Denying all evidence

[Jase]

This is more or less true.



This is not, though I suspect that's not your actual line of thought.

The books of the Bible are interdependent on one another, but Genesis, or at least the creation account, is certainly not literal. That does not mean it is invalid, nor does it mean the rest of the Bible falls apart.

If you look at Hentenza's earlier response, it was hyperbole based on that. I pointed out that the books of the Bible are independent, and the accuracy of one has no bearing on the rest.

He said I was wrong, and that if Genesis is not literally true, neither is the rest of the Bible - hence my hyperbole "Then the Bible is worthless".

 

[7steps]

Your viewpoint seems to be a less extreme version of the OEC hypothesis that the Earth is old, but was only recently "recreated" 6,000 years ago. What is your opinion on evolutionary theory?

I actually don't know who OEC is but I don't believe that the earth was recreated. Why would he recreate the earth? I believe God set certain things in motion so that life could happen. Made certain things happen did create certain creatures and speed up certain processes. I do believe in micro evolution not so much in macro evolution. I don't believe that the creation account concerns itself with to much of that so I don't find it very important, just interesting. I don't believe that 4 billion years was enough time to produce humans from algae without some intervention. I don't believe that life came in a meteor to account for only 4 billion years. Therefore making it closer to 13 billion years for life to develop. I believe in micro evolution not fully with macro evolution the evidence to me shows that we are de-evolving rather than evolving. But again I believe the problem is that people are trying to explain science with scripture and that is not it's purpose so although I believe it is accurate i don't believe it is necessarily pertinent. I know that although science has advanced very much we still don't have all the answers and until we have all the answers we will not be able to verify everything. That includes the fact that we do not have original scripture we have copies of copies translated in different languages. I believe that for someone who is searching for God can find his plan of our redemption within scripture even our very lacking English translations as long as we are willing to leave our religion behind.

 

[Jase]

Pertinent human history is basically 6000 years old, but that has nothing to do with Earth's age. It has to do with human kind since the first human with a conscious to have a relationship with God.

Human civilization exists far beyond 6,000 years ago.

He dictated it.

No he didn't.

Why it was not a science book.
He was not trying to explain science.

You're right, it's not a science book. Then why do conservatives continue to force it to be an accurate science book?

I agree except explain the universe as they saw it.

Care to clarify?

 

[shernren]

hence my hyperbole "Then the Bible is worthless".

But egads, he'd have to read your words non-literally to understand that!

=========

My favorite illustration is: I tell my ten-year-old brother that the sun is a flaming ball of fire.

The questions that need answering are:

1. Does this prove that I do not know about nuclear fusion as the source of the sun's energy?

2. Doesn't this nevertheless serve as evidence in favor of my not knowing about nuclear fusion as the source of the sun's energy?

3. At what level of pedantry should my statement be interpreted? (If we define "fire" to simply be "hot, bright plasma", then I'm fairly correct.)

4. Does the identity of the audience (my ten-year-old brother) affect the interpretation of the prior two statements? (i.e. would things be different if I told a nuclear physicist that the sun is a flaming ball of fire?)

5. Does my alleged scientific inaccuracy affect the credibility of my personal, historiographical witness? (i.e. can I be trusted to tell you that I have two uncles and no aunties?)

 

[Jase]

I've seen this kind of argument many times, but it has never worked for me. Perhaps you can explain it more clearly. In particular, you could address several problems I have with it.

First, the approach it represents ("believe in Jesus because we have an infallible book that talks about him", roughly speaking) strikes me as thoroughly unbiblical. The New Testament pattern is that people repent because of the work of the Holy Spirit, upon hearing the gospel preached. Nowhere does Jesus say, "I will give you an infallible book, and it will tell everything you need to know about me." What he does say is to preach the good news, and that he will give us the Holy Spirit who will guide us into all truth. And that's how most people actually come to believe: they respond to being told about Jesus, whether by ministers or priests, by parents, or by friends. Almost no one believes because they first become convinced that the Bible is infallible.

To be sure, much (but by no means all) of the content of what is preached as gospel comes from the Bible. Clearly, the existence of the New Testament and the authority given to it keeps succeeding generations from gradually changing the content of the gospel beyond all recognition -- but the NT is not unique in that regard. Various creeds, theological traditions and church structures have played and continue to play a similar role.

