Reasons for believing in the Bible as the literal word of God.

[an anarchist]

What are your best reasons for believing in the Bible as the literal word of God, if that's your thing? Heck, just give me reasons they don't even have to be good.

But I'm coming to the conclusion/opinion that there isn't really a "good" reason to believe in the Bible as the literal word of God.

I feel like I've just about fully shaken off my Christian convictions and beliefs. I've been an apostate for over a year now I'm pretty sure. The first few months I still had my doubts about my decision to reject Christianity. Just, it was ingrained into my head from birth pretty much that Jesus is literally God. All my family told me that and brought me to church where I was told that too.

Growing up, I dived into Christian apologetics in an attempt to reinforce my faith. I let apologetics convince me as a teenager of the soundness and literalness of the Bible. But apologetics is weak. It doesn't provide a solid reason for saying that the Bible is literally from God.

I realize now that it was two things that developed and fed my Christian convictions and beliefs.
1. Authority figures who I trusted told me the Bible was from God. This is not a good reason.
2. It was a comfort to believe that I have in my hand the literal word of the god of the literal universe. And it tells me how to live my life and that everything will be okay in the end. Very comforting, but not a valid reason to believe imo.

Those are the two reasons I identified why I used to believe so much and dearly. I now understand that I had no good reason to believe in the Bible, and I feel like I haven't a modicum of Christian faith or conviction in me anymore. Which is what I was going for, I'm no longer thinking there's a slight chance ima burn in hell for my apostasy.

So, do I have it right? There is no good reason to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

 

[Revoltingest]

Congrats on ditching the the sky fairy!

 

[TLK Valentine]

I can give a laundry list of reasons not to believe it is... most of which begin with "Seriously, just read the darn thing..."

 

[1213]

What are your best reasons for believing in the Bible as the literal word of God, if that's your thing? Heck, just give me reasons they don't even have to be good.

But I'm coming to the conclusion/opinion that there isn't really a "good" reason to believe in the Bible as the literal word of God.
...

If you read the Bible, you can see from the text itself, it is written by humans and it contains witness testimonies. So, it is not directly written or told by God. But, by what it says, it has words from God. For example Jesus tells he speaks what God had commanded him to speak.

For I did not speak from Myself, but He who sent Me, the Father, He has given Me command, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Then what things I speak, as the Father has said to Me, so I speak.
Joh. 12:49-50

I believe what is said in the Bible, because:
1) I see things go as told in the Bible.
2) The message is good and truthful on parts I can see.
3) If it would be only from humans, atheists would not have so much difficulties in understanding it and perhaps they could point out some real error in it.

 

[Audie]

If you read the Bible, you can see from the text itself, it is written by humans and it contains witness testimonies. So, it is not directly written or told by God. But, by what it says, it has words from God. For example Jesus tells he speaks what God had commanded him to speak.

For I did not speak from Myself, but He who sent Me, the Father, He has given Me command, what I should say, and what I should speak. And I know that His command is everlasting life. Then what things I speak, as the Father has said to Me, so I speak.
Joh. 12:49-50

I believe what is said in the Bible, because:
1) I see things go as told in the Bible.
2) The message is good and truthful on parts I can see.
3) If it would be only from humans, atheists would not have so much difficulties in understanding it and perhaps they could point out some real error in it.

You believe it because you believe it.

Atheists understand the book far more easily
than a "believer". Believers have as many versions
of what it says as there are believers.

If believers' intellectual integrity were
not utterly compromised before they even start,
they'd have a chance to see the book for what
is, instead of the endless " apologetics" trying
to force it to make sense and match reality.

What are " real errors"? Opposite of fake errors?

Your book is full of things that are not true,
from Genesis on. Inspired by god.

What kind of " god" is that?

 

[TLK Valentine]

3) If it would be only from humans, atheists would not have so much difficulties in understanding it and perhaps they could point out some real error in it.

Well, if you insist... Shall we start with Jesus as fulfillment of OT prophecies?

it's actually quite simple -- For Jesus to have "fulfilled" those prophecies, his New Testament Story would have to be historically accurate. It is not.

