why do you believe the bible?

[Nate]

Ah, I see what you're saying. That if they were lying but they knew it was false, it wouldn't make any sense for them to die for it.

And no problem. I'm actually trying to figure out how to do that myself, so playing Devil's advocate at times like these helps reinforce what I believe too. \o.o/

[uc pseudonym]

Note to everyone: future discussion of evolution will be deleted.

On the other hand, future discussion similar to the last few posts is strongly encouraged. I'll attempt to contribute:

We, as Christians, believe that we will go to Heaven after we die. Eternal happiness doesn't really qualify as nothing, in my book.

I was going to make a similar point (that self-deception is a possibility) but this has already been clarified. Instead, I have a different form of the argument that I think is also useful.

It can be argued that there is relatively little cause for the Jews of the time to be self-deceived into Christianity. Tricking yourself into believing someone lives on in warm fuzzies works fine in a post-modern society, but it isn't as likely when the stakes are life and death. There are plenty of examples of other executed Messiahs in the centuries surrounding Jesus; their followers were willing to die for their beliefs, but the movements dispersed as soon as the leaders were killed.

This is because having someone die and be resurrected makes very little sense in the Jewish worldview. Even if you thought the world of someone, if he died instead of bringing in God's reign, that means he's another persecuted prophet, a herald of the true Messiah who is yet to come. Though your Pharisees and other liberal Jewish groups believed in the resurrection of the dead, this idea was of a total resurrection of everyone at the end of time - having just one person come back wouldn't really have made any sense to them.

Yet somehow the followers of Jesus turned into the early Christians. They didn't call Jesus a prophet, or say that someone like James was the true Messiah (there are historical examples of switching like this), or let it go entirely. As pious Jews, they already believed that their afterlives were in the hands of God. Furthermore, proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah requires them to change their view of who the Messiah is and give up the idea of someone coming to throw off Roman rule and make everything better.

None of that is conclusive. But I think it does present a case that what the early Christians proclaimed wasn't something they would have desperately wanted to be true.

[Fish and Chips]

My take on martyrdom is would anyone die for a deception they knew was false? Christians continued to be killed long into the Roman Empire and the world hundreds of years after the death of Christ, not that different from other religions such as Nate pointed out (Islamic suicide bombers). What draws my attention is that core group of believers back at the start. The 12 disciples. And a number of other people the Bible records as having witnessed Christ resurrected. Many of these people would end up executed, condemned, and in some fashioned taken care of. But if they had not seen anything, why did they hold out?

The 12 disciples followed Jesus during his ministry. They calling him Messiah. They witnessed his death and his brief resurrection. This is a cut above dying because you believe something is true; they died because the knew it was true. If Christ could not conquer death, then he was never the Messiah to begin with, and they were done following him. Peter himself renounced Christ three times before Jesus' execution on the cross, right after vowing never to leave his side. This does not come off to me as a man who would die for a man he knew was not the Son of God.

The majority of martyrs might be written off as people believing without knowing, but I think the deaths of the 12 disciples retains a certain interest about it.

[ich1990]

I am inclined to believe that the bible is true because:

1) To the best of my knowledge, research, and studies of the main religions in the world, the Bible and its attached religion, Christianity, are the only things that have, to my satisfaction, answered the three questions. How did it all begin? How does it all end? and What do I do in the meantime?.

2) I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, and have witnessed him working in myself and those around me. This may not be something that can be proved, but it is certainly something that is true.

3) The Bible and Christianity don't make sense. At least from a human perspective. Cognitive Gear mentioned this a couple of posts ago. Why ride into Jerusalem on a donkey? Why pick out the least liked scum-of-the-earth to be your disciples and devoted followers? Why "lose your life and you shall find it". Why design a heaven with no marriage or sex (Mathew 22: 23-30). Why, in the day of male supremacy, make "the church" female (we are the bride of christ)? These are not ways to win friends and influence people!

It seems to me, at least from reading the Bible, that Jesus never pursued power or money, which would seem to be the main reasons to fraudulantly claim messiahship. Further, the Bible and Christianity don't seem to be designed to be easily followed or gain new recruits. This, at least in my book, lends much credibility to their claims.

[Kamille]

My answer may be a little simple for this thread, but I'll put in my two cents anyway.

