• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Best Evidence of God -- Inerrancy of the Bible

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Got it.

1. Miracles can't happen.
2. Therefore, a miracle did not happen.
3. Therefore, Christianity is false.
4. Therefore, see#1.

I think I might make one of my own circular argument graphic to use on posts like this.

If we are going to allow for undemonstrable magic, then all bets are off.
Then Last Thursdayism is equally valid as Christianity is.

Yes, "miracles" are nothing short of "magic". They are the exact same thing.
Also, miracles are impossible by definition. They are defined as events that suspend / violate the laws of nature. When we say "x is impossible", then we mean that X would violate / suspend natural laws.

For example "it is impossible for a human to fly without using any technology". Meaning: for a human to fly, he would have to violate / suspend / ignore gravity.

And what is a "miracle", if not a thing that is impossible to happen anyway?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Let's hear your argument about how Jesus rising from the dead was a hoax, a deception, had a natural explanation, or be complete work of fiction.

It seems to me that it is upto the people claiming that that happened, to support it.
If you cannot support it, how could one rationally believe it?

If I tell you that I was actually dead for 4 days last week, would you simply believe me?


Don't forget to include documentation to substantiate your position. Simply saying that people don't rise from the dead is not proof, btw.

It seems to me that the default position concerning this issue, is that people stay dead when they die.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
At the same time we can infer from observation alone, by paying close attention to cause and effect, that God does exist. Looking around the universe we see everything that exists has a cause.

Note the bold part. EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS has a cause. Your own words.

If we go back from effect to cause we realize that there are two possibilities; either this chain goes on forever, or there must be an uncaused Cause...a First Cause.
Since we don't find anything in this world that is infinite,, it is absurd to think cause and effect go on without limit.

Note again the bold part.
Here, you are saying that it is ABSURD to consider a certain thing to be real / existent when it has never been observed or demonstrated to be real / existent!

So we are left with one possibility, that all being inanimate and animate had a beginning. It must have a Cause that itself is not caused and this we define as God.

Does god exist? If so, then god has a cause => your own rule above!
Following the rest of your argument, we need to define a Super God to explain the existance of God. But wait, if Super God exists, then we need a Supreme God to explain the existance of Super God. But wait, if Supreme God exists, then we need a Super Supreme God to explain the existence of Supreme God. Etc.

Has god ever been observed / demonstrated to be real? If not, then it is absurd to believe it => your own rule above as well!!


Perhaps you should re-examine your argument here.
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
So, a lot of people struggle with the belief that God exists, and/or which Religion worships Him the proper way, and/or which doctrine(s) are the best way of worshipping Him.

Huge debates, flame storms on the internet, even wars have been fought over this very subject, as it is a very passionate one.

I feel that a philosophical and scientific angle is a pretty good one to approach the Bible with, and such angle goes like this:

If there is a Creator out there who created the entire universe, and all therein (including the Earth), then said Creator would know His creation well enough to write a Book about it, and said Book would be a faithful representation of what He created.

Nothing in this Book should be untrue. If it were, then that would lead to either the Creator being a liar, or the Creator attempting to deceive His creations, or the author of the Book being someone other than the Creator.

Therefore, an easy thing to do, is to test the major religions' scriptures to see which ones hold up to Truth, and which ones do not.

Here's a few quick examples:

Christian Science Movement: Their "divine" writings say that man is not matter, and is not made of brain, bones, and other elements and that man is incapable of sin, sickness and death. Well, we obviously know this to be false.

Islam: Islam's materials (the Qu'ran and that other book of theirs) claim that the world is flat, and that Allah holds up the sky and heavens so that it doesn't fall down upon the flat earth. Well, the Creator of the Earth and the Universe certainly didn't write that.

Buddhism: Their materials say that Earthquakes are caused by wind pushing the waters of the seas, and the waters of the seas pushing the landmasses. We obviously know this isn't true.

Taoism: Their materials say that there are 13 members through which death can occur. We know from medical science that there are far more than 13 ways or places of the body that can be damaged that can kill you.

Mormons
: 2 Nephi 2 says "Adam fell that men might be and they are that they might have joy" and it also says "if man hadn't fallen, then they wouldn't have joy" (pp). Also, they say in Alma 7:10 that Jesus was born in Jerusalem. (There's enough historical documentation that most concede that He was a real person and that He was actually born in Bethlehem and grew up in Nazareth).

Hinduism: They say the Sun is the source of all energy in the universe. This is obviously false.

So, we can disprove all of these by using simple facts that we have come to know (and history for the case of Mormons). We know that if there were a Creator, that He certainly didn't write (or inspire man to write) any of the above.

