Why do you believe the Bible is 100% inspired?

[Helen]

Subject title..

Why do I believe that the bible is 100% inspired.
Inspired?
I sure have never found the book of Numbers one bit inspiring!!

Whenever I have felt like reading the bible from Gen - Rev...
I now SKIP the book of numbers having done it twice in my life is enough.
There may be a couple of 'gems' in there...but it is like eating sawdust!!

( but I am sure the OP is not all about that kind of inspiration!! lol 0

 

[Helen]

Atheism is defined as a lack of belief in a god. I believe there is no god, just like I believe (and probably you believe) there are no pixies, because there is insufficient evidence. I am not claiming pixies do not exist.

Oh no! No pixies, elves , or even fairies...how sad ..........lol...spoiled my day. :)

 

[Vince]

Oh no! No pixies, elves , or even fairies...how sad ..........lol...spoiled my day. :)

I didn't say pixies don't exist, only that there is no good reason to believe that they do.

 

[aspen]

The Bible is 100% as reductionistic as any other document made up of words

 

[Helen]

I didn't say pixies don't exist, only that there is no good reason to believe that they do.

True indeed :)

 

[amadeus]

Subject title..

Why do I believe that the bible is 100% inspired.
Inspired?
I sure have never found the book of Numbers one bit inspiring!!

Whenever I have felt like reading the bible from Gen - Rev...
I now SKIP the book of numbers having done it twice in my life is enough.
There may be a couple of 'gems' in there...but it is like eating sawdust!!

( but I am sure the OP is not all about that kind of inspiration!! lol 0

Twice is enough? Are you saying that God said to your heart, "It is enough?

Where is the camping order of God's people located?
Chapter 2 of Numbers.

Where is the marching order of God's people located?
Chapter 10 of Numbers!

Who is the meekest of men upon earth? Numb12:3

How many times did the children of Israel rebel against God? Numb14:22. Is the answer of 10 significant to you and to me?

Of what importance is a covenant of salt? Numb18:19

Has anyone ever heard of the "red heifer"? Numb chapter 19

Where is the serpent first formed later to be Nehushtan? Numb 21:8ff

Where did Israel sing the song, "Spring up, O well" ? Numb 21:16

Where do we find the story of Balaam and the talking donkey" Numb chapter 22-24

Where do we find the details of the birthright proceeding through a daughter when there is no son? Numb chapter 27

Who decides what is important enough to read and what should be skipped if it is all really as some would say, the "word" of God?

It may be placed on the shelf the first nine times it is read seemingly as tasteless, dry, dead sawdust [no salt, no water, no Life], but then on the tenth time through, Voila!

Give God the glory!

 

[Wafer]

The first word of the bible proves it was divinely inspired.

Genesis 1:1 King James Version (KJV)
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The bible was written by very religious people. If they wrote a grocery list they would write the name of God at the top. If they had written that by themselves it would have said "God created the heaven and the earth in the beginning." They would have put God first. But God puts his word above His name. Words in the bible are defined by context, so "beginning" had to be the first word.

No man is that smart. It took several thousand years for some man to notice that had been done.

 

[Nancy]

Subject title..

Why do I believe that the bible is 100% inspired.
Inspired?
I sure have never found the book of Numbers one bit inspiring!!

Whenever I have felt like reading the bible from Gen - Rev...
I now SKIP the book of numbers having done it twice in my life is enough.
There may be a couple of 'gems' in there...but it is like eating sawdust!!

( but I am sure the OP is not all about that kind of inspiration!! lol 0

Hmmm...perhaps there are many gems in Numbers. Remember that Chuck Missler video you shared last year about the genealogies? (And how boring are those, lol!) Now, I was/still am awed by what he found in the Hebrew name meanings. I would never have given the video a second look if even the word "genealogy" were in the Title, lol.

 

[shnarkle]

Think about the passages in the Bible:
Maybe God inspired some "chunks" of thought in the Bible, but not all. He was using human instruments. And we see down through history that he allows his human instruments to make errors - sometimes enormous, egregious errors. The good gets mixed with the bad. Why should we assume the Bible is any different?

Here's one that is still found in some translations which after some critical thinking can be seen to be clearly uninspired. It's a parenthetical remark that makes no sense to the subject matter. It is found at Mark 7:19, and states: "(thus he declared all food clean)".

The subject is washing hands before eating,, and Christ's conclusion is that eating with unwashed hands does not defile anyone. He points out where defilement originates which is in a person's heart so nothing that enters into a person's belly can defile them. Why? Because they're already defiled, and washing their hands can never cleanse anyone from their ontological state of defilement.

