Hello forum readers,

I sincerely hope I posted this in the right place. I wasn't quite sure what the best forum on this site would be, so I decided to err on the side of caution.

I was raised, since birth, as a Seventh-day Adventist. I went to cradle roll, I went to an SDA elementary school, to SDA summer camp, SDA junior high, SDA high school, all of my friends at one point were Adventists, etc. I have therefore been exposed to the Seventh-day Adventist teachings and culture since birth.

I grew disillusioned with the legalism of the church, and stopped going. I haven't gone in 15 years or so. I have no real intention of going back. At this point, I'm basically an agnostic secular humanist. I still have friends in the Seventh-day Adventist church, but I'm pretty sure it's not for me.

My question is about the Bible. I was taught since birth that the Bible is the word of God. However, as I am re-examining all of my beliefs, I can't take anything as a given. I prefer to start from square one, with a clean slate and any previous misconceptions or misunderstandings eliminated. Just because we learned a song about it in early childhood does not ipso facto make it true.

I am not coming here to attack anyone, but I have some questions that I have never been able to get a straight answer to from any religious leaders.

The way I see it, most all of Christianity in general is based on the Bible. The Bible tells the story of creation, the flood, the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus, and the last days. Pretty much every discussion of Christian doctrine begins with the assumption that the Bible is the word of God, was divinely inspired, was transcribed correctly, was correct to begin with, etc. My question is about the accuracy of that assumption.

If Christianity is built upon a firm foundation, then I think it should be possible to prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the Bible is in fact the word of God. However, if no one knows for sure the origins of the Bible or a way to test it, then I have to ask, why should anyone believe it? If there is nothing that sets it apart, why should we listen to the Bible instead of some other competing scripture that makes supernatural claims, or no scriptures at all?

Here's what I have found in my research:

1) It seems that no one knows, with certainty, who wrote many of the books of the Bible, including the book of Genesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Ge ... omposition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_aut ... cholarship

2) There are many different versions of the Bible, and which books were selected for inclusion (and exclusion) was decided largely by the Roman Catholic Church in the 16th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen ... ment_canon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmen ... ment_canon

3) As far as I have seen (and I would love to be proven wrong here), I have not seen any bold specific predictions made by the Bible that can unambiguously said to have come true. Of course if you are willing to take a vague statement and try to apply it to current events you can do that, but you could do that with anything, and that alone is not proof of divine inspiration. In other words, I'm sure there are plenty of things where it might be true if you want to believe it, is there anything that could not be disputed? I'm looking for something like "In the Dead Sea Scrolls, they predicted that X would come true, and due to carbon dating we know that they were written before X happened", where X is a specific thing and not a generic statement like "A leader will rise to power in the East", or "Revelation says there will be trouble in the end days, and just look at all the trouble in the news" or something similarly non-descript.

Remember, just because the Bible contains references to major historical events that are corroborated with third party accounts isn't necessarily proof either. It's one thing to say yes, there was a guy named Jesus that lived a long time ago. It's another thing altogether to say that he was the son of God. To the best of my knowledge, there aren't any secular historical accounts that confirm the supernatural elements of the Bible. And again, when I say confirm, I mean confirm in the sense that an open minded but otherwise disinterested non-believer could look at it objectively and come to the conclusion that there really is something special going on here.

I sincerely welcome any corrections to areas in which I am mistaken, do not have correct facts, etc. I look forward to hearing the community's response.

Thank you.

I tend to believe that no such proof exists. Jesus said, "If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead." Luke 16:31. That statement from the Lord Jesus seems to put a severe limit on rational proof.

Another negative statement would be these words from Paul:

I don't believe that the Bible anywhere defends the notion of a rational proof.


I haven't read the Koran but I have read The Story of Buddha and I find it absolutely impossible to believe that a discerning mind would think that that book is a respectable alternative to the Christian gospels.


Sorry. Your conjecture is Biblical. As the Apostle Paul said, "prophecy is for believers, not for unbelievers." 1 Corinthians 14:22.


I believe that the Holy Spirit gives sufficient evidence for a rational faith to those who accept the gospel.

Thank you for responding to my post Eugene. I sincerely appreciate the time you took to respond to my questions.

Let me see if I understand this correctly, and please tell me if I have made any mistakes, or if there are gaps in my understanding:

1) There is no currently existing well known proof of the validity of the Bible at this time, where proof is defined as something that could reasonably convince anyone who had not accepted the Holy Spirit, etc.