What about the Christian Bible, though?

It has suffered a multitude of attacks against it over the years, many many attacks, and not one person has ever proved anything it says to be untrue.

Right away, someone is going to bring up Creation. There's a problem with that -- since Creation was not observed by anyone (other than God Himself), and since it cannot be reproduced by man, therefore it is not observable by True Science.

Then, next thing people will bring up, is Evolution. Again, Evolution is a theory and has not been accepted as Scientific Law, therefore it is not True Science, as nobody has witnessed macro evolution before.

Barring those two things, has anyone proven the Christian Bible wrong? No, they haven't.

Further aiding the Bible's (and Christianity's) cause, are things in the Bible that were talked about long before Man ever came to prove them, such as Conservation of Mass and Energy (the Bible mentions that there is 'nothing new under the sun' and other similar statements that says that nothing new is ever created), The Cycle of Water (the Bible talks about the water cycle, far before it was ever proven), Air Currents, and a couple other things I'm forgetting.

There's also pretty strong evidence for a lot of the history elements of the Bible; the huge granary (and surrounding complex) where Joseph stored the grain for the 7-year famine was found, evidence was found of three types of chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea (there was only one short period of time in Egypt where those three types of chariot wheels would have been used simultaneously), I've seen pictures of ruins near the mountains that are thought to be Mt. Sinai, and the general geography of the area supports Scriptures.

So, if we have a Book that cannot be proven false (among all of the other religions' books that can be proven false quite easily), a book that speaks of concepts that weren't proven by man until thousands of years later, a book which speaks of histories whose evidence can be found to this day, you have a pretty compelling case for this stuff being true.

This Book that cannot be proven false says that God exists, and that God authored all of this by guiding human hands, and God provided history, instructions, and reasons for those instructions, I really don't see any better evidence that says otherwise.

Now, the question comes up... "You didn't mention Judaism!"

Judaism, or the Jewish faith, as many know involve the Torah. The Torah consists of several books of the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, plus some stuff that was added by humans later.

Obviously, the Original Torah and the Christian Bible are in perfect agreement, until Jesus comes about. The Jews who did not convert to Christianity rejected Christ and His teachings, so Who is Right?

Well, here's a snippet that one might consider: Christ correctly predicted the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70AD (~40 years later) just before He gave the Olivet Discourse, He said that "Not one stone would remain upon another" which is exactly what happened when the Romans destroyed the Temple.

EDIT: He also correctly predicted that the Gospel would be spread all over the world, and it would be heard everywhere, which is pretty amazing considered it all started from One man and twelve of His disciples in the middle of a nation that hated the message and considered it blasphemous.

Sources for the above about other religions are taken from this video:


I also highly recommend watching Pt2 where he talks about the Bible teaching us things we wouldn't prove with Science until much later.
So a TLDR of this is "Here's a proof of inerrancy: if the Bible is literally factual then all other Scripture is inaccurate and wrong. All other scripture is inaccurate and wrong because it disagrees with the Bible (or can be interpreted to varying degrees of disagreement) therefore the Bible is inerrant".

Me fail English, that's unpossible.
 
Upvote 0

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟120,484.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay, you know what, let me throw out all the scientific evidence for an old earth. Let me throw out every scrap of evidence (i.e. most of genetics, geology, zoology, and the like) that shows that Noah's Flood could not have happened. After all, if you can't recreate it in a lab, it's not real science (I seriously doubt you thought the implications of that statement all the way through, by the way). Let's also assume that Jesus was speaking in metaphor when he called the mustard seed the smallest seed. Let's throw out everything scientific.

Just answer me one question, based on scripture.

Who bought Hakeldama (the field of blood/the potter's field)?

The bible addresses this in at least two points, so you should be able to find a clear, simple answer fairly quickly. :)
C'mon, Cadet, at least give us a hard one.
Mat 27:6-7
6-> But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood."
7-> And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Act 1:18-19
18-> (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
19-> And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)

The (corrupt) chief priests could not keep the money Judas returned because it was blood money. They therefore bought Akel Dama (the field of blood). Acts says that Judas bought the field. The resolution is that the priests were acting as a shell company for Judas. It was Judas' money that the priests used to buy the field. It's just a matter of how one looks at the deal whether they say the chief priests bought it or Judas (posthumously) bought it.

Got any hard ones you found from your website?
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
C'mon, Cadet, at least give us a hard one.
Mat 27:6-7
6-> But the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, because they are the price of blood."
7-> And they consulted together and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

Act 1:18-19
18-> (Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.
19-> And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem; so that field is called in their own language, Akel Dama, that is, Field of Blood.)

