Then you probably need to know that even records of verbal testimonies at that time are very reliable because Jews are very diligent in ensuring that records of verbal testimonies are accurate. The Gospels are written records of what the disciples of Jesus themselves testified (esp. Gospel of Matthew and John) by people who are close to them or to their followers and that is why all four agree with one another and substantiate one another.
Reliable? No.
Verbal testimonies are very unreliable way of communicating, ever played chinese whispers?
If the original story changes little in a few minutes, imagine the changes over hours, days, weeks, months,years and decades.
WoundedDeep said:
I might have been unclear, but I know what I am talking about. The fact that the universe has a set of commands/laws that define how it works show that an intelligent Being is behind its creation. A computer program which functions on commands needs to be designed by a programmer, so does the universe which has its own set of commands.
Equivocating on the word "law as if it was prescribed instead of described? Im sorry to say mate, but to espouse such mumbo jumbo clearly demonstrates that you do not know what you are talking about.
On the contrary, Genesis is written by a single man called Moses (who is historically verifiable) and it is the first written record of events that happened since the time of Adam and includes surface information that God created the sun, moon and stars and Earth itself. Events in there, for instance the Flood, is historically verifiable and is confirmed in myths of other cultures.
Really? Biblical myths are confirmed by other myths, is that really your standard of verification?
Anyone who relies on himself for wisdom and rejects God's wisdom/reject His existence is a god to himself, therefore it is not restricted to theists.
Can an a-santa clausist be his own santa?
As a Christian I presume you reject the supreme Maori god IO. You say the hebrew god itself inspired you directly.
As a NZ Maori, what would you think if I say to you, that you are relying on yourself, you pray to a false god and claim guidance from it, therefore you are being your own god, because you reject IO.
Would you acknowledge and give me any consideration for pointing this out to you. Or would you simply dismiss it?
God taught me by inspiration of thought and subsequent confirmation of the understanding in other parts of the Bible. When I first wanted to understand the Bible I determined to myself to know absolutely nothing. There was no preconceived ideas or hypothesis on my part, I read it like a complete beginner. If I don't understand what a verse say, I pray about it and leave it alone to wait for God to show me. Then sometimes when I talk to non believers about my faith (like how I started believing and what happened in my life to make me believe) and then they ask me an additional question that I also prayed about, inspiration comes to me that answers exactly what I prayed about and I was reminded of other verses in the Bible that confirm the inspiration. (Verses I might not even have read or remembered) Then I shared that understanding with whoever asked me the question.
There are sometimes more than one confirmation of the inspiration I received and thus I'm convinced without a doubt it is from God. When I was finally allowed to go to church after years of isolation, I could see the understanding given to me resonated with what most churches today define as essential doctrines. In fact, I could understand deeper things written in the Bible that most churches don't teach actively today.
Gullibility and credulity are considered undesirable qualities in every department of human life,except religion. (Hitch)
You do understand that the theists who crashed their planes into buildings claimed that God inspired them also. They died in their beliefs.
And the authenticity of your claims are no different to other religious claims.