Rather, the writers of the New Testament played fast and loose with historical accuracy (and indeed, in most cases, discarded it entirely) in order to match up the Jesus story with the OT -- which, you will recall, they quite literally had open in front of them as they wrote.

The Jews reject this (not all of them, mind you -- every Christian is in a way, whether they acknowledge it or not, as much a Jew as Jesus was) because they see it for what it is -- liturgical interpretation of long lost, forgotten, and/or ignored history.

I don't expect you to believe this without some support, so how about we take one of those prophecies as an example: Jesus' birth in Bethlehem.

I'll submit to you that the Bethlehem birth stories are complete and utter fabrications -- Jesus was most likely born in Nazareth, but because the prophecy demanded that the Messiah be both in the city of David (Bethlehem), both Matthew and Luke bent over backwards to contrive two separate, contradictory, historically and physically impossible scenarios in order to "fulfill" said prophecy.

Say what you will about the Jews -- they know a snow job when they hear one.

Let me know if you'd like to hear the details.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What are your best reasons for believing in the Bible as the literal word of God, if that's your thing? Heck, just give me reasons they don't even have to be good.

But I'm coming to the conclusion/opinion that there isn't really a "good" reason to believe in the Bible as the literal word of God.

I feel like I've just about fully shaken off my Christian convictions and beliefs. I've been an apostate for over a year now I'm pretty sure. The first few months I still had my doubts about my decision to reject Christianity. Just, it was ingrained into my head from birth pretty much that Jesus is literally God. All my family told me that and brought me to church where I was told that too.

Growing up, I dived into Christian apologetics in an attempt to reinforce my faith. I let apologetics convince me as a teenager of the soundness and literalness of the Bible. But apologetics is weak. It doesn't provide a solid reason for saying that the Bible is literally from God.

I realize now that it was two things that developed and fed my Christian convictions and beliefs.
1. Authority figures who I trusted told me the Bible was from God. This is not a good reason.
2. It was a comfort to believe that I have in my hand the literal word of the god of the literal universe. And it tells me how to live my life and that everything will be okay in the end. Very comforting, but not a valid reason to believe imo.

Those are the two reasons I identified why I used to believe so much and dearly. I now understand that I had no good reason to believe in the Bible, and I feel like I haven't a modicum of Christian faith or conviction in me anymore. Which is what I was going for, I'm no longer thinking there's a slight chance ima burn in hell for my apostasy.

So, do I have it right? There is no good reason to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Foremost....The Bible is not a history book. That much is proven to be certain.

The Bible is also not a Science Book. That much is proven to be certain.

The Bible is most certainly a redacted collection of Mythology with Mythological characters strewn about its pages with bits and pieces of borrowed religions as well as hijacking Judaic mythology into its own doctrines and discourses.


The ability to separate fact from fiction usually by a healthy shot of reality, is enough to jar a fair number of people from their religious stupor, making it an incredible relief that people still are waking up and reclaiming their ability to critically analyze and question the foundation of their beliefs in order to determine what is the truth and what is the fantasy and to discern what is what for the foreseeable future.

Ironically, the words, "The truth shall set you free", is also a powerful paradoxical call to break free from such life of delusion that has no real world foundation on which to base it on.

Welcome back to the place where you started at birth before any of this was ever introduced.

Nothing like being in clean pristine fresh air again free from indoctrination.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can give a laundry list of reasons not to believe it is... most of which begin with "Seriously, just read the darn thing..."

And wake up those critical and analytical skills while doing so.

Whenever I reminisce back to my days as a devout Christian, I'm still flabbergasted and completely floored by the fact that I actually used to believe all of the Bible was true and accurate, and the world of unbelievers was dark, blind, and destitute.

I still cannot fathom to this day as to how so incredibly strong religious fueled delusion can be and is for people, so much so as to deny actual reality itself in favor of the imaginary.

 

[1213]

Say what you will about the Jews -- they know a snow job when they hear one.

I would hope so. Unfortunately it seems many of them often don't.

Let me know if you'd like to hear the details.

Yes, please tell the details.

 

[1213]

What are " real errors"? Opposite of fake errors?

Unfortunately for you, you can't prove that there is any real error. Matters that conflicts with your beliefs are not errors, if you can't prove your beliefs correct.

 

[Ashoka]

Whenever I reminisce back to my days as a devout Christian, I'm still flabbergasted and completely floored by the fact that I actually used to believe all of the Bible was true and accurate, and the world of unbelievers was dark, blind, and destitute.

Same here. It's so dehumanizing.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Same here. It's so dehumanizing.

The religious born paranoia was certainly effective, by which the very thought that you dont ever want to be "them" , had kept me psychologically bound in Christianity for so very long under the premise that if you step out of that 'protective' bubble of God's grace and favor, you will be lost and damned forever.

 

[PureX]

What are your best reasons for believing in the Bible as the literal word of God, if that's your thing? Heck, just give me reasons they don't even have to be good.

I realize now that it was two things that developed and fed my Christian convictions and beliefs.
1. Authority figures who I trusted told me the Bible was from God. This is not a good reason.
2. It was a comfort to believe that I have in my hand the literal word of the god of the literal universe. And it tells me how to live my life and that everything will be okay in the end. Very comforting, but not a valid reason to believe imo.

Those are the two reasons I identified why I used to believe so much and dearly. I now understand that I had no good reason to believe in the Bible, and I feel like I haven't a modicum of Christian faith or conviction in me anymore. Which is what I was going for, I'm no longer thinking there's a slight chance ima burn in hell for my apostasy.

So, do I have it right? There is no good reason to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

Those are two "good" reasons to believe it for a certain kind of personality under certain circumstances. And since we humans will never know what is "valid" about God, we are left free to choose whatever theory works best for us in our lives. So there is no right or wrong, here. There is only what is right or wrong for you. And for the collective 'we'. Let's use our gods and holy books to help us be better human beings to ourselves, each other, and the world. And remember that we are free to envision these things in whatever way helps us to do that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Those are two "good" reasons to believe it for a certain kind of personality under certain circumstances. And since we humans will never know what is "valid" about God, we are left free to choose whatever theory works best for us in our lives. So there is no right or wrong, here. There is only what is right or wrong for you. And for the collective 'we'. Let's use our gods and holy books to help us be better human beings to ourselves, each other, and the world. And remember that we are free to envision these things in whatever way helps us to do that.

@an anarchist
And if you go for a "we", consider how you deal with "them".

 

[TLK Valentine]

I would hope so. Unfortunately it seems many of them often don't.

Yes, please tell the details.

As you wish. Let's start with some simple history:

Jesus grew up and did most of his teaching out of Nazareth, yet, according to two Gospel writers, was born in Bethlehem.

Now, how did that happen? First off, let's remember that the traditional story we've all heard from our school Christmas plays are actually clumsy amalgams of Matthew and Luke's accounts. These two are the only ones to address Jesus' birth, and both felt the need to explain the Bethlehem/Nazareth issue.

Matthew's Gospel has Mary and Joseph already living in Bethlehem, so there's no problem there; the trick is getting them to Nazareth, flying in the face of all logic, after Jesus' birth.

I say "flying in the face of all logic" because Bethlehem was (it you want to think of it this way) practically a suburb of Jerusalem, whereas Nazareth was in the province of Galilee, out in the boonies, as it were. People don't pack up and move without good reason, and any kind of moving would've been towards Jerusalem, where the policital, social, and financial opportunities were, not away from it, into poverty and obscurity. Remember, people back in the day didn't commute to work.

Matthew needs a darn good reason for the Jesus family to hit the road, and he finds one by rifling through the Old Testament -- Jesus and his family need to go into hiding because Herod, having heard of the birth of a new King, orders every newborn male child be put to death.

Now where have we heard that story before? More importantly, where would the Jews have heard that story before?