The (corrupt) chief priests could not keep the money Judas returned because it was blood money. They therefore bought Akel Dama (the field of blood). Acts says that Judas bought the field. The resolution is that the priests were acting as a shell company for Judas. It was Judas' money that the priests used to buy the field. It's just a matter of how one looks at the deal whether they say the chief priests bought it or Judas (posthumously) bought it.

Got any hard ones you found from your website?
This sort of biblical harmonisation is really weak. It's basically a suggested hermeneutical method wherein the texts don't "contradict" because they're essentially and singularly interpreted so as to not do so. Nevermind any depth to any text in particular, the mantra "scripture interprets scripture" tends to be recited... What this hermeneutical method does, in effect, it creates a new meta-narrative of the bible, the harmony itself, which acts as an umbrella to the texts themselves. It's biblicism in the worst effect...
 
Upvote 0

stevenfrancis

Disciple
Dec 28, 2012
956
246
68
United States
Visit site
✟56,900.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
The best evidence for God is His incarnation on Earth in flesh - Jesus Christ

Next would come the church which He founded, and which is His bride, awaiting the return of the bridegroom, and which has withstood, and will continue to withstand the gates of Hell itself until His return and the General Judgement. His church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, also chose and assembled the New Testament, choosing the books which were inspired. The four Gospels, The Acts, The Epistles, and The Apocalypse (Revealing) from among so many 1st and 2nd century books concerning our Lord.

Next would come the Ancient Holy Scriptures of the Jews which contain the writings of chosen men, guided by the Holy Spirit of God to put into words a glimpse into the mind of God, and which contain the prophecies of the Messiah which would be realized in Jesus Christ.

Amen
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
The best evidence for God is His incarnation on Earth in flesh - Jesus Christ

Next would come the church which He founded, and which is His bride, awaiting the return of the bridegroom, and which has withstood, and will continue to withstand the gates of Hell itself until His return and the General Judgement. His church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, also chose and assembled the New Testament, choosing the books which were inspired. The four Gospels, The Acts, The Epistles, and The Apocalypse (Revealing) from among so many 1st and 2nd century books concerning our Lord.

Next would come the Ancient Holy Scriptures of the Jews which contain the writings of chosen men, guided by the Holy Spirit of God to put into words a glimpse into the mind of God, and which contain the prophecies of the Messiah which would be realized in Jesus Christ.

Amen
I agree with just about everything except I'm not sure if there were any women who may have written any parts of the OT.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevenfrancis
Upvote 0

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟120,484.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This sort of biblical harmonisation is really weak. It's basically a suggested hermeneutical method wherein the texts don't "contradict" because they're essentially and singularly interpreted so as to not do so. Nevermind any depth to any text in particular, the mantra "scripture interprets scripture" tends to be recited... What this hermeneutical method does, in effect, it creates a new meta-narrative of the bible, the harmony itself, which acts as an umbrella to the texts themselves. It's biblicism in the worst effect...
While I don't agree with you, I'd be pleased to see your harmonization of the two accounts.
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
While I don't agree with you, I'd be pleased to see your harmonization of the two accounts.
I don't pretend to have one, need one or care about the very notion of one. You need one because your hermeneutic prescribes it, I don't care and am more interested in the texts themselves, individually and collectively.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The (corrupt) chief priests could not keep the money Judas returned because it was blood money.

But according to Acts, the priests could not get the money, because Judas was the one that bought the field.

Acts says that Judas bought the field. The resolution is that the priests were acting as a shell company for Judas.

This is not only not in the text, but it explicitly runs contrary to what is stated. In acts, Judas buys the field. In Matthew, he gives the money to the priests, and they buy the field. If you assume that in Acts, he used them as a "shell company" (which, again, is not indicated at any point in the bible), then why in Matthew does it describe them buying the field to bury strangers, rather than for Judas's use? This excuse ignores the context in favor of trying desperately to fix a contradiction, and it just comes off as weak. Is there any contradiction one could not resolve if one is allowed to make up literally any number of details that may or may not fit with the rest of the story in order to resolve it?
 