I had clinical depression for about 12 years because of my personal fears and a longing for death when I came to the conclusion that what I wanted and needed in life was impossible to find and did not exist. Then when I happened to read the New Testament out of curiosity, I slowly noticed that the teachings and actions of Christ matched up exactly to what I was looking for. So believing that the Bible is the Word of God came natural to me because I believe in Jesus, who is the Word of God in the flesh. Although truthfully, I did have a few problems with parts of the Old Testament in my early walk of faith (it's a lot more violent than the NT), but I now believe in the entire Bible.

[CAAOutkast]

So what you people are saying is that Jesus didn't really perform those miracles or ressurect at all. And If Jesus didn't do any of those things,that means he's was the same as Buddha,Krishna,Mohammed,and the rest of the "faith" founders.

So what the hecks the point in worshipping Jesus,when you know darn well that there's nothing special about him?

[Radical Dreamer]

So what you people are saying is that Jesus didn't really perform those miracles or ressurect at all. And If Jesus didn't do any of those things,that means he's was the same as Buddha,Krishna,Mohammed,and the rest of the "faith" founders.

So what the hecks the point in worshipping Jesus,when you know darn well that there's nothing special about him?

If you would read the following post:

My take on martyrdom is would anyone die for a deception they knew was false? Christians continued to be killed long into the Roman Empire and the world hundreds of years after the death of Christ, not that different from other religions such as Nate pointed out (Islamic suicide bombers). What draws my attention is that core group of believers back at the start. The 12 disciples. And a number of other people the Bible records as having witnessed Christ resurrected. Many of these people would end up executed, condemned, and in some fashioned taken care of. But if they had not seen anything, why did they hold out?

The 12 disciples followed Jesus during his ministry. They calling him Messiah. They witnessed his death and his brief resurrection. This is a cut above dying because you believe something is true]knew[/I] it was true. If Christ could not conquer death, then he was never the Messiah to begin with, and they were done following him. Peter himself renounced Christ three times before Jesus' execution on the cross, right after vowing never to leave his side. This does not come off to me as a man who would die for a man he knew was not the Son of God.

The majority of martyrs might be written off as people believing without knowing, but I think the deaths of the 12 disciples retains a certain interest about it.

I think, Christisright, that you were mistaking Devil's advocate questions for what everyone here actually believes. Of course we believe Jesus died and rose again; without His resurrection, there's no meaning to our faith. We believe it, we have reason to believe it, and we test each other with questions like the ones above so that we know how to defend what we believe. I hope that cleared up any confusion.

[termyt]

We speak of evidence we've seen, but there is always going to be an element of faith required. It seems to me God desires for us to choose Him. If one could prove definitively either that one explanation was true or that all other explanations were false, then only liars and fools would proclaim anything different and we would have lost our choice.

We do not choose to believe George Washington was the first American President. We have no choice in the matter at all. He was, so proclaiming otherwise makes you a liar or a fool.

One issue we tend to run into today, especially with the folks known as "secular progressives" but there is plenty of this attitude going around, is that we assert things of faith to be things of fact. If we suppose anything we take on faith to be verified fact, then we are free to assume that all other opinions come from liars or fools.

I strongly recommend that you come to know where your facts end and your faith begins. Facts can not be argued, but faith can be discussed and improved.

We must allow all matters of faith to be freely expressed, debated, debunked, and supported in the open market place of ideas whether we agree with them or not.

This thread is a good read and is doing well at establishing such boundaries.

For Christisright's question, which I am sure is not only being asked by one person here, I believe you are taking the discussion in the opposite direction as intended. What is being said is that there is no reason for the apostles to lie about Christ. When people knowingly lie about matters of faith, they do so to gain money or power or some form of authority. The apostles stood to gain none of that by proclaiming a religion that amounted to a death sentence from their own people and from Rome. It was reasonable for them to assume they'd be killed for what they preached and, in fact, most of them were put to death long before Christianity gained any sort of influence anywhere. Since they were far more likely to die than to gain power, it makes it less likely they made it up and far more likely they were telling the truth - that Christ was indeed God's Messiah.

[Cognitive Gear]

If one could prove definitively either that one explanation was true or that all other explanations were false, then only liars and fools would proclaim anything different and we would have lost our choice.

