Why do people believe in the bible even though you believe it's a fake?
Simple. Because we don't all believe what you believe.
How do you know it's a fake? In what way is it fake? Can you justify your statement with credible scientific and philosophical information that shows without doubt that there is no authenticity at all to the writings in that book? At the end of the day if you want to prove the bible false, you've got one massive journey ahead of you, and it won't come down to a one-line question on AB.
***
[EDIT]
Fair call, and I apologise if my response came across as defensive. It wasn't meant to be.
There is a lot of evidence that can be interpreted in support of the authenticity of the bible, both as an authentic historic text, and possibly as evidence that what it teaches is true.
As an authentic historic text it has a lot going for it. Firstly the modern manuscripts we have today are backed by numerous ancient manuscripts. The bible wasn't just written from a couple of scrolls they found in an attic somewhere.
There are multiple copies of the same texts, from different geographical locations and time periods, with very few errors between them. From the Old Testament perspective, this can be partly attributed to the ancient Jewish scribing system - it was impeccably precise to the point of obsession.
There have been archeological findings that support events mentioned in the bible. For example:
* Archeologists have found evidence that would support the recorded '40 years in the wilderness'
* Artefacts that give evidence to support the existence of Solomon's Temple have been found in excavations in Jerusalem.
* Excavations have uncovered evidence of a wall under the ruins of Jericho; a wall that appears to have collapsed for no reason.
These are just a few examples that I can think of.
There are ancient texts from other civilisations that line up with historical tellings in the bible. Archeologists have found Babylonian, Persian and Assyrian artefacts (among others) that recount tales that can be found in the bible.
When you get to the New Testament, from a historical point of view you get a bit more contention. The accounts of Jesus are all supposedly eyewitness. Do you take these as authentic or not? There are other contemporary writings of the time that make reference to what is recorded in the bible, so that does lend it some credence.
The existence of the disciples and other people of the time is not disputed. There has been evidence found, as well as other historical texts, that verify their existence. However, the big issue is finding hard evidence of the existence of Jesus.
The bible says that after everything else, he was crucified and died, but he rose again. Resurrection means there is no body - no remains of a dead person. In reality, most of the evidence the bible gives us for Jesus' existence is from eyewitness account. Whilst archeology has located places and people and other things mentioned in the story, I personally am not aware of any hard, physical, CREDIBLE evidence of Jesus' existence. There are artefacts such as the Shroud of Turin, but how do you verify them as genuine?
As a historical document, there does seem to be a lot of evidence to support the bible's authenticity - moreso the Old Testament than the New, but still there is evidence.
When you get into the issue of whether what the bible teaches is true or not, that's a different story. How can you prove something so overtly supernatural and metaphysical? How can we measure the existence of a God who, if he exists, has chosen to keep himself physically invisible to us.
How can we scientifically measure something outside the range of our senses? And when we do see something that could be taken as evidence in God's favour, do we accredit it or dismiss it?
We see 'evidence' of his existence in reports of resurrections, healings, driving out demons and so forth - displays of power. Do you give that evidence credence? Is it real? Is it not? How do you measure it?
Honestly I can't prove the bible true. I can show evidence that supports its authenticity, and I can provide evidence that suggests what it teaches is true, but we cannot absolutely prove that what it teaches is absolutely true.
On the other hand, can anybody absolutely prove it to be absolutely false? At best, all I've seen anybody do is provide evidence that does not support its authenticity, or does not support that what it teaches is true.
At the end of the day I believe in the bible because of the evidence I have seen, and my own personal experiences. I can't offer my own experiences as scientific proof because they're not objective. I can offer them as a testimony, but what credibility you give to that is up to you. I believe in the bible because I see in it observations and philosophies that (to me) do reflect reality.
I'm afraid that's the best I can offer.
Comments
@ shabba -
By all means 'fake' in this context can be defined in many ways. I see you have chosen to assume the stance of defensiveness instead of indulging me in why YOU believe in the bible since i believe it is not real, thus my question. I fine it ironic that when a christian is handed the oppertunity to express there beliefs to a 'non-believer' in a discussion it always turns out that they are defensive, I was willing to listen to your reasoning on why you belive, as I have an open mind and am prepared to listen. so this does not answer my question, you have merely possed a new one, how can YOU prove it IS real?
by Exit Az iZ on August 5th, 2009