Thank you again for the kind and calm conversation. It is helping me understand.
Thank you as well. It's a difficult line to walk for a believer to be willing to offend in hopes that doing so will lead to encouragement. We do so because someone had the spiritual courage to do so with us. It is, in fact, impossible not to when expending all effort to point to one answer - Jesus. As in all things, even Scripture predicted as much:
1 Peter 2:6-8 NIV
"For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in Him
will never be put to shame.”
Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,” and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
Now, I have watched your Greg Laurie and I counter with an Aron Ra. One thing I notice in churches or in conversation about different views is that often times, christians might not look at evidence from the other side for fear of it being evil.
You are absolutely right! But what you may be failing to recognize is that we have already been there/done that. And we are far enough in our walk with Truth Himself that we are unwilling to regress and give equal space in our minds to philosophy inspired by, frankly, the devil. It would be for us like being a dog who returns to lap up his own vomit.
I'll use myself as an example of one of us who has been there/done that. Studied:
Nietche
Freud
Sagan
Hawkins
Plato
Socrates
Aristotle
Asimov
Darwin
Eastern mysticism
Reincarnation
Secular Humanism
On and on ad nauseum
But my favorite philosophers were lyricists (which you may have discerned by now!).
Top of the list, and in case you thought I'm leaving out atheists, Neil Peart. I loved cerebral rock! I could bang my head while telling the world a thing or two. "You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice." "A planet full of playthings, we dance on a string, of powers we cannot perceive".
Neil did get one thing right - "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice" in a song ironically called Free Will. Neil however failed to appreciate that he and all of us already have free will, all the way to the point of crucifying God's Son in our hearts - something that we are ALL guilty of at some point - through our own sins and ingratitude.
Another goodie: "Live for yourself, there's no one else more worth living for. Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more."
Hmm... I guess this commandment was too lofty a goal for Neil:
Mark 12:30-31 NIV
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’" The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
Next on the list, Roger Waters of Pink Floyd. I didn't know anyone who had more insight into the human condition. "Come on you miners for truth and delusion and shine."
Ah, a lofty sobrique to crown oneselves with. Shall we follow Rog's example then and tour around performing the same 15-20 songs for 50 years in search (ironically for Roger) of "more and more applause"? Endlessly debating the minutiae of life while ignoring the Solution, and encouraging others to follow us? There is the true nature of sin.
"Driver where you taking us?"
Problem is, with all of these philosophers and poets and false religions - as said - is that none of them offer a SOLUTION (both for the here and now, and eternally).
Worshipping ourselves and our own intellect just doesn't cut it in the long run.
Having said all that, I did give Aron Ra a shot. I have to be frank, though, I got about 2 minutes in and couldn't hang. It was, and I knew would be, an exercise in lies, distortions, deflections, and downright deceit. I appreciate that the gentleman can't help it, though, in that he is deceiving himself under the inspiration of the Great Deceiver, the god of this world for whom he blinds. I did say a prayer for him though. Perhaps 2Philovoid will be willing to engage you about Ra since he is more familiar with his preaching.
As for me, I hope that you'll appreciate that I can reject Ra out of hand because he can't possibly offer anything other than what I've heard from the aforementioned false idols of my own.
Speaking again of Scriptural Truth, all of us believers have been recipients of the following revelation about why exactly the Gospel message continues to bear fruit in the midst of so much deception in this world. We can see this with our own eyes, ears, and in our spirits:
1 Corinthians 1:18-25 NIV
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
"Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength."
You see? Ra, Peart, Freud et al have nothing unique or new to offer. God made fools of them then and continues to do so to this day. He just happens to be in the idol destroying business, thank God for us who were once bound, and for those that follow.
I encourage you to keep seeking, because though you may not believe it now, I'll claim the following for you, along with my prayers that you will make finding God your prime focus, and receive the reward contained therein:
Jeremiah 29:13 NIV
"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."
As for your resistance to faith as a requirement for belief, come on friend, EVERYTHING we say and do requires faith. We are ALL gonna hit the grave with faith that we are right about what comes after. Some believe the true God is right (based on faith proven by experience and evidence - as already provided to you), while the rest believe desperately that something, anything, will be true rather than being accountable to a moral God in the here and now. One would think we'd have a clue watching our false idols fall one by one - out of super-stardom and into obscurity. Only one Name endures going on 2000 years now - Jesus.
Faith is only as good as the object of faith - so again another promise:
Hebrews 11:6 NIV
"And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek him."
Boy hidey, does He ever!