After all, the gospel was preached before there was a New Testament, and the New Testament was largely based on that preaching. Consistency between a book's teaching and the gospel as it was widely believed in the church was the basis for deciding whether the book belonged in the canon of the NT, so both in theory and in practice it was the content of the gospel that gave authority to the NT, and not the other way around. I think the NT has an important role to play in maintaining the consistency of the gospel, but I don't see why that role makes it and not the Nicene Creed infallible.

Second, the argument as I usually see it -- we have to believe that the Bible is infallible, or we won't have any reason to believe in Jesus Christ -- doesn't actually make sense to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding it, but what the argument seems to be saying that I should believe the Bible to be true, because I want what the Bible says to be true. That's obviously not a good reason for believing anything. I suppose it could simply be an argument for consistency -- how can you believe in Jesus if you don't believe the source that tells us about him -- but that strikes me as more of an argument against believing in Jesus than an argument in favor of believing the Bible.

Finally, there's the simple point that believing something a book tells us does not entail believing the book to be infallible. I have no real doubt that the gospels tell us some true things about what Jesus did and said, while finding it very unlikely that they're completely accurate records. Why is that a problem? I have a book on my shelf called Two Lives of Charlemagne. One life is by a contemporary of Charlemagne, and contains much accurate information; the other was written later, and has some basic facts right, but also has a great deal of legendary matter. Between them, they tell me a lot about the real Charlemagne, but neither of them is infallible. Why should the Bible have to be infallible in order to tell us something about Jesus?

Excellent post. What I also don't understand is the whole quoting of Timothy to support that "All-scripture" is infallible. Except, those who preach that verse can't explain what includes all scripture. Not all denominations use the identical Bible. I generally get the impression (since they are the main ones who preach Timothy) that only the Protestant Bible is valid. But, there was no New Testament when Timothy was written - he was most likely referring to the Torah. Plus, there exists scripture that was not canonized, or not agreed on by all denominations, such as the Apocrypha, Enoch, Maccabees, Gospel of Thomas, etc.

Why do those not count as "All-scripture" by their reasoning? Just because it's not in the Protestant Bible? That smacks of hubris of one's own interpretation to me.

In fact, the Gospel of Thomas is claimed to contain the most recordings said by Jesus of any other book - but it had some questionable views that did not align with church tradition on who Jesus was, which is why it was left out.

 

[7steps]

Human civilization exists far beyond 6,000 years ago.

I already answered this previously.

No he didn't.

So what was he doing with Moshe in the tent. LOL

You're right, it's not a science book. Then why do conservatives continue to force it to be an accurate science book?

Because it does not have to be a science book to be accurate.

Care to clarify?

They did not explain the universe as they saw it because they did not know how it worked. Goes back to dictation and inspiration.

Now you are reminding me of this type of person.

It honestly baffles me how Christians can absolutely deny every single shred of evidence in existence in order to support the infallibility of the Bible. We are discussing in Apologetics whether the Bible is inerrant, and we have gotten to the issue of Hebrew Cosmology.


Despite showing pictures, links, evidence, etc. to the contrary.

How should we deal with this people who obviously do not value education in the slightest?

But I am sure that you are the only rational one.

 

[Jase]

So what was he doing with Moshe in the tent. LOL

Claiming the Bible tells us God dicated the Bible because the Bible says so is very circular reasoning.

Because it does not have to be a science book to be accurate.

If it wishes to make claims regarding scientific truth, then the science needs to be accurate if it is to be claimed "infallible".

They did not explain the universe as they saw it because they did not know how it worked.

They didn't know how it worked, which is why we get the convulated creationist version of the story.

 

[7steps]

Claiming the Bible tells us God dicated the Bible because the Bible says so is very circular reasoning.



If it wishes to make claims regarding scientific truth, then the science needs to be accurate if it is to be claimed "infallible".


They didn't know how it worked, which is why we get the convulated creationist version of the story.

o
You obviously have not read any of my post here. I don't believe in creationism. And the reason I can claim circular reasoning is because the bible does prove itself, it is why God created prophesy and accuracy in scripture so that we know it is trustworthy and reliable. But it is funny that you claim he didn't dictate it or write it with out a shred of evidence yourself. But because according to you I am not right it makes you right and me illogical and unreasoning.

 

[Hentenza]

I've seen this kind of argument many times, but it has never worked for me. Perhaps you can explain it more clearly. In particular, you could address several problems I have with it.

