Why do you believe the bible?

Then you will need to ask a Protestant.

There is no explanation, other than the Bible has proven it'self, time and again.

 

I suppose the post I made above is obstructed by a large, web-based bird which, grown tired of flying, has nested directly over what I wrote.

 

I suppose the post I made above is obstructed by a large, web-based bird which, grown tired of flying, has nested directly over what I wrote.

 

Why do I believe the Bible?

I've read it for myself and I'm convinced that it is the Word of the Lord.

 

Well, I see nothing here but circular logic over and over and over again. "I have a gut feeling it is inspired, therefore I believe it is inspired, therefore, it must be inspired..."

I will simply leave you with the link I spoke of and let you all dispute it if you can:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+

Not riches, but God.
Not honors, but God.
Not distinction, but God.
Not dignities, but God.
Not advancement, but God.
God always and in everything.

- St. Vincent Pallotti -

 

I am told that there is only one prophesy in
the Koran and Mohammed fulfilled it himself
(now that's convenient). Is that true.

I dare say that there are hundreds in the Bible
and the vast majority of them have already come
to pass. I think of the books of Ezekiel &
Daniel-----not to mention Revelation.

I would ask is there anything to compare in the
Koran------or does it just tell me what I must
do to be a good Moslem?

Anyone can become a Moslem but can anyone trust
GOD?

 

Well, Curtis, no offense intended here, but other then the Orthodox, I consider all sects and denominations who have departed from the Catholic Church since the so called "Protestant Reformation" as Protestants, simply because it is easy for me to do.

That includes the Mormons, Anglicans/Episcopalians and all others including the Baptists (history from the Anabaptists no withstanding.)

It's like my definition of Sola Scriptura. So many object to how I describe it, since there are several definitions of the doctrine.

Therefore, bite the bullet if you can, Curtis, and see if you can explain your method of proving the inspiration of scripture

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

In all fairness, A_Christian, there is a grain of truth in what you say here, when you compare the Bible with the Koran. For me, what you imply here is one of the clues we must consider in deternining the authentic Godly inspiration of the scriptures against what was written in the Koran.

I think the link I gave in my previous link touches on this a bit, if you consider just the prophesies that we see in the Old Testament that has been fulfilled and testified in the New Testament, concerning the coming of the Messiah in Jesus Christ.

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Blest be God.
Blest be his holy name.
Blest be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
Blest be the name of Jesus.
Blest be his most sacred heart.
Blest be his most precious blood.
Blest be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.
Blest be the Holy Spirit, the Consoler.
Blest be the great Mother of God, Mary most holy.
Blest be her holy and immaculate conception.
Blest be her glorious assumption.
Blest be the name of Mary, virgin and mother.
Blest be Saint Joseph, her most chaste spouse.
Blest be God in his angels and in his saints.

- The Divine Praises -

 

DHK wrote:


[/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:

If you're dismissing books because of the original versions varying from the accepted versions of today you may consider that the 1611 original King James Version included the seven deuterocanonical books. They were omitted after 1648. Would the people who read the original version be reading an erroneous version.
If errors are the measuring stick then what say you of the following: (please also consider the readers of these errors at the time of their production) (taken from Background to the Bible -An introduction to scripture study by Richard T.A. Murphy, O.P. , Servant Books pp91-92)
1.) The 1631 version of the King James Version or as it was known at the time The Authorized Version rendered Ex 20:14, "Thou shalt commit adultery". (which earned the version the title of "the Wicked Bible")

or 2.)Mk 7:27 that was rendered: " Let the children be killed" (for filled), or

3.) Lk14:26 "If a man does not hate his wife....
or Mt 5:9 once rendered "Blessed are the place-makers" (instead of peace-makers)
or the version that had Rebekah and her companions mounting their damsels (for camels, GN 24:61)
or the 1653 version had 1 Cor 6:9 as: "The righteous shall not posess the kingdom of God" (instead of unrighteous)
You get the point. Typesetting errors as they were, couldn't these errors be factual appearing -errors none the less to an untrained ear. Afterall they make grammatical sense if not contextual or sense otherwise.
Some adherent to sola-scriptura who just picked up a bible to read these errors could be in for some serious misunderstanding.

The other examples of errors seem to make an assumption of the Bible having the correct version of the samples given. Where we accept them as the true version it is none the less an assumption.

 

*sigh*

Scripture is proven in mych the same way the floor you walk across to get from the coffee pot to your desk proved itself before you first walked across it.

Others had trod that way before, found the engineering sound and the construction trustworthy. I'd venture to say that you probably didn't give the floor a second thought before you walked across it that first time.

Millenia of men and women have tried the Scriptures, and found the promises, directives, and truths therein trustworthy, and have held that trust even to the death.

So, you see, experience, and faith, not circular reasoning, proves the validity of Scripture, and the rationality of constructing one's doctrine and beliefs upon that foundation.