I'm honestly not quite sure that I completely understand what you are saying here. It seems that you believe that Christianity cannot be tried and tested to be true. Simply because something is verifiable does not mean it cannot be the subject of debate. After all, I can still respect someone's opinion on a matter that they are entirely wrong about. I can even debate with them about it. No matter how certain I am about a topic, if they have the more reasonable argument, they are probably correct.

I could state my theological opinion on the matter here, but I don't want this to turn into a thread locker. I would like to hear why you believe this, though. I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that a level of uncertainty on the topic is required for faith or debate.

[termyt]

I would like to hear why you believe this, though. I simply cannot wrap my head around the idea that a level of uncertainty on the topic is required for faith or debate.

I will try to explain. You are asking if I believe a level of uncertainty is required for faith or debate? Yes I do.

It does not require faith for me to believe there is a computer monitor sitting in front of me. I can see it, I can touch it. I'm looking at it right now. Well, actually, I was looking at my keyboard just then, but you get the idea. There is no uncertainty, there is no debate, there is no faith. If someone came into my room and told me there is no monitor there, he'd be a fool or a liar.

However, if I can pick on the last two posters in this thread who aren't me, you and Radical Dreamer, since, as far as I know, have never been in my apartment, have to take it on faith that there is a monitor sitting in front of me. The two of you could debate the likelihood of a monitor being here in front of me (for example, RD believes me because how else would I see what is being posted? You heard a rumor that I use a laptop, therefore I don't technically need one to see posts). Each of you could bolster your opinions with eye witness accounts and probability of me being able to post this with out one, etc, etc. Both opinions are valid because neither of you can actually verify I have a monitor.

If we scheduled the debate to take place in my living room, it would be a very short debate. We would walk in, say "oh look, there's a monitor" and the debate would end. Continuing the debate past that is pointless because there is no uncertainty left.

It's been said that faith is the evidence of things unseen. Anything we believe without directly experiencing requires a bit of faith. We weigh the evidence we have available and choose to believe what seems right and true.

I have no doubt that Jesus is exactly who He claimed to be as told in the Bible. I do not believe that because I experienced it directly, but because of my interpretation of the evidence and my own personal experiences. It is a matter of faith for me. A friend of mine believes that Mohammad is God's prophet. My faith tells me that is not true, but I do not believe my friend is a liar since his belief is just that - belief, not verified fact. There is uncertainty of which is true - the Bible or the Koran - so the matter is open for debate. Neither of us is uncertain about our beliefs, but we can not both be right. Therefore, in the absence of proof that one is right or wrong, there is uncertainty.

[Shadowalker]

The people I know who follow the Bible the closest - which is not to say all Christians (since many Christians, admittably, don't follow the Bible that well), but those Christians who live their lives by the Bible's teachings to the greatest degree... tend to be the happiest, most content, and most peaceful people that I know.

The most angry and bitter and jaded people that I know are those who reject the Bible totally, and live and support a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

It's actually pretty pronounced the difference in contentment, happiness, and inner peace, between these two groups, and I'm surprised that more people don't notice it.

Simply put, the teachings of the Bible, when put into actual application, work. I only wish at times that I was a bit more disciplined, and hence could follow it extremely well myself.

This gives the Bible great credibility and a ring of Truth to it to me.

[Lochaber Axe]

[quote="Shadowalker (post: 1219656)"]The people I know who follow the Bible the closest - which is not to say all Christians (since many Christians, admittably, don't follow the Bible that well), but those Christians who live their lives by the Bible's teachings to the greatest degree... tend to be the happiest, most content, and most peaceful people that I know.

The most angry and bitter and jaded people that I know are those who reject the Bible totally, and live and support a lifestyle contrary to the teachings of the Bible.

It's actually pretty pronounced the difference in contentment, happiness, and inner peace, between these two groups, and I'm surprised that more people don't notice it.

Simply put, the teachings of the Bible, when put into actual application, work. I only wish at times that I was a bit more disciplined, and hence could follow it extremely well myself. ]

[Devil's Advocate]

And is there not many athiests, buddhists, muslims, etc. who are happy, contented, and peaceful, and many christians who are themselves angry, bitter, and jaded?

The emotionality of believers of any philosophical viewpoint is a weak supporting or contradicting evidence for the viability of that viewpoint.

