Jump to content

How Do You Know...


TrespassersW

Recommended Posts

How do Mainstream Christians Know the Bible is the Word of God?

I've become increasingly dissatisfied with my current understanding of how mainstream Christians have reconciled themselves to the belief in the divine authenticity of the Bible. I've read some treatments of this that haven't been especially enlightening. Here is one by Mr. Farkas that seems pretty typical. My problem with responses such as his is that most of his points support LDS scripture just as well, and those that don't also don't directly have much bearing on whether or not the Bible is actually the word of God.

I'm particularly interested in responses from those who reject the LDS "witness of the Spirit". How does your conviction about the Bible differ from LDS conviction about the Book of Mormon? I'm just trying to improve my understanding here, so if you have some thoughts, or know of a really good treatment of the subject, that would be welcome.

For those who don't believe the Bible, I'm pretty comfortable in my understanding of many of these positions. Your posts are certainly welcome, but not especially what I'm looking for...

Thanks.

Link to comment

The answer to your question is because it's OLD..... And because it's old, more scientific research has been done on it, which verify's some of it, so they believe it.

The problem with that argument is that Christians believed Scripture for years simply by FAITH and not an Scientific validity or evidence. But I guess they weren't "real" Christians. <_<

Of course, they might say other things like Christ promised "His Word" would last forever etc. etc. and they have the Spirit, but they are all circular arguments which are no different than ours in certain respects.

My favorite one of course is that the book says it's the word of God because it contains His Word, so they believe it. :P

Link to comment

The problem with that argument is that Christians believed Scripture for years simply by FAITH and not an Scientific validity or evidence. But I guess they weren't "real" Christians

Mostly what they had was the writings of their living leaders. If you were to compare them then to today you would use Journal of Discourses and other letters and sermons as are delivered by your prophets. That's what Acts, Corinthians, etc. were. They were letters and sermons.

And they didn't all just accept them as truth. They debated them. They argued. Eventually, and along the way, they voted. Their vote (s) affects even Mormons since your KJV is the result.

You can't compare the BOM to the Bible. You can compare D&C to the Bible - especially the New Testament. Those are very similar, yes. But you can't compare a story/book where you have only faith to accept it on to a collection of sermons where you know the authors (or think you do) or can trace exactly where they came from and how they ended up scripture. Again - you can do that with D&C. You can look back and see who wrote it and when. The early Christians could do the same and everyone since has followed that example - such as Mormons might do 1000 years from now with D&C.

On the other side is the BOM and the early parts of the Old Testament Bible. Neither have anything concrete to recommend them. Both require faith and a good imagination.

Link to comment
The answer to your question is because it's OLD..... And because it's old, more scientific research has been done on it, which verify's some of it, so they believe it.

The problem here is that none of the Bible's doctrine or claims can be proven archeologically. That Jesus is the Son of God and that he Atoned for our sins etc. has no evidence whatsoever to support it. Hence, scientifically, the Bible is at best, a work of historical fiction.

Therefore, anyone who bases their belief that the Bible is the word of God on an archeological basis shows a great weakness in that they deny the testimony of the Holy Spirit or don't have it at all.

By their logic, the Illiad and The Odessey are also the word of God, because they are OLD, and because the places in them are largely proven to have existed; never mind the fact that the gods therein and their requirements and methods are not proven archeologically.

I would therefore posit that anyone promoting the Bible as the word of God based foremost on archeology is a false prophet.

The fact remains that to believe either that the Bible or the Book of Mormon is the word of God takes an equal amount of faith because the claims therein are equally unsupported by science. And I find it quite telling that most other Christians will give the archeology answer first rather than the spiritual answer. Their faith is most cetainly dead.

Link to comment
How do Mainstream Christians Know the Bible is the Word of God?

I've become increasingly dissatisfied with my current understanding of how mainstream Christians have reconciled themselves to the belief in the divine authenticity of the Bible. I've read some treatments of this that haven't been especially enlightening. Here is one by Mr. Farkas that seems pretty typical. My problem with responses such as his is that most of his points support LDS scripture just as well, and those that don't also don't directly have much bearing on whether or not the Bible is actually the word of God.

I'm particularly interested in responses from those who reject the LDS "witness of the Spirit". How does your conviction about the Bible differ from LDS conviction about the Book of Mormon? I'm just trying to improve my understanding here, so if you have some thoughts, or know of a really good treatment of the subject, that would be welcome.

For those who don't believe the Bible, I'm pretty comfortable in my understanding of many of these positions. Your posts are certainly welcome, but not especially what I'm looking for...

Thanks.

Link to comment

I would therefore posit that anyone promoting the Bible as the word of God based foremost on archeology is a false prophet.

I would agree. I think the point is that there's a firmer base to start from. Just like, as you believe, your original witnesses needed to see the plates to believe. You don't - but part of the faith is that someone did. Faith means taking a leap. It's true. But who would believe the Bible if they found evidence that not only did Jericho not have walls, but that it was just a farming community with nothing more than a few buildings and a plow store? Instead, we've found walls. Lots of them.

The difference is in the base. The Bible, at the very least, has something from which to build.

Link to comment

"All religious belief is a function of nonrational faith. And faith, by its very definition, tends to be impervious to intellectual argument or academic critism...Those who assail The Book of Mormon should bear in mind that its veracity is no more dubious than the veracity of the Bible, say, or the Qur'an, or the sacred texts of most other religions. The latter texts simply enjoy the considerable advantage of having made their public debut in the shadowy recesses of the ancient past, and are thus much harder to refute."

Jon Krakauer

Link to comment
1. The Bible claims to be the word of God.

2. Through reading the Bible I learned how to have eternal life (subjective testing).

3. Archeological, scientific, cultural and other objective data support the Bible claims (objective testing).

HAAAAA.....HAAAAAA..HAAAAA...!!!! What did I tell you. Each one I essentially said. :P<_<

Link to comment

heavymental:

I think any religious document whether it's the Bible, BoM, PoGP all require faith... our EV/BAC friends however will as you have stated say it is so because God has said it was so in the book itself.

I can appreciate that. If that is your position, then I would amend my question to: Why do you choose to have faith in the Bible, then? What is it about that particular book that engenders such faith?

Link to comment
I would therefore posit that anyone promoting the Bible as the word of God based foremost on archeology is a false prophet.

I would agree. I think the point is that there's a firmer base to start from. Just like, as you believe, your original witnesses needed to see the plates to believe. You don't - but part of the faith is that someone did. Faith means taking a leap. It's true. But who would believe the Bible if they found evidence that not only did Jericho not have walls, but that it was just a farming community with nothing more than a few buildings and a plow store? Instead, we've found walls. Lots of them.

The difference is in the base. The Bible, at the very least, has something from which to build. 

Another difference is that the Bible has had many hundreds of years and FAR more money and effort expended to show it's archeology. When a similar amount of time AND effort has been expended on the BoM, then one would not necessarily be hypocritical in comparing the archeology of the Bible vs. the BoM.

However, given all the evidence so far with so little time and effort, it does not look bad at all for the BoM to begin with.

In either case, even if each book reaches 100% proven in archeological terms of names and places, the fact remains that there will be no archeological proof of the doctrines and principles taught therein and both will still be works of historical fiction without faith.

Hence, it still takes an equal amount of faith to believe each one to be the word of God.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...