The Bible

[Josh/Devilman88]

How about this, if you don't believe it is true then I'm sorry for you, if you believe it is true more power to you. We all have different views in life and we are all tend to not change them. So why are we trying to prove to the other side that they are wrong? Lets just agree to disagree on it.

I'm not trying to prove that the Bible is not the word of God.  I have no idea whether or not it is, and quite frankly, I don't believe it's possible to know.  What I am saying is that the fact that the Bible says it's the word of God does not tell us anything about whether or not it actually is.  This is a simple fact that can be obtained through the most basic of logical reasoning.

I was not singling you out, I was just saying to everyone.

[nclib]

Option 3.

[Bugs]

How about this, if you don't believe it is true then I'm sorry for you, if you believe it is true more power to you. We all have different views in life and we are all tend to not change them. So why are we trying to prove to the other side that they are wrong? Lets just agree to disagree on it.

I'm not trying to prove that the Bible is not the word of God.  I have no idea whether or not it is, and quite frankly, I don't believe it's possible to know.  What I am saying is that the fact that the Bible says it's the word of God does not tell us anything about whether or not it actually is.  This is a simple fact that can be obtained through the most basic of logical reasoning.

The Bible itself would tend to agree with Gabu.  John 5:31 says (Jesus talking):If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid."  An external testimony is therefore necessary.  In the case of the Bible, it deals with the spiritual realm which is entirely separate from the physical, and must be experienced by spiritual means.  No physical application can prove or disprove the Bible.  I do not envy those of you who are trapped in the physical realm and encourage you to look beyond it.  Only then can you answer the question on this thread. 

[memphis]

I think that it's important to keep in mind that the Bible is not really a single book. It is a composite of many works, produced for a variety of reasons.

[Gabu]

The Bible itself would tend to agree with Gabu.  John 5:31 says (Jesus talking):If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid."  An external testimony is therefore necessary.  In the case of the Bible, it deals with the spiritual realm which is entirely separate from the physical, and must be experienced by spiritual means.  No physical application can prove or disprove the Bible.  I do not envy those of you who are trapped in the physical realm and encourage you to look beyond it.  Only then can you answer the question on this thread. 

I'm not attempting to make any claims about the validity of the Bible; I'm just giving a logical analysis of the action of backing up one's claim that the Bible is the word of God with a quote from the Bible itself.

I would wager that every single person who reads the Bible forms a different theory in his head regarding both exactly what it's talking about and which parts can be trusted; quite frankly, it would be highly arrogant of me to attempt to tell anyone what they should and shouldn't believe about it.  As far as I'm concerned, that's your business.  If you ask, I can give my take on it, but I've never asserted it to be the be-all and end-all.

However, the Bible still exists in a realm in which logic applies, and as such, anything involving it that is blatantly illogical (such as using it to prove itself) is still blatantly illogical.  I see absolutely no reason why the supernatural would cease to be logical; if there were no reason for something to be the case, then why would it be the case?

[memphis]

The Bible itself would tend to agree with Gabu.  John 5:31 says (Jesus talking):If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid."  An external testimony is therefore necessary.  In the case of the Bible, it deals with the spiritual realm which is entirely separate from the physical, and must be experienced by spiritual means.  No physical application can prove or disprove the Bible.  I do not envy those of you who are trapped in the physical realm and encourage you to look beyond it.  Only then can you answer the question on this thread. 

However, the Bible still exists in a realm in which logic applies.

You're obviously not from America

[??????????]

Option 1 (Christian)

[Richard]

option 1

[opebo]

I would say that option #3 is the non-idiot option, but of course many idiots who believe in other idiotic religions would vote #3.

[Gabu]

The Bible itself would tend to agree with Gabu.  John 5:31 says (Jesus talking):If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid."  An external testimony is therefore necessary.  In the case of the Bible, it deals with the spiritual realm which is entirely separate from the physical, and must be experienced by spiritual means.  No physical application can prove or disprove the Bible.  I do not envy those of you who are trapped in the physical realm and encourage you to look beyond it.  Only then can you answer the question on this thread. 

However, the Bible still exists in a realm in which logic applies.

You're obviously not from America

Har har har.

[Hatman 🍁]

Somewhere between two and three

^^^^

[Nym90]

Somewhere between 2 and 3.

I believe that the authors genuinely believed it to be the Word of God, and I respect that.

But ultimately it was written by men, who are fallible.