2) The written stories of Moses and the Prophets, which includes the account of Jesus time on Earth, should be proof enough of the Bible. This proof will implicitly also validate the legitimacy of the Holy Spirit, since Moses and the Prophets convinced us of the Bible, and the Bible speaks of the Holy Spirit.

3) The Holy Spirit, after you have accepted Him into your heart, will provide the evidence that the stories in the Bible are real.

This seems to be a bit of a catch 22. Assuming I have understood this correctly, the "evidence" of the Bible's accuracy can only be obtained after you believe in the Bible!

I have not read the Koran or any of the Buddhist teachings myself, so I do not feel qualified to comment on those in particular. But I do have to ask, how can a major life choice be made based on what seems to be an obvious circular reference?

I am open minded and willing to consider anything reasonable. But to accept writings of unknown origin at face value and then confirm their accuracy with that same belief system seems risky. By this standard, I could take almost any book with supernatural claims and come to the exact same conclusion. How would I know if one was better than the other? Would one just feel right? How could I tell where those feelings came from?

I know you have already picked a side, but imagine this from the perspective of someone who does not have a vested interest in any particular outcome. Using this logic, any text making super natural claims could then be self-authenticating. Why not believe all of them? Or none of them?

Is the answer really "you just have to believe"? I have to believe there is more to the story than this.

Thank you again for your time. I look forward to hearing your response.

That is my understanding. Furthermore, I don't believe that any such proof will ever surface in the future, other than the supernatural judgments described in the book of Revelation; and then it will be too late to find favor with God.

The Bible makes it very clear that spiritual things are spiritually discerned:

"But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corinthians 2:14.


More specifically, Jesus was referring to the sad case of those who "do not listen to Moses and the Prophets" (Luke 16:31). I believe that the refusal to listen is the issue there.


Did I say that? Do you believe that you are interpreting the Bible correctly?

The Bible says:

"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

I personally believe that the gospels are the greatest evidence of the truth of Christ. The Apostle Paul makes it clear that the glory of the Old Covenant is far less powerful than the glory of the New Covenant.

"Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!" 2 Corinthians 3:7-11.


But what creates faith in the Bible? Revelation comes from being willing to obey God.

"If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own." John 7:17.


What is circular about the words of Jesus?

"So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives; and he who seeks, finds; and to him who knocks, it will be opened." Luke 11:9-10.


You are to seek but as yet you haven't done any real research. Read The Story of Buddha by Jonathan Landaw and then explain to me why you think the spiritual character of that book is indistinguishable from the New Testament gospels.

Hi Eugene,

I think where you and I probably differ is that I need externally validated proof to have supernatural beliefs.

Just to be clear, earlier I said "The Holy Spirit, after you have accepted Him into your heart, will provide the evidence that the stories in the Bible are real". I also said that I felt circular logic was on display, since it was a catch 22 that to validate the claims of the Bible you must also believe the Bible.

With the evidence I currently have, I stand by those claims. What I am not claiming is that there was something wrong in the Bible that didn't make sense, or that anything was inconsistent within the Bible texts that you had pointed out. What I am concerned with is that I currently have no reason to believe in any of the Bible texts, because as you have said, there doesn't seem to be any external proof of the Bible being correct.

When I described the situation as circular logic, or as a catch 22, that's exactly how it seems to me. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't matter what the exact contents are of the Buddhist teaching or any other religious tract. The thing at issue is that most religious belief systems make the following claims:

1) We have the truth
2) We have no proof of the accuracy of our claims
3) However, you should believe it anyway

These short articles by Carl Sagan probably sum up my search for external validation and evidence best. If what you tell me is true, that there is no external proof whatsoever, then it seems I may be forced to conclude that at best, we'll never know if the Bible story is real. I can't just start believing a book that make supernatural claims without any evidence, even if it is uplifting and might be internally consistent, any more than I can believe unverified new age health claims, unproven tales of psychic powers, unverified UFO sightings, etc.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganbur.htm
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html

AQ,

I believe that the following quotes are directly applicable to our discussion:

"If a religion is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Gödel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one." — Bertrand Russell.

"Suppose we loosely define a religion as any discipline whose foundations rest on an element of faith, irrespective of any element of reason which may be present. Quantum mechanics for example would be a religion under this definition. But mathematics would hold the unique position of being the only branch of theology possessing a rigorous demonstration of the fact that it should be so classified." — H. Eves, In Mathematical Circles, Boston: Prindle, Weber and Schmidt, 1969.

