 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| james wrote: | Very well put John, I agree totally.
Also I believe faith plays a huge part, for evidence to one may not be accepted as evidence to another.
To clearify, if I asked someone to prove to me that some place in history truely existed, or any person such as George Washington or Mohammed, you could provide all the "evidence" you felt you had and I could easily deny your evidence as fakes. And just demand that you "SHOW ME" or I will not believe you. This of course would be impossible seeing both are dead or such a place no longer exist. This would be where faith comes in. |
Would you tell us the defintion of faith you are using here james?
| james wrote: | Argenta, I know we had part of a discussion on this before, I know what I felt as evidence was not accepted as evidence to you ( I am not saying you were wrong).
What is the criterea for acceptable evidence to you ? And is there such a thing as a universal criterea. |
It's true I do have my own views on this but right now I'm asking others how they would prove inerrancy. Hopefully at the end of this we will have tests that we all agree can prove inerrancy.
| james wrote: | | (I must say ahead of time I would question any response relating to science, as an example why, science accepts the "theory of evolution" as evidence for the evolution of mankind and there is no such evidence ( as I believe ) for that is why it is still call the "theory.") |
One day, I happily discuss evolution with you james but for now, please tell me what you understand the defintion of "theory" to be in the sense used by scientists.
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have a way of considering inerrancy of the scriptures; God the Father revealed in the life of Jesus of Nazareth is superior to the God concept of the OT writings ( God created in mans own image).
The same applies to the sadistic torturing God of the (edited) book of revelation.
As the story line seems to go, the Son of God was real nice while he was here but boy, when he comes back all hell is going to break loose with plagues and torture and wanton destruction of Gods children all across the land.
I once heard a Muslim cleric explain that people being punished will have all their skin burned off but then new skin will grow back so that they can keep being burned. This will be repeated for an eternity.
Colter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Bear Cub
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 625
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Argenta,
Faith, to me, is defined as evidence of the unseen, such as God. And yet I could present all the things I accept as evidence for Gods existance and an Atheist would deny these as evidence. Or one may ask for evidence that Mohammed was a prophet ( even though I do not believe this, I try to use various examples to try to explain myself best I know how) and a person of Muslim faith would present their evidence and yet one could still deny this and walk away convinced Mohammed was not a prophet.
I guess to sum it up FAITH is belief in what is unseen, through what each individual accepts as evidence for its existance.
A theory seems to be the opposite of faith in that it is an acceptence of unseen evidence for what is seen, or the tangable.
Does this make sense ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Colter wrote: | I have a way of considering inerrancy of the scriptures; God the Father revealed in the life of Jesus of Nazareth is superior to the God concept of the OT writings ( God created in mans own image).
The same applies to the sadistic torturing God of the (edited) book of revelation.
As the story line seems to go, the Son of God was real nice while he was here but boy, when he comes back all hell is going to break loose with plagues and torture and wanton destruction of Gods children all across the land.
I once heard a Muslim cleric explain that people being punished will have all their skin burned off but then new skin will grow back so that they can keep being burned. This will be repeated for an eternity. |
I’m afraid you’ve lost me Colter. Is this post intended to be ironic or literal? Are you suggesting a way to demonstrate inerrancy or poking fun? Sorry, I just don’t know.
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | Argenta,
Faith, to me, is defined as evidence of the unseen, such as God. And yet I could present all the things I accept as evidence for Gods existance and an Atheist would deny these as evidence. |
This is taking us away from my original question but it is interesting so let’s pursue it for a while.
It is true that some evidence is good at substantiating a hypothesis and some is weak.
The best evidence is evidence that contradicts a hypothesis. It shows that the hypothesis MUST be wrong. For example, if we found two morphologically similar creatures with very different DNA, or if we found dinosaur bones in undisturbed Cambrian rock beds with trilobites, we would have good reason to doubt evolutionary theory.