Just because eating nothing but McDonald's might make one happy and contented does not make it a healthy lifestyle. The viability of a viewpoint must first stand by itself, not by anything outside of it.

[Shadowalker]

[Devil's Advocate]

And is there not many athiests, buddhists, muslims, etc. who are happy, contented, and peaceful, and many christians who are themselves angry, bitter, and jaded?

Honestly... I would estimate that about 95%]Note:[/B] I wouldn't say the above to an atheist if I was witnessing to him or her because it would only make him or her angry - it would be counter-productive. Nonetheless, it is my genuine experience, and it's one of the reasons why I strongly dislike atheism.

Now, your experience here may be different from mine, and if so I respect that, but I try to glean whatever I can from my own personal life experiences.

In fairness, I haven't met many Buddhists or Muslims, so I can't comment on them.

I'm inclined to believe that most of the world's religions have some truth and validity to them, so I don't think that most Buddhists being happy people with great inner peace would necessarily contradict my argument.

I'll admit that my reasoning here is at least somewhat intuitive.

It strikes me that a philosophy based on truth and based in truth should be something that uplifts people and gives them a greater sense of inner peace and contentment, at least as it pertains to the strictest adherents of the philosophy in question.

[Syreth]

It strikes me that a philosophy based on truth and based in truth should be something that uplifts people and gives them a greater sense of inner peace and contentment, at least as it pertains to the strictest adherents of the philosophy in question.

Of course, you do have to consider that people have different temperaments as well. For instance, if a person is naturally inclined to be angry or bitter before they become saved, then they will still be just as naturally inclined to be so after they believe. The difference is, of course, that they have a motivation and a means by which to improve their temperament. But whether they do or not is between them and the Lord and is not a strict standard that we can apply to people to determine the truth, believers or not.

And also, there are people that are very content in being ignorant about the truth. That is a temperament issue as well.

I do see your point, though, and I will agree that people who believe in the truth will have a greater tendency toward the improvement of their character.

[Mave]

[Devil's Advocate]

And is there not many athiests, buddhists, muslims, etc. who are happy, contented, and peaceful, and many christians who are themselves angry, bitter, and jaded?

My friends of all these faiths are about equally balanced between the two realms of emotions. I definitely have Christian friends who struggle with bitterness and anger. In fact, I'm feeling pretty jaded right now. I read this somewhere and am tossing it in just for humor -

"The Truth will set you free but it'll make you miserable first."

But I'm sincerely happy that your Christian friends are more happy/contented/peaceful. We are allowed to have ups and downs but in the end, we need to experience His Peace in all circumstances.

[GeneD]

I’ve been kind of avoiding this thread, since the thought of trying to answer this question if asked by a non-Christian scares me somewhat.
I guess I’ll try and go about it in a stepwise manner.

Well, I can honestly say I don’t believe it because of historical evidence of it’s accuracy, mainly due to the fact that though I’ve heard about said evidence, I haven’t investigated the proof enough myself to be able to use it as a reason.
-If answering to a non-Christian; I’d probably mention this, but since I can’t at the moment quote any legitimate sources, I’ll try to avoid it if I can.

I appreciated the bit about the women covering their hair in church, since this is something I’ve wondered about before and I think you guys did an excellent job of clarifying it.

Since I haven’t read every single word in the Bible myself, I can’t say I believe or disbelieve everything in it either. Or rather that I understand the context in which it was written. (The above hair-covering example is more about understanding the context than believing it as such.)

I also don’t have enough knowledge about other religions to bring them into the argument, but I do believe the Christ is the only way to salvation.

I guess I believe in the Bible because I first believe in Christ. I don’t believe in Christ because of what the Bible says about Him, I believe in Him because of who He is and who I have experienced Him to be in my life. A loving God who wants a relationship with me, whom I can communicate with and who gave me a book about Himself so I can get to know Him a little better through it. Since “why do you believe in Christâ€

[Lochaber Axe]

Honestly... I would estimate that about 95% of the atheists that I've met in life (if we include the ones that I've met strictly through the internet) are angry, bitter, and jaded (or at least come across that way to me).

Note: I wouldn't say the above to an atheist if I was witnessing to him or her because it would only make him or her angry - it would be counter-productive. Nonetheless, it is my genuine experience, and it's one of the reasons why I strongly dislike atheism.

