How Reliable is the Bible?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Matthew4Jesus

Senior Member
May 7, 2011
258
5
18
#1
I looked it up, and the bible was assembled in the catholic church in the 400's... I mean really? I am just curious that's all. Any light shed on this matter would be greatly appreciated!!
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#2
Up for a long read?

Scripture Speaks for Itself by John Frame <--- click




"Belgic Confession 5 declares: 'We receive all these books, and these only, as holy and canonical, for the regulation, foundation, and confirmation of our faith; believing, without any doubt, all things contained in them, not so much because the church receives and approves them as such, but more especially because the Holy Spirit witnesses in our hearts that they are from God, whereof they carry the evidence in themselves.' Gallican Confession 4 says: 'We know these books to be canonical, and the sure rule of our faith, not so much by the common accord and consent of the church as by the testimony and inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, which enables us to distinguish them from other ecclesiastical books, upon which, however useful, we cannot found any articles of faith." (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology P. 149)
Why 66, Part 4: How Do We Know the Bible Is True? - Answers in Genesis <--- click
 

cronjecj

Banned [Reason: ongoing "extreme error/heresy" Den
Sep 25, 2011
1,934
13
0
#3
Scripture on the words of God,

Isaiah 30:8
Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book,
that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever.

Isaiah 34:16
Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail,
none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

Psalm 12:6-7
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
 

cronjecj

Banned [Reason: ongoing "extreme error/heresy" Den
Sep 25, 2011
1,934
13
0
#4
By faith we believe that all scripture in the holy bible is given by inspiration of God.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#5
Manuscript Evidence
Archaeological Evidence
Prophecies fulfilled
Scientific foreknowledge

Internal unity

These all contribute to the conclusion that the Bible is divine rather than human in origin. As such it is reliable.
 
Oct 2, 2011
416
3
0
#6
I looked it up, and the bible was assembled in the catholic church in the 400's... I mean really? I am just curious that's all. Any light shed on this matter would be greatly appreciated!!
The Canon itself was compiled in the late 4th early 5th century. However the O.T. canon was recognized even in Jesus' day, and the book that later became the N.T. were recognized as scripture by the 1st century church long before the canonization of the bible itself.
 
C

CanadaNZ

Guest
#7
I looked it up, and the bible was assembled in the catholic church in the 400's... I mean really? I am just curious that's all. Any light shed on this matter would be greatly appreciated!!
The bible was put in the current order in around the 400s, BUT they did not write or change the book, they only decided which books to include as there are those that have false teaching, such as the Gospel of Thomas. The bible was written much earlier, we can recreate the New Testament word for word, minus 7 verses, from letters written between 1st century churches.
 
Mar 2, 2010
537
3
0
#8
Very near the beginning of this article the author explicitly states that we must begin with Christian rather than rationalistic assumptions! I'm not sure if I need to explain why this is a problem or not, but hopefully the article is read with a grain of salt.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#9
Very near the beginning of this article the author explicitly states that we must begin with Christian rather than rationalistic assumptions! I'm not sure if I need to explain why this is a problem or not, but hopefully the article is read with a grain of salt.
Is God's revealed word an ultimate source of ultimate truth? If so, how can any lesser truth be right when it contradicts the ultimate source of ultimate truth?


That's all it really is. It's difficult to grasp at first, when you're not used to thinking presuppositionally but if you're looking to establish things by means of exhaustive explainations you're going to have trouble verifying that your five senses are accurate in reporting reality/actuality to you, without appealing to the accuracy of the five senses which is a circular argument. Circularity isn't always a problem.



The below is a portion of an email exchange between myself and someone who was once a user here at CC.

The question I asked him was this: "How do we know that the five senses accurately report the reality of the world, without being circular?"

His response is below.

One's ultimate foundation or starting point will be circular. That's inescapable, but it's also not necessarily a problem. Let's say that I claim empiricism is my ultimate foundation. You ask "How do you know empiricism is true?" If I say "By logic" then I've made logic my ultimate foundation and not empiricism. That just moves the question to "How do you know your logic is reliable?" if I say empiricism then I've just created a circle. In this case, it's a vicious circle. Most philosophers distinguish between two types of circular arguments: those which are viciously circular and those which are non-viciously circular (or broad circularity).

