If some concept/thought is not mentioned in the Bible either directly or indirectly, should we still believe in it?  If it can find no scriptural validation, is it still valid?
120503
If it can not be validated, then it can't be valid!
164133
Don't you have that backwards? I've met many people who believe every word in the bible even if you can prove that it is a miss translation, or against known facts. The bible can be used to "prove" anything you like if you take it out of context and add your own spin.
631240
the bible is something like "believe but do not search". But if you read between the lines you could get a scientific answer.
553254
I agree.  quoting the bible or something is not valid as evidence for people who dont believe.  I only quote it when asked about it.\n\nAgree with you.\n\nHow about the question about noah's ark?  That was answered with all science, perfectly by a Christian. This is how we should answer non believers, like "ILoveJesus" lady did.\n\nhttp://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AhDhtQPisFZHWxrMoTU6HW7AFQx.?qid=20061123154534AAR0ZO2\n\nthat was well done!  check it out!\n\ndavid
312647
I don't think enough religious people are suspicious of "science".  Modern science is constantly contradicting itself.\n\nAnd, I don't think the Bible contradicts itself.  Man's interpretations may contradict themselves; thus, the interpretations may be wrong.  Also, the Books of the Bible were written at different times, the subjects may have changed.  That is, if I wrote a Book three hundred years ago and said "there are no aircrafts in the sky" and someone else wrote a Book today, saying "there are aircrafts everywhere in the sky", it does not mean that the collective works (the two Books, plus) contradict themselves.  And, there is so much not understood between the alleged contradictions such that one could not say for certain that they contradict.  That is, one Book (written 700 years ago) might say  "There are no aircrafts in the sky"; then Books (written 300 years ago) might say "There are aircrafts on the sky everywhere".  The part in between the two alleged contradictions and not understood or misinterpreted [coded by those big names or terms we don't understand] (actually) means "The following is hogwash; I had to say it for my own and mankind's protection".  Thus, in actuality, the Books do not contradict themselves (it's just misunderstood).\n\nPossible.\n\nPeace.
667264
Reverence is not required from those who do not believe.  You will not believe if you are not exposed to the Bible, or it's message in the first place.  Exposing yourself to it may result in belief, which might require reverence, but until then - reading the Bible will return to you only what you put into it.  There are some people who read the Bible looking for ways to cut it down - and they find those ways.  Reading it to enjoy the story-line is perfectly okay.
296585
Looks like you answered it yourself. However, my personal opinion is that I really don't care what it says, because I don't believe in it anyway.\n\nThe bible is all I need.
473610
True, and it is what I've been saying all along. When I was a Christian, I still didn't believe in the letters of Paul. Was it not the prophets of the ancient times that brought laws and the word of G-d through revelation (ie. a burning bush, the direct voice of G-d)? Then years later, the "new" testament is revealed through letters and secondary sources written by people who weren't even there.  Another great point, thanks for the question.
637619
People who claim to believe the bible have either never read it, or totally lack the ability to objectively analyze what they read or hear.\n\nThe bible is a book of mythology, has nothing to support it's accuracy from a historical view, is contradictory and for the most part incomprehensible gibberish.\n\nCan you believe some people assert that because Jerusalem or other places that existed (Egypt, Babylon, Syria, etc) are  mentioned in the bible, the bible must be true? Hard to believe how gullible some people are.
452459
I disbelieve on the grounds of lack of evidence so short of proof being forthcoming I couldn't say I believed God existed. Convictions or subjective opinions don't come into it-it's purely down to a lack of valid evidence.
65917
Well, since the Bible is referenced in historical texts, more than any other book, and the story of Jesus is told in the Bible, I think that is considered historical proof. These stories are not new. The concept of Jesus' existance is harder for the modern day person to believe because we are 2000 years removed from that time. However, several texts, scrolls, letters, etc. were written soon after the death and resurection of Christ. Also, do not forget that zealous Jewish priests were persecuting Christians in order to try and get them to deny the message of Christ. This went on for a long time, and yet, the message has survived until now...2000 years later. Is it possible that it is all made up? I suppose there is no 100% evidence that it existed. But then, can you 100% proove that your great (time 5) grandfather existed? If you never met him and no one alive on this earth ever met him, how can you "proove" he existed. The simple fact is, you can't. But you believe because 1) you have faith. and 2) all the evidence presented supports that he did exist. All the evidence supports the existance of Christ. \n\nI suggest you pick up a copy of the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroble. This presents the stories in a very "judicial" method. Giving the evidence and the opposing sides views and why the evidence supports the message of Christ.