Now, your experience here may be different from mine, and if so I respect that, but I try to glean whatever I can from my own personal life experiences.

In fairness, I haven't met many Buddhists or Muslims, so I can't comment on them.

I'm inclined to believe that most of the world's religions have some truth and validity to them, so I don't think that most Buddhists being happy people with great inner peace would necessarily contradict my argument.

I'll admit that my reasoning here is at least somewhat intuitive.

It strikes me that a philosophy based on truth and based in truth should be something that uplifts people and gives them a greater sense of inner peace and contentment, at least as it pertains to the strictest adherents of the philosophy in question.

And neither do I disagree with you, THERE ARE many atheists, particularly of the anti-theistic (not just disbelief, but confrontational toward religion) like Richard Dawkins, etc. who are indeed very angry.

However, I wished to just show you that using that arguement is a double-edged sword, particularly if it is intuitive. A logical arguement is not intuitive... it must by tried and tested first.

On truth... a lot of people have problems with scientific and philosophical
matters that seem to be true, and yet contradict the Bible, because they weren't taught that all truth comes from God. The truth that can be found in many places are mere trickles to the sea of truth that is a personal walk with God. Just as Satan uses the good things of God as weapons to kill and destroy (such as sex and pride), he uses what is true in the same matter. IF what science says is true about this world, it merely glorifies the Lord, not negates Him. Deception does not occur unless there was a foundation of truth to be exploited.

Always remember when thinking about the Bible, that the Word of God is Christ himself. Was the Bible that which was before Abraham? No. Is it the Bible that will last forevermore? No, what have we need of it when Christ returns? Does one need a biography and book of quotations of a person if you meet them face to face? The propositum, the purpose, of the Old and New Testament... for this world and universe even... has been Christ. Everything has, is, and always will be based on God's purpose, his will.

That is why I believe. I believe because God lives.

[ShiroiHikari]

Serving God and following the Bible has nothing to do with emotion. I wish people would stop saying "Jesus makes you happy and content and brings sunshine and roses into your life" because that is not always the truth. Emotions shouldn't be a barometer of faith. Faith should surpass emotion.

[Syreth]

Serving God and following the Bible has nothing to do with emotion. I wish people would stop saying "Jesus makes you happy and content and brings sunshine and roses into your life" because that is not always the truth. Emotions shouldn't be a barometer of faith. Faith should surpass emotion.

I want to second this for truth, but also add that emotions have their place. While people can certainly feel emotions that are contrary to the state of their faith, individuals can also feel emotions that coincide with the state of their faith. But certainly, salvation is not based on emotion, nor an emotional experience, but it can be emotional, if that makes sense. Thank you for brining this up, though, I think it's a very important idea to consider, especially since there are so many people that don't feel like they can be forgiven.

Christianity should never be degraded into emotionalism.

[termyt]

Serving God and following the Bible has nothing to do with emotion. I wish people would stop saying "Jesus makes you happy and content and brings sunshine and roses into your life" because that is not always the truth. Emotions shouldn't be a barometer of faith. Faith should surpass emotion.

Excellent point. Emotions are tools we use to interpret the world around us. We need to allow our beliefs to drive our emotions and not allow our emotions to drive our beliefs. When these two are in proper harmony, our emotions then tell us how to react to any situation. (Easier said than done)

[kaji]

Not to completely detract from the current train of thought, but to contribute to the reliability of the New Testament (the later 27 books of the bible) I would invite you to consider the historical archeological evidence.

Peoples faith in the teachings of the New Testament can depend heavily on the accuracy of the NT (New Testament) we have today. How close is our NT to the wording of the original NT documents?

Question: How many of the original autographs do we have in our possession today?

Answer: Zero.

None of the original writing have been found today. We have, however, found over 5000 Greek manuscripts of the NT books and over 9000 manuscripts translated into other languages of the Mediterranean. The oldest of which can be dated to within 100 years of the time of Christ.

To draw a picture for you, the philosopher Plato lived about 427 BC and the oldest manuscripts that we have found of his writings date about 900 AD, of which we only have 7 manuscripts. That’s over 1300 years and only 7 copies. Aristotle lived in about 322 BC, the earliest of his writings we have are from about 1100 AD (about 1400 years after he died), of which we only have 5 copies.

