Why do you believe the bible?

If God wrote it, it's trustworthy. I believe it because it tells me I can. The best witness about the Bible is the Bible it'self.

 

God has caused enough material in the Bible for us to verify on our own so that we can know the rest is accurate. In history, science, and prophesy there are facts given which those at the time of writing would not have known would be so important now. Two -- at least -- of the science facts listed were not verified until the twentieth century.

This is the objective. Subjectively, there is that in His Word which strikes the heart hard, one way or the other. No other book does that.

 

But, Don't the Mormons, JW's and others claim that God authored theirs as well?

 

While most of us have grown up in Christian families and that plays a definite part in our being Christian, if ones chooses to look, the evidence for the accuracy of the Bible is nothing short of a miraculous.

An even more specific question may be- why do some accept more books than others. Then history really gets interesting- that is- trying to figure out which historians are lying through their teeth!

 

The Mormons have other main additions to Scripture including the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants. The problem with these is that they contradict themselves and the Bible. God does not contradict Himself.

The Jehovah's Witnesses did their own 'translation' -- the New World Bible -- in which they have massacred both Hebrew and Greek in an attempt to make the Bible match their doctrines.

So what they claim and what can be checked are two different things.

 

Yup. Muslims, Orthodox Jews, a lot of religions who reject Christ make that claim.

But like I said, no other book supports it'self like the Bible.

 

i agree with what is written in the bible.

Because its writings have agreed with everything that the Holy Spirit is teaching me.

and I havent found a mistake yet.

 

A couple of points in response to you, Mike.

1. The 'contradictions' in the Bible have all been responded to in other places. A few are errors in transmission. These usually have to do with numbers and name spellings. The others are matters of our lack of understanding or accepting a different way of looking at natural things. The Bible explains itself, dispelling any so-called contradictions regarding theology.

2. On the other hand, the contradictions in the Mormon books and the Q'ran are incredibly blatent and have nothing to do whatever with anything other than that they contradict themselves on very basic matters!

3. Yes, for us, the authenticity of Scripture is an ongoing matter in the secular world. Fifteen hundred years ago they were close enough to the originals not to need what we need now. God has been very gracious to us.

4. And no, other religions do not disagree with my statement that the Bible hits hard. They hate it. They would not hate a book that did not hit hard.

5. Lastly, any corrections that have been made have been a result of going back to older texts than those available in the Middle Ages. They have also been the result of more study regarding the Hebrew language. It has nothing to do with man's decision to change something. We have been able to identify, actually, three places in the New Testament which were additions and not in the earliest mss we have: the ending of Mark, the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery, and the marginal notes which were added to the text in 1 John.

What is even more interesting, however, is the depth of meaning in the Greek if one takes the time to find out about it.

The Bible stands alone, for better or for worse. It cannot be compared with any other holy book of any other religion. It was several thousand years in the writing by different authors from different backgrounds and languages and yet presents the same God, the same problem, the same answer, the same Christ, the same everything. No other book in the world comes close to what the Bible has and is.

 

Do objective sources concur in this? Do Mormons and Muslims concur?
</font>[/QUOTE]Not only have there been many changes to the Koran itself since it's original form, but the Koran has many historical inaccuracies and other errors in it. This in itself would show that it is not an inspired book. For example:

Surah 11:42,43--Noah's unnamed son is said to have refused to take refuge in the ark while the flood waters were rising, and despite his father's plea, chose rather to flee to a mountaintop, from which he was swept away by a wave. (Gen.6-7 indicates that Noah had only three sons, and that they all entered the ark. Gen.10 gives the line of descendants from each son.)

Surah 12:11-20--Joseph did not go seeking his brother up at Dothan (as Gen.37 records), but rather the brothers, having already plotted his death, persuaded Jacob to let him go with them simply for fun and sport. Having gotten him into their power, they put him down into a well with water in it (rather than a dry pit). Nor was it they who sold him to the passing merchantmen, but rather a chance wayfarer who had come to the well to draw water. He sold the boy to the merchants "for a few dirhams" (rather than the substantial price of 20 shekels of silver, as Gen.37:28 states).

Surah 12:21-32--His Egyptian's owner's wife (Potiphar's name is not given), in her attempt to seduce him, tore his shirt from behind (rather than from in front) in her pursuit of him— a fact observed by Potiphar's canny servant, and which served to expose the falsity of her charge. Later she admitted to her women friends that this was the case, yet in some unexplained way she managed to get Joseph into jail all the same.

Surah 12:36-55--In jail, Joseph tried to convert the two "youths" (i.e., Pharaoh's baker and butler) to "Islam" and away from idolatry. Years later, the surviving youth (the butler) remembered Joseph's dream-interpreting ability, went to him in jail with a report of the substance of the king's dream (rather than the king's relating it to him directly in the palace), and got an interpretation from him which he then relayed to Pharaoh. As a result the king placed Joseph in charge of the nation's grain supply. (The rest of the story, with disclosure to the ten brothers, etc., closely follows the account in Gen.45-50).

Surah 26:55-60--In Egypt, the Israelites were stated by Pharaoh to be but "a scanty band" (in contrast to Ex.1:9). As they are permitted to leave Egypt, they are said to be forsaking "their gardens and fountains and splendid dwellings." Apparently they had not been subjected to slavery at all (for no mention is made of it), but rather had enjoyed wealth and luxury while in Egypt. (This renders the whole motive for deliverance of God's covenant people from Egypt rather obscure.)

There are still others recorded in the appendix of Gleason Archer's "A Survey of Old Testament Introduction," but this should suffice. The Bible has no contradictions.

The Book of Mormon and Archaeology Mormon scholars can be frustrated and embarrassed understandably when they realize that after all the years of work by Mormon and other archaeologists:

1. No Book of Mormon cities have been located.
2. No Book of Mormon names have been found in New World inscriptions.
3. No genuine inscriptions have been found in Hebrew in America.
4. No genuine inscriptions have been found in America in Egyptian or anything similar to Egyptian, which could correspond to Joseph Smith's "reformed Egyptian!'
5. No ancient copies of Book of Mormon scriptures have been found.
6. No ancient inscriptions of any kind in America, which indicate that the ancient inhabitants had Hebrew or Christian beliefs, have been found.
7. No mention of Book of Mormon persons, nations, or places have been found.
8. No artifact of any kind, which demonstrates the Book of Mormon is true, has been found.
9. Rather than finding supportive evidence, Mormon scholars have been forced to retreat from traditional interpretations of Book of Mormon statements
(Hal Hougey, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon, p.12).

Dr. Gleason Archer has done an excellent job in listing a few of the anachronisms and historical inaccuracies in the Mormon scriptures (A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, pp.501-504)
DHK

 

Let alone, the Muslims, who believe their Koran is inspired as well...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

This is exactly what a Muslim would say about the Koran, Curtis...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

The Bible tells me what GOD has done for me
and why. The focus of other books is what one
must do to be piously religious.

 

Now, I'm a sloppy Fundamentalist in that I don't get my hackles up at all over the "contrtadictions" in Scripture. I don't even care to argue whether the contradictions are original to the text or a product of copying or translation.

For one thing, none of these "contradictions" have anything to do with doctrine of Biblical truth. In these areas, Scripture is truly infallible in every point. This cannot be said for any other religion's Scripture, nor can it be said for the leadership of any Christian sect or denomination.