and approving.​

We need to be very clear on what the basic idea of the canon is. If we allow the Bible to speak for itself, we arrive at the fundamental belief that it carries with it its own authority and qualities of excellence, because it is a product of the creative breath of God (2 Tim. 3:16). It stands as an inspired revelation, no matter what human beings think about it. Therefore, determining the extent of accepted and profitable books is not at all a matter of the granting of approval by an individual or an institution, such as a church body, or investing a book with spiritual quality. Rather, it is solely a matter of human beings being led by God to recognize what He had already placed in existence as authoritative revelation, and, conversely, of determining what books did not have their source in God. In other words, the Church did not create Scripture; instead Scripture has primacy and is the basis for the Church. Gleason Archer states:​

The biblical authors indicate very clearly, whenever the matter comes up, that the various books of the Bible were canonical from the moment of their inception, by virtue of the divine authority (“Thus saith the Lord”) behind them, and the books received immediate recognition and acceptance by the faithful as soon as they were made aware of the writings.9​

A place where it is quite easy to see this is in the attitude of our Lord and the New Testament writers toward the Scriptures. Jesus always put Himself under Scripture and often asserted its unalterable authority. Hence, when in Mt. 5:18 He declares, “I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished” (NIV), He is teaching that the Bible stands on its own and needs no help from human beings to accomplish its ends. To have this quality it must be from God. Jesus is thus putting His stamp of approval on that portion of the Old Testament as He quotes it. In 2 Pet. 3:16 Peter puts Paul’s writings on a par with the Old Testament Scriptures. Thus, probably even before they had been circulated widely, at least some of Paul’s books were viewed as authoritative. No councils were needed to give approval.​

This brings us to the key factors that must have been used in determining the canon, especially for the New Testament: apostolic source, connection with an apostle, correspondence with known apostolic doctrine, doctrinal harmony with other accepted writings, evidence of divine origin, and spiritual profitability. The last three were evidently determinative in establishing the canon of the Old Testament.10​

Evidence for the Old Testament Canon​

Our knowledge of the process of recognition of Old Testament books is not as extensive as that concerning the determination of the canonicity of New Testament books. The earliest written indications of conscious thoughts of a canon date to the early part of the second century B.C. Individual books as we know them appear at various times in different combinations, e.g., 1 and 2 Sam. are considered a unit in some systems of division. However, as far as the Hebrew text is concerned, records indicate that only a few books were debated as to their canonicity, with records of resolution of questions about some books coming in the first century A.D.11 It is significant that the Hebrew canon of apostolic times is identical to the present thirty-nine-book Old Testament familiar to Protestants.12​

Fourteen books form the disputed Old Testament Apocrypha, a term meaning “hidden,” and here denoting books that are in some way ancillary to others:​

Additions to Esther​

Baruch​

Ecclesiasticus​

1 and 2 Esdras​

Judith​

1 and 2 Maccabees​

Prayer of Manasses​

Song of the Three Holy Children​

Susanna​

Tobit​

The Wisdom of Solomon​

Today the Roman Catholic Church views most of them as canonical. Some people trace their authoritative nature to the Septuagint, but different manuscripts of that translation contain varying combinations of apocryphal books. Hence, their status was in doubt, especially during the early centuries of the Christian era. They were never included in the Hebrew canon, and it is significant that the New Testament writers never clearly quote from any apocryphal book. For these and other reasons, conservative Protestants today deny canonical status to the apocryphal books.​