That is not the case here. I am genuinely curious. I want fact based, five senses proven evidence. Not faith, not scripture that was written and edited many times by man.
Faith already addressed. And the facts we base our faith on is also addressed. And we indeed use our five senses to discern everything God has His hand in, especially the signature of His creation in ourselves and in everything that surrounds us. It is impossible for any man to fail to recognize His intelligent design:
Romans 1:20 ESV
"For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
What good are five senses when we seem utterly incapable and unwilling to see the obvious?
As for Scripture reliability, and the integrity and preservation of the text, pardon my bluntness, but you haven't done your homework.
First consider this, why do skeptics question the preservation of the text of the Bible and not any other inferior ancient manuscripts? Let's compare the most original manuscripts we have to each other (using for now the New Testament alone):
From:
How does the Bible compare to other historical documents? - North Hills Church
How does the Bible compare to other historical documents?
Let’s see how the New Testament compares to other historical documents that the academic community generally accepts as reliable.
Two major points of historical data which give us an apologetic grounding:
1. Number of Manuscripts – ancient hand-written documents
- Why Does it Matter? They are the only way we get direct reports on historical events, with multiple manuscripts you can compare and contrast and solve disparities.
- How Does the NT measure up?
- Ceasar’s, Gallic War: 10 manuscripts
- Plato, Works: 7 manuscripts
- Tacitus, Annals of History: 20 manuscripts
- Homer, Iliad: 643 manuscripts
- The New Testament: 5,000+ Greek; 10,000+ Latin; 10,000+ other languages
“The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical authors, the authenticity of which no-one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt.”
-F.F. Bruce
2. Date of the Manuscripts
- Why does it Matter? The closer to original date the better – less opportunity for data loss.
- How Does the NT measure up?
- Ceasar’s, Gallic War
- Written: 100 BC; Earliest Copy: AD 900; Gap: 1,000 years
- Plato, Works
- Written: 400 BC; Earliest Copy: AD 900; Gap: 1,300 years
- Tacitus, Annals of History
- Written: 100 BC; Earliest Copy: AD 1,100; Gap: 1,000 years
- Homer, Iliad
- Written: 900 BC; Earliest Copy: 400 BC; Gap: 500 years
- The New Testament
- Written: AD 45-96; Earliest Copy: c. AD 125 (“P52” fragment of John’s Gospel [AD 85]), most are 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century; Gap: A little as 35 years, the rest less than 500 years
The Interval then between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubts that the New Testament has come down to us substantially as it has been written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”
-Sir Frederick Kenyon
====
As to your contention that modern translations are a product of thousands of years of copying and re-translation...
From:
Does the number of times the Bible has been translated affect its reliability? No, and here’s why.
www.str.org
The Challenge
If there are
multiple steps in the translation process, then it’s possible something gets lost in translation. Consequently, if our modern Bible translations are a translation of a translation of a translation of a...well, you get the point, then they probably don’t resemble what the authors intended. This would be akin to playing the Telephone Game with people who translate the message into a different language as they pass it along to the next person.
Just the Facts, Ma’am
For this challenge, we need to employ the “
Just the Facts, Ma’am” tactic. Many challenges to Christianity are based on bad information. They don’t get the facts right. We can overcome these objections by a simple appeal to the facts.
So, what are the facts in this instance?
Eichenwald and those who continue to espouse this nonsense are wrong about how modern Bible translation works. In reality, the modern English translations go back to the
original languages. In fact, those who can read the original languages—Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic—are in a position to know what the authors actually wrote in the original languages.
As a result, there is only
one step in the translation process—the original language to modern language. That’s right, every modern translation has only been translated
once. It’s not “a translation of translations of translations”; it’s just
a translation. Therefore, modern translators are in the best position possible to provide an accurate translation.
Our modern Bible
isn’t a bad translation—a translation of translations of translations. Of course, this still leaves the question of the transmission of the text. But that’s a separate issue that
we’ve addressed. In the challenge before us, it is enough to point out that the number of translations doesn’t affect the reliability of the text.
====
As to the aforementioned question of the transmission of the text, I think that you'll appreciate in this link the inclusion of a skeptic's exhaustive argument and the Biblical Scholar's response. It is a lengthy treatise, so I'll only provide the link to peruse at your leisure, but can't help myself from presenting a snippet of the climax of the piece...
"This means that our New Testament is over 99% pure. In the entire text of 20,000 lines, only 40 lines are in doubt (about 400 words), and none affects any significant doctrine."
The story behind “The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why”
www.str.org
Show me. Thomas is my favorite discipline because he wanted proof, not just belief on faith alone.