First, the approach it represents ("believe in Jesus because we have an infallible book that talks about him", roughly speaking) strikes me as thoroughly unbiblical. The New Testament pattern is that people repent because of the work of the Holy Spirit, upon hearing the gospel preached. Nowhere does Jesus say, "I will give you an infallible book, and it will tell everything you need to know about me." What he does say is to preach the good news, and that he will give us the Holy Spirit who will guide us into all truth. And that's how most people actually come to believe: they respond to being told about Jesus, whether by ministers or priests, by parents, or by friends. Almost no one believes because they first become convinced that the Bible is infallible.

I agree with most the above but that is not the argument. The work of salvation belongs to only God. It's His purview. It is important to understand that the bible was not written for the unbeliever but for the believer, hence, why Jesus spoke in parables (See Matt. 13). The purpose of the bible is to serve as the standard for teaching in order for the Christian to be able to fulfill the great commission by making disciples. One needs to move from milk to meat. Just like any class has a textbook and the textbook must be reliable. In this case, the bible is the textbook and it is reliable. An unreliable book yields unreliable teaching.

Let me give you an example, the US secret service assigned to the counterfeit unit are taught how to spot a fake dollar bill by studying what a real dollar bill looks like and its properties. Without this knowledge their work would be hindered. It is the same regarding the scriptures. One can not spot the fake teachings if one does not have the standard. The scriptures are that standard.

To be sure, much (but by no means all) of the content of what is preached as gospel comes from the Bible. Clearly, the existence of the New Testament and the authority given to it keeps succeeding generations from gradually changing the content of the gospel beyond all recognition -- but the NT is not unique in that regard. Various creeds, theological traditions and church structures have played and continue to play a similar role.

Sure, but again what is the standard? Most creeds are derived from scripture (hence the scripture quotes and backing) but the issue with creeds is that they are meant to be summaries of faith not the expanded version like the scriptures. Catechisms are also used to teach, however, they are for the most part interpretations derived from scripture by the denomination writing them. There are great variations of interpretation taught by the different catechisms available, hence, the need for a standard for comparison.

After all, the gospel was preached before there was a New Testament, and the New Testament was largely based on that preaching. Consistency between a book's teaching and the gospel as it was widely believed in the church was the basis for deciding whether the book belonged in the canon of the NT, so both in theory and in practice it was the content of the gospel that gave authority to the NT, and not the other way around. I think the NT has an important role to play in maintaining the consistency of the gospel, but I don't see why that role makes it and not the Nicene Creed infallible.

Before the canonical books were written the apostles carried the teaching authority. Their teachings were the standard. One feature of their teaching was quoting frequently from the teachings of the OT. The reason was the commonality of the teachings and the fact that it was written. It was then the standard. Once the NT was completed and the apostles died then the scriptures became the teaching authority and the standard. The Nicene Creed was not written by an authority like an apostle but by men that were not witnesses of Christ. It does not claim infallibility, however, it is derived strictly from the standard (scripture). It was intended as a summary of beliefs that were used at the time to define orthodoxy and, along with scripture, to battle heresy.

Second, the argument as I usually see it -- we have to believe that the Bible is infallible, or we won't have any reason to believe in Jesus Christ -- doesn't actually make sense to me. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding it, but what the argument seems to be saying that I should believe the Bible to be true, because I want what the Bible says to be true. That's obviously not a good reason for believing anything. I suppose it could simply be an argument for consistency -- how can you believe in Jesus if you don't believe the source that tells us about him -- but that strikes me as more of an argument against believing in Jesus than an argument in favor of believing the Bible.

Its a matter of reliability and consistency. Consistency flows from reliability. If the teachings is not reliable then the teaching lacks consistency. The argument is not about believing in Christ because the bible is infallible (that is God's purview) but to believe that the bible is infallible because one believes in an infallible Christ. First one must believe in Christ otherwise the bible has no spiritual meaning or reason. It's then just another book just like the arguments put forth by atheists.

Secondly, I don't believe that what the bible says it true simply because I want the bible to be true but because I believe in Jesus Christ of which the bible is a witness of. Again, if I don't have a standard then how can I know what Jesus accomplished including the atonement? How can I know the attributes of the God I worship? After all, the bible doesn't merely say "trust me" but is goes beyond that. It tells us who the real God is. To have the wrong impression of God opens the possibilities of worshiping the wrong god or idols. The bible teaches this over and over.