Testimony to the Canon of the New Testament​

The earliest testimony to the canonicity of the New Testament lies in the New Testament itself, where, as indicated above, writers give obviously unsolicited affirmation of the spiritual worth of other writings. Some examples are found at 1 Th. 5:27 and 2 Pet. 3:15–16. Apparently, in a very natural process, the early Church used writings in both public and private situations as they appeared, circulated them, compared them with other early Christian writings and the Old Testament, and assessed their spiritual worth. Many people in the first century would have known firsthand of the sayings of Jesus, and could compare written documents and the New Testament books with them for accuracy. Perhaps the Old Testament canon as a fixed collection formed a model for establishing a set of documents presenting works of God in the new age. The earliest testimony outside the New Testament appears toward the end of the first century in the writing of Clement of Rome, where there is apparent reference to Mt., Rom., 1 Cor., Heb., and perhaps other books. Discussion and presentation of opinions continued until the end of the fourth century, when there was widespread unity on the present twenty-seven books as canonical. The process included separation of evidently apostolic books from inferior ones such as 1 and 2 Clement, The Didache, etc. The principles listed above, centering on apostolic connection and spiritual worth, were the overriding criteria.​

Subsequent Forms​

The missionary nature of Christianity has engendered a unique phenomenon in the history of written documents. Prior to the writing of the New Testament, very few ancient works were translated into other languages. The Old Testament was translated into Greek, although not to bring the message to other ethnic groups, but because a large segment of the Jewish people had changed their language. However, with the intensive evangelizing thrust of the first few centuries after the apostolic age, the need for adequate translations of both the Old Testament and the New Testament became apparent. It is interesting that some of these translations comprise some of the earliest records we have of particular languages, e.g., Gothic and Slavic. As such they are of great value in even nonbiblical linguistic studies.​

The wide range and larger number of translations of the Bible provide a significant source of evidence for the nature of early Greek and Hebrew texts, and as such are utilized extensively by textual critics. Close to ten thousand manuscripts in Latin and other languages (besides Greek and Hebrew) provide information for the process of working back to the autographs (the original manuscripts), and for other aspects of biblical studies. There are many good books on translations of the Bible into English and other languages. The reader should consult ch. 22, Annotated Bibliography, for further information.13​

People living in every generation owe a great debt to those preceding them who have labored in establishing the canon of Scripture, in attempting to determine the exact nature of the text and in translating it into different languages. Speakers of English have been especially favored by God to possess so many equitable translations of the Bible (see ch. 3, The Language of the Bible, concerning translations).​

3 3See, for example, Alan F. Johnson, “The Historical-Critical Method: Egyptian Gold or Pagan precipice?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 26 (1983):3–15.

4 4Benjamin B. Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964), 31, 32, 33.

5 5Gleason L. Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 21.

6 6For example, Archer, Survey, and David Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations.

AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)

7 7See Eldon J. Epp, “The Eclectic Method in New Testament Textual Criticism: Solution or Symptom?” Harvard Theological Review 69 (1976): 215.

NIV New International Version

NASB New American Standard Bible

8 8Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Societies, 1971), 607.

9 9Archer, 79.

10 10Archer, 77; Edward J. Young, “The Canon of the Old Testament,” in Henry, 156–164.

11 11Archer, 69.

12 12Archer, 68.

13 13See works in the Annotated Bibliography such as Kubo and Specht, So Many Versions?; Bruce, History of the Bible in English; Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism.

Karleen, P. S. (1987). The handbook to Bible study : With a guide to the Scofield study system. "This book is intended as a companion to the Scofield Reference Bible"--Pref.; Includes indexes. New York: Oxford University Press.

 

[Eagle_Wings]

I don't think there is anything wrong with this question being posted here....I agree that some of the topics lately have become quite repetitive. I think some great info has been posted so far, (just skimming through right now), but instead of quoting other's words,(nothing wrong with that!) I figured I'd give my own take on it.

