Reasons You Do/Don't Believe the Bible

[inquiring mind]

Thoughts???

 

[cloudyday2]

Firstly, there are different ways to believe the Bible, and many Christians believe different parts of the Bible in different ways. For example a Christian might believe that Jesus literally arose from the Empty Tomb, but that same Christian might believe that Noah's flood was a Jewish legend borrowed from earlier Near Eastern flood legends.

I believe some parts of the Bible are based on history, and I believe the Bible has some good thoughts that might have been inspired by God.

Also, I don't see any smoking guns for belief or disbelief in most Bible stories. The verdict on each story results from weighing the evidence pro and con, and the verdict is only a best guess.

 

[inquiring mind]

I believe we, as Christians, are led to accept the Bible as God’s word and truth primarily through our faith. With that in mind, I would say that I believe the OT accounts because Jesus did; He quoted and taught from them throughout His ministry here. I believe the NT accounts, specifically the gospels, because they were written early, within the lives of eyewitnesses or the next generation, which would have disputed them if they were incorrectly presented. Matthew and John were actually eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry.

 

[ChetSinger]

I believe we, as Christians, are led to accept the Bible as God’s word and truth primarily through our faith. With that in mind, I would say that I believe the OT accounts because Jesus did; He quoted and taught from them throughout His ministry here. I believe the NT accounts, specifically the gospels, because they were written early, within the lives of eyewitnesses or the next generation, which would have disputed them if they were incorrectly presented. Matthew and John were actually eyewitnesses to Jesus’ ministry.

What he said.

 

[JohnClay]

I think much of the Bible isn't historical but I still consider myself an extremely liberal Christian. This is also the case for many liberal Christians including MLK.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I believe the parts of the bible that can shown to be true with sufficient evidence.

 

[inquiring mind]

I believe the parts of the bible that can shown to be true with sufficient evidence.

There is an excellent website (his videos are on Youtube too) called Cold-case Christianity that you might find to your liking in that regard. You should try it, you may be surprised.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Here's an excellent video channel that takes Cold Case Christianity apart chapter by chapter: An Atheist Reads Cold-Case Christianity

 

[inquiring mind]

Here's an excellent video channel that takes Cold Case Christianity apart chapter by chapter: An Atheist Reads Cold-Case Christianity

I'll check it out.

 

[inquiring mind]

Here's an excellent video channel that takes Cold Case Christianity apart chapter by chapter: An Atheist Reads Cold-Case Christianity

I haven’t read Wallace’s book, so I can’t comment on it. But, imo his videos do a good job regarding the investigation of Christian claims and beliefs, and articulate the material and conclusions accurately and concisely. The guy you linked definitely analyzed and took apart the first two chapters of Wallace’s book (the only video I watched). I just don’t agree with claims that the NT gospels, and even the other non-religious sources available, are not sufficient evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, the sighting of Jesus afterward, and that the disciples’ lives were changed by it. I’m always left wondering, what’s it going to take, a video of it all. Eyewitness (and witness to eyewitness) accounts (even if by drawings) have always been a welcomed part to all other history. If no one else, you would think Luke’s (a Gentile physician and historian) account would be acceptable to non-believer, scientific types.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I haven’t read Wallace’s book, so I can’t comment on it. But, imo his videos do a good job regarding the investigation of Christian claims and beliefs, and articulate the material and conclusions accurately and concisely. The guy you linked definitely analyzed and took apart the first two chapters of Wallace’s book (the only video I watched). I just don’t agree with claims that the NT gospels, and even the other non-religious sources available, are not sufficient evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, the sighting of Jesus afterward, and that the disciples’ lives were changed by it. I’m always left wondering, what’s it going to take, a video of it all. Eyewitness (and witness to eyewitness) accounts (even if by drawings) have always been a welcomed part to all other history. If no one else, you would think Luke’s (a Gentile physician and historian) account would be acceptable to non-believer, scientific types.

I'm glad you found the video useful. I haven't watched since it originally came out. He's got a lot more, including Mere Christianity,, Josh McDowell, Keller, Wright, Stroebel, and, even though it's not apoletics, 40 days of Purpose.

 

[cloudyday2]

I just don’t agree with claims that the NT gospels, and even the other non-religious sources available, are not sufficient evidence for Jesus’ crucifixion, resurrection, the sighting of Jesus afterward, and that the disciples’ lives were changed by it. I’m always left wondering, what’s it going to take, a video of it all. Eyewitness (and witness to eyewitness) accounts (even if by drawings) have always been a welcomed part to all other history. If no one else, you would think Luke’s (a Gentile physician and historian) account would be acceptable to non-believer, scientific types.

My theory is that most people don't change their religious beliefs until they become uncomfortable. When a person is comfortable with Christianity then the evidence for belief in Christianity seems enough. When a person is uncomfortable with Christianity for some reason (such as a lifestyle incompatible with Church doctrines or scandals in the Church or whatever) then the same evidence seems less persuasive. That is true for atheism or any other position on religion. It would be different if the evidence was overwhelming for belief or disbelief, but it's not, so each person can choose whatever conclusion seems most comfortable. "If it ain't then broke don't fix it" is how most people think (including me).

 

[Caliban]

Thoughts???

I don't believe the supernatural claims of the books of the Bible. There is no good reason to believe a god exists or miracles occur. It does not correspond to what we observe in nature or logic. It is literature and nothing more.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Thoughts???

I dont trust what the bible says, for the same reason I don't trust trump: any source that has been shown repeatedly to be wrong should not be trusted.

 

[HitchSlap]

Thoughts???

I think the bible is nothing special. Men have written much better works of fiction.

 

[ananda]

Thoughts???

I don't believe the Bible, because most of what it claims I cannot prove for myself.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Thoughts???

It's a religious text.

 

[hedrick]

I don't "believe the Bible" in the sense a conservative Protestant does, as if it's God's words (except the parts that are, e.g. some of the prophets). Rather, I think it's a collections of writings, over several hundred years, by different authors, all reacting in different ways to their experience of God, or their community's.

Why do I think this? Because that's what a straightforward reading of it indicates. It's obvious that it represents different perspectives. By comparing it to mainstream history and science, we know that the early parts are legendary. It's also obvious that the NT reflects 1st Cent Judaism in many ways.

But that doesn't mean that it's all made-up. It just means it's a human document, reflecting both the backgrounds of the authors and their experiences with God.

I think we've got a modern equivalent of the problem Paul faced. He faced a bunch of people who thought you had to become a Jew to follow Christ. Now we've got people who think you have to accept a 1st Cent worldview to follow Christ. That's just as bad.

 

[Paul.]

There is no good reason to believe a god exists or miracles occur. It does not correspond to what we observe in nature or logic.

Would you please provide some more information on what you understand the term miracles to mean and how you came to logically conclude that miracles do not and have never occurred.

Do you conclude that miracles cannot occur in the future either, should not be expected to occur in the future but nothing in the future can be ruled out or that what happens in the future with miracles is speculation and therefore no stance can be made?

 

[Caliban]

Would you please provide some more information on what you understand the term miracles to mean and how you came to logically conclude that miracles do not and have never occurred.

Do you conclude that miracles cannot occur in the future either, should not be expected to occur in the future but nothing in the future can be ruled out or that what happens in the future with miracles is speculation and therefore no stance can be made?

I never said miracles cannot occur. You read my post incorrectly or inferred incorrectly. I clearly wrote that, "There is no good reason to believe a god exists or miracles occur."

I understand a miracle to be the breaking of the laws of physics by a supernatural entity. Of course I don't believe in miracles or that the supernatural exists, but feel free to share any evidence you might have to the contrary.