Alright. So I discarded the so called “reasons to trust the Bible”. But what if I went along for the ride? What if I did accept the reasons to trutst the Bible? Well, let’s see:
1- “The Bible is historically sound”. The argument that raises from that is that if it reliable about the historical facts then it is a reliable book and should be trusted. Only if I could point to historical inaccuracies could I doubt the rest of the book.
It was right about Pilate, David, the conquest of Edom. But these are events that could be witnessed by a man. What about when the Bible writer goes on to describe to me the Creation, Eden, Adam and Eve. How could he known about things that happened before he was born or before any man was born? Chances are that the writers can be trusted to be accurate about names and places of historical significance because they wanted to be taken seriously, but also they had no need to distort history. Their aim was to explain history. To achieve this they first present things as they appear; then they present to us how things are. The historical soundness attempted compliments the first step, but the second step, when they tell us how things are in reality, that is what requires the leap of faith.
Small details, then, do not “bolster” my confidence in the rest of what was written because it goes from what is verifiable to what unverifiable.
My imaginary foe might say that it is not verifiable now but one day one will be able to see clearly what we only see now through a veil. We will be with God.
But we see only surfaces. Once I allow the possibility of something behind then every face becomes a mask and every reality, including Heaven, an appearance, with the same grounds for doubt and uncertainty then as with now. If a Being, much powerful than you, tells you that he is God, the Creator, the unmoved mover, uncreated etc, etc, how would you know that he is what he says he is? By miracles? Well that would prove his power. His knowledge? Well, one would be in no position to test this knowledge without becoming god oneself. As a matter of definition God is uncreated, but how do you know which being is uncreated and which is created when both partake of the same quality: Being?
these are good Posts, Im suprised noone has replied to them.
I will comment on Part I & II this weekend when my mind is less foggy. This deserves full cognitve abilities.
He did not know.
The leap into belief without evidence. (Please see my post about faith in Part 1)
How do you know that you’re not hearing voices and in need of serious psychiatric help? 
Why did you repeat yourself from Part 1?
I have to go get lunch right now… It’s high noone!
Hi Omar,
Omar, I am somewhat confused at your lack of knowledge here. The creation myths are surely a subject about which you have read other opinions – even my twopence worth. The creation myths (there are two) are poetical and enlightening circumscriptions of the situation of mankind, they are philosophical/religious allegories of high quality, which are able to communicate their message up until the present day.
If you read a servicing manual for a wash machine with the intention of servicing your car, you will find some difficulties. Similarly, if you read an anthology of philosophical/religious allegories in order to get a scientifically based account of the pre-historical era of our planet, you will also have problems. If, on the other hand, you want to understand mankind, our sentient potential and the progression to “salvationâ€, then the Bible is as good as most and able to “bolster your confidence in the rest of what was writtenâ€.
I am not your “foeâ€, but the way ahead is indeed to develop your awareness so that you “will be able to see clearly what [you] only see now through a veil†and you can “be with Godâ€. I think that your imaginations of what God could be are too materialistic. The “ineffable God†is not a new approach but shines through the biblical anthology. We must ask ourselves, as I have written to your other post, what does it mean to have a God called “I amâ€? What is this name trying to awaken in us? Tentative wrote to me that religion used like recipes is the real problem. I agree, religion is awakening, it is growing awareness and perception or it is nothing but illusion.
How do you explain to someone who is blind what a colour is? How do you describe a symphony to the deaf? Reality is wholeness and exciting. It isn’t just 3D and dolby surround, it is something quite different. Every time I try to describe something, or take a photo, or shoot a film, I start to cut pieces out of that reality. You never get a description of the experience that is the experience. You always get just a second or one perspective, interpreted by the speaker, photograph or film-maker.
The same is with experiences of God. The words of the Bible can only be pointers encouraging you to have your own experience. If you really grasp what “being†truly is, become awake to reality, there you will also experience God. That is the message of the Bible, in particular the New Testament.
Shalom
[size=150]What about Bob?[/size]
The bible isn’t historically or factually sound, theres not much evidence that jesus existed historically period all accounts are much after his apparent life even though many historians existed during his lifetime that noted/scribed minor events in comparison. biblical flood, etc.
The writer’s can’t be trusted because a lot of the historical claims are contended, like the jews b eing the slaves of egyptians, theres absolutely no evidence to support that outside a book of fantasical miracles.
The whole nature of belief defies logical consistancy, the problem is they fall outside of natural ontological expectations and are as such naturally attention-arresting, combine that with the ability for humans t o fast-forwards and rewind mentally, existential anxities, the trip-wired mental schema for agency detection, its all a predisposition towards belief.