The next best evidence is hard evidence that is predicted by a hypothesis. For example, evolutionary theory predicts that genetic errors should be passed from common ancestors to their various descendent species. So we would expect to find the same non-functional DNA sequences in bonobos (and other primates) and humans if we came from a common ancestor. This would be hard to explain if bonobos were not related to humans through common descent. In fact this turns out to be the case. This is strong evidence for evolutionary theory but does not prove it since other explanations are possible, if unlikely.
The third kind of evidence I’ll mention is soft evidence. The best example if this is human recollection. Humans are notoriously bad at accurately recalling events they have seen and they may colour their accounts with their own prejudices, self interest and preferences. The best way to use this evidence is the way it’s done in court with several eye witnesses being cross examined so that inconsistencies can be identified and common threads confirmed. Nevertheless, this is much weaker evidence than hard evidence. It’s weaker still if the eye witnesses cannot be cross examined and very much weaker if there are no eye witnesses and only second-hand accounts. Courts do not accept hearsay evidence at all.
If we could agree to this (or a similar) hierarchy of evidence, I would think we could discuss any hypothesis and come to a similar view about the strength of the evidence.
We should also agree two more rules:
1. Where the evidence is weak it is more honest to say we do not know than to arbitrarily choose to believe one or other hypothesis.
2. The more improbable a claim or hypothesis, the more evidence we need to believe it.
Do you agree james?
| james wrote: | | Or one may ask for evidence that Mohammed was a prophet ( even though I do not believe this, I try to use various examples to try to explain myself best I know how) and a person of Muslim faith would present their evidence and yet one could still deny this and walk away convinced Mohammed was not a prophet. |
If the only evidence you have is in category three (soft evidence), it is not surprising that you would be unable to agree, even if you both honestly wanted to discover the truth (which is not always the case, of course!) My rule 2 comes in here because claiming to be a prophet is an improbable claim and requires a much higher standard of evidence. So trying to establish a rule 2 claim with soft evidence just about guarantees failure. It cannot be done!
| james wrote: | | I guess to sum it up FAITH is belief in what is unseen, through what each individual accepts as evidence for its existance. |
I see you’ve changed your definition since your first paragraph! Anyway, if we can agree my three types of evidence and my two rules perhaps we can explore your beliefs in a more rigorous way?
| james wrote: | A theory seems to be the opposite of faith in that it is an acceptence of unseen evidence for what is seen, or the tangable.
Does this make sense ? |
No I don’t understand what you mean. In science, a theory is a comprehensive explanation for a wide range of observations that is well validated and tested and widely accepted by experts in the field. So saying evolution is “just a theory” is a bit silly. In science you don’t get much better than a theory. When you say evolution is just a theory, you are really saying evolution is just the best, thoroughly tested and widely accepted explanation for the origins of species we have. Somehow I don’t think that’s what you intended to say! 
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject: Inerrant? |
|
|
Hallo Argenta, thank you for your most mentally stimulating response, and this book of yours becomes ever more interesting and challenging.
If I were to ask you to prove, beyond all doubt, your personal existence, how would you go about it?
Yes, you could supply birth certificate, photos, we could even arrange to meet personally, if that were practicable, but would that PROVE either your or my existence?
What evidence do we have to prove we are not infinitismal microchips in some complex computer game?
If we consider physical manifestation on this plane, in this dimension, as some form of proof, to whom are we proving our existence?
If we are to consider manifestations in this dimension, we will need to establish our own position, our existence in this time and space, which, sadly, we cannot do.
We may be little more than thoughts or imaginations of some cosmic gargoyle, how do we prove anything?
Let us consider the physical make up of our world and it's inhabitants.
We, and all that exists on the earth, in the cosmos, are made of atoms, molecules, quarks, vibrating at specific frequencies, which cause them to manifest in forms that we, through our senses, identify, catagorize as specific realities.