The remark makes no sense, especially to the Jewish mind because the only way food can be unclean is if it is rotten. No one would ever think that Christ was suggesting that eating rotten food was acceptable.

Some assume that this remark is declaring that it is now acceptable to eat swine and shellfish, but this doesn't work because swine and shellfish are not considered food anymore than rocks, wood, hair or pottery are considered food.

The context has Jesus pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees for nullifying the commandments with their traditions, but what sense does it make for Christ to then turn right around and do the exact same thing?

This parenthetical remark originally showed up as a marginal note by a scribe, and it only appears in the Codex Bezai around 400 AD. Jpeg images of the text are available online, but the remark isn't visible because the image doesn't show the marginal notes, just the text itself.

It only migrated into the texts of translations. It is not only not inspired, it's ridiculous nonsense.

 

[shnarkle]

I would answer it like this:

There are literally hundreds of prophecies about Jesus in the old Testament that He fulfilled. He couldn't have consciously fulfilled them all if he were a mere human being because some of them had to do with how He was conceived and how He was born.

Secondly - the OT types that were fulfilled in the NT are simply too complicated and and perfect to NOT have been planned by God. For example, takes Moses and Jesus:
- Moses was born and hidden from the Pharoah to save him from the Pharoah's death decree.
- Jesus was born and hidden from King Herod to save Him from Herod's death decree.

- Many innocent babies were killed in search of the "Newborn Deliverer".
- Many innocent babies were killed in search of the "Newborn King".

- Moses was the Deliverer.
- Jesus was the Deliverer.

- Moses gave the People of God the Law, written on stone tablets.
- Jesus gave the People of God the Law written on their hearts.

This is just one example of MANY types and fulfillments. There would have been NO way for men living in different centuries to conspire to make up the prophecies in the OT - let alone having them fulfilled in the NT.

It has been estimated that the probability of ONE man "accidentally" fulfilling ALL of the OT prophecies regarding the Messiah would be somewhere in the QUADRILLIONS. And those are only the prophecies about HIM - excluding the ones about everything else.

I think the onus is on the Agnostic or the Atheist to prove the bible wrong - in light of the overwhelming evidence . . .

Scholars have noticed the exact same evidence you just posted, and come to the conclusion that the authors are intentionally drawing a comparison between the two accounts. They're intentionally showing Jesus as a new Moses.

What's even more remarkable is that if you were to look at the readings that are read over the course of the Jewish liturgical calendar, the gospels match up like a hand into a glove. The references are just as pervasive throughout the rest of the year. This has led quite a few scholars and theologians to conclude that the gospel narratives were originally developed to accompany the Jewish feast days. They all fall in the same chronological order.

 

[aspen]

Hmmm...perhaps there are many gems in Numbers. Remember that Chuck Missler video you shared last year about the genealogies? (And how boring are those, lol!) Now, I was/still am awed by what he found in the Hebrew name meanings. I would never have given the video a second look if even the word "genealogy" were in the Title, lol.

I think it is funny to watch some preacher pretend though....ha

 

[BreadOfLife]

Scholars have noticed the exact same evidence you just posted, and come to the conclusion that the authors are intentionally drawing a comparison between the two accounts. They're intentionally showing Jesus as a new Moses.

What's even more remarkable is that if you were to look at the readings that are read over the course of the Jewish liturgical calendar, the gospels match up like a hand into a glove. The references are just as pervasive throughout the rest of the year. This has led quite a few scholars and theologians to conclude that the gospel narratives were originally developed to accompany the Jewish feast days. They all fall in the same chronological order.

And, as I indicated before – the comparisons with Moses are only a very small piece of the prophetical pie.

It would have been impossible for the hundreds of prophecies to have been fulfilled so perfectly - and for it to have been nothing more than a giant multi-generational “conspiracy” as you posit. The NT writers weren’t that smart or cunning.

Granted, you had a Jewish scholar (Paul) and a doctor (Luke) – but the rest were strictly uneducated, tradesman. You also have to take into consideration the fact that they were all willing to die such horrible deaths for something that YOU theorize was probably a hoax - even the educated ones.

It simply doesn’t add up . . .

 

[shnarkle]

And, as I indicated before – the comparisons with Moses are only a very small piece of the prophetical pie.

Beside the point. The point is that the parallels are consistent and pervasive throughout the gospel narratives.

It would have been impossible for the hundreds of prophecies to have been fulfilled so perfectly

Not when one is simply drawing comparisons as a literary device to show how important it is to manifest God's will in our daily lives.

