1. Incredible unity of themes.
Except where there are contradictions and errors.
The themes of which I speak are quite unaffected by copyist errors or "contradictions." So far, I haven't encountered a Bible "contradiction" that atheists have offered that wasn't more apparent than real and for which a reasonable explanation couldn't be offered.
2. Fulfilled prophecy.
This particular area of the Bible I need to investigate more. Suffice it to say that Nostradamus and others can also proclaim having fulfilled prophecies as part of their repertoire. Does that make them divine or prophets of God?
The Bible is in a class of its own concerning fulfilled prophecy. I would not lump it in with the likes of Nostradamus who suffers greatly by the comparison. I know of no other prophecies that have been fulfilled with the same number, completeness and degree of detail as those of the Bible.
3. Archaeological/historical accuracy.
It's possible that evidence has been dug up to confirm places or possibly names of characters in the Bible, but that's miles away from validating or confirming the miracles and mythical stories that can ALSO be found in the Bible. Books of any kind mention places and people that actually existed, that doesn't make the books divinely inspired, does it?
It is not merely "possible" that the places and people named in Scripture are well-verified by archaeology, it is established fact. And what this verification does, in part, is make it clear that whatever "mythological" stories it relates are not intended to be understood as mere myth, but actual events in history. This fidelity to historical fact
does lend a certain measure of credence to the stories of the supernatural, in my opinion. The supernatural elements of various Bible stories are perfectly in keeping with a supernatural Creator-God who intervenes in human history. I would expect such supernatural events when God enters the mix. I don't see, then, that the supernatural nature of some of the accounts of the Bible in any way diminishes the veracity of them.
Does the historical/archaeological accuracy of the Bible alone establish it as divine in origin? No. But in concert with all of the reasons I have for belief in the divine origin of the Bible, the cumulative weight of these reasons tips in favor of my belief, I think. No one reason (except maybe fulfilled prophecy) is, by itself, a knock-out punch in favor of the divine origin of Scripture.
4. Survivability.
Does the fact that Bible scriptures have survived for centuries make them divinely inspired? There many ancient texts that are way older and have survived to these days, yet you wouldn't say they are divinely inspired because of how old they are, would you?
Well, the Bible, you see, has come under some very serious attempts to totally eradicate it from existence. For example, the Roman Emperor Diocletian in 303 AD ordered the destruction of all Bibles and the Christians who cherished them. He even built a monument on which was inscribed,
"Extincto nomene Christianorum" (the name Christian is extinguished). Twenty-five years later, Diocletian was dead and the new Emperor Constantine commissioned fifty copies of the Bible to be prepared at government expense.
I am not, then, arguing for the divine origin of the Bible merely from its age. It has withstood enormous antagonism at times and continues to survive. The French philosopher Voltaire declared,
"One hundred years from my day, there will not be a Bible in the earth except one that is looked upon by an antiquarian curiosity-seeker." One hundred years later Voltaire was dead and his own printing press was being used to print Bibles. I think it is, then, indicative of the divine origin of the Bible that it remains intact despite the sometimes enormous hostility it has aroused over the centuries in those like Voltaire.
5. Popularity and transforming impact upon people and cultures.
Popularity? Really?
And regarding this 'transforming impact' you talk about, like I mentioned in my response to TheyCallMeDavid, Self-help and other religions' texts easily fall into this category.
As I explained, no one of these points stands by itself; but together they establish reasonable grounds for believing as I do about the Bible. The Bible's popularity
is a legitimate point to ponder. It has sustained worldwide popularity that few, if any, other books have enjoyed. But this makes sense if it really is the Word of God.
I don't think you could find any self-help book or other religious text that has had the positive impact upon many cultures that the Bible has had. It is acknowledged by secular and religious scholars alike as a singular text in both its literary quality and its wide influence upon various cultures. Likening it to a self-help book indicates a serious misunderstanding of the history and content of the Bible. Such a comparison might also reveal an antagonistic bias, as well.
Regarding the Bible, the great archaeologist W. F. Albright remarked,
The Bible towers in content above all earlier religious literature; and it towers just as impressively over all subsequent literature in the direct simplicity of its message and the catholicity of its appeal to men of all lands and times (
The Christian Century, November 1958).
The teachings of the Bible have been directly responsible for the establishment of universities, schools, hospitals, orphanages, charities, and most of the rights and freedoms people in enjoy in western democratic nations. I'd say that warrants a spot in my list of reasons to believe it is more than "just another book."
Selah.