One frequency produces gold, another frequency manifests as silver, wood, etc., etc.
When we break down the atomic structure to its smallest component, I think it is now described as STRINGS, what do we have?
Nothing but energy, which has NO MASS.
Thus everything is made of nothing, which brings us back to Scripture where GOD SAID.
He CREATED everything out of nothing, so how do we prove anything outside HIS WORD? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Colter
Rabid Pit Bull
Joined: 20 Mar 2007
Posts: 409
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I’m afraid you’ve lost me Colter. Is this post intended to be ironic or literal? Are you suggesting a way to demonstrate inerrancy or poking fun? Sorry, I just don’t know. |
Hello Argenta,
My post was designed to illustrate that there is an evolution of spiritual insight in the Bible. Bible worshipers that have made a fetish or idol out of the Bible itself typically want the Bible to be true all at one time rather then realizing that there are layers of evolved and revealed religion within it.
Jesus was so divinely brilliant and understanding of the evolutionary nature of religion that he sympathetically drew from what was "true" in the scripture and let the rest die on the vine without necessarily entering into direct theological conflict with old ways of thinking.
Take for example the Levitical laws of say, stoning someone to death for a ritual violation. When Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" his students marveled at the profound spiritual truth of such a perspective. Disciples of his new gospel were fundamentally changed by these new ideas without stopping to consider these many changes in their view of God until after Jesus left. During the short 3 years of Jesus public teaching he revolutionized the approach to God as a personal experience.
Only after Jesus left did man begin to contaminate the New Gospel by trying to make sense of it, contrasting it with the OT. NT writers,(Jewish converts to Paul's Christian religion) set about to define Jesus as if his religion was a seamless extension of Judaism, the expected Messiah-soon to return. The NT is Jesus's religion sifted through the Jewish mind.
Contemporary scholars have been able to determine that Paul's version of Jesus' message borrowed heavily from Paganism. Christian holidays, blood atonement, the symbolic drinking of blood are all borrowed from the Mysteries which were common in Paul's home town of Tarsus as well as many other parts of the Roman empire.
The term "inerrant" originally concerned the quality of the copies of the manuscripts, today the 66 books have come to be considered inerrant from beginning to end. As a result Christianity has become stagnant and unyielding, unable to update itself scientifically or otherwise. We are stuck dumbing down every scientific discovery with bogus rationalizations and self deception. Pride is a hindrance to the growth of man as well as religion.
The book of Genesis was written (redacted and edited during the Babylonian captivity) long after Moses lived, it simply represents the best of mans primitive understanding of the origin of the world at that time. The BIG problem is now that we have been to stubborn to update our beliefs we have left thinking man very suspect of the rest of what we have to say in religion.
True religion has no quarrel with true science and visa versa.
Colter
Last edited by Colter on Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:19 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Bear Cub
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 625
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Argenta,
I didn't change my definition of Faith, to me faith is evidence of the unseen or a belief in the unseen through evidence accepted, this is the way I was using it in your post at the top of the page, I did not think I got off from answering your question, sorry if I did. I may be wrong but I see both definitions in unity. I am taking a little more time to answer the rest of your question. As I am a bit short for time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:44 am Post subject: PROOFS 2 |
|
|
In reading the comments re verification, vindication of any document, excusing and ignoring theories, as that is all they are, we observe duplication of the error the Jews made, in mis-interpreting prophecy, ignoring the 'signs of the times' amongst the religious denominations of today.
We need establish the manner in which GOD vindicated, demonstrated clearly how HE speaks to His people, and realize GOD cannot change. Mal.3:6
GOD speaks through a prophet, what that prophet, messenger, speaks is "thus saith the Lord", for the prophet speaks in the name of GOD.
He had specific signs, impossible for man to duplicate, to prove, to any unbiased observer, that GOD was vindicating the MINISTRY operating through the man, NOT the man personally.
