How am I supposed to accept the Bible as the Word of God if the only "proof" of its divinity is in the Bible?
115127
The Bible claims to be actual communication from God to humanity. Notice these biblical passages:\n\nAll Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 \n\nAbove all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. 2 Peter 1:20-21 \n\n The Bible claims to be the very Word of God (verbum Dei), indeed, the very words of God (verba Dei). But this claim often raises a number of objections. \n\nObjection #1: The Bibles we have today are nothing like the biblical books as they were originally written. \nThis is a real concern people have. The question of whether or not the Bible was God’s Word 2,000 years ago is irrelevant if the Bible we read today is substantially different from what was originally written. Until the invention of the printing press around 1450, all literature was hand-copied and scribes could make mistakes in copying. It’s hard to know if errors are present with many ancient works simply because few early hand-written copies exist. But this is not a major concern with the biblical documents: \n\n1. There are over 24,000 surviving partial or complete manuscripts of New Testament books today. By comparison, the next largest number is for Homer’s Iliad, with only 643 surviving manuscripts. We have only 7 copies of Pliny’s History and only 10 of Caesar’s Gallic Wars―but we don’t hesitate to trust them. \n\n2. Furthermore, the New Testament has unusually early manuscripts compared with other ancient literature. Our earliest copy of Pliny’s History dates to 750 years after Pliny’s death. A lot can happen in 750 years. And the earliest copy of Gallic Wars was copied 1,000 years after Caesar’s death. By contrast, some early New Testament fragments date to within 30 years of their first writing, as with the John Rylands papyrus found in Egypt. There simply wasn’t enough time between the original writing and our earliest manuscripts to allow for much corruption. \n\n3. There are over 84,000 quotations from the New Testament (mainly from sermons) dating to the early centuries of the Church. In fact, even if we didn’t have a single manuscript of the Bible today, we could reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. \n\n4. Similarly, with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s, we now have copies of the entire Old Testament from before the time of Christ―complete copies of every book except Esther.\n\nModern translations of the Bible (New International Version, New American Standard Bible, etc.) are translated directly from these earliest biblical manuscripts. \n\nObjection #2: The Bible is just a book of fairy-tales. Its account is not historically reliable. \nWhile there are letters and songs and laws and doctrinal teachings in the Bible, the most common genre within the Scripture is history. Observers point out that the Bible is an historical document in that it consistently gives accurate information on the geography, chronology, people, places, customs, nations and events recorded within it.\n\nThe Bible is therefore unusual compared to other human religious literature. The Book of Mormon, even though relatively recent, nevertheless reads like a cheap nineteenth century American gothic novel. It describes an entire pre-Columbian civilization which shows no signs of ever having existed. There simply never was a highly advanced Jewish civilization in ancient New York. There is today, but not before Columbus. Or compare the Bible with the Hindu Vedas, which explain that the moon is 150,000 miles higher than the sun and shines with its own light (like a big GE light bulb), adding that the earth i
1048933
You can't use miracles as proof of the living God.  You have to live it and show them.  They will use logic and the powers of this world to try and prove His non-existence.  The best way to show people God is to be like Christ in everything and live happily.  Happiness is contagious and people wanted to be infected so badly.  If you find true happiness in faith in God and Christianity, then they too will want to find that same happiness.
1057360
When you are able to think, you do not need faith. I do not follow blindly. I don't need any other person to explain things to me. Mainly ones that claim we all are inbred, coming from two original people, or somebody claiming that I must do as they say and give money or burn forever. There is no proof of god, only inconsistent explanations that contradict themselves.
391548
Wow! That is a very well thought out question. I guess the best way to answer that is to say that you have to go on faith. We all believe differently. Unfortunately we were not there when the authors of the Bible were doing their thing. We can talk to God. But, it is difficult to be sure of his response. If we get one at all. Its all in what you believe.
1166845
HAHA I can see what your getting at. This isnt a battle that you can win. Neither can I. I'm christian but a relaxed one. People have their opinions and who am i to tell them different. I dont beleive everything I hear. I beleive things that i know however. And I dont know for sure that a god even exist. I guess thats the whole concept to a religious faith alone. People tend to take the bible TOO literal. Then things begin getting mixed up. I am a scientist as well, some things in the bible just dont make sense. But if you read a book that offered a way for you to live in a sunny nice beach, and youve lived in the projects all of your life...and all you had to do has follow the books teaching...would you take it? I'm sure you see what i'm getting at as well.
1146308
The only evidence you have is "FAITH". You either believe it or you don't. If you believe it, God will move inside you and He will give you the evidence for your faith. If you don't believe, there is absolutely no evidence that can be brought before your eyes not even if you live from here to eternity.
660143
If you believe in God, then you believe also that the Bible\nis IS the true word of God. Well, this is one of those things apparently, that God especially dislikes, for he\nsays (get A CONCORDANCE to look up where exactly this is\nstated, that way you'll know how to use a concordance too)\n-and I believe in more than one place- "that this is an abomination (ABOMINATION is pretty serious business), for\na man to lie with a man"... Similarly, women, animals, etc.\nSo draw your own conclusions, just not on the wall.
135596
Youre right, you cant prove it. But thats fine for most people, cause if you keep telling yourself thats something exist, its gonna exist. So you dont need a proof. If you keep telling yourself that theres God, God will exist. If you dont, then he wont. It simple. And about the Bible, I could write a book right now about a new God, bury it in the earth and then about 1000 years later someone's gonna find it, and there will be a new religion, and everybody will believe in my God. You know what im saying? So you cant prove anything, its just whether believe in it or not. If you do you'll see it.
901483
You can't because Faith is believing that in God's revealed word and trusting Him without outside influence. (However I could point you to some facts not listed in scripture that support the Bible, and also aren't the values in the Bible good, before some guy rattled off all these really great values, but they are nothing with JESUS.\nGive a specific question I will answer it specifically, email me.
459634
I'm sure this is tongue in cheek, but obviously one can be christian and not think that the bible is meant to be read as literal truth in every word.  you'd go crazy reconciling the contradictions.
856773
I believe in God.  I believe man wrote the Bible, and I agree with you that it is inaccurate.  That does not mean that God does not exist.  For the same reason, just because you do not accept part of it, does not mean you cannot accept God.
860884
Strange as it may be to you, I believe everything in the Bible.\nI don't expect anyone to understand why, I do because it has never been "proved" wrong.
368738
"amorgan4osu" is a moron. If "God's word" does not have to be proven then one could just as easily believe one thing as another.  If there need not be proof then I could just as easily say I have leprechauns in my back yard.
918941
In Protestant (liberal) theology there are several "middle grounds."  There is the notion that the Bible "contains God's word" and also that is can "become God's words."  These are of course nuanced meanings of how Scripture communicates God's message through a supposedly imperfect text.
375977
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.
794939
I have been going through the same thing right now.  I have done a lot of research and it is something that is really hard to prove.  Also there are 5 or 6 books that aren't in there and it makes me wonder who decided which books belong in the Bible and which don't.  Also have you noticed that other religions are just a loyal and believe just as strongly in their religions or "bibles" laws.  It's a strange thing.  Sometimes it makes me wonder if I always believed just because I was born here and my parents do .... I'm interested to see the answers you get though.
345476
Its not.  Whether the bible is the word of God is controversial enough, but it was incorperated, written, edited, and translated by man.  Men have a tendency to put their own thoughts, opinions, and assumptions in.\n\nNeed proof?  Ask a question as to what God wants, you'll get dozens of different answers speaking on his behalf.