- and for it to have been nothing more than a giant multi-generational “conspiracy” as you posit.

Nowhere have I suggested a conspiracy, multi-generational or otherwise.

The NT writers weren’t that smart or cunning.

It doesn't require cunning to be an observant Jew, or to participate in their liturgy. When what they've been presenting for over a decade is then written down, it only requires a scribe.

Granted, you had a Jewish scholar (Paul) and a doctor (Luke) – but the rest were strictly uneducated, tradesman.

Not those who wrote these accounts down. You're ignoring the fact that these accounts all originated and developed within the Jewish synagogues.

You also have to take into consideration the fact that they were all willing to die such horrible deaths for something that YOU theorize was probably a hoax

Again, nowhere have I suggested that anyone was dying to defend a hoax. This is one of the many Strawman arguments that are presented without evidence to back them up. There is this assumption that Christians were rounded up simply for believing in a bodily resurrection. This is pure mythology. The reasons for Christian persecution are well documented, and a bodily resurrection was never something that any Christian was ever forced to recant, except of course those who denied this TO THE CHURCH INQUISITORS.

No, Christians were persecuted for their radical lifestyle. They associated with the dregs of society. They were easily identifiable along with their Jewish brethren, and were so closely associated with them that when Jews were being persecuted, Christians were as well. Christians had the nasty habit of saving discarded infants from the more well to do. This presented a problem for those who were not interested in having some illegitimate offspring show up ten or fifteen years later looking for a handout, or their share of an inheritance. Christian ideology presented a threat not only the status quo, but to the empire due to their allegiance to a foreign god. This was primarily due to the fact that Christianity was beginning to become popular among the more afluent in society.

 

[Bobby Jo]

It would have been impossible for the hundreds of prophecies to have been fulfilled so perfectly ...

There are SO MANY so called "fulfilled prophecies" that are NOT fulfilled as the commentators/expositors assert, that it would fill a BOOK. But people who don't know what they're talking about simply repeat the untruths/distortions/mis-representations/lies of others.


And for this audience, consider the simple passage in Daniel 9:25 where MOST "translations" assert "seven and sixty-two". Newton observed that NO society in the history of mankind has ever used TWO "non-incremental" numbers which needed to be summed to achieve the intended value. For example:

Four score and ten; a dozen and a half; a mile and a quarter; etc. are legitimate. But who buys a pair of shoes that cost seven and sixty-two dollars plus tax? -- I CHALLENGE ANYONE to cite ONE EXAMPLE in Scripture or History which supports the "translator" version, -- versus the RSV and a hand full of other CORRECTLY reflected as SEPARATE VALUES withe SEPARATE INFERENCES:

Dan. 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.​

And of course, verse 26 DEMANDS a SECOND "anointed one"/"messiah" (small "a"/"m"):

Dan. 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.​

Bobby Jo

PS Israel has NEVER had a "moat", so what DID they have?

 

[Enoch111]

Dan. 9:25 Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

This is simply A PERVERSION of the actual Scripture verse. It is not even close to correct. What your false translation is suggesting is that Jerusalem was being restored and built for 62 x 7 = 434 years. That is is bizarre, absurd, and preposterous. Just like most of your interpretations.

 

[Nancy]

I think it is funny to watch some preacher pretend though....ha

Ahaha...yeah, it's crazy what some of them do, say and act.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Beside the point. The point is that the parallels are consistent and pervasive throughout the gospel narratives.
Not when one is simply drawing comparisons as a literary device to show how important it is to manifest God's will in our daily lives.
Nowhere have I suggested a conspiracy, multi-generational or otherwise.

It doesn't require cunning to be an observant Jew, or to participate in their liturgy. When what they've been presenting for over a decade is then written down, it only requires a scribe.

Not those who wrote these accounts down. You're ignoring the fact that these accounts all originated and developed within the Jewish synagogues.

Again, nowhere have I suggested that anyone was dying to defend a hoax. This is one of the many Strawman arguments that are presented without evidence to back them up. There is this assumption that Christians were rounded up simply for believing in a bodily resurrection. This is pure mythology. The reasons for Christian persecution are well documented, and a bodily resurrection was never something that any Christian was ever forced to recant, except of course those who denied this TO THE CHURCH INQUISITORS.