Finally, there's the simple point that believing something a book tells us does not entail believing the book to be infallible. I have no real doubt that the gospels tell us some true things about what Jesus did and said, while finding it very unlikely that they're completely accurate records. Why is that a problem? I have a book on my shelf called Two Lives of Charlemagne. One life is by a contemporary of Charlemagne, and contains much accurate information; the other was written later, and has some basic facts right, but also has a great deal of legendary matter. Between them, they tell me a lot about the real Charlemagne, but neither of them is infallible. Why should the Bible have to be infallible in order to tell us something about Jesus?

I discussed most of this above. It is a matter of reliability. Using your example about the books of Charlemagne, both gave you an idea of the real Charlemagne but only on broad terms. By your own admission, they only tell you a lot about him but leaves out a lot about him. The bible, on the other hand, teaches exactly who Jesus was and what He accomplished for us. Once you start doubting portions of the narrative then you start doubting who Jesus really is. Also, you are them taking upon yourself to determine what is true and what isn't. This leads to a subjective Jesus and consequently, false teachings. Again, one must have a standard of comparison to be able to discern what is real and what is not. A bar must be set. The bible is that bar.

 

[sfs]

I agree with most the above but that is not the argument. The work of salvation belongs to only God. It's His purview. It is important to understand that the bible was not written for the unbeliever but for the believer, hence, why Jesus spoke in parables (See Matt. 13). The purpose of the bible is to serve as the standard for teaching in order for the Christian to be able to fulfill the great commission by making disciples. One needs to move from milk to meat. Just like any class has a textbook and the textbook must be reliable. In this case, the bible is the textbook and it is reliable. An unreliable book yields unreliable teaching.

I understand that you believe this, but why do you believe it? More to the point, why should I believe it? What is the basis for concluding that what you say about the Bible is true?

Sure, but again what is the standard? Most creeds are derived from scripture (hence the scripture quotes and backing) but the issue with creeds is that they are meant to be summaries of faith not the expanded version like the scriptures.

Creeds were not written to be summaries of scripture. Almost always, they were written to decide theological disputes between people who all read and accepted the same scriptures. That's why I list them as guides to belief in addition to the Bible: they dealt with matters that were not settled by the Bible alone.

Before the canonical books were written the apostles carried the teaching authority.

Lots of people taught, and apostleship could be a self-appointed office. When Paul disagreed with Peter on a key theological point, did Peter's teaching authority carry the day?

One feature of their teaching was quoting frequently from the teachings of the OT. The reason was the commonality of the teachings and the fact that it was written. It was then the standard.

Sure. And when they quoted from the OT, they sometimes misquoted it, they quoted from books we don't think of as being in the OT canon, they interpreted it allegorically and in various other very loose ways, and they even rejected the plain meaning of the original text. These are the very things you don't want Christians to be doing with the NT.

Once the NT was completed and the apostles died then the scriptures became the teaching authority and the standard.

Says who? I'm looking for an argument for why this is true, not just a restatement of the belief.

The Nicene Creed was not written by an authority like an apostle but by men that were not witnesses of Christ.

The bishops who wrote the Nicene Creed thought they had the authority, based on Jesus' promise to reveal his truth to his church, and on apostolic succession. You don't think they had the authority. Why are you right and they wrong?

It does not claim infallibility, however, it is derived strictly from the standard (scripture). It was intended as a summary of beliefs that were used at the time to define orthodoxy and, along with scripture, to battle heresy.

The New Testament also doesn't claim infallibility, as far as I know.

Its a matter of reliability and consistency. Consistency flows from reliability. If the teachings is not reliable then the teaching lacks consistency. The argument is not about believing in Christ because the bible is infallible (that is God's purview) but to believe that the bible is infallible because one believes in an infallible Christ. First one must believe in Christ otherwise the bible has no spiritual meaning or reason. It's then just another book just like the arguments put forth by atheists.

Great. I believe in an infallible Christ (although not in an infallible Jesus), and find the idea of an infallible Bible completely implausible. I'm still not seeing the logic here.

Secondly, I don't believe that what the bible says it true simply because I want the bible to be true but because I believe in Jesus Christ of which the bible is a witness of. Again, if I don't have a standard then how can I know what Jesus accomplished including the atonement? How can I know the attributes of the God I worship? After all, the bible doesn't merely say "trust me" but is goes beyond that. It tells us who the real God is. To have the wrong impression of God opens the possibilities of worshiping the wrong god or idols. The bible teaches this over and over.