I'm at work right now so forgive my generalizations or paraphrases...I'll clarify everything when I get home and can look it all up! There is a verse in the Bible that talks about Scripture being God-breathed or inspired, and it is generally excepted that the word "Scripture" here refers to both Old and New Testamant rather then just Old Testamant. (I'll explain why when I have access to my references!) I am a firm believer that everything which was originally written down was inspired by God, I also believe that God will protect the integrity of His word. Most of the inconsistencies that people notice in the Word comes from not undertstanding the writing format of that time period, or not understanding the way things were done back then. Other errors that can creep in is when translations are not done accurately. For example: King James is a translation of a translation~ familiar with the phrase, "lost in translation?" When you are trying to translate a word which was already translated from the original you are running a big risk of totally changing or missing the meaning! NIV was translated from the oldest known "original" manuscripts. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were found they contained the majority of the book of Isaiah, which was at that time the oldest known manuscript. When they compared it to what the NIV says-it was a perfect match. You also have all these translations out now like "The Message" where the author is trying to put everything into perspective with today's times. There is nothing wrong with that, in fact I love reading "The Message," but when it comes to really diving in to what God is saying those other translations don't work because they've removed all context. Yes, the Bible does apply to our lives today, but to understand what was being said you need to understand what was taking place at the time that is being spoken of, therefore everything really needs to stay in context.

Sorry if I was rambling, I hope all that made sense!

 

[boilerblues]

The info I posted gives a lot of technical background, but really our trust in the Bible comes down to a matter of faith. Our entire relationship with God is a matter of faith, each and every part. You won't find any concrete answers for anything, though you can find some strong evidence.

Heb. 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Heb. 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Remember that what God wants from us is our love, the greatest commandment was to love God and to love others. When Moses led Israel out of Egypt the people had no doubt about God's existance, He existed in a pillar of fire and smoke in the midst of the camp. But that solid proof did not cause them to love Him, it caused them to fear Him. That isn't what God wanted.

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.

I haven't followed everything you've posted lately, but I know you've been struggling with faith for a while now. I highly recommend reading "Reaching for the Invisible God" by Philip Yancey. It's one of my favorite books. The premise of the book is "how do you have a relationship with a God you aren't sure exists?" I recommend everything by Philip Yancey, he grew up in a very fundamental church and he really rejected God for a while because of his upbringing. His books are written primarily from the standpoint of his own struggle with faith.

Doubt is ok, if you look at any of the OT people (I love the OT because they're jacked up people just like me, except for Daniel and his goody-goody friends) you'll see some very flawed people that God honors (see Hebrews 11 and read the story of each person listed there). We all struggle with our faith and that wrestling with God is what can make our faith stronger. God is big enough to handle our doubts. Just don't let your doubts lead you away from God, let them cause you to search harder for the truth and goodness of God.

I grew up in the church and I struggled for a while to find my faith. Philip Yancey was a great person to learn from. If you need someone to talk with or just voice thoughts always feel free to PM me.

 

[JPPT1974]

The Bible isn't just a "book" on historical facts and real-life people. As well as lessons of the past, present, and future. But it is God's word and how He is the Author of the Bible. And how we need to apply the Bible to our lives as that also says so much about our Lord & Savior Jesus Christ. The Bible is a real-life Bible that applies to our everyday needs and wants. And we are to be fulfilled to those scriptures and lessons.

 

[Breetai]

Nice work Mr. Boilerblues!

 

[Tink]

I think it's partially a matter of faith, friend.

In His love,
Tink

 

[Lia]

Wow... you guys posted long posts.. hehe I'm gonna go back and read those posts later on, cause I'm sure they are very informative.

Great question, Mr. Dude. It's a refreshing discussion topic here in the Singles section, I mean that's what we're supposed to be doing as singles anyway... to learn more about the truth of our Lord and to increase our knowledge about him whether we're single or married. More as singles because we need to take our minds off the "relationship/dating" stuff and focus more on different stuff.

But just a short comment from me for you to think about...if you believe that God is all powerful, all-knowing, and almighty, then wouldn't He able to keep His words from human's fallacies? Yes, we know that there are some discrepancies you can find in the Bible. But I just believe that if God is the kind of God He claims to be, then He is more than able to protect the essence of His words from human's errors.

I've been at your place before when I was younger and asked the same questions. But, by His grace and through my personal experiences by reading and experiencing the Lord gives me more and more confidence that the Bible is no joke at all

 

[JPPT1974]

I need the Bible to help me get through the day as well as apply the lessons in my life as well as to those around me. Even if it is a "silent" witness.

