proof for the inspiration of the Bible

[ronald205nc]

Here are some evidences that the Bible is inspired by God, as declared in 2 Timothy 3:16.

1) Fulfilled prophecy. God spoke to men telling them of things He would bring about in the future. Some of them have already occurred. Others have not. For example, there were more than 300 prophecies concerning Jesus Christ's first coming 2,000 years ago. There is no doubt that these are prophecies from God because of manuscripts and scrolls dated before the birth of Christ. These were not written after the fact. They were written beforehand. Scientific dating proves this.

2) The unity of Scripture. The Bible was written by approximately 40 human authors over a period of approximately 1,600 years. These men were quite diverse. Moses, a political leader; Joshua, a military leader; David, a shepherd; Solomon, a king; Amos, a herdsman and fruit picker; Daniel, a prime minister; Matthew, a tax collector; Luke, a medical doctor; Paul, a rabbi; and Peter, a fisherman; among others. The Bible was also written under a variety of circumstances. It was written on 3 different continents, Europe, Asia, and Africa. Yet, the great themes of Scripture are maintained in all the writings. The Bible does not contradict itself. There is no way, apart from God the Holy Spirit supervising the writing of the Bible, that this could have been accomplished.

Contrast this with the Islamic Koran. It was compiled by one individual, Zaid bin Thabit, under the guidance of Mohammed's father-in-law, Abu-Bekr. Then in A.D. 650, a group of Arab scholars produced a unified version and destroyed all variant copies to preserve the unity of the Koran. The Bible was unified from the time of its writing. The Koran had to be unified through the editing of men.

3) The Bible presents its heroes truthfully with all of their faults and weaknesses. It does not glorify men as other religions do about their heroes. When you read the Bible, you realize that the people it describes have problems and do wrong just as we do. What made them great was that they trusted in God. One example is David. David is described as “a man after God's own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14). Yet, David committed adultery (2 Samuel 11:1-5) and murder (2 Samuel 11:14-26). This could have been left out of Scripture to hide these details of David's life. But God included these things.

4) Archaeological findings support the history recorded in Scripture. Though many unbelieving people throughout history have tried to find archaeological evidence to disprove what is recorded in the Bible, they have failed. It is easy to say that Scripture is untrue. Proving it to be untrue is a different story. It has not been done. In fact, in the past the Bible contradicted the current “scientific” theories, only to be proven later to be in fact true. A good example is Isaiah 40:22, which declared that God “sits on the circle of the earth” long before scientists claimed the earth was flat.

The Bible’s claims of being from God should not be understood as arguing in a circle or by circular reasoning. The testimony of reliable witnesses - particularly of Jesus, but also of others such as Moses, Joshua, David, Daniel, and Nehemiah in the Old Testament, and John and Paul in the New Testament - affirm the authority and verbal inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Consider the following passages: Exodus 14:1; 20:1; Leviticus 4:1; Numbers 4:1; Deuteronomy 4:2; 32:48; Isaiah 1:10, 24; Jeremiah 1:11; Jeremiah 11:1–3; Ezekiel 1:3; 1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:16–21; 1 John 4:6.

Also of interest are the writings of Josephus, an historian who recorded much of the history of Israel during the first century. In this he records some events which coincide with Scripture. Beware though, his writings are rather lengthy. Considering the evidence given, we have no choice but to accept the Bible as being from God (2 Timothy 3:16).

[nerfball]

[Scrum]

Do people actually believe this stuff?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

In response to your post, I'm not a historian, archaeologist, expert on isalm or expert on christianity, all of which I would have to be in order to validate your claims. And any God which requires his adherents be all those things to recognize him from charlatans is either sadistic or too stupid to think of a less faulty way of herding his sheep. Or, of course, he could not exist at all. In any event, I want no part of him.

[lew]

Lot of hate on Christianity going on in this thread

[Linzyhop]

Originally Posted by lew

Lot of hate on Christianity going on in this thread

there's a difference between most Christians (who I have no problem with whatsoever) and those fanatics that push it as it's the only choice and if you don't believe it, you're burning in eternal hellfire.

as far as I'm concerned, those from column B are showing exactly how un-christian they are.

[Roonie]

Originally Posted by Linzyhop

there's a difference between most Christians (who I have no problem with whatsoever) and those fanatics that push it as it's the only choice and if you don't believe it, you're burning in eternal hellfire.

as far as I'm concerned, those from column B are showing exactly how un-christian they are.

exactly.......... I am a church going Roman Catholic but I would not ever think of defending these types of folks.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

Lot of hate on Christianity going on in this thread

qft

Tolerance is what liberals stand for.

[Dylith]

Originally Posted by ronald205nc

Contrast this with the Islamic Koran. It was compiled by one individual, Zaid bin Thabit, under the guidance of Mohammed's father-in-law, Abu-Bekr. Then in A.D. 650, a group of Arab scholars produced a unified version and destroyed all variant copies to preserve the unity of the Koran. The Bible was unified from the time of its writing. The Koran had to be unified through the editing of men.

The Qur'an was written down right after Muhammad's death by someone who witnessed the revelations first hand and who had most of it memorized (as did much of the Umma at that time). The first generation of Muslims were still alive when it was made and agreed upon by those who lived through the creation of Islam. In Christianity we see many many different books being used by many different groups of people, which were all written well after the actual events took place.

I have more trust in the wording of the Qur'an than I do in the wording of the Bible. Not saying that Islam is more plausable than Christianity, but I don't doubt that most of what Muhammad actually "revealed" is contained in the Qur'an.

Where the issue of who said what becomes relevant is when we start talking about Islamic hadith.

[up|dn]

1. No prophecies, that I know of, have ever been fulfilled except through special pleading. Instead, stories were written with the express purpose of "proving" prophecy, while others were written long after the so-called prophecied events (book of Daniel for example).

2. You've gotta be kidding. Except for the fact that certain people chose the books (people with theological motivations) there is very little unity even between the books themselves. Compare Galatians and James, for instance. They're pretty much diametrically opposed.

3. This shows you know nothing about other religions or myths.

4. Many archeological findings contradict scripture. The Philistines and domesticated camels are two easy ones (they don't exist till much later than the Bible's timetable places them), but then there's the fact that no evidence for a Davidic kingdom has ever been found. For more info, have a look at 'The Bible Unearthed', by Silberman and Finklestein.

[redwards]

Originally Posted by lew

Lot of hate on Christianity going on in this thread

Isn't that what the internet is for?

[imind]

Originally Posted by lew

Lot of hate on Christianity going on in this thread

could you provide examples from post 1-4? i see non-believers, certainly, but wheres the hate?

[jimeigh]

holy shit, i'm convinced. very scientific of you. i'm glad you went through all that trouble.

[hereticzero]

Crap! Josephus writings have been shown by scholars to have been changed since 1150 CE to indicate Jesus the Christ, where it did not exist before. Such authors wrote of over 13 different Jesus' and none of whom were claimed to the Christ. A claim that god directed the writings of the bible shows delusional thinking and brain washing. There is no proof the bible is true, while there is much indication the bible is a forgery written by unknown authors. Ancient texts in possession of the Vatican or other revealed religion is hardly proof of anything, considering the Catholics were known for making up crap as they went and then beat it into the population at the point of the sword. So, go sell your religious crap somewhere else.

[AVengeance]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

qft

Tolerance is what liberals stand for.

Yes, but since the Bible tells Christians they should be intolerant, it doesn't count as intolerance to be intolerant of them.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Yes, but since the Bible tells Christians they should be intolerant, it doesn't count as intolerance to be intolerant of them.