Those who believe do not need proof.
Then why do you continually ask for it, especially on matters of the truth of scriptures?
Those who believe do not believe because of the Bible. The Bible does not give anyone faith. So, offering the scripture as "proof" is either proving something you already believe, and therefore do not need proof, or trying to prove something to those who don't believe when they were not given faith. In either case it's not a matter of taste.
Yours is a blind faith, so perhaps you believe "just because" or "just because the Church says". Ours is a reasoned faith. God gives faith, but He uses tools such as the Bible to give that faith meaning. The Bible explains what exactly our faith is in, and that it can (does) make sense to us.
The problem is the faith given to us is catholic and not personal.
Ah, I did not know that "catholic" meant an impersonal God. I thought that was just your take. Fascinating.
FK: "I think it actually takes proactive work to make it NOT fit."
No, discrepancies are quite obvious. The problem is reconciling them, which can be done within a historical, cultural and linguistic context of the time when the scriptures were written. In doing so, they lose some of their fairytalish qualities and become a window into the past.
I've seen what is left after some of this "cleansing" is done. Not pretty. It is unrecognizable compared to what the Bible teaches. No thanks. :)
I do think that there is some imprecision with the use of terms which may add to the confusion. The key area of contention IMHO is the great and cumbersome one of the authority of Scripture, I think. And it is complicated because of the various meanings attached to terms like innerrancy and infallibility.
I cannot come in wholeheartedly on kosta's side because while I do try to stay abreast of what's going on in literary, historical, and form criticism, I think maybe I tend to say,"Well, the Church says the Bible is da Bomb, it's what God gave us, so I'm going to assume that even in all the killing of pregnant women and such there is some truth for me to find there," while I think Kosta is more wholesale in discounting some of that stuff.
On the other hand, I get the distinction between "personal" and "catholic" that I think kosta is making, but, at a guess I'd say the adversarial rhetoric hinders the discovery of meaning and intention.
As an adult type person (allegedly) I haven't thought that Jonah or Job were actual histories. I DO think they are inspired stories. That means that one can learn from Jonah that it don't pay to mess with God, and HE will go to extraordinary means to accomplish His will in your life. AND God loves even Ninevites (not to mention their cattle), and we are total jerks when God shows mercy to someone we want to see fried.
And from Job I learn, well, not enough. It is extremely profound. But what I took away from it was that if I get angry at God, I should tell him. If all I am is a jerk, I should bring my jerkiness to God, wholeheartedly, nothing held back, and God will finally come in His terrifying mercy and graciously, kindly, and lovingly show me what a jerk I am and how wonderful He is. And my conceit is an infinitesimally cheap price to pay for the wonder of a theophany.
So both of you can jump on me if you like. But I think truth would be better served if you both articulated in positive terms what you think the Bible is good for.
Feel free to throw several large rocks in my direction. I'm just wanting two good guys to fight more efficiently.
I am asking for an authentication of your "proof." How do I know that your "proof" is authentic? You offer me scriptures but when asked to authenticate them you tell me the scriptures authenitcate themselves (of course "if you have eyes and ears." Anyone can say that; it doesn't mean it's a proof).
Yours is a blind faith, so perhaps you believe "just because" or "just because the Church says".
If you can't provide proof, then your faith is blind as well. And so far you have not been able to demonstrate anything but a private faith.
Ours is a reasoned faith
Everyone's faith is reasoned, FK, even the blind faith. Faith is actually rationalized more than reasoned. In other words, we come up with plausible explanations for something we don't understand.
If faith were were reasoned it would be logical. Incarnation and angels are not logical. Gravity is not logical. The world, as it is, the universe, is not logical to human mindset. We really don't knwo how and why all this exists. We only believe we know.
God gives faith, but He uses tools such as the Bible to give that faith meaning.
Through books written by men and presumed (believed) to be inspired?!?
The Bible explains what exactly our faith is in, and that it can (does) make sense to us
I agree. The Bible tells us what we believe. It doesn't do it exactly because there are variations and disagreements in interpretations. But the fact that the Bible is a collection of books that describes what we believe in doesn't mean it is true.
Hense I ask for proof that it is.
Ah, I did not know that "catholic" meant an impersonal God. I thought that was just your take. Fascinating
Catholic means universal. It's not a private interpretation or a personal faith. It's not your God either. Not in the possessive sense.
I've seen what is left after some of this "cleansing" is done. Not pretty. It is unrecognizable compared to what the Bible teaches
What you call a bible is a sanitized man-made version of a bunch of scraps put together, presumed to be written by the authors it claims, and believed to be "inspired."
And which books are inspired is a matter of human decision too. The Samaritans, like the Sadducees, believe only the Torah was inspired. They still have a gemple and and high priesthood and animal sacrifices, so if you ever wnated to know ancoent Judaism there is your chance. There are about 700 of them left.
The Apostles believed some books the Protestants reject must have been good enough to be quoted as inspired. And +Jude quotes from the Book of Enoch which was never canonized but nonetheless finds its ways in the NT being quoted as scripture.
And, I agree, there are parts of the bible that are not pretty at all, and there is no Christ to be found in them...