But why confine this to the Bible? Pastors, evangelists and theologians are all witnesses to Jesus Christ, and all tell me about the attributes of God. If they give me the wrong impression about God, I may get completely messed up. Why aren't they all infallible too? What is your basis for thinking that the Bible has that unique role? Roman Catholics certainly wouldn't agree with you; they think that God ensures the reliability of the faith by entrusting the church as an institution with teaching authority. That position seems to have as much logic as yours.

I discussed most of this above. It is a matter of reliability. Using your example about the books of Charlemagne, both gave you an idea of the real Charlemagne but only on broad terms. By your own admission, they only tell you a lot about him but leaves out a lot about him.

No, the life by his contemporary gives very specific details about much of his life. Quite comparable to the amount of detail the gospels give about Jesus. And by the Bible's own admission, it leaves out a lot about Jesus.

The bible, on the other hand, teaches exactly who Jesus was and what He accomplished for us. Once you start doubting portions of the narrative then you start doubting who Jesus really is.

Once you start doubting portions of what your pastor (or your denomination, or the pope) tells you about Jesus, then you start doubting who Jesus really is. Why is your statement any more true than mine?

Also, you are them taking upon yourself to determine what is true and what isn't. This leads to a subjective Jesus and consequently, false teachings. Again, one must have a standard of comparison to be able to discern what is real and what is not. A bar must be set. The bible is that bar.

Of course I'm taking it upon myself to determine what is true and what isn't (as indeed we're commanded to do). You've taken it upon yourself to determine that the Bible is true, and that you'll use that as your standard. What I'm trying to get from you is a reason for making that decision. So far, you seem merely to be repeating the assertion that the Bible is infallible and that we have to accept that. You haven't told me how you know the Bible is infallible.

 

[Jase]

o
You obviously have not read any of my post here. I don't believe in creationism. And the reason I can claim circular reasoning is because the bible does prove itself, it is why God created prophesy and accuracy in scripture so that we know it is trustworthy and reliable. But it is funny that you claim he didn't dictate it or write it with out a shred of evidence yourself. But because according to you I am not right it makes you right and me illogical and unreasoning.

You can't prove a negative. It's your burden to prove that God dictated the Bible.

I think the most compelling evidence that he didn't is because no 2 humans on Earth agree on everything it says, and we have solid evidence that the Bible has been altered over the years.

 

[max1120]

I'll ask you the same question that I asked Jase. How do you know about Jesus Christ?

This question I am sure has some purpose, so I will answer you. I learned about Jesus in much the same way I learned any other subject, I was taught. I read a variety of sources and have been instructed by teachers and professors. I have consulted experts and scholars regarding research and I follow achaeological research closely for new evidence.

Just as the research and new discoveries reveal never before known information regarding other historical subjects, new research and discoveries have provided new ways to understand and view the bible. It does as I pointed out hold many errors and lots of places exist where it contradicts itself and where there are clear portions that were added at a later time than the rest of the text. There are factual statements made which when viewed against modern science clearly are in error. The vast majority of the current evidence available illustrates clearly that the bible cannot be interpreted "literally" and much of it is written as hyperbole, metaphor, parable, and figurative language. Therefore it was never intended to be read or interpreted in a "literal" manner as you suggest.

 

[max1120]

You can't prove a negative. It's your burden to prove that God dictated the Bible.

I think the most compelling evidence that he didn't is because no 2 humans on Earth agree on everything it says, and we have solid evidence that the Bible has been altered over the years.

All very true! It amazes me how someone could not realize that the bible was not "dictated" by god. However I am glad you understand the truth.

 

[7steps]

You can't prove a negative. It's your burden to prove that God dictated the Bible.

I think the most compelling evidence that he didn't is because no 2 humans on Earth agree on everything it says, and we have solid evidence that the Bible has been altered over the years.

