"the God of the Bible" (or "unbogging the IotD blog")

[joydriven]

Juju: On what evidence do you believe that God even wrote the bible? Or do you frown upon asking for evidence?

I don't frown upon asking for evidence, no. On the other hand, I can't guarantee that the 'evidence' that satisfies me as convincing will satisfy your curiosity. The Bible itself says 'faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen' (Hebrews 11:1). In this scenario, my trust in invisible/intangible 'evidence' supercedes my trust in visible/tangible 'evidence.' Some would say they seek something more substantial than faith. My premise is that faith is the most substantial evidence, and seeking other = settling for less.

In spite of some apparent inconsistencies (which I've said before could be explained if approached in context of the whole book and with an understanding of basic scribal errors), the Bible shows an incredible unity in its parts and as a whole. For a book that was written over a period of 4000 years by hundreds of human hands, the Bible is unprecedented and unmatched by any other work throughout history. It has stood as a unified whole and yet can be divided into sections of history, poetry, prophecy, letters, etc., all of which have gathered note as excellent representations of the literary genre and style in which they were written. Considering the huge span of cultures/ages that were crossed and the diversity of the authors' styles and backgrounds, I see no other way to explain the fact that this one book manages to carry one main theme to generations of readers, and has been doing so for centuries now. Its historical and linguistic references are verified in countless extra-biblical, secular historical and linguistic accounts, and I could not begin to expound (briefly) the mountain of textual evidence that supports both the validity of the Old and New Testaments.

It really is too bad that the content of the Bible is so controversial, because otherwise I think we would count it far more reliable a resource than most other books selling like wildfire on shelves today.

The Bible's own testimony is that it was inspired by God, that 'holy men of old were moved by the Holy Ghost' to write it. And once I am willing to take that step of accepting such a preposterous suggestion, things start falling in place. That's why, for instance, there is such a harmony to the four gospel accounts,
even though Matthew had formerly been a tax collector working for the enemy and keifing his own share of his fellow countrymen's income, even though Luke was a Greek doctor who used the more scholarly sentence structures and wrote with Gentiles in mind after having traveled with Paul, etc. The Bible also says 'all Scripture was given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instruction in righteousness,' and also quotes from the Old Testament in multiple locations. To me, these New Testament claims and quotes, made over 400 years after the last OT book was written--along with the numerous examples in the NT of specific OT prophecies that were fulfilled--combined with the physical and circumstantial phenomena that surround the Bible's existence, are too uncanny to be written off as mere coincidence or contrivances of men. I have to conclude that the Bible must be a supernatural book.

MAN. I WAS GOING TO BE BRIEF.