248744
Back to the "leap of faith." \n\nPeople like you and I cannot accept that simply because the bible says something, that it must be true. However, there are billions of people who think otherwise.\n\nWe cannot accept this argument because it cannot be tested. They feel that they can accept it because reason has no place in matters of faith.\n\nThis is pretty much the whole issue in a nutshell.
249562
I believe it is of utmost importance.  But I am a Christian.  \n\nTo those who reject the Bible, it makes very little difference so far as they can see.\n\nIf you do a word study of the Name of God, you'll see how important it is.  His Name is synonymous with His Authority and Power.
634110
I agree!  However, I also see the Bible as the inspired Word of God, thus if we follow it only and don't add or subtract anything, then we are following a religion made up by God himself.  Problem solved.
423247
Well done for starting to think like a human.\n\nIt is pretty obvious that the bible is not true. It is a packaged product designed to create a religious truth with which to bind (and blind) people. \n\nBind in that you believe in 'God' and you have to take the bible wholesale (imperfections, contradications and everything). Blind int hat you have to ignore the real evidence of history in order to 'believe' and be saved.\n\nArcheologists do not tend to use the bible as source material because so much of it is false. There is no historical reference to Jesus outside of a few books in the bible. \n\nIn the ancient world myths were not seen as untrue in quite the way we see them today. Myths were a way of spreading a spritual idea or 'truth' through the telling of an allegorical tale that could work on many levels. \n\nThe Egyptians, for example, were prodigious record keepers. We have found written accounts for the tiniest minutea of their daily lives, and records for nobles and royal families stretching back many thousands of years. We even know the names of those kings that that they tried to have 'erased' from history. \nYet nowhere in any of these records is a high nobleman called 'Moses' recorded. And there is no mention anywhere of the Jews being held captive in Egypt, or of thousands of Jewish 'slaves' suddenly up and leaving via the red sea. \n\nRead the bible, by all means. But do not take it literally!
25981
Many Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that God authored the bible. They believe in the inerrantacy of the bible because it is claimed to be inspired by God himself. If the bible is inerrant, without error, then they reason that  the bible must be literally true. The problem for them then is to interpret the bible so any inconsistancies can be explained within the entire bible when read as a whole continuous work. The bible was written by 40 or more individuals over perhaps 1500 years. Reading it as a whole continuous work inspired by God, does not leave room for the evolution of religious thought not to mention the evolution of the Universe and Mankind. This is "Group Think' on a global scale. I am not saying that the bible is not inspired by God, but it should be read in literary form not literal form. In the area of ethics and morals I believe the bible is more literal in nature. God communicates directly with his creation through Science, there is no middle man. Scripture has man in the middle, communicating ideas with his own limited understanding of the world. When fundamentalists are confronted with the science of evolution, they just do not believe it. Some will try to find ways to expain the Universe so it is in agreement with the bible. Examples would be that radioisotope dating is wrong or the Universe was created to look billions of years old when it is less than 10,000 years old. It does seem ridiculous to reasonable people.
631037
I am a Christian, so I can only answer your question from that perspective. Other perspectives are as valid to others as mine is to me.\n\nIt's simple. People need to believe in something, and some choose to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.  Now, these folks will tell you that there are certainly parts of the Bible that aren't meant to be taken literally, such as parables and examples, but they've decided that Genesis is neither.\n\nHowever, scientific evidence suggests that it just didn't happen that way!\n\nSince I have a heart that needs to believe AND a mind that's curious about science, and I believe that God made me that way, and He doesn't make mistakes, here's how I handle the problem.\n\nWhen I'm thinking about science, I use scientific thinking and I weigh evidence and suggestions from others and I come to a theory that satisfies my curiosity and my mind. Aha! *This* is how the universe probably developed!\n\nWhen I'm thinking about God, I allow my heart to know that He could certainly have done it any way he wanted. I realize how awesome it is that He set into motion the intricate laws that govern matter, space and time AND He gave us minds that want to know, in detail, how things work. Not only that, but He also gave us a story to tell (Genesis) to start us out on our mind's search for understanding!\n\nI'm never confused about the two, and yet, I believe them both. That's what works for me, and I think it makes Him smile. <s>