People have a problem with the Bible?

It's just like the Bible says. People want to have their ears tickled. They are not interested in learning the truth. They only want to hear what they want to hear so they can continue to live a debauched life.

well if you quote from the New Testament its assuming that the text is right.

Judaism was formed when millions witnessed god. all at the same time. Christianity is taking a hand full of peoples word for it. How can you assume its correct when the person you claim to be messiah fails all the criteria of Messiah according to the Torah (5 books of Moses). The 1st person to start writing christian scriptures, and also wrote the most books in the New testament didn't even know Jesus. (Paul). He had a "vision". that couldn't be checked, or proofed. wow. well 1 or few people claiming to see god, or have a vision describes almost every religion on earth. why would i just assume yours is correct?

I don't think people have a problem with the Bible. I think people have a problem with the way the Bible is used by some as an accusation, a curse, and an insult. When people represent themselves as Christian but act without respect or consideration of others it is a discredit to the religion.

Because the Bible is unsupported text. There is nothing to identify the veracity of most of the text. You accept (on faith) that the Bible is 100% truth about Jesus of Nazareth (though I've been informed that Nazareth didn't exist until some years after his birth), but there's no way to know if it is or not. It may be.

Here's a similar situation. Let's say you ask me about my brother's involvement in illegal gangs. I tell you he told me stories about mass murders he and the gang members committed. I have no supporting evidence, at all - just stories I say came from him. Do you believe me? I may be making it up (as the writers of the Bible stories may have) or he may have lied to me (as some of the stories are second-hand information) or it may all be true. You just have no way of knowing, unless some evidence crops up.

At least with my scenario, you'd have a chance of finding actual evidence (by researching murders and missing persons reports that fit the stories, for instance). With the Bible, it has been over 2,000 years, so there's little hope of finding any actual evidence to either support or contradict any of the stories. The very best we can hope for, in any case, is either confirmation or contradiction of the existence of places and prominent people.

I know right?

They can accept other historical books and buy into accounts of historical events written by non-Christians but they claim that Biblical historical accounts are rubbish even when the existence of some Biblical characters has been acknowledged by secular scholars and when Bible prophecies have been fulfilled in modern times and even though the Bible has said things about the world that scientists only discovered in modern times

Their problem is not with the accuracy or credibility of the Bible, it is with what the Bible stands for

Their problem is with God and His commandments

The bible is what is called "Faction" A fictional story set in a factual time and place. Thus the time, place and real historical characters are all correct but the fictional characters and stories are not!

There is not one single mention of Jesus in the entire Roman record - that is right - not one! At the same time as he was supposed to have been around there were a number of Jews claiming to be the messiah - all of whom are well recorded!

There is not a single contemporary record from any source and even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

He was supposed to have been a huge problem to the Romans and produced wonderful miracles but still not one contemporary record?

Even the bible mentions of him like all other references were not written until many years after his supposed death!

Pilate is recorded in the Roman record as a somewhat lack luster man but no mention of a Jesus, a trial or crucifixion that would surely have been used to make him look brighter!

At best he was an amalgam of those others but almost certainly never existed!

Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

Please realize that those claims for the Old historians are worthless since they were not even born until long after everyone in the stories would have been so long dead!

Josephus AD 37 – AD 100

Tacitus AD 56 – AD 120

Suetonius - 69 – 130 AD

Pliny the Younger, 61 AD – 112 AD

Justin Martyr (Saint Justin) AD103–165 AD

Lucian - AD 120 -180 AD but he was hostile to Christianity and openly mocked it.

Pamphilius AD 240-309 AD

Eusebius AD 263 – 339 AD

Photius AD 877 – 886 AD

Thallus - But there are no actual record of him except a fragment of writing which mentions the sack of Troy [109 BC] Showing that he was clearly not alive in biblical times.

Some even try to use Seneca. 4 BCE – 65 CE but as a Stoic Philosopher he opposed religion yet made not a single mention of a Jesus or Christianity!

Even funnier is trying to claim Celsus AD ? – 177 AD Who said that Jesus was a Jew who’se mother was a poor Jewish girl whose husband, who was a carpenter, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to an illegitimate child named Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return presented himself as a god.

Because your assumption that the bible is the inspired word of god is just that; an assumption. It's a belief, and not a fact.

Using quotes from such a book then to answer a question that seeks a factual answer, is therefore invalid. And that's why some people get 'all put out'.

Those are your beliefs. Other people may or may not believe the same thing as you. This is the nature of mankind. If they "get all put out", they must be having a bad day or maybe just an angry person. I've been treated with disrespect when voicing my opinions on religion before....So the feeling is somewhat mutual.

I don't have a problem with you citing the Bible as the source of your spiritual authority. But I DO have a problem when you cite the Bible as if it should be the source of MY spiritual authority, because it simply is NOT. The Bible to me is just another book.

Further, I take issue with people who cite the Bible not only as a source of spiritual authority, but also as a source of scientific authority...which it most definitely is NOT.

Truth is ugly to us fallen. Yes many find peace in the Bible, but not everyone is blessed with that feeling of security in Truth. Again, this is because we are fallen in a fallen world. Truth is, for some, going to be uncomfortable, especially if one fails to or seeks not to understand.