GOD speaks through prophets alone, Amos 3:7; Heb.1:1; and, in Deut.13:1-5; 18:18-22; HE establishes the means by which His MINISTRY can be verified.
Jesus stated He could do nothing except first His Father SHOWED Him, through vision, and, without that He did nothing.
Today those same principles, laws apply, and to identify a ministry that is of GOD, we should not be deceived by signs and wonders.
Lucifer can, through accessing the Holy Spirit, duplicate all gifts, EXCEPT discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart, which is the Messianic sign. Jn.4:16-24.
Mat.7:12-23 shows how children of the devil were doing 'signs and wonders'.
Remember, HE is GOD and HE changeth not. Mal.3:6
Mk.13:22 clarifies the immensity and persuasive powers of these signs, yet those doing these miracles were, and in most cases today are, children of the wicked one.
Heb.1:1; 6:6 again helps Christians understand how GOD communicates.
Yes, we need recognize, as stated by Colter, there is an ongoing revelation, a continuing unveiling of GOD'S Word and it is the responsibility of each Christian to ensure they are getting into the fresh food, the message for their own age, lest they be left behind.
Moses message was good in his day but it won't work today, as with Martin Luther's, Wesley's and the pentecostal restoration.
What we need learn is what GOD is doing TODAY, as we are now looking for the catching away of 1 Thess.4:15-16, there is nothing more to come for the Gentiles, the next step is the 'rapture' and then the Word goes back to Israel, through the two prophets.
How do we verify that?
Search the Scriptures as they clearly point out where we are in GOD'S program.
Israel is back in their land, surrounded by her enemies, those of her family, we surely have wars, rumors of wars, famines, plagues, droughts, floods, earthquakes, (get out of Los Angeles) the anti-Christ is revealed and it's time we stop arguing, as were the pharisees and sadducees, and seek revelation of what is happening in our midst, NOW
Amen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 12:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Colter wrote: | | Quote: | | I’m afraid you’ve lost me Colter. Is this post intended to be ironic or literal? Are you suggesting a way to demonstrate inerrancy or poking fun? Sorry, I just don’t know. |
Hello Argenta,
My post was designed to illustrate that there is an evolution of spiritual insight in the Bible. Bible worshipers that have made a fetish or idol out of the Bible itself typically want the Bible to be true all at one time rather then realizing that there are layers of evolved and revealed religion within it. [snip]
The term "inerrant" originally concerned the quality of the copies of the manuscripts, today the 66 books have come to be considered inerrant from beginning to end. [snip]
Colter |
Thanks for clarifying that Colter. I understand your point much better now and you have some interesting ideas we might discuss later.
I know I barged into this thread for which I apologise but my interest right now is to get an epistomological rather than theological view of how we can justifiably affirm a book's inerrancy. I have thought about this and have concluded it is very difficult, and maybe, impossible to do. So I am interested to see how those who claim the Bible is inerrant resolve these issues. So far I have not been given much beyond a way of testing for errors (ie look for contradictions) and looking for external evidence (again a good approach but one that fails where there is little or no external evidence). This is a fair start but it's a million miles from establishing inerrancy.
I presume those who hold the Bible is inerrant will either offer a "beyond reasonable doubt" method of testing or declare their beliefs unfounded. I await with interest...
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John R Nolan wrote: | If I were to ask you to prove, beyond all doubt, your personal existence, how would you go about it?
Yes, you could supply birth certificate, photos, we could even arrange to meet personally, if that were practicable, but would that PROVE either your or my existence?
What evidence do we have to prove we are not infinitismal microchips in some complex computer game?
If we consider physical manifestation on this plane, in this dimension, as some form of proof, to whom are we proving our existence?
If we are to consider manifestations in this dimension, we will need to establish our own position, our existence in this time and space, which, sadly, we cannot do.