"All theory is against the freedom of the will, all experience is for it."

I have found many compelling reasons to accept the Bible as essentially historically accurate, thereby also establishing its authority in matters of God and salvation, but it took a lot of time and study. "You will seek Me and find Me when you search for Me with all your heart" Jeremiah 29:13. It doesn't matter that you haven't accepted the Holy Spirit into your heart; he's there to help you anyway, since none of us were able to come to God without help from God.

Unlike Eugene, I think there is, in fact, proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is the word of God, what some philosophers call a "hard apologetic." However, we are not fully rational creatures; we see what we want to see, we listen to who we want to listen to. Though such proof may exist, we are not wired to dispassionately evaluate it when we would have to either die to self before the Holy One or self-righteously see the faithful of the world as weak and deluded. Consider the motivation of science writers such as Richard Dawkins and Paul Davies. It seems to me they rejected the idea of humbling themselves before God and then found reasons not to.

I grew up in the SDA church, and when I was in college it became clear that I didn't know why I believed what I believed, and that meant I didn't fully believe. I attended a public university and the attitude of many of the professors was hostile to faith in anything but science and natural causes, and the constant bombardment eroded what little foundation I had in reasons for accepting the Scriptures as true. I had a philosophy of religion class that examined many of the logical "proofs" of God's existence (ontological, teleological, cosmological, anthropic, etc) and found reason to doubt each. Even though I knew the heart of an argument for the reliability of the Gospels would lean on history and not logical proofs, it was still a big blow to my faith. Then I began to read more widely, including many agnostic and self-proclaimed "infidel" websites. If I didn't have counterbalancing Christian apologetics available to me which disputed the infidels' supposed "facts" I could have easily been swept away by their arguments.

In my opinion the best arguments for the Bible establish the reliability of its account of Jesus' death and resurrection. William Lane Craig's "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth And Apologetics" argues convincingly for the resurrection from evidence for the empty tomb, the resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith. If Jesus rose from the dead, all sorts of other supernatural events are possible. If Jesus rose from the dead, it also vindicated the radical claims he made about himself.

You may be familiar with C.S. Lewis' trilemma, that Jesus' claims about himself leave us with only three alternatives: that he was Lord, liar, or a lunatic. Though I think this argument is strong when properly considered, many agnostics would say it's unfair because it assumes parts of the Gospel record are correct. Therefore I would recommend a book such as Craig Blomberg's "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels," which critically examines alleged inconsistencies among the Gospels and examines the historical method. I've never read it straight though (though only 250 or so pages, it's a dense study) but I found it reasonable and helpful in lessening my skepticism of the Gospels.

I would also recommend two websites with caveats. J.P. Holding's tektonics.org has been helpful to me for evaluating the claims of atheists and infidels. He is familiar with a large variety of scholarly works and makes good use of this knowledge when meeting atheist challengers head-on. My apprehensions in recommending him are that he is strident and impatient with skeptics, his claims are often difficult to evaluate without reading high-level scholarly material, and in my opinion some of his conclusions on secondary issues are incorrect. You might start here: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trilemma.html.

The second website is geared more toward believers rather than skeptics, is easier to read and feels more charitable, Glenn M. Miller's christian-thinktank.com. I am currently examining the doctrine of the trinity using his materials, but there are also studies more appropriate for skeptics. I return to his site from time to time and always appreciate his perspective on issues, but I haven't read enough to know how similar our positions are on secondary issues.

Once again, "seek, and you will find..." Luke 11:9

May God bless you!

I would include as rational proof the historical evidence for the resurrection. Perhaps you meant only the purely logic-based arguments (ontological, teleological, etc)? I think the Apostle Paul had it right in appealing to evidence for the resurrection:

and then he emphasized the importance of this one fact:

This seems to me like an endorsement of reason-based apologetics, at least as far as establishing the fact of the resurrection.

Thank you Mike. I stand corrected. The overwhelming evidence for the resurrection of Jesus in the first century is a reasonable proof that God exists. The Bible says:

I simply don't believe that translates into a logical argument for skeptics today because it is no longer possible to round up and interrogate the witnesses.

I fail to see how the Bible can be quoted to prove itself. Just because the Bible says that there are "many convincing proofs" of its own accuracy does not ipso facto make it true. Every sacred scripture from every major and minor religion has "many sufficient proofs" that their chosen story is true. What we don't have, as far as I can see, is any ACTUAL proof, of the type required for verification by a disinterested non-believer.