I gave you the burden of proof (it's in prophesy and accuracy)you chose to ignore it and come up with your reasoning. Look we can go on forever here the funny thing is that you are doing the same thing that Christians do when they refuse to look at scientific evidence. You have made up your mind and you are not willing to open up and learn what the actual problem is. The interesting thing is that your religion is science and their religion is Christianity but neither of you seem to figure out that there is no argument just dogmatic disputes. Arguments of interpretation with lack of knowledge. Until you get the knowledge you will not get the understanding. So unless you are willing to look at the information and realize that we don't know everything and that we know less than than what we don't know, that what we do know is constantly changing and that actually current science does presently agree with the accuracy of scripture. That scripture is trustworthy and reliable then you will be able to realize the deeper meaning of scripture which is a love story between God and mankind. Unless you are willing to get of the dot and realize that even tough scripture is accurate (especially the closer to original language and authorship you get) scriptures purpose is not to be a science book it is a book of the relationship between God and man? How man choses to ignore and reject Him and how mankind (for those that want to have a relationship) can have that relationship with Him. But I suspect that even with the evidence presented you will do the same thing that creationist and other dogmatic Christians do.

 

[Greg1234]

You can't prove a negative. It's your burden to prove that God dictated the Bible.

The "you cannot prove a negative" cop out will only get you so far in a serious debate. Its actually a positive claim. You claim that the texts were not dictated by the divine mind. The bible does not suspend in a rift once you say that. It is still there, and provision of the means of dictation is still required given that you have relinquished the means presented. It will begin on the part of the atheist to recognize the capabilities of the man, which has to remain within the spectrum of the mind of a finite hominid. The first task then is for him to understand the levels of mind. The trinity, and the manifestation of spirit in matter. This he will not accept, much less for moving on to the capabilities of the likes of John of Patmos, Moses, and the Nazarene all who have played their part in text. It all starts at the beginning, the capabilities o the first race of man, given that man is created. The capabilities of the Nazarene, given that man was created. The capabilities of John of Patmos, given that the promise of the holy spirit by Jesus was fulfilled by Him, given that the Holy spirit dwells with man. The writing of the bible doesnt and cannot start within the time the bible was written. And it is at the first point, where creation diverges from Darwin, that the conflict is actually taking place. Likewise, the discrediting of the bible, is only to fulfill the domination of Darwinism. Nothing more.

I think the most compelling evidence that he didn't is because no 2 humans on Earth agree on everything it says, and we have solid evidence that the Bible has been altered over the years.

The bible is studied. Much has been clarified by the Nazarene, whose teachings are not confined to the bible. Neither do his words live inside him but as reality. Disagreement amongst people will come because of filtration and personal conviction. But the meaning of the text remains preserved. Whether one looks at Genesis for example and wants to adopt Darwinism and interpret accordingly, or whether one sees it as the creation of the man, will come with study and understanding. The mind of the man in the spiritual and physical sphere will sway decisions. But the word itself is not the issue.

 

[7steps]

All very true! It amazes me how someone could not realize that the bible was not "dictated" by god. However I am glad you understand the truth.

explain to me why it was not dictated because both of these reasons have nothing to do with dictation. What does the bible being dictated have to do with no two people agreeing. Like if God dictated it everyone would have the understanding. and the second how does having copy errors after 4,000 years of copying and doctrinal rewriting have to do with the dictation. If I dictated something it does not mean that it will be the same 4000 years after coping and recopying. The fact that it has gone trough so much copy-edit and still holds the same message with accuracy is amazing.

This argument has nothing to do with dictation.

And it amazes me how people think that they know the truth.

 

[Jase]

I gave you the burden of proof (it's in prophesy and accuracy)you chose to ignore it and come up with your reasoning. Look we can go on forever here the funny thing is that you are doing the same thing that Christians do when they refuse to look at scientific evidence. You have made up your mind and you are not willing to open up and learn what the actual problem is. The interesting thing is that your religion is science and their religion is Christianity but neither of you seem to figure out that there is no argument just dogmatic disputes. Arguments of interpretation with lack of knowledge. Until you get the knowledge you will not get the understanding. So unless you are willing to look at the information and realize that we don't know everything and that we know less than than what we don't know, that what we do know is constantly changing and that actually current science does presently agree with the accuracy of scripture. That scripture is trustworthy and reliable then you will be able to realize the deeper meaning of scripture which is a love story between God and mankind. Unless you are willing to get of the dot and realize that even tough scripture is accurate (especially the closer to original language and authorship you get) scriptures purpose is not to be a science book it is a book of the relationship between God and man? How man choses to ignore and reject Him and how mankind (for those that want to have a relationship) can have that relationship with Him. But I suspect that even with the evidence presented you will do the same thing that creationist and other dogmatic Christians do.