What does this mean? That the Bible we have today is one of the oldest and best documented book in the worlds history.

But does that mean these manuscripts are errorless?

No.

Scholars have determined that within the 5000 Greek manuscripts, there are approximately 150,000 textual variants (that’s about 167 per page). That is, a divergent in which the way the same verse is read. For example: James 4:4

(1) You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God?
(2) You adulteresses and adulterers, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God?

So the question remains. With so many textual changers per page, how can we have the slightest confidence that we are reading what heaven inspired the others to write?

Curious? Read on. ^_^

Of the 150,000 variants, scholars can immediately and easily dismiss 19/20 of these cases because they are obviously of such a character of supported by so little authority that no critic would regard them as having any claim to acceptance. 2 Tim 4:22 is a good example of those that can be easily dismissed.

(1) May grace be with you.
(2) May grace be with you.

In English these two read the same, but in Greek there is a slight difference. In reading one, the word ‘you’ is in the second person singular, referring only to Timothy (the recipient of the letter), and in the second reading ‘you’ is in the second person plural, referring to both Timothy and the congregation he pastors. Because of the content of the letter, the second is clearly the genuine reading.

Dismissing 19/20 variant leaves us with 7,500 variant, which is about 8 per page. But even these, again, under examination are proven of no consequence 19/20 times. Each of these variants concern orthography, grammatical construction or word order. An example of these can be found in 1 John 1:5.

(1) And this is the message which we have heard from Him.
(2) And this is the message which we have heard from Him.

The two readings appear the same in English, but only the Greek words are reversed. This makes no change in the translation or interpretation, though by reversing the words in the second reading is a bit more emphatic. The second reading is the correct one, as only 7 manuscripts support the first reading. Most of these 7,500 variants concern only the form of expression, not the essential meaning of the verse.

Dismissing again 19/20 variants leaves us now with 400 variants. That’s one problem for every two pages of NT text. These 400 problems involve a difference of meaning, often very slight, the omission of words or addition of words. Again, roughly 19/20 of these variants can be easily solved. Ephesians 4:9 is representative of these problems.

(1) This expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth?
(2) This expression, “He ascended,” what does it mean except that He also had descended first into the lower parts of the earth?

Variant 1 is genuine and is supported by good manuscripts, while variant two is spurious. The word first is a scribal gloss, added to ensure the reader understands that before Jesus “ascended” back to heaven, thirty three years earlier he had “descended first” to earth.

So, of the 400 variants scholars agree that only 50 are of real significance (that’s one every 18 pages). But as scholars are quick to point out, not one of these variants alters an article of the Christian faith or a precept of duty which is not copiously and plainly expressed by other and undisputed passages elsewhere, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching.
Out of 150,000 variants in the 5016 Greek manuscripts, only a handful are of concern (primarily mechanical in nature).

What does this information tell us about the Bible that we have today?

Benjamin Warfield (Princeton theologian), declares that the facts show that the great meajority of the NT “has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation. And even in the most corrupt form in which it has ever appeared the real text of the sacred writings is competently exact; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost.” He goes on to say, “If we compare the present state of the NT text with tha to f any other ancient writing, we must declare it to be marvelously correct.”

Frederic Kenyon, Greek manuscript scholar, educated at Oxford. He was the keeper of manuscripts and director and principal librarian of the British Museum; second to none in issuing authoritative remarks about manuscripts. “One word must be emphasized – no doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the NT. …It is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserve in some one or other of these ancient authorities, this can be said of no other ancient book in the world.

The case stands that the reliability of the NT is infinitely stronger than for that of any other record of antiquity.

Now, this is by no means a basis of faith/belief on its own, but it certainly is credit to the reliability of transmission of the very teachings of the Bible that have lead so many to a faith in Christ.

Anyway, I know I was a little long here, but I have always found it a joy and encouragement to see archeological and scientific evidence confirm my faith. I hope it has for you as well.