We may be little more than thoughts or imaginations of some cosmic gargoyle, how do we prove anything? |
It is true that there are some fundamental things about the world that we cannot prove—such as whether or not anything (perhaps with the exception of my own thoughts) exists at all!! But what conclusions can you draw from this? That we should believe nothing at all? Or we should believe everything anyone suggests? Clearly, both of these extremes would be absurd. So to make sense of the world we chose some axioms—statements that are not in themselves provable but, if we provisionally accept them as true, enable us to build a coherent picture of the world. In mathematics, Gödel's incompleteness theorems suggest that we can never find truth from mathematics because there will always be something missing or unprovable. But that doesn’t stop mathematicians from creating theorems that have been seen to be of immense practical value to mankind.
In the same way we can agree axiomatically, that a physical world really does exist and that humans have the ability to perceive it (although we might have much to say about our ability to MIS-perceive it too). If we cannot agree these axioms we may as well not bother talking to each other as everything is rendered worthless un-confirmable conjecture. So let’s agree provisionally to use these two axioms so we can make progress. Agreed?
With that out of the way we can start to consider what justifiable beliefs we can hold about the world. And the question we are currently considering is how could we justifiably arrive at a conclusion that a book is inerrant. So far I have been given two suggestions:
1. Check the text for contradictions. This would enable us to determine that the book is errant but not that it is inerrant, so we need to do more.
2. Check external evidence to see if it supports the book. This is good but the question of how we proceed if the external evidence is incomplete has yet to be addressed.
I was expecting this to be a rather easy question for those who hold that, say, the Bible is inerrant, since you must have already gone through this thought process. So let’s please come to a conclusion on this and move on.
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John R Nolan
Fierce Poodle
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 278
Location: Elimbah, Qld. Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:41 am Post subject: PROOFS 3 |
|
|
Now we find that what is sought, Argenta, is possibly a system, a means by which one can authenticate, to personal satisfaction, the inerrancy of any piece of literature.
Whether your quest is to support a personal point of view, to attain knowledge for your study or in search of an excuse to free oneself from liability at the time of judgement is each of our own business.
The incredible growth in religious, mystical and or spiritual research, in not only the Western societies, but world wide, is a sign of the times.
It is a sign that our inherent disillusionment with our society, our underlying fears of an unknown future, is beginning to have much deeper psychological effect on the community; that we are, subconsciously, seeking answers, even though most refuse to accept the only answer that fits the questions.
Religion is the panacea, the magic pudding that is going to miraculously deliver the human race from judgement and annihilation at the hands of insane religious, political and social lunatics.
GOD will not destroy the earth, man will, as he serves Satan, through religion.
Lunatics, worshippers of the moon, 'mother', who serve the devil.
Scripture declares that in the last days people will worship the devil believing they are worshipping GOD. Rev.13:8-15
Lucifer will sit on the throne, in Rome, manifest in flesh, and the kings of the world, will worship him, instead of GOD.
That man still runs to the tree of knowledge, rather than the Tree of Life is another proof of the lateness of the hour.
The required proofs are fulfilled prophecy, inerrant prophecies which we now are able to verify through scientific research, yet, as goats, the world still stands, trapped in arguements, debates, hypocrisies and arrogance as we observe the flames already licking at the door; a door some suggest may now be closed to the Gentiles and opening to the tribulation, the return of the Word to Israel and judgement.
Last edited by John R Nolan on Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:43 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: | Argenta,
I didn't change my definition of Faith |
You did. I don't want to make an issue out of this but since you challenged me let me show you why I said you changed your definition:
Definition 1: “ evidence of the unseen, such as God”.
Definition 2: “belief in what is unseen, through what each individual accepts as evidence for its existence”
So in your first definition you say faith is “evidence” and in the second you say faith is “belief”.
Clearly, these are different definitions.
Never mind, we all make slips like that but I am more concerned to establish your test for inerrancy so let's focus on that. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question of how you proceed if there is missing evidence so that you are unable to completely verify a book from external evidence. What then?