Only vicious circularity (where the circle is very small) is considered fallacious. For example, the philosopher A. P. Martinich, who as far as I know is not a Christian, has written &#8220;if circularity is spread over a great many analyses (the more, the better), it may cease to constitute a defect&#8221; (Philosophical Writing, p. 102). The philosophers Julian Baggini and Peter S. Fosl (I know Baggini is an atheist, not sure about Fosl) write: &#8220;Are all circular arguments vicious? Not necessarily&#8221; (The Philosopher&#8217;s Toolkit, 1st ed., p. 78) and they go on to explain that an argument which has premises that can be independently verified is not viciously circular.

Ultimately, every argument or all of our reasoning has broad circularity to it if we try to articulate our entire chain of thought. The only alternative to this is an infinite regress where you never get to any sort of justification. But ideas which are broadly circular can receive a type of justification through a transcendental argument (not to be confused with transcendent). Transcendental arguments (TAs) ask &#8220;Given &#8216;x&#8217; what must be the case?&#8221; There is a school of apologetics called Presuppositionalism which specializes in this argument called. It&#8217;s discussed in your Five Views on Apologetics book (by John Frame) and happens to be the school of thought that I belong to. But there is a lot more that can be said here (there are Clarkians who call themselves presuppositionalist too, but have important differences and there are two different views of TAs in the presuppositionalist school that I follow (called VanTilian presuppositionalism from its formulator Cornelius Van Til). Here is an example of a TA by a VanTilian presuppositionalist: http://www.proginosko.com/docs/IfKnowledgeThenGod.pdf but by far the most famous example of a TA being used is this: The Great Debate: Does God Exist? Bahnsen/Stein -- 1 of 2 Mp3 (the Christian in this debate, Greg Bahnsen, is actually the best debater I&#8217;ve ever heard. Even better (far better?) than William Lane Craig in my opinion. Unfortunately, he died in 1995 at the age of 40 while undergoing heart surgery. I don&#8217;t agree with all of Bahnsen&#8217;s positions, but I&#8217;ve never heard anyone who was quicker on their feet than him. At the time of the debate he was relatively unknown and the atheist he was debating, Gordon Stein, was considered the one of the prominent atheists around.)



So what is the relevancy?




Scripture being a revelation from God is an ultimate source of ultimate truth(God). So anything that disagrees with it, is going to be wrong.

An example: You may not be able to explain on a scientific level (indeed I think AIG and ICR fail at this in many ways) how God created the world in 6, 24 hour days, but because "the bible says so I believe it" presuppositionally we don't "have" to address it. Only if we base ourselves in human reasoning rather than scripture do we have to account for the rationality of men walking on water, talking donkies, healing of leppers, etc etc.. While I don't think those things are irrational and will certainly argue for them rationally, if we find that it were to contradict scripture we must believe because scripture is a more foundational revelation of truth, that somewhere in the process of thinking and logical argumentation an error was made, regardless of whether we know what it is or is not.




Similar to when you are working with calculus, or indeed any mathematical forumula in which you know what the answer is, but not how the answer was derived. If in the process of solveing the problem we discover that our answer will not be what we know it should be, do we have to know where we went wrong to know that we were indeed wrong? No. That's the same with the biblical canon.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#10
Is God's revealed word an ultimate source of ultimate truth? If so, how can any lesser truth be right when it contradicts the ultimate source of ultimate truth?


That's all it really is. It's difficult to grasp at first, when you're not used to thinking presuppositionally but if you're looking to establish things by means of exhaustive explainations you're going to have trouble verifying that your five senses are accurate in reporting reality/actuality to you, without appealing to the accuracy of the five senses which is a circular argument. Circularity isn't always a problem.



The below is a portion of an email exchange between myself and someone who was once a user here at CC.

The question I asked him was this: "How do we know that the five senses accurately report the reality of the world, without being circular?"

His response is below.






So what is the relevancy?




Scripture being a revelation from God is an ultimate source of ultimate truth(God). So anything that disagrees with it, is going to be wrong.

An example: You may not be able to explain on a scientific level (indeed I think AIG and ICR fail at this in many ways) how God created the world in 6, 24 hour days, but because "the bible says so I believe it" presuppositionally we don't "have" to address it. Only if we base ourselves in human reasoning rather than scripture do we have to account for the rationality of men walking on water, talking donkies, healing of leppers, etc etc.. While I don't think those things are irrational and will certainly argue for them rationally, if we find that it were to contradict scripture we must believe because scripture is a more foundational revelation of truth, that somewhere in the process of thinking and logical argumentation an error was made, regardless of whether we know what it is or is not.