You assume I haven't looked at the evidence. Science is not a religion - never has been, never will be - that's a strawman.

You haven't presented any evidence that prophecy proves the Bible. You just said it do, with nothing to support that assertion. If the Old Testament says "Bob will jump over the rock" and the New Testament says "Bob jumped over the rock", that is not credible evidence to the accuracy of prophecy. Several prophecies in the Bible have been proven wrong, and others are so vague that it's not exactly a stretch for them to have occurred. Half the prophecies are in the same format as "It will rain in the near future". The fact that it then rains a couple days later does not prove that the statement was a divine prediction.

You are also under the assumption that the New Testament authors didn't just write that a prophecy was fulfilled in order to further endorse Christianity. We know for a fact the Church has altered English verses to sound more like Christian prophecies than they were in the original Hebrew. For example, the prophecy of the Messiah riding a donkey through the gates of Jerusalem. While not exactly an extraordinary claim or one without the possibility of coincidence, how can you prove that Jesus did in fact ride a donkey through Jerusalem? Do you have pictures? How about video documentation?

You don't. All you have is vague prophecy in the Old Testament, to which the New Testament authors were privy to, claiming it happened. You have no idea whether it in fact did. It's very hard to prove anything without modern technology, or at least compelling archaelogical evidence. However, that can't always prove events, especially one's that don't leave evidence such as riding a donkey through town.

 

[Jase]

explain to me why it was not dictated because both of these reasons have nothing to do with dictation. What does the bible being dictated have to do with no two people agreeing. Like if God dictated it everyone would have the understanding. and the second how does having copy errors after 4,000 years of copying and doctrinal rewriting have to do with the dictation. If I dictated something it does not mean that it will be the same 4000 years after coping and recopying. The fact that it has gone trough so much copy-edit and still holds the same message with accuracy is amazing.

This argument has nothing to do with dictation.

How do you prove that the message has remained entirely consistent without the originals? Especially when we have documented evidence of the English Bibles being drastically altered to preserve bias and political agendas. The 2nd most well-copied, authentic to the original manuscript in existence after the Bible is Homer's Illiad. Does the fact that it was extremely well preserved and copied prove that the Olympian gods are real, or that any of the mythological stories in that book are true?

And it amazes me how people think that they know the truth.

Right back at you.

 

[Jase]

The "you cannot prove a negative" cop out will only get you so far in a serious debate. Its actually a positive claim. You claim that the texts were not dictated by the divine mind. The bible does not suspend in a rift once you say that. It is still there, and provision of the means of dictation is still required given that you have relinquished the means presented. It will begin on the part of the atheist to recognize the capabilities of the man, which has to remain within the spectrum of the mind of a finite hominid. The first task then is for him to understand the levels of mind. The trinity, and the manifestation of spirit in matter. This he will not accept, much less for moving on to the capabilities of the likes of John of Patmos, Moses, and the Nazarene all who have played their part in text. It all starts at the beginning, the capabilities o the first race of man, given that man is created. The capabilities of the Nazarene, given that man was created. The capabilities of John of Patmos, given that the promise of the holy spirit by Jesus was fulfilled by Him, given that the Holy spirit dwells with man. The writing of the bible doesnt and cannot start within the time the bible was written. And it is at the first point, where creation diverges from Darwin, that the conflict is actually taking place. Likewise, the discrediting of the bible, is only to fulfill the domination of Darwinism. Nothing more.

Evolution existed before Darwin. Darwin was actually wrong on several points. The Theory of Evolution would exist with or without Darwin, so you are just grasping at straws here.

 

[Greg1234]

How do you prove that the message has remained entirely consistent without the originals? Especially when we have documented evidence of the English Bibles being drastically altered to preserve bias and political agendas. The 2nd most well-copied, authentic to the original manuscript in existence after the Bible is Homer's Illiad. Does the fact that it was extremely well preserved and copied prove that the Olympian gods are real, or that any of the mythological stories in that book are true?

Have you bothered to study the greek texts. The text on the origin of heroes like Hercules. This all traces back to the beginning, where man was created, and the events which succeeded such, giving rise to these manner of men. But of course, given a Darwinian time line and dictation (as Darwin clearly saw men arising from beasts) you warrant casting them aside. Bt this is only given, based on the fact that study is neglected, or that the source of perception is Darwinism.