Upvote 0

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟120,484.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't pretend to have one, need one or care about the very notion of one. You need one because your hermeneutic prescribes it, I don't care and am more interested in the texts themselves, individually and collectively.
Ok. I'll stick with mine, then (Cadet's protestations notwithstanding).
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Ok. I'll stick with mine, then (Cadet's protestations notwithstanding).
So you don't mind that your harmonies don't essentially match with the text, they just need to exist so that the texts sit together smoothly enough? I don't actually see any way outside of that conundrum... But the entire issue isn't important to me.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Site Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,362
14,061
✟257,467.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
There's also pretty strong evidence for a lot of the history elements of the Bible; the huge granary (and surrounding complex) where Joseph stored the grain for the 7-year famine was found, evidence was found of three types of chariot wheels at the bottom of the Red Sea (there was only one short period of time in Egypt where those three types of chariot wheels would have been used simultaneously), I've seen pictures of ruins near the mountains that are thought to be Mt. Sinai, and the general geography of the area supports Scriptures.
Which "huge granary" are we talking about here? What "evidence" of any chariot wheels has been found in the Red Sea?
This Book that cannot be proven false
Lord of the Rings cannot be proven false. Nor can Moby Dick. Or The Famous Five.
Well, here's a snippet that one might consider: Christ correctly predicted the fall of Jerusalem and its Temple in 70AD (~40 years later) just before He gave the Olivet Discourse, He said that "Not one stone would remain upon another" which is exactly what happened when the Romans destroyed the Temple.
2-western-wall.jpg


That would be these stones?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0

dysert

Member
Feb 29, 2012
6,233
2,238
USA
✟120,484.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So you don't mind that your harmonies don't essentially match with the text, they just need to exist so that the texts sit together smoothly enough? I don't actually see any way outside of that conundrum... But the entire issue isn't important to me.
As I said initially, I don't agree with your analysis. In other words, my harmony does match with the text. If you can't see that on such an easy one you'd better not look at any tougher ones.
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
As I said initially, I don't agree with your analysis. In other words, my harmony does match with the text. If you can't see that on such an easy one you'd better not look at any tougher ones.
My point was that when you look at a textual problem you assume it requires harmonising and that's what you think the Bible is for. I don't really care about those sorts of things so I don't push the Bible towards those sorts of "solutions". As far as I can say your "harmonisations" are cute, they're like what children do if you give them Cinderella and Snow White to read in one sitting. Other than that, they're not what is expected of anyone who studies the bible in a university setting (albeit you may not like the notion of doing that, eh?)
 
Upvote 0

essentialsaltes

Fact-Based Lifeform
Oct 17, 2011
41,993
45,111
Los Angeles Area
✟1,004,639.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
1 Kings 16:6,8

Baasha rested with his ancestors and was buried in Tirzah. And Elah his son succeeded him as king.
In the twenty-sixth year of Asa king of Judah, Elah son of Baasha became king of Israel, and he reigned in Tirzah two years.

2 Chronicles 16:1

In the thirty-sixth year of Asa's reign Baasha king of Israel went up against Judah and fortified Ramah to prevent anyone from leaving or entering the territory of Asa king of Judah.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Armoured
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
As I said initially, I don't agree with your analysis. In other words, my harmony does match with the text.

But if you're allowed to ignore some details and make up other details out of whole cloth, that makes it utterly trivial to make any contradiction disappear. It's an incredibly dishonest way to examine literature.
 
Upvote 0

Ratjaws

Active Member
Jul 1, 2003
272
37
69
Detroit, Michigan
Visit site
✟24,722.00
Faith
Catholic
Hopefully you can see the error in saying that "everything has a cause... except this one thing, which doesn't, and which I will call 'God.'"
Archaeopteryx,
No, I don't see the error in saying the First Cause is an uncaused Cause. Are you implying there cannot be absolutes with exceptions? How so? Is your trouble with my calling this exception, this initial cause... God? Is it just that you prefer a world without God... or without rules that come along with Go except those that you make for yourself... or a world without sin where one need not account for their own actions? This despite the FACT that we see evil and sinful actions (people) all around us. Can facts can be true for science but not for morality?

Well if for any of these reasons you are uncomfortable too bad. Keep in mind that Christians also are uncomfortable with the reality of theistic evolution and you rightly call them on it. Why shouldn't someone call you on your denial of a reality just as certain, even more certain than that of evolving beings? This is what I am saying, whether or not the world we live in is evolving, unfolding, there still must be something that does not change behind it or it could not be! To subscribe to such a view of our world would be to fall into Hinduistic idealism, where there is nothing but flux; even though such incongruiency would leave us in a world where you could not use your material science since the moment you pointed to something it would disappear in that state of flux. Sorry there must be something behind the changeableness in our world, a form in behind the constantly evolving beings that is there cause... and if this is so it leaves the door wide open for that first Cause we Christians call God.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
No, I don't see the error in saying the First Cause is an uncaused Cause. Are you implying there cannot be absolutes with exceptions?
That's a direct contradiction. An absolute by definition has no exceptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DogmaHunter
Upvote 0