Similar to when you are working with calculus, or indeed any mathematical forumula in which you know what the answer is, but not how the answer was derived. If in the process of solveing the problem we discover that our answer will not be what we know it should be, do we have to know where we went wrong to know that we were indeed wrong? No. That's the same with the biblical canon.
 

ada

Banned
Aug 25, 2011
402
2
0
#11
But do not exalt earthly scripture about God's spirit and entity!
This would be a man made limitation and a heresy also.
Our Scripture is a road map, translated,soften, burned,
and sometime even corrupted as the jewish masonic bible,
or even the satanic bible from jew anton lavey.
God is so much greater then our earthly road map.
How else could he himself as Jesus Christ did it all by himself!
Why? Cause no one ever could do it and has greater love
as God for his beloved once to even give his live for his Children!
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#12
But do not exalt earthly scripture about God's spirit and entity!
This would be a man made limitation and a heresy also.
Our Scripture is a road map, translated,soften, burned,
and sometime even corrupted as the jewish masonic bible,
or even the satanic bible from jew anton lavey.
God is so much greater then our earthly road map.
How else could he himself as Jesus Christ did it all by himself!
Why? Cause no one ever could do it and has greater love
as God for his beloved once to even give his live for his Children!
Jesus was a Jew. That's why his name is really a Hebrew name. Yeshua.
 

ada

Banned
Aug 25, 2011
402
2
0
#13
Jesus was a Jew. That's why his name is really a Hebrew name. Yeshua.
No Jesus Christ was not a jew.
He is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit and born from the Holy Spirit.

He call himself a Nazarene from the gentile part of Galilee.
By the way.Jews are not jews they are khazar,edomites like their king herod
who killed all baby boys cause of the fear of the coming messiah,called Jesus.
The wailing wall is nothing else than parts of herod's temple.
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#14
No Jesus Christ was not a jew.
He is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit and born from the Holy Spirit.

He call himself a Nazarene from the gentile part of Galilee.
By the way.Jews are not jews they are khazar,edomites like their king herod
who killed all baby boys cause of the fear of the coming messiah,called Jesus.
The wailing wall is nothing else than parts of herod's temple.
It's all a giant Jewish Conspiracy.
 
S

Scotth1960

Guest
#15
I looked it up, and the bible was assembled in the catholic church in the 400's... I mean really? I am just curious that's all. Any light shed on this matter would be greatly appreciated!!
Matthew, Should not the question be, "How reliable is your interpretation of the Bible"? Or my interpretation for that matter. No Bible verse is of any private interpretation. God save us. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington Nov. 2011 AD
 
J

jimmydiggs

Guest
#16
Matthew, Should not the question be, "How reliable is your interpretation of the Bible"? Or my interpretation for that matter. No Bible verse is of any private interpretation. God save us. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington Nov. 2011 AD

I think his original question is a better one to begin with, the question you raise comes next.

One could have a right interpretation of the wrong text. ;)
 
K

kayem77

Guest
#17
No Jesus Christ was not a jew.
He is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit and born from the Holy Spirit.

He call himself a Nazarene from the gentile part of Galilee.
By the way.Jews are not jews they are khazar,edomites like their king herod
who killed all baby boys cause of the fear of the coming messiah,called Jesus.
The wailing wall is nothing else than parts of herod's temple.
huh??!
All I can say is...God bless you.
 
A

AtonedFor

Guest
#18
I looked it up, and the bible was assembled in the catholic church in the 400's... I mean really?
I am just curious that's all. Any light shed on this matter would be greatly appreciated!!
Your Bible is as accurate, and/or as trustworthy, as the Holy Spirit tells you it is.

Several times in John 14 thru 16, Jesus promises that the Holy Spirit will be IN you, and will teach you all things.

Since He hasn't yet made the answer to your question clear to you, why not ask Him?
.
 
S

Steve4U

Guest
#19
Appreciating all these posts,

I fully accept the reliablity of the Bible. God is well able to bring about the assembly of the Bible as we have it, and I believe He has done so.

Further, I accept it to fully rely on it as what God has given me to bellieve. I recognise that a lifetime of study and knowledge will bring me no closer in measure to His infinite knowledge.

And now I can walk in freedom, being available to what the Spirit of God would say to me, through the minutes of the day.

Best wishes to you all in Christ.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
#20
Matthew, Should not the question be, "How reliable is your interpretation of the Bible"? Or my interpretation for that matter. No Bible verse is of any private interpretation. God save us. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington Nov. 2011 AD
scott:
why do you quote men, and worse, scripture out of context?

1 Peter 1
Christ&#8217;s Glory and the Prophetic Word
16For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, &#8220;This is my beloved Son,i with whom I am well pleased,&#8221; 18we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone&#8217;s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

SOLA SCRIPTURA!