I could type 10,000 words on why I personally believe the bible, but a lot of it would involve detailed personal background and would no doubt bore you to tears. So I'll stick to some very broad things that I find compelling:
* God has a plan. I don't always understand it, I'm prone to thinking He should have done things differently, but when I read the OT and then the NT I can see God's plan gradually unfolding. To me, it reads as one book. It reads much, much better than any book. It fits. And given the time differences and the differences in the human authors, that's amazing to me.
So your first and "A Game" reason for thinking the bible is the 'Word of God' is just b/c you feel like it? The question I'm asking in the OP has to do with not
assuming what you need to prove (i.e. - discovering that Christians believed first
and then started searching to find defense mechanisms and 'reasons'). The point is, how do you know "God has a plan"? Aren't you just assuming this based upon your presupposition? And why would you try to defend your presupposition against any and all criticism? Don't you care about truth and what's actually true? I want to explore more of your standard of evidence later on.
* When I read the words attributed to Jesus in the NT they stand out to me. They just do. They jump off the page, they sting my mind, I simply don't have the slightest doubt that they are words of eternal knowledge and wisdom.
Mormons say this about the Book of Mormon and Muslims say it about the Koran, but this isn't a good reason. Is a "sting in the mind" all it takes for you then? Anything you read, if you get some 'high' or buzz you immediately jump to the conclusion that it's divine? So, you don't really care about disinterested research. You just care about how something makes you FEEL when you read it?
* Parts of the bible are just extremely bloody bizarre. You couldn't make it up. I've never read fiction that comes anywhere near to rivalling it. Starnge that may be to you, but I find it compelling.
This is the Argument from Incredulity fallacy. It does not follow that because you can't imagine how someone could have thought up something, and wrote it down, that they could not have done it.
This answer is also extremely non-informative and redundant. I asked, "Why do you believe the bible" and you basically answered, "I just believe it." No, I want to know why
. What good reasons or sound evidence do you have? Or is it all just blind a priori faith for you? It seems like you just assume it. Is this true?
* Last but not least, when the bible describes the sinfulness of mankind it describes me. The authors of the bible knew more about the human condition than all the great psycho-analysts of the world put together. Thousands of years ago.
Those things I have described are inescable truths, for me. There are of course many more reasons why I believe in God, but this is more or less it when it comes to the bible.
It's interesting that you didn't give any sound reasons or evidence here. So you basically didn't answer the question. All you did was restate "I believe it" but what reasonable thing could possibly falsify this assumption you seem to have made? You've said it describes "sinfulness" but this is viciously circular. How do you know there is "sin" in the first place? See how you've avoided answering the main question? You've just kicked the ball further down the field instead of actually dealing with the challenge. You've said, "The authors of the bible knew more..." STOP! You're doing it again - assuming your position prior to proving it. How do you know they knew more? And even if that was true does it automatically make every supernatural claim in the bible true?
So in total, you've basically avoided the question I asked and just restated THAT
you believe it. I know that you believe it, it makes you feel good, it seems
to resonate with you, and the words "just do" stand out for you. Are you saying that your method for determining if a book is true or not is just how the book makes you feel inside? Have your feelings ever been mistaken? Where is your standard of evidence? Doesn't it seem odd to you that when it comes to claims of the supernatural you seem to lower your standard of evidence, instead of raise it, for the one belief you want to believe? For any other religion or text you wouldn't accept 'how it makes you feel' as sound reasoning for believing it's supernatural claims, would you?
SUMMARY OF YOUR RESPONSE:
1. Circular Reasoning - You claim "God has a plan", basically restating a part of your theology which is smuggling your conclusion into your premise
2. Non-Informative Tautology - Words 'standing out' or "resonating" with you does not make them true. You've only restated THAT
you believe here.
3. An Argument from Incredulity - The statement "They couldn't have made it up" requires a lack of imagination and another unwarranted assumption
4. Circular Reasoning again - assuming "sin" is real and the authors "knew more" is another attempt to smuggle the conclusion into your premises
These arguments are invalid. Are they your strongest ones for believing the bible is divinely inspired? Perhaps I should ask a more important question. Are you at all open to considering that you might be mistaken about the bible? If your answer is YES, can you see why it would be hard to believe you, given the irrational arguments you are using to support your belief currently? How could anyone falsify the belief that the bible is divine when you've assumed it is divine from the outset? Don't you see this intellectual double standard?