Is belief in the Bible, word by word, a blind faith?

Question

Expected answer #1: "Because it's the Word of God."

Counter-argument: So you have to believe in God first before you believe the Bible. And BY DEFINITION, that's blind faith.

Expect answer #2: "I believe in every word in the Bible because I don't read it literally."

Counter-argument: Don't read something literally means you interpret the meaning of the Bible as you read it. As someone interprets something, she can either make the interpretation as 1) consistent her beliefs 2) inconsistent with her beliefs. If you happen to always interpret the Bible in a way that is consistent with your Christianity doctrines, don't you think that's driven by a blind faith?

Expected #3: "It's simply flawless"

Counter-argument: This is blind faith in its naked form.

Expected #4: We have plenty historical evidence to support the validity of the Bible.

Counter-argument: We do. But we also have plenty historical evidence to support other books, such as Iliad. We don't believe in Iliad word by word.

Answer 1

you have hit upon a truth .. it takes more than blind faith or reading and understanding the words ... it takes the Spirit revealing the word of God to a person to actually see and hear it ..

Answer 2

I believe the Bible is the Word of God BECAUSE OF WHAT I SEE, not because of what I cannot see!

Perhaps if you cannot see the evidence, then you are not looking in the right direction.

The Bible is backed up by much evidence.

There is an astonishing amount of unity in the books of the Bible, even though it they were written over a period of about 1500 years by about 40 men from various social backgrounds.

There is archeological evidence that proves that the events, people and places of the Bible existed.

Even though the Bible was never meant to be a scientific book, there are scientific facts in the Bible written hundreds or thousands of years before those facts were “discovered”.

There are detailed prophecies in the Old Testament that came true exactly as they were predicted. Many times these prophecies were fulfilled hundreds of years later.

There are those in the Bible who were willing to suffer persecution, torture, and even death for the things they believed. Among these were the apostles who continued to preach Christ even during persecution. Paul, for example, changed from killing Christians to being one of the most outspoken preachers for Christ, even when he was punished for doing so!
If their message was false, or a hoax, why would they endure such?

I can clearly see this and much more evidence. Perhaps you should take a closer look!

Answer 3

There is no proof to any other book like the bible. The lliad only touches up on events that anybody in this entire world could have geussed. They use more current events than the bible and in some religions, there is information copied out of the bible like Noah and the big flood; some indian religions say that their water god sent a flood to destroy some insane fire god and then created people again. If you need proof actually listen to the true God and Jesus Christ and you can feel something emotional changing. Doubts like this are normal for everyone, but try not to slip out of Christianity.

Answer 4

yes people need to quit with making false witness of the validity of the Bible. look at the expected answers and you see it is just double talk or corundums or misleading statements that seem true because they don't say anything The big thing about the word of God is God according to the Bible created everything and words as well. so every word in every book is the word of God. Or by mere chance maybe you want to change the God made everything belief. Well do you....

Answer 5

I think the way to find the answer to this question is to put time and study into the bible. That's what I did. Before I began bible study in earnest, it was my opinion the bible was a book written by men, that's it. Ten years later, and a transformed life later, I have joyfully come to believe it is indeed what it claims to be: given by inspiration of God.

Blind faith? Hardly. If I had studied in school as much and as diligently as I have the bible, I could be a brain surgeon.

Answer 6

Expected #5: Of course it is blind faith. That is why the majority of Christians (outside of the Evangelical USA, of course) maintain that the Bible is a work of man, inspired only in the sense of its subject matter and canonization, and subject to ecclesiastical tradition.

Answer 7

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.

Answer 8

The self-authenticating, God-breathed Word is sufficient for faith and practice.

Answer 9

Well gee I'm an atheist but you seem to have decided what you were going to hear before you even posted the question. What's the point in that?

Answer 10

Whether or not you believe the bible depends mostly on where you are born. So much for free will.