What makes the bible valid?
141840
I apologize in advance for how long this answer is, but seeing some of the errors that that have been stated in other answers, this is as short an answer as I felt I could give to address the confusing answers already given.\n\nThe 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. Th
592608
The Bible has the best answer to that question.
258906
The Bible only proves anything if you already believe.\n\nSimilarly, science only proves anything if you believe in it.  \n\nThis point is usually missed by people on both sides of the argument; hence all the disagreements.
933623
The bible is complete if anyone adds to it you will regret it.And if you follow them. So there is no truth but the bible.You choose your choices.
621307
The Bible is Good -- it sets forth moral standards; it teaches lessons through parables; it conveys knowledge and wisdom; it gives insight and builds faith to the Great Creator and the Redeemer; and it preaches the message of Love and Peace.\n\nThe Bible is Bad -- portions have been corrupted by man; it has caused heated debates and confusion on interpretations; its compilation has been biased; it is being used by unscrupulous people to exploit their greed and for power...\n\nThe Holy Bible is GOOD! God is Good and God is Merciful. Glory be to God!!!\n\nPeace be with you!
971908
The Bible is the inerrant, infallible, inspired Word of God.  Everything in it is true.  People didn't create the New Testament, but holy men wrote as they were led by the Holy Spirit.
1033550
The entire bible?  No.  In fact, there is proof that parts of the bible are inaccurate (like Genesis), and there is proof that parts of the bible really happened (we know many hisotrical leaders and occurances actually happened).\n\n- We've found Herod's palace, and it implies he was as carefree as the bible portrays him as.  One point for bible\n\n- We've found egyptian records that range from acheivements to embarassments.  They were quite meticulous at their historical records...yet no mention of Moses, losing their slaves, losing their first borns, plagues, etc.  One point against.\n\n- We've found evidence of a mass flood, one point for\n\n- It would be impossible for all species alive today to fit on the boat, not to mention carry enough food, deal with waste, etc.  One point against.\n\nSo you see, the bible is much like Greek or Egyptian mythology.  It is what was thought to have been known at the time...some of it was correct, some based on false rumor.
1111476
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>
764218
Good point. So what should we do? We should check the facts or information given in the newspaper before we decide whether to believe the contents of the newspaper.\n\nThe same with the present Bible, we should check the facts or information given in the Bible before we decide whether to believe or not the contents of the Bibles.\n\nAs we know there is no dispute that there are many versions of the Bible. There is the New King James version. There is the Catholic Authorized Version. And many more.
40966
The bible is a compilation of hundreds even thousands of authors who wrote stories about their experiences, sermons, letters to churches/congregations, over thousands of years.  They had Faith in their beliefs about what they wrote, but none of it is really supposed to be fact so much as an expression of faith through illustrations and stories.
836689
Christianity will oppose any development that threatens its validity.Christianity cannot stray from the Bible which is what gives it validity.Challenge the Bible and you challenge all Christians including the "Roman structure of Christianity,headed by the Roman Pope'..The Dead Sea Scrolls are an on hand challenge..What about unknown historical documents that did not survive!!!!!
315921
You can say the same thing about the bible.  Other than faith there is nothing to say it is true just because some of the stuff mentioned existed in that time doesn't make the whole book true.
272629
Some have exploited these statements to argue their point that the Bible is unreliable or untruthful.\n\nBut, in a court judges WILL NOT BELIEVE statements by witnesses that are TOO PERFECT--without any minor inconcistencies. The judge's conclusion would always be that these statements--even under cross examination--were made up, or were too good to be true.\n\nIn reading contracts and law--w/c by the way the Bible is--we look for other provisions of these documents to really understand the whole thing.\n\nHere is a simplistic example:\n\nStatement (1): "Mike is fat".\nStatement (2): "Mike is thin".\nStatement (3): "When Mike was a kid he got sick with polio which severely affected his feet".\n\nIf you read only statements 1, and 2 you will conclude that these are really contradictory--or inconsistent--statements. But Statement (3) gives a clarification.\n\nSo, the correct conclusion considering Statement no. 3 is: "Mike is a fat man with thin legs". Agree, or disagree?\n\nNow let's go back to the 2 examples in question. Godshew(?) was correct. The case about God's warning to Adam, and his age could be reconciled. According to the apostle Peter's statement--a clarificatory one--1,000 years is just like 1 day to God. So, when Adam died at the age of 930, he died within one day in God's own time frame. \n\nAgain, Jesus did not contradict himself when he said that he and the father are one; and that the father is greater than he is. The apostle John was the one who wrote these statements and so he is the one in the better position to explain this (just like a witness in court). In John 17:20-22 he explains that the father, the son--including the disciples--are one in purpose, one in work, one in mind. \n\nFurther, if you will read John 10:25-33--and NOT just isolate John 10:30--then you will immediately notice that Jesus did not claim to be of equal power, or might, than his father. He and the Father are one in deeds (or works). Ps. read the account carefully.\n\nYou know what the problem is? some try to suit Biblical verses according to their beliefs--just like the ungodly trinity--and not suit their beliefs to what the Bible says.\n\nThis in turn is exploited by those eager to insist that the Bible is really unreliable.\n\nHope this helped a lot of people examine their Bibles closely.
32395
Notice that the only thing Christians can point to in order to defend the Bible is....the Bible! \nIt is even more ridiculous to claim it is the word of God when it was manipulated by men in order to create a unifying religion - it was created as a politcal mechanism. (The Canonized Bible).
929618
Good question.  The Bible has proven itself thru Bible Prophecy, which has been fulfilled with 100% accuracy. You can do a web search on Bible Prophecy and find some answers, note the dates it was prophesied and the dates it was fulfilled.  If you are interested I can e-mail you close to 40 prophecies that were fulfilled thru Christ...don't know of any other religion that can claim that about themselves.  Bible Prophecy does make for a good study.  History also proves the Bible as does Archeology.
1163271
your first rule of reading the bible you need to accept that it does not make sense and it is full of contradictions\nit is only a book of fairy tales
848586
Can you justify the logic of establishing a country based on the Bible?\n This smells like homework.