 

[paulewog]

Perhaps one of the most astounding reasons why the Bible is true... prophecies fulfilled...

 

[kelco]

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Inspiration
that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (R.V., "Every scripture inspired of God"), 2Ti_3:16. This is true of all the "sacred writings," not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as "theopneustic," i.e., "breathed into by God" in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will. The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God, none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God. The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given.

As to the nature of inspiration we have no information. This only we know, it rendered the writers infallible. They were all equally inspired, and are all equally infallible. The inspiration of the sacred writers did not change their characters. They retained all their individual peculiarities as thinkers or writers.

From Easton's Bible Dictionary

 

[boilerblues]

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
2Ti 3:17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Inspiration
that extraordinary or supernatural divine influence vouchsafed to those who wrote the Holy Scriptures, rendering their writings infallible. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (R.V., "Every scripture inspired of God"), 2Ti_3:16. This is true of all the "sacred writings," not in the sense of their being works of genius or of supernatural insight, but as "theopneustic," i.e., "breathed into by God" in such a sense that the writers were supernaturally guided to express exactly what God intended them to express as a revelation of his mind and will. The testimony of the sacred writers themselves abundantly demonstrates this truth; and if they are infallible as teachers of doctrine, then the doctrine of plenary inspiration must be accepted. There are no errors in the Bible as it came from God, none have been proved to exist. Difficulties and phenomena we cannot explain are not errors. All these books of the Old and New Testaments are inspired. We do not say that they contain, but that they are, the Word of God. The gift of inspiration rendered the writers the organs of God, for the infallible communication of his mind and will, in the very manner and words in which it was originally given.

As to the nature of inspiration we have no information. This only we know, it rendered the writers infallible. They were all equally inspired, and are all equally infallible. The inspiration of the sacred writers did not change their characters. They retained all their individual peculiarities as thinkers or writers.

From Easton's Bible Dictionary

In defense of the original question, you can't really use the Bible to defend itself. You can write a paper on anything and defend it from the basis of itself. Something should have some verification from an outside source to support it's arguement. That was the point of a lot of what I posted, it explains the process of how it came about, how it was translated and copied over the centuries, and external verification. I took a class on early civilization at Purdue (a non-christian school) that was taught by someone who was definately not a Christian. He said that in archaelogical studies the more they find the more the Bible is found to be accurate. He taught some from the Bible, not as a spiritual truth but as an explanation of some parts of history.

There's some solid external support for the validity of the Bible, but there's not undeniable evidence to back all of it up. It is something that requires faith to believe in. People like Ken Ham work to try to reconcile science and the Bible, to explain creation in a scientific way. Biblical scholars and archeologists work to give a solid foundation of what the Bible contains. People like Josephus give external testimony to the existance of Jesus. But nothing is going to give undeniable proof to everything in the Bible. That's why we have to rely on faith. The greatest testimony we have to the validity of the Bible is the Holy Spirit and in the words of Jesus

Matt. 11:4 Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you hear and see:
Matt. 11:5 the BLIND RECEIVE SIGHT and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL PREACHED TO THEM.
Matt. 11:6 “And blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.”

For me the greatest testimony of the validity of the Bible and the Holy Spirit is watching the power of Christ work in people to transform them. I know recovering alcoholics, former drug users, partiers, broken people whose lives have been transformed by the power of God working through His Word and through people filled with the Holy Spirit.

1John 5:5 ¶ Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?
1John 5:6 This is the One who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth.
1John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
1John 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
1John 5:9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for the testimony of God is this, that He has testified concerning His Son.
1John 5:10 The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has given concerning His Son.
1John 5:11 And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.
1John 5:12 He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.

 

[renaistre]

I've been told that F.F. Bruce's "The Books and the Parchments" is one of the best books on this subject. Unfortuantely, it's out of print. Josh McDowel's "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" has some good material in a very easy to read format.

 

[JPPT1974]

I have been told that younger people read the NIV because words like thee, thy, and/or thou are difficult for them to understand.