The Bible NETWork ~ Impacting the World for Christ one post at a time!

I've been talking to someone about whether or not the Bible is inspired by God. I said that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies and that this is evidence that the Bible is inspired by God. My friend said that following about this argument, "You are going in circles...the bible is inspired by God (assumed premise) is used to support the conclusion that the bible is inspired by God. You use claim to fulfilled prophecies as claimed within the bible itself as premise for your argument that those same claims are valid ? That is circular reasoning." Do you agree that the argument that I was using was a circular argument? I don't see it as circular reasoning. Saying that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies does not presuppose the idea that the Bible is inspired by God.

“Saying that Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies does not presuppose the idea that the Bible is inspired by God.”

It doesn’t presuppose plenary verbal inspiration, so technically it’s not arguing in circles. But it is using evidence internal to the Bible to argue for external reliability.

His rebuttal might have a point if there is no reason to believe Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures except for the Bible’s own claim that he fulfilled Scriptures.
For example: Micah foretold that Jesus would be born in Bethlehem, and from the Dead Sea Scrolls I believe we have proof that the prophecy was written long before his birth. But apart from our assumption that the Scriptures are inspired, how do we know that he wasn’t really born in Nazareth, and Luke just made up a birth story to claim he fulfilled this prophecy?

I take it on faith and need no proof, and I don’t think proof can make anyone have faith, but this type of apologetics might at least help to open his mind. So I would say where you might need to start is with prophecies that are externally verifiable to show that prophecies were from God. The world history prophecies of Daniel would be a start, as well as the prophecies of the exile and the length of time before the return (although I don’t know any way to prove they were written before the return). Although I know many would deny it, I think there is good evidence that Christ's prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple were made, known, and written down in the Gospels before it happened. External verification of prophecy. I'm sure there are other examples.
Then I would look at how difficult, in fact nearly impossible, it would be to just make up a story about the life of Jesus in a way that would fulfill all the prophecies. When the prophecies predict his death both by piercing and by hanging from a tree although crucifixion had not been invented yet, and he is foretold as both an eternal undefeatable king and as a suffering servant who would die, when he is said to be buried both with the wicked and with the rich, and so on, it would be a real challenge for a storyteller to tell the story of one life that fulfilled them all and be as perfectly consistent and true to life as the man we meet in the Gospels. And this life story was preached and believed at a time when many people were around who knew whether it was factual in all those details; it wouldn’t be easy to change the story in any great way and not be called out on it. Luke’s Gospel begins by telling us how he carefully investigated all the stories that were being told about Jesus; he interviewed people, he looked at the evidence. His Gospel is like a police crime scene report. It deserves some credibility on its own merits, at least on all the broad facts. And that then leaves very little room for manipulation to force in so much prophetic fulfillment into this one known life. Also, if the prophecies themselves were just random oracles, either not the Word of God or not intended to describe one single specific human being, then you would expect some of them to just by chance contradict others in a way that no amount of storytelling could unravel. The fact that there are so many prophecies of so diverse a nature, written at different times by different men, and yet they all fit together in the single person of Jesus of Nazareth should be compelling to someone with an open mind.

That troubles me. On What is your faith based, if not proof and reason?

What proof or reason tells you that heaven exists, that people will rise from the dead, or that Jesus will return?
What proof or reason did Abraham have to leave his family for a country he had never seen?
What proof or reason did Noah have for building an ark?
In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus Jesus said, "They have Moses and the prophets. If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”
We have the Word of God. We have the Holy Spirit who works in the heart and convinces us to believe.
Faith is trust, taking God at his Word, without proof, without seeing. We use reason to understand his Word. And evidences can confirm our faith. But not even the greatest proof in the world can create faith. If it could the Israelites in the wilderness, seeing all of God's miracles with their own eyes and following God himself in the pillar of fire and cloud, would certainly have had faith.

I definitely don't think that speaks to everyone today.



All of those types of questions can be subsumed in asking if the Bible is actually inspired and inerrant - If we can prove that to a reasonable certainty, we are justified in believing what it says, even if we can't see or experience all it speaks of. After doing a lot of personal research, I have proved to myself that the Bible is what it claims to be. And, as such, I believe it and have faith in the areas that aren't tangible.

But, this isn't a faith devoid of reason, thought, testing, or foundation. It rests solely upon God and His Word.

And, in response to the initial Circular argument question: yes, that is circular. Saying that "the bible contained prophecy about Jesus, and then saying that the Bible says he fulfilled it" in no way gives validity to the document. Tying in outside sources an other historical documents could make your case though.

There are many evidences from archeology and manuscripts to confirm the Bible is inspired by God. However, none of these can prove the Bible for if they proved it they would be greater than the Bible. We accept God's word by faith and the items found by archeology and other ancient artifacts confirm our faith but do not prove it.