No, Christians were persecuted for their radical lifestyle. They associated with the dregs of society. They were easily identifiable along with their Jewish brethren, and were so closely associated with them that when Jews were being persecuted, Christians were as well. Christians had the nasty habit of saving discarded infants from the more well to do. This presented a problem for those who were not interested in having some illegitimate offspring show up ten or fifteen years later looking for a handout, or their share of an inheritance. Christian ideology presented a threat not only the status quo, but to the empire due to their allegiance to a foreign god. This was primarily due to the fact that Christianity was beginning to become popular among the more afluent in society.

No - Christians were originally persecuted by pagan Rome because Nero put the blame on them for burning the city down.

If you studied your history - you would know the lies that were concocted about them to make them SEEM radical - and even cannibalistic. The writers of the day accused them of everything from incest to murdering and eating babies.

As for the accounts of the life of Christ - NOT sure where you get your bizarre ideas that they were hatched in the synagogues. They were passed on by the TWELVE who lived with Him during His ministry. Again - for your charges to be true - this would have required a massive multi-generational conspiracy. Many of the things simply couldn't be made up anyway.

For example - the name of Bethlehem means "House of Bread". Jesus is the Bread of Life. The Manna that came down from Heaven precedes the name of Bethlehem. No later conspiracy could have invented this.
Of the 300 or so prophecies fulfilled by Jesus - there were ZERO errors. The chances of this happening, as I stated in my first post, has been estimated to be around one in ONE QUADRILLION.

Not even OJ's DNA had that kind of a solid case . . .

 

[brakelite]

Here's one that is still found in some translations which after some critical thinking can be seen to be clearly uninspired. It's a parenthetical remark that makes no sense to the subject matter. It is found at Mark 7:19, and states: "(thus he declared all food clean)".

The subject is washing hands before eating,, and Christ's conclusion is that eating with unwashed hands does not defile anyone. He points out where defilement originates which is in a person's heart so nothing that enters into a person's belly can defile them. Why? Because they're already defiled, and washing their hands can never cleanse anyone from their ontological state of defilement.

The remark makes no sense, especially to the Jewish mind because the only way food can be unclean is if it is rotten. No one would ever think that Christ was suggesting that eating rotten food was acceptable.

Some assume that this remark is declaring that it is now acceptable to eat swine and shellfish, but this doesn't work because swine and shellfish are not considered food anymore than rocks, wood, hair or pottery are considered food.

The context has Jesus pointing out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees for nullifying the commandments with their traditions, but what sense does it make for Christ to then turn right around and do the exact same thing?

This parenthetical remark originally showed up as a marginal note by a scribe, and it only appears in the Codex Bezai around 400 AD. Jpeg images of the text are available online, but the remark isn't visible because the image doesn't show the marginal notes, just the text itself.

It only migrated into the texts of translations. It is not only not inspired, it's ridiculous nonsense.

I have wondered about that before... Thank you for that explanation. And on that basis I can do nothing but agree.

 

[brakelite]

Subject title..

Why do I believe that the bible is 100% inspired.
Inspired?
I sure have never found the book of Numbers one bit inspiring!!

Whenever I have felt like reading the bible from Gen - Rev...
I now SKIP the book of numbers having done it twice in my life is enough.
There may be a couple of 'gems' in there...but it is like eating sawdust!!

( but I am sure the OP is not all about that kind of inspiration!! lol 0

Numbers is one of favourite books. I have several sermons based on excerpts from that book. The story of Balaam alone holds many lessons.

 

[TheWind]

1. Think about the set of books in the Bible (the canon):
Historically, the way we got our canon of books is that humans got together, made up some criteria that made sense to them, and decided which books were in and which were out. Now, I don’t know about you, but I have very low faith in the fallibility of humans. To err is human, after all! So how do we know they didn't make mistakes?

Maybe we have too little -- There could be books that God inspired, that were lost or left out of the cannon.
Maybe we have too much -- There could be books that are NOT inspired, that made it in.
(Maybe NONE of it is actually inspired.... !?)

2. Think about the passages in the Bible:
Maybe God inspired some "chunks" of thought in the Bible, but not all. He was using human instruments. And we see down through history that he allows his human instruments to make errors - sometimes enormous, egregious errors. The good gets mixed with the bad. Why should we assume the Bible is any different?

3. Think about the words in the Bible:
Maybe God didn't "inspire" any of it, in the sense that it came from him infallibly. Maybe all of the words in the Bible are really just the writings of wise, godly men. These men were venerated because they were held to be saints and leaders, and thus their works took on a revered quality. It's easy to see how something could go from starting out as a wise writing by your mentor, to being a useful guide advising your church, to being THE guide for faith and practice, to being divinely inspired.

I know the words in the king James bible are of God: because I know God's voice.