Incidentally, this is a perfect example of exact sort of unconvincing argument that I mentioned hearing many times before (and not being impressed with) in my initial post.

Your chief logical error here comes from assuming that, since all the original people in the story are dead, the story must be true.

You have made two rather critical logical errors here:

1) That a document can verify itself without any outside support.

2) That if all the hard evidence has been lost to the mists of time, we should default to believing it instead of remaining unsure.

Let me demonstrate how these two methods are in error:

1) I write a paper saying whatever I want. In the paper, I say that there is "convincing proof" for whatever theory I'm trying to put forth. As proof that it's true, I tell you that it's true. I'll even sign it with my signature. What? You aren't convinced yet?

2) I tell you a story from a long time ago. It's about aliens being the origin of life on earth (or insert any other crackpot theory here). Everyone involved with the story has, unfortunately, been dead for thousands and thousands of years. Therefore, my story must be true.

I hope you can see how these types of arguments sound to someone who has not already decided they believe and then gone looking for justifications after the fact.

I would argue that, since all the original people are dead, if the best "evidence" we have is a book that vouches for itself and no witnesses or independent reliable third party records from disinterested sources, perhaps it's time to go back to the drawing board.

I'm sticking to the wisdom of the famous mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662).

Pascal's wager is fine if you're trying to decide on a zero cost boolean decision. However, the choice of whether to believe in God (and especially a prophet besides) typically comes with the additional non-free assumptions that you will follow a prescribed set of arbitrary rules laid down thousands of years ago, give 10% of your income to your chosen church, etc.

To me, the choice really seems to be: If there isn't any REAL evidence whatsoever, why should I go along with all this extra stuff that just seems to be the superstitious beliefs passed down from ancient cultures?

Besides, even if Pascal's wager really was just a simple yes/no proposition with no monetary or opportunity costs associated with it, it still doesn't address the question of which God is the right one, or which denomination best represents his (or her or its) will, or even if there is only one god or many gods, or if all gods are really the same god, or if there are many gods but they are in competition. And so on.

Using nothing but Pascal's wager as my guide, I could just as easily arrive at the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or any other competing god of your choice) is the correct deity, based on the fact that my heart perceives it and that there's no downside to thinking that it might be true.

Can you see how some people might not be convinced by this?

AQ,

You're saying that if you were to assume that God exists, then you wouldn't know anything about Him and you couldn't figure it out? Likewise, you're unimpressed with the fact that even mathematics is unprovable. So if you're not persuaded by the results of mathematical logic and are just as indifferent to the teachings of Jesus, then what do you expect to discover at a reform-minded Seventh-day Adventist forum?

I'm saying you can't just use Pascal's wager alone, for reasons I laid out in the previous post (it's a form of gambling, not proof).



One quote intended for humorous effect by one person does not invalidate one of the best tools we have for understanding the universe. Sorry.



I haven't seen any mathematical logic here. I've seen a couple of quotes from mathematicians taken out of context being offered as "proof".

I am indifferent to the teachings of Jesus, and that's because no one has been able to give me a satisfactory answer as to why one should follow Jesus instead of Buddah, Allah, the Hindu deities, L. Ron Hubbard, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm looking for logical tools to analyze these things, and what I'm met with over and over on this topic from various people boils down to:

1) There is no proof
2) Lack of proof shouldn't get in the way of believing it, though
3) How could you really prove anything at all anyway?
4) Therefore, just believe this because we say so

I'm sorry, that just isn't good enough. That might be enough to keep people that already believe something from looking for answers, but it's not enough to sway me over on a logical basis.



I came to this forum because I was looking for an answer to see if anyone really had any proof of this stuff (or at least a little bit of credible third party evidence), or if they just liked to believe it anyway. I think I have found my answer.

Thanks for taking the time to go through this stuff, it's been educational.

Informally, Gödel's incompleteness theorem states that all consistent axiomatic formulations of number theory include undecidable propositions. That means that in all logical systems strong enough to contain arithmetic, there are always mathematical statements that are true but unprovable, even if you throw all of known mathematics at the problem.

Try to understand this. Kurt Gödel has proven that statements about arithmetic exist which are true but are provably unprovable. Consequently it's extraordinary naive of you to expect a proof of God.

That's the context for the mathematical statements given earlier, which you insist are out of context.