 

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:

If you're dismissing books because of the original versions varying from the accepted versions of today you may consider that the 1611 original King James Version included the seven deuterocanonical books. They were omitted after 1648. Would the people who read the original version be reading an erroneous version.
If errors are the measuring stick then what say you of the following: (please also consider the readers of these errors at the time of their production) (taken from Background to the Bible -An introduction to scripture study by Richard T.A. Murphy, O.P. , Servant Books pp91-92)
1.) The 1631 version of the King James Version or as it was known at the time The Authorized Version rendered Ex 20:14, "Thou shalt commit adultery". (which earned the version the title of "the Wicked Bible")

or 2.)Mk 7:27 that was rendered: " Let the children be killed" (for filled), or

3.) Lk14:26 "If a man does not hate his wife....
or Mt 5:9 once rendered "Blessed are the place-makers" (instead of peace-makers)
or the version that had Rebekah and her companions mounting their damsels (for camels, GN 24:61)
or the 1653 version had 1 Cor 6:9 as: "The righteous shall not posess the kingdom of God" (instead of unrighteous)
You get the point. Typesetting errors as they were, couldn't these errors be factual appearing -errors none the less to an untrained ear. Afterall they make grammatical sense if not contextual or sense otherwise.
Some adherent to sola-scriptura who just picked up a bible to read these errors could be in for some serious misunderstanding.

The other examples of errors seem to make an assumption of the Bible having the correct version of the samples given. Where we accept them as the true version it is none the less an assumption. [/QUOTE]

You haven't shown a single error. Those aren't errors at all. The KJV, along with the Jerome Vulgate, and every other translation in the world, are just that--translations. Translations are made by man. God inspired the original manuscripts. "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." Those holy men of God were not the KJV translators. They referred directly to the Old Testament prophets, and by inference to the New Testament Apostles. What we have today in the masoretic text of the Old Testament, and what I believe to be the textus receptus of the New Testamaent is the preserved Word of God. Whatever you believe concerning the manuscript issue, you must come to the conclusion that God has preserved his Word. But it is not preserved so much in each and every language, but in the original languages. Our langguages, by necessity have mistakes in them. Man is fallible; God is not. When you go from one language into another language you are apt to lose some meaning in the translation. That is inevitable--even in a translation as accurate as the KJV. That is why we still have the Greek and Hebrew to back us up. Don't go pointing to an English translation (be it the KJV or otherwise) for your errors in the Bible. That is just pure folly.
DHK

 

...... and my reply to them is, "Where is your god?"

Elijah mocked them and said, "Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened." 28 So they cried aloud, and cut themselves, as was their custom, with knives and lances, until the blood gushed out on them. 29 And when midday was past, they prophesied until the time of the offering of the evening sacrifice. But there was no voice; no one answered, no one paid attention.

 

DHK wrote:

originally:

To which I showed that the original KJV has changed.


Now DHK responds with:

How is the removal of seven books a translation?
Please answer this question: Was it an error to include the seven books or was it an error to omit these books?

The whole point of this thread is to show the folly of those who make the claim that a book (whether it is the Bible or the Koran, the Book of Mormon etc. can prove the fact of its being the inspired Word of God. A book cannot make this claim in and of itself. Otherwise ANY book could make this same claim. Granted every inspired Christian will clamor that this book is different, and indeed it is, but it is exactly circular reasoning to say that the Bible proves the claim for and of itself.

Further for someone to claim it has anything to do with how inspiring the Bible is enters the discussion into the purely relative. Just go and try to tell a Mormon how more inspiring the book of Numbers is to their BOM.

Besides why wouldn't the story of The Robe, or Veronica's Veil. or Ben Hur be included in scripture if it was just a matter of inspiration? If I recall correctly these were stories circulating at the time and were indeed considered and rejected as belonging in the Bible by the councils that ultimately decided on the canon.

The answer to the question is in fact what MikeS
said. It takes an outside authority to tell us that the Bible is the Word of God. But then when you reject the authority the mental gymnastics do get interesting.

St Augustine:

 

Does Ben Hur and Veronica's Veil have fullfilled prophecies in them. How did Isaiah know 700 years before the fact that Christ would be born of a virgin? How did he know in so much detail that he would bear the sins of many, suffer for our iniquities, be a man of sorrows, (Isa.53)? How did Micah know 450 years before Christ that Christ would be born in Bethlehem? Literally hundreds of Old Testament prophecies are fulfilled in the Old Testament, and not just in vague generalites. Daniel 9:24-27 predicts the timing of the death of Christ with great accuracy. What other book gives such prophecy with such detail?

This is one book, composed by 66 different books, having 40 different human authors written over a time span of about 1500 years, and having the same coherent theme throughout: redemption of mankind through the blood of Jesus Christ. It is about Jesus Christ who is concealed in the Old Testament, but revealed in the Old Testament. There is no other book that compares like it.
DHK

 

You're preaching to the choir, sir.

It isn't a question of the Bible actually being the Word of God, as you and I agree it is. It is a question of how it is we beleive it to be the Word of God.

How 'bout an answer to the question posed about which KJV was issued in error, the one with the seven books or the one without?

 

I am not sure which "seven" books you are referring to. If you are speaking of the 13 books of the Apocrypha, even Jerome did not want to accept those in the canon of Scripture. Some of the later editions of Bibles (non-RC) include the Apocrypha--not as part of the canon--but as extra interesting reading. I have in my Bible a dictionary, concordance, maps, Bible chronology, and all kinds of other helps. They are of interest, but they are not inspired, just as the apocrypha would not be inspired. The Jews never considered the Apocrypha inspired, neither the Apostles, the early believers, the Protestants, and not until 1534 were they officially accepted by the Catholic Church. Traditionally there have always been 66 books of the completed canon, though some have disagreed with this number, particularly the Catholics, and some of the more critical and liberal protestants. Conservative, Bible-believing Christians don't have any problem with it.
DHK