Why doesn't the Bible include a formally defined proof of its own truth?

Question

If you're having trouble with this, Google "formal logic".

Answer 1

I'm doing a post-grad in theology at Oxford so spend a lot of time thinking about stuff like this... it's a good question.

For what it's worth it seems we have to step outside of our modernist presuppositions for a bit.
What it seems to boil down to is that God is essentially a relational (not propositional) being. Augustine etc talked about the most fundimental part of who God is being relationality - God is trinity: three unique beings, equal in dignity, inextricably bound in love. Out of this he has created us to be primarily relational beings. Karl Barth suggested that we see that in the fact he created male and female: two unique beings, equal in dignity who can relate in love (though Barth didn't neccessarily mean sexual relationship or marriage here).
Because of all this the Bible is a collection of personal stories of where God has interacted with people... not a set of statements about God.
I could give you a pile of facts about me but you wouldn't feel you knew me as much as if my friends wrote their favorite memories about me.
Check out John's Gospel - his big intention is that through the Holy Spirit the readers would feel like they know Jesus personally... as intimately as when he leant his head back against Jesus' chest at the last supper.
Relationship doesn't work on proof. You loose something the minute you try to prove that your girlfriend loves you or that it was a breath taking sunset this morning. If you were trying to convince a friend of this you would tell them stories of how she acts or try to describe the sunset... you might pull out a photograph but you wouldn't give a pile of propositional statments about the light density and the number of particles in the attmosphere.

Answer 2

The Bible is a hodgepodge collection of writings by mostly authors unknown. The history channel had a program on a while back called "Banned From The Bible" that described a lot of the stories that were once part of the collection but the Catholics eventually edited out many of them because they conflicted with some stance the church had taken or they were just too much of a stretch to be believed. One was Jesus as a boy making a board grow so that as his father cut off pieces the main board didn't get any shorter. But why that was considered any less believeable than walking on water or turning water to wine or whatever I don't understand.

It's like if we took Aesop's Fables and Mother Goose and the Brothers Grimm and Lewis Carol and what not and said "starting now we're going to start saying these are true" but then we decide a talking white rabbit with a watch is too outlandish but a talking wolf in grandma's clothes has the ring of truth to it.

Answer 3

Because there is no such formal proof of anything. All formally defined proofs are true only within their own contingent circumstances--another way to say this is that there is no Absolute Truth, at least that is expressible within a formal/linguistic system. Thus, even if there were Eternal Truths, the mere act of attempting to express linguistically would ensure that there would be points open for interpretation.

Answer 4

Glad you are so interested in the Bible. As you can see from the answers that it is based on faith. The Bible was just written. You either accept it as truth or you don't. People don't need to go around giving proof for everything all the time. When you tell somebody something, you just assume they will believe you. You do not have to worry about trying to prove everything you say.

Answer 5

All the truth is backed by prophecies that have come true over the years. Faith also is not defined by formal logic. Faith is based on fact and, in Christianity, Truth.

Answer 6

Genuinely interested? http://www.amazon.com/Case-Christ-Journalists-Personal-Investigation/dp/0310209307

It does. Read it. Examine the contents. Prophesy and the like. What people are telling you is, generally, not Christianity. Bible thumping is a great hobby if you're bored.
Why don't you ask a question on a topic you still have an open mind about?
You'll probably get the violent reaction you want out of this question. Oh, well.

Answer 7

Because seeing isn't believing. If you read the bible and you're a true catholic or christian you should know that what you read is true and you shouldn't need any proof.But who knows even I question my belief sometimes but in the end i know what i believe is true because if it wasn't true why would so many ppl believe or how could i believe in it?. But then again there are alot of ppl who believe in other religions too and the can't all be true. Or maybe they can you know. No human really knows. if it's what you believe then you shouldn't need any proof and if it's not then it's a little different. JUST GO WITH WHAT YOUR HEART AND SOUL BELIEVE NOT WAHT OTHER PPL BELIEVE.

Answer 8

For it is written. "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside"
Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
For since in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe." (I Corinthians 1:19-21)
This is God's creation. He sets the ground rules. He's holding all the cards. Repent, and believe the Gospel.

Answer 9

Because it isn't even a single coherent text. It's a compilation of ancient Hebrew myth, poetry, history, apocalyptic, and wisdom literature spanning millennia in its composition and redaction. Then on top of that is the Hellenized literature of the inter-testamental period and the complex of divergent traditions represented by the canonical new testament.

Answer 10

Because it was written in a manner that relied on people to simply have faith that it was true. If you can imagine sheep following a Shepherd; figurativly and literally then you can see why their was no need for proof. Christianity is a fear-based religion that derives it's power through threats of damnation. If you gave me the option of living in a society where the people lived respectful of one another; who truly cared for the well-being of all, but did not believe in a God... or in our current society of "sinners" who believe in God and hope to be forgiven for their sins, then I would take the former society all day long. Any faith, that would condemn Ghandi or the Dalai Lama to a life in hell simply because they did not accept Christ as their personal Savior, is a faith to be ignored.