That's right -- It's Exodus II: Electric Boogaloo. Matthew is making a point of Jesus' greatness to his Jewish audience by parallelling him with their greatest hero: Moses.

So Joseph sneaks his family out, leads them to Egypt where they will be safe, and eventually relocates to Nazareth once the heat is off, so to speak.

Hmmm -- this just gets better and better -- What does Matthew tell us about Joseph?

1. He had a father named Jacob
2. God communicated with him (only, it seems) through dreams (Matt. 1:20, 2:13, 2:19, and 2:22)
3. He rescues Jesus from certain death by taking him down into Egypt.

If you're a Jew, you should be getting a serious case of deja vu right about now. This is the Joseph of Genesis 37-50, so here we have Matthew doing it again: making the point of Jesus' greatness by having his story mirror another Jewish hero.

You'll notice that this is pretty much Matthew's signature style -- everything Jesus does, some OT hero or prophet did it first - in fact, often he has Jesus do it precisely because some OT hero or prophet did it first.

My point? They say history repeats itself, but never so completely or conveniently -- not unless someone's writing it that way. Either God contrived to micromanage (heck, nanomanage) human history for no reason other than to have these stories balance out the way they do, or someone's cooking the books.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe the simpler possibility.

Let me take a brief pause, but I assure you; we've barely gotten our feet wet. Just wait until we try to reconcile all this with Luke...

 

[Nakosis]

What are your best reasons for believing in the Bible as the literal word of God, if that's your thing? Heck, just give me reasons they don't even have to be good.

But I'm coming to the conclusion/opinion that there isn't really a "good" reason to believe in the Bible as the literal word of God.

I feel like I've just about fully shaken off my Christian convictions and beliefs. I've been an apostate for over a year now I'm pretty sure. The first few months I still had my doubts about my decision to reject Christianity. Just, it was ingrained into my head from birth pretty much that Jesus is literally God. All my family told me that and brought me to church where I was told that too.

Growing up, I dived into Christian apologetics in an attempt to reinforce my faith. I let apologetics convince me as a teenager of the soundness and literalness of the Bible. But apologetics is weak. It doesn't provide a solid reason for saying that the Bible is literally from God.

I realize now that it was two things that developed and fed my Christian convictions and beliefs.
1. Authority figures who I trusted told me the Bible was from God. This is not a good reason.
2. It was a comfort to believe that I have in my hand the literal word of the god of the literal universe. And it tells me how to live my life and that everything will be okay in the end. Very comforting, but not a valid reason to believe imo.

Those are the two reasons I identified why I used to believe so much and dearly. I now understand that I had no good reason to believe in the Bible, and I feel like I haven't a modicum of Christian faith or conviction in me anymore. Which is what I was going for, I'm no longer thinking there's a slight chance ima burn in hell for my apostasy.

So, do I have it right? There is no good reason to believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

I think the biggest reason Christians had for taking the Bible as the literal word of God was to take away any authority the Pope had. That way Christians could determine the will of God for themselves instead of relying on the human emissary between man and God.

 

[Watchmen]

What is the best evidence for sola scriptoria?

 

[PureX]

I think the biggest reason Christians had for taking the Bible as the literal word of God was to take away any authority the Pope had. That way Christians could determine the will of God for themselves instead of relying on the human emissary between man and God.

Interesting.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Apart from whatever others have said, and with which I would agree, how about reading the Bible along with other similar religious texts - comparing these as to how similar they might be and as to how they might disagree. But where one might inevitably be led to believing in one particular religion - and hence being in conflict with others more likely. Is this what God intended?

 

[metis]

I think the biggest reason Christians had for taking the Bible as the literal word of God was to take away any authority the Pope had. That way Christians could determine the will of God for themselves instead of relying on the human emissary between man and God.

It was more based on a reaction to "Modernism", whereas scholars using the "scientific method" had come to the general conclusion that authorship is difficult to link to previously assumed authors with many of the books, plus that the Bible is not inerrant.