EDIT: Just a note, but if you want to read more scholars critiques of the reliability of NT texts, check out: Howard Vos, F.C. Scrivener, F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, John Warwick Montgomery, Frederic Kenyon, A.T. Robertson, J. Harold Greenlee, David Dabrymple, and many more Im sure. ^_~

DOUBLE EDIT: Sorry, just thought of something else you may find interesting. Even if we do not consider the 5016 Greek manuscripts or the 9000 translations, we could still reproduce nearly all the NT solely from the early Church fathers writings, as they quoted the scriptures constantly in their work.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Serving God and following the Bible has nothing to do with emotion. I wish people would stop saying "Jesus makes you happy and content and brings sunshine and roses into your life" because that is not always the truth. Emotions shouldn't be a barometer of faith. Faith should surpass emotion.

However, your thoughts and emotions should always be a valid representation of your faith. Not to say that we aren't of error, but it is never good to use that fact as a method of justification.

[TriezGamer]

Thanks for that Kaji, very interesting.

[Nate]

Okay, at the risk of inciting a riot here, I'm going to go ahead and publicly post one reason why the Bible is NOT historically accurate.

In the book of Matthew, it states in chapter two that after the birth of Jesus, Herod met with the Magi.

In the book of Luke, it states that before Jesus was born, Quirinius was governor of Syria and that a census was taken, which is the reason why Joseph was going to Bethlehem.

Problem: Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria until 6 AD. Herod died in 4 BC. Herod died ten years before the census took place. So how could Herod meet with the Magi ten years after he died?

The "second Herod," Agrippa I, was born in 10 BC, and after the death of Herod the Great, went to Rome for most of his life. So it wasn't him either.

So there you go. Either Luke is wrong, or Matthew is wrong. They can't both be right due to historical evidence, thus, the Bible is not totally historically accurate.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Okay, at the risk of inciting a riot here, I'm going to go ahead and publicly post one reason why the Bible is NOT historically accurate.

In the book of Matthew, it states in chapter two that after the birth of Jesus, Herod met with the Magi.

In the book of Luke, it states that before Jesus was born, Quirinius was governor of Syria and that a census was taken, which is the reason why Joseph was going to Bethlehem.

Problem: Quirinius wasn't governor of Syria until 6 AD. Herod died in 4 BC. Herod died ten years before the census took place. So how could Herod meet with the Magi ten years after he died?

The "second Herod," Agrippa I, was born in 10 BC, and after the death of Herod the Great, went to Rome for most of his life. So it wasn't him either.

So there you go. Either Luke is wrong, or Matthew is wrong. They can't both be right due to historical evidence, thus, the Bible is not totally historically accurate.

I say that it would be premature to automatically dismiss them as historically inaccurate.

In addition, historical sources indicate that Quirinius was favored by Augustus, and was in active service of the emperor in the vicinity of Syria previous to and during the time period that Jesus was born. [b]It is reasonable to conclude that Quirinius could have been appointed by Caesar to instigate a census-enrollment during that time frame, and his competent execution of such could have earned for him a repeat appointment for the A.D. 6/7 census (see Archer, 1982, p. 366). Notice also that Luke did not use the term legatus—] [McGarvey and Pendleton, n.d., p. 28]. After providing a thorough summary of the historical and archaeological data pertaining to this question, Finnegan concluded: “Thus the situation presupposed in Luke 2:3 seems entirely plausible” (1959, 2:261).

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1810 and http://www.comereason.org/bibl_cntr/con100.asp

There you have it.

Any more questions? I'll just go ask the resident Doctor of Apologetics (literally) on campus for you, lol.

[Radical Dreamer]

Okay, at the risk of inciting a riot here, I'm going to go ahead and publicly post one reason why the Bible is NOT historically accurate.

Any more questions? I'll just go ask the resident Doctor of Apologetics (literally) on campus for you, lol.

Question answered, please take all further discussion of this topic to PM.

[Novi]

I believe because it hasn't been proven wrong

[Nikolai Melodie]

I believe in the bible for a number of reasons, but the easiest one to explain is this:

If the bible is true, then as a saved, bible-living gal, I'm going to heaven. If the bible if false, I'll rot in the ground. No one's going to penalize me in the dirt due to my believing, however, if the bible is right and there is a God and a Heaven, if I don't believe, well... that is not something I want to risk. There's a great CS Lewis quote that I'm too lazy to put here...

The same could be said for other faiths, but I've researched them and this one is the only one which seems the most concrete. The Word gives us reasons for why things go wrong/right in the world, descriptions of the end of times, etc. In my opinion, it is the most complete of all holy texts.