Why do people believe the Bible?

Question

I won't accept, "because it was inspired by God" as an answer. That's the whole point. If that's what you think, then why do you think that? What is your evidence?

And, yes, I've heard of Lee Strobel's book, and don't find it convincing.

I'm not sure I buy the argument that the Bible has existed for a long time, virtually unchanged, so I should believe what it says. First of all, you should look at Bart Ehrman's book, "Misquoting Jesus", which addresses the issue of Bible copiests of the New Testament. In any event, just because a document has survived for a long time doesn't mean it's contents are true. And as far as "scientific refutations of the Bible" go, the Bible doesn't really address scientific questions, so what sort of refutation would you be looking for? Certainly it's no surprise that real historical events are mentioned--why wouldn't the writers of the New and Old testament make some sort of reference to the time they were living in?

Answer 1

Ah, but that's the point, isn't it? It's the gap between proof and faith. People don't believe the bible like they believe it's morning - based on items of proof that can be picked up by their senses and interpreted as being conclusive of a given time and place. they belive in the bible based on faith - belief in something that can't be perceived by the senses, and for which there is on objective evidence. Demanding evidence of the faithful is ultimately futile, because faith denies the need for proof. That said, people have faith for a number of different reasons - social or familial tradition, fear of an afterlife of pain, hope of an afterlife without pain, or a particular event in their own lives that make faith seem altogether more reasonable than it might be to someone who hasn't had that experience - the "Road to Damascus" factor. None of which depends on the existence of any objective evidence.

Answer 2

It depends on what you mean by "believe the Bible." The Bible is a complex anthology written by many authors and spanning many cultural and linguistic paradigms. It contains everything from specific historical events to outright apocalyptic symbolism (much of which was explicitly written to deceive the uninitiated).

Some people accept the entire work literally; some accept as history the parts that can be confirmed and interpret the rest allegorically; some interpret the entire work allegorically. When approached from the historical and linguistic context of the individual passages, in light of the documentary hypothesis, it is not difficult to "believe the Bible" as a work of history, allegory, moral philosophy, and religious doctrine.

The real controversy is why people believe in non-Biblical traditions like the idea that Moses wrote the first five books (the Bible repeatedly denies that claim), that the Flood of Noah covered the entire earth (the Bible describes a local event that has been confirmed by archaeologists), that Moses parted the Red Sea (the Bible describes low tide over the Sea of Reeds following a all-night wind from the east), that Daniel was actually written during the Babylonian captivity (the work was allegorical and composed partly in Aramaic in the first century BC), etc. The Bible itself is believable - but many of the traditions that have crept up around it are completely ridiculous.

Answer 3

Hard question to put into words so that you might understand. I believe the Bible for many reasons, and no not because I was indoctrinated. I am also not insecure in any way. It has never been showed wrong, and it has not been changed to much. The old Testament is over 95% accurate from the original Dead Sea Scrolls. The most accurately transcribed and copied book or writing in history. There have been mistranslations, but most of those have been found. It is historically accurate, archeologist's use it as a guide to look for ancient cities. To be honest I had ny doubts when young, but now I believe. That is after researching the science.

Answer 4

A honest search for truth will lead to a realization that:

* The resurrection really happened.

* Archeology is confirming more and more of the details of the Bible.

* A God who created the universe can easily cause miracles to happen that seem rather far-fetched to people who only accept naturalistic explanations.

* Microbiology is revealing Big Problems with Darwinistic "macro evolution" and "origin of life" issues. It didn't "just happen".

* We are all sinners, unworthy to be let into a perfect heaven.

* We will stand before a righteous judge when we die.

* Followers of Christ who have surrendered control of their life to Him will receive mercy.

* Non believers will receive justice

* Mockers and scoffers will be treated especially harshly. (Psalm 1)

* It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God.

Answer 5

If you read it you come to the conclusion that there is no way some man thought it up. The fact that it is actually 66 books, written by 40 authors, over a 1700 year period, from different areas and still maintains many central themes is miraculous. Probably why it's the best seller.

Answer 6

The Bible is a hand book for a relationship with GOD. If you do not have that relationship then it is 1. Useless 2. Will not make any sense to you
If you just choose to flat out reject the Bible that's your rite.
If you are trying to validate your rejection then all the rationalizing wild wishes in the world won't help you relax. That's the Holy Spirit.

Answer 7

Not just the Bible, but also the Koran for Muslims and Torah for Jews..many people need an authoritative dogma to solidify their beliefs. It's the whole "...because the Bible says so.." type justification. This is what personally turns me off about the Western religions.

Answer 8

I believe the Bible because God has proved it to me to be true. There is nothing that I can say to prove the Bible to you, except, taste and see that the Lord is good. You can do this by turning from your sins and accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior and then He will prove Himself and His Word to you. But I must warn you, it takes an open mind to be able to see the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Don't place Him in a box and limit Him by what your predetermined bias opinions.

Answer 9

Have you considered the reliability of the bible? Ignore for the moment the whole notion of God and just think about the book's content.

Investigation by even the most skeptical will also reveal that there exists NO SINGLE SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY that has been shown to prove error, factually or doctrinally, in the Bible. There is lots of speculation and hypotheses, but not a single verifiable fact. If you or anyone should discover one, you will become quite famous. Yet, since recorded history, no one has offered it up and entered their names into the history books. Instead what we have is pseudo-science pandering to the masses, as in the recent John Cameron tomb of Christ debacle.

As a simple experiment, try turning your objective intellect towards the argument that no book, comprising 66 “mini-books”, written over a period of 1500 years by 40 vastly different authors, having an outstanding literary internal consistency and coherency, could be written by mankind alone. Add to that the survival of the book’s ancient manuscripts, numbering in the tens of thousands, over thousands of years and yet these manuscripts remain over 98% textually pure. How this possible, when compared to all the other ancient writings are so few in number? For instance, the Dead Sea Scrolls contain all books of the Old Testament, except Esther, and have been dated to before the time of Christ. Now consider Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars. Only ten copies written about 1,000 years after the event are in existence. In comparison, there are over 24,000+ New Testament manuscripts, the earliest one dating to within 24 years after Christ. How can we objectively and rationally explain this book, the Bible, especially in light of the claims I have made above?

Many fail to realize this and show their lack of knowledge in the historicity of the Bible by objecting when folks use the bible to support their own positions. While no one objects when a journal article or some popular book or media piece is quoted, there is always lots of flippant commentary when the bible, significantly more impressive in its coherent content, is used as a reference. Why is that? My reference work has withstood far more scrutiny and longevity than any written scientific journal. Am I not to be afforded the courtesy of using what I objectively conclude to be a valid reference for my own world view and as the basis for my epistemology?

Thus, when I examine the evidence on both sides, I can only rationally conclude that given the bible's accuracy on so many issues, and that I have been given no reason to doubt its validity on all issues it contains, especially when it speaks to God's divine revelations.

While all of my questions will never be definitively answered, I find that rationally my belief is on solid ground. There are many things in the world we do not fully understand or “see”, yet we have no problems in believing them. For example, solar physics is not fully known, yet we all objectively accept, using faith and scientific discourse, the "fact" that the sun will rise tomorrow.

Persons that seek absolute proof of something are inconsistently applying logic and rationality, for they do not seek this absoluteness in all things. Hence, their epistemologies are not fully formed; they speak without proper understanding of the nature of knowledge.

Why is it we can believe in many things using rational analysis, even when what we believe is only partially known, yet when it comes to matters like a supreme being, we suddenly want the "show me beyond a shadow of doubt" proof? As Aristotle once stated, "It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest satisfied with the degree of precision which the nature of the subject admits, and not to seek exactness when only an approximation of the truth is possible."

Answer 10

The Bible is the Word of God
John 1:1
John 1:14