Board index ‹ Bible

[Bread Sticks]

Why should I trust the Bible, old and New Testament? (Genuine question)

[jimwalton]

1. The Bible has been shown to be historically accurate. There is little reason to doubt its record.

2. The Bible has been shown to have value for life.

3. The Bible presents a world we see. It presents a world where evil is real (as opposed to other religions like Hinduism), and where God lets things take their course but intervenes to keep his plan of redemption on track. It portrays humanity as noble but hopelessly lost, moral but corruptible, both good and evil, torn between self and others, having a conscience, knowing purpose, aware of morality, acknowledging beauty, capable of creativity, but in some ways animalistic and capable of horrific behavior. We see all these things in real life.

4. The Bible has been the primary influence on all cultures, giving us law, philosophy, art, education, medicine, science, and morality.

5. The Bible teaches purpose, significance in humanity, forgiveness for wrongs, life out of death, hope for the hopeless, redemption, fairness, love, beauty, a God who is there, knowledge, conscience, renewal, and meaning.

6. The absolute brilliance of the literature of the Bible, along with the unity and consistency the Bible displays in theme and teaching, combined with the prophecy and fulfillment shows that the Bible is above purely human capability.

[Bones]

More scrutiny has been undertaken toward the Bible than any other document that has ever existed. Thousands of years later, we're still talking about it, still scrutinizing it, and I'm going to church to learn more about it - and by the way, finding it to be layers, upon layers, upon layers of truth. What other document can claim this robust solidarity?

Lee Strobel, an investigative journalist, set out to discredit the Bible and became a Christian.

C.S. Lewis, an atheist at the time, began his study with assistance from several sources, including J.R.R. Tolkien. He also became a Christian.

Simon Greenleaf, a lawyer, the same.

Jim Warner Wallace was a Cold-Case homicide detective and an atheist. Same result. He became a Christian.

Engineer Todd Friel, Ray Comfort, Billy Graham, John MacArthur, Kirk Cameron, and so many others are on this list too. But I'm not appealing to this list to support truth based in popularity. That would be, in fact, the fallacy of "appeal to popularity". Instead, I'm only trying to convey that the conclusion that the Bible is truth is not a conclusion reached flippantly.

These are not simple blokes like me who stumbled across the Bible truths after 30 something years of being a fool. These are men who actively sought out the truth and came to a reasoned conclusion about it. How could they have reached that conclusion? Why did I after doing the same thing?

I'm here as yet another peer reviewer of the text. I'm adding my name to the list. The Bible is true and inspired. You are in a subreddit of others who would say the same. How many witnesses will it take? How many peer reviews are enough?

C.S. Lewis wrote "Mere Christianity". It walks you through from almost an atheistic viewpoint all the way to the reasonable conclusion that the Bible/Christianity is what it says it is. That won't convince anyone.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen wrote "Against All Opposition: Defending the Christian Worldview" in which he said something very true. It was something like "People are not convinced by facts." I believe you will find numerous scientific studies which suggest this same thing. What if the fact is that the Bible is inspired? What if I presented facts in a way that should convince you but they actually don't wind up doing so?

1 Corinthians 2:14 “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

For countless people to have devoted their lives to studying it and never finish finding wisdom in it is evidence of something on a different plain of knowledge than any other collection of works.

Unfortunately, even if I state this fact, it won't necessarily convince anyone. I could say that the Bible is inspired. I believe it is a fact. But will this convince anyone? Not likely. Not until they've been dredged up from the bottom of an ocean of sin by the grace of God.

John 8:31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.

[Hats]

> The Bible has been shown to be historically accurate.

Okay, but I think the OP will want to see this alleged demonstration. He may also be concerned that so many biblical scholars disagree.

[jimwalton]

Sure. The Old Testament. Just to name a few of thousands:

• The Tel Dan stele mentioning the "house of David"
• Numerous bulla mentioning King Hezekiah
• Hezekiah, king of Judah, is mentioned on Sennacherib's prism
• The Kurkh Monolith Inscription (Assyrian) mentions King Ahab of Israel
• The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser mentions Jehu, son of Omri, king of Israel
• The monument at Tell Al-Rimah mentions Israelite king Jehoash
• King Manasseh of Judah is mentioned in a Ninevite inscription as providing building materials for Esarhaddon (Esarhaddon's prism)
• An inscription from Asurbanipal also mentions Manasseh, king of Judah
• King Uzziah (Azariah) of Judah is mentioned in a funerary plaque
• We have a bulla that mentions "Ahaz, son of Jotham, king of Judah"
• King Jehoiachin of Judah is mentioned on a Babylonian tablet
• King Omri of Israel is mentioned on the Mesha stele
• There is a royal seal of King Jeroboam II of Israel
• The Iran Stele of Tiglath Pileser III mentions King Menahem
• The annals of Tiglath Pileser III mention King Pekah
• We have the royal seal of king Hoshea

It has been affirmed as historically true at every challenge. Where the text is confirmable, it has been confirmed. There has never been a discovery that has proved any piece of it to be false.

For instance, about 3 years ago I went through Luke, looking for historicity. Here's a summary.

• Luke mentions 25 places. 21 are known, 4 are unknown. Not a single reference shown to be false.
• Luke mentions 19 cultural references. Not a single reference shown to be false.
• Luke mentions 52 people. 17 are known and confirmed, 35 are unknown, 2 are highly debated. Not a single reference shown to be false.
• Luke has 8 historical references. 4 are confirmed, 4 are otherwise unknown, 1 of which is highly debated. Not a single reference shown to be false.
• Luke makes 18 religious references. 17 are confirmed; 1 is otherwise unknown. Not a single reference shown to be false.

And so it goes through the NT. If someone thinks something in the NT is historically inaccurate, the burden of proof is on them to substantiate that.

> He may also be concerned that so many biblical scholars disagree.

Anybody can find someone to disagree about anything. There are even flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers.