For religious & non-religious persons alike.?

Question

I have often noticed that many Bible-believing people USE the Bible to PROVE the Bible.

For example, when asked "Is the Bible the literal word of God?," Bible-believing persons will answer "yes."

When asked, "Where is the proof?," they will claim, "the Bible SAYS it is the proof."

This type of logic seems somewhat cyclical in nature. It is basically the equivalent to saying "I'm right because I say I am right."

Is there any way to accomplish proving the Bible's validity without having to resource the Bible itself? If so, what methods can you think of?

I would like to thank all those who provided feedback to my question. Many of the answers given were good, while others were not so good. Unfortuantely I can only give one "best answer" and that award goes to (drum roll please): Muffie.
I would like to also say that the following people had extraordinary answers as well, thus making my decision very difficult indeed: Pinky, Beverly, CD, Max, Spike, Squirt, and Hot Coco

Answer 1

In all reality, god would have to show up, prove he's god, and then claim the bible to be his word. That's all. Otherwise, there's neither proof that god exists nor is there proof that bible is his.

Answer 2

I seem to be repeating this over and over again lately. So pardon me if you have read it in a bunch of other questions...

There is no "THE" bible any more.

Not since around 1534 when Martin Luther decided to "edit" the bible to his own liking.

From around 395 until the time of Luther "the" bible was the Latin Vulgate. Vulgate meaning common - as in bible of the common people.

The Latin Vulgate was translated from the Greek Septuagint. In the late 1500's - I think around 1560 or so, the pope commissioned the first English bible. The Douay Rheims. The OT was translated in Douay and the NT in Rheims.

The Douay Rheims is a literal translation. Word for word. As such it is a favorite even today.

Around 1612, King James came up with his version of the bible. Basically a "piggy back" of the Douay Rheims with a few anti-Catholic edits tossed in, but not many. 100 years after that, the Puritans would take the English Standard Bible, as it was originally called - edit it to match Martin Luther's bible, which as 7 less books and some other hefty modifications. They called it the King James Version.

Anything with "standard" in the title is a version of the King James. American Standard Bible, Revised Standard Version, English Standard Bible.

Then there are varying degrees of interpretation to take into consideration. Do you want a literal translation? With all the "awkward" paragraphs? Such as the Jerusalem Bible? Or do you want an "interpreted bible" where some scholar has tried to "clear things up" for you - often changing the entire meaning of a book - such as the New Jerusalem Bible?

The Message bible is very popular as it use "contemporary language. But it has been so freely "interpreted" that bears little resemblance to an actual bible. The New Living Testament is also written in contemporary language. But it remains loyal to the actual text of original scripture. A much better bible.

Some bibles contain TONS of footnotes on every detail of what actually was happening within the context of any paragraph. Other bibles have NO footnotes and assume that the reader doesn't want to know or isn't capable of handling the knowledge.

So when anyone tells you THE bible is 100% THE word of God - ask them which version they are reading.

Answer 3

Well, if you study the Bible with an open mind, you will find that it reveals a fairly concise history of how it came into existence, when bits were added, when bits were falsified, and so on. Some of the most eminent Biblical scholars (if fact MOST of them) have now come to the conclusion that the Bible is a series of "made-up stories", nothing to do with accuracy at all. It's little more than "a good yarn"

But to answer the question - no! On this site yesterday, we had a "fundamentalist" giving an extensive diatribe on the "writings of Josephus", which allegedly prove the existence of Jesus as an historical person. I'm ready to admit that Josephus DID write the things alleged. However the fundie just conveniently forgot to mention that in "this extremely literate period of human history", there is an entire list of writers who wrote at or within a century of the time that Jesus is said to have lived, and NONE of them mentioned Jesus.

The books actually written by these guys would be enough to fill an entire Library, and they wrote on everything from discussing the behaviour of charioteers to the sale of food in taverns. Surely a couple of them would have mentioned (even "in passing") there there was a guy called Jesus?

Well - not if Jesus was just a figment? For the benefit of the "fundie" I will give a "partial list":-

Arrian, Petronius, Seneca, Dion Pruseus, Pliny the Elder, Appian, Juvenal, Theon of Smyrna, Martial, Plutarch, Apollonius, Pausanias, Valerius Flaccus, Florus Lucius, Quintillian, Favorinus, Lucanus, Damis, Silius Italicus, Aulous Gellicus, Statius, Columella, Ptolemy, Dio Chrysostom, Hermogeones, Lysias, Valerius Maximus, etc, etc.

So here we have a quandry - should we believe the ONE person who says he speaks the truth....or should we put our trust in the myriad of other people who take the opposite view?

It's all too hard for me - that's why I've chosen to be a "de-facto Atheist". I haven't actually committed to Atheism yet, because I might be wrong - better to "hedge your bets"?

Answer 4

The best answer I can think of is this. Whenever I had to write papers for my classes, one source was never enough to give validity to the assignment. One source is not enough to prove an argument logistically. One source should not be enough to base an argument on, or base a set of beliefs on - it isn't for myself. As with any question, one must seek the answer, and the answer may not always be in one package, it may in bits and pieces, and one must be intelligent enough to know where to find those pieces, and how to make them fit together. No one path is right for everyone, just like no one set of finger prints matches more than one person. Perhaps, I am not a bible scholar, but I am offering the suggestion, that perhaps that is the reason for four different versions of the same gospel? I hope this helps. I apologize if I sound like an idiot with this, I tried : )

Answer 5

What other way is there? I mean maybe scripture should have been given instead of just saying the Bible says. One way is very simple, apply it and it will work for you.
The Bible is God's word, it is our road map to life. Instead of debating about whether it's true seek the Lord in prayer, read it, examine it. Have you ever read it ? No one can argue the word oft he Lord. People try but they never win. It's a lost cause.
Don't bash the Bible, there are plenty of other reading materials out there to not believe, for example those gossip magazines about the stars. Now that's what should be questioned, not the Holy word of God!

Answer 6

This is actually a really good question. Before I became I Christian, I asked people...Why do you believe in God? or How do you know God exists? and they would answer...because the Bible says so.....which didn't "fly" with me, because as a non-believer I didn't believe the bible was the Word of God, and thus it wasn't a convincing argument.
It wasn't until I saw someone who was passionate about God, and told me about personal experiences did I begin my search for God.
Now once I did surrender my life to God and believe in Him and that Jesus is His Son etc....did I come to realise that the Bible is God's word.
When I read psalms I can feel "God" in the words...if that makes any sense.
I do not expect people to believe in God just by reading the bible, in fact i would find that amazing if it did happen.
It is through other people and through personal "insight" and surrender that we find God.

Answer 7

I agree with you that scientifically it is not empirical to use when you look in the bottom of it, explaination that are definition of the term you are trying to explain. No point in that.

The proof is out there, not in only believing but in seeing the proofs of the existence of God. I had my principles of atheists, pro-evolution type of thing, found by logical reasoning my way to islam, who would have figured. I just used my intellect to judge the validity of the religion, which is monotheistic, but the words of Islam fell better into my ears. In Islam we believe in the same God as Jews and Christians, it's just that humans made errors in altering the words of God during and after the prophethood of Jesus. God gave another chance to the believer in promising that the Qur'an would never change, and it never did. Scientifically it has more credibility for me.

anyways that's a long subject, here were my thoughts..

Answer 8

Just goes to show you that some Christians aren't any better at logic than some of you non-Christians. We all have our blind spots.

Can anyone prove that bible is true? No. But the evidence that points to it being true is far greater than that for many ancient historical claims that are widely accepted.

Answer 9

The places in the Mid East where the biblical stories took place has been authenticated by archaeologists. There were witnesses to the Resurrection of Christ. For me the circumstances of the crucifixion were foretold 700 years before the time of Christs appearance. Also the wise sayings in the book of Proverbs are excellent examples for life's experiences. I have found them to be guidance for me again and again.

Answer 10

You either believe in God and what He says or you don't. Simple as that. Christians believe in Him and what He says which is His Book to us, the Holy Bible. If what it says is true, and we KNOW by our personal experiences and our personal relationship with God that it is true, unsaved people are headed for a heap of trouble and we'd be wrong not to tell you.

(Knowing the Bible is one thing. Knowing the Author is another.)