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Argenta
Labrador
Joined: 24 Apr 2007
Posts: 322
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:39 am Post subject: Re: PROOFS 3 |
|
|
| John R Nolan wrote: | | Now we find that what is sought, Argenta, is possibly a system, a means by which one can authenticate, to personal satisfaction, the inerrancy of any piece of literature. |
It may be a system or it may not be. I won’t prejudge it. What I am seeking is a way of testing a claim of inerrancy that would satisfy a rational, intelligent and impartial observer. And I’m seeking a way of testing that gives an answer “beyond reasonable doubt”—I appreciate that absolute proof is likely to be unattainable and not really necessary.
| John R Nolan wrote: | Whether your quest is to support a personal point of view, [snip]
The required proofs are fulfilled prophecy, inerrant prophecies which we now are able to verify through scientific research |
This is interesting John. Your second test is to see if my book contains fulfilled prophecy. This is much weaker than your first test. Let’s consider the implications:
If my book contains no prophecies, it may still be inerrant, but you would have to say it is not inerrant.
If my book contains prophecies that have not yet been proven true, you would say it is not inerrant though you would have to change your mind if in say, 20 years time, all the prophecies had come true by then.
But there is a much more serious flaw. To illustrate it I’m going to write a very short book with just threevsentences and we are going to imagine I wrote this book in 1850.
“At 12:30 pm CST, on November 22, 1963, the President of the United States of America, John F Kennedy, will be shot whilst being driven through Dallas in a presidential motorcade. Half an hour later the President will be declared dead by a Parkland Hospital spokesperson.
The earth is flat and encircled by a fiery sun-God.”
My short book made a perfect prophecy: it was unambiguous and accurate in every respect. It also said something that we know from external evidence to be untrue. So the fact that my book contained a fulfilled prophecy does not make it inerrant does it? So the prophecy test does not help us determine the inerrancy of a book (with the possible exception of a book that contains ONLY perfectly fulfilled prophecies). The truth of the prophecies does not tell us anything about the truth of the rest of the book.
There is just one other point here. Being sure that prophecies are true is not in itself easy because it is necessary to distinguish fore-knowledge from lucky speculation. I suggest that a prophecy should not be considered valid unless:
1. It can be established with certainty that it was written BEFORE the event it prophesied.
2. It is unambiguous and specific.
3. A date is given.
4. The prophecy is highly improbable; suggesting things that are likely to happen does not require any fore-knowledge.
5. The whole prophecy happened exactly as prophesied.
6. The person who made the prophecy made no failed prophecies (if you make enough prophecies some are bound to come on the other hand if you really can fore-see the future there is no reason that any mistakes should be made).
*** LATE ADDITION ***
We should also be wary of prophecies that are within the power of future people to fulfill. Clearly, if there are people who would wish the prophecy to be realised they are able to make it happen.
*** END OF ADDITION ***
Maybe later we can examine the prophecies that impress you in the Bible using my six tests but for now I’d like to get a conclusion on the inerrancy question. Do you have any other tests John?
Love
Argenta |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Bear Cub
Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Posts: 625
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Argenta,
I did make a mistake, and I see your point on my definition of Faith, just because I believe in the evidence given for the unseen, I sometimes interchange the words. Sorry for the confusion.
You asked:
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question of how you proceed if there is missing evidence so that you are unable to completely verify a book from external evidence. What then?
After much thought, I had to examine the foundational belief for why I believe the Bible is without error, what was it that truely convinced me? And my answer is TRY IT. This is the only way for you yourself to be convinced is to live for God, live a Christian life, put to work the Biblical principals for living and see if there is not a change that comes about in your life. Put to test the promises of God and see if there not so.
I can look back at how my life was before and after and see evidence of a change that truely came about, changes that the Bible promises, a true peace from within, a pureness of love for others that I can not explain. Argenta I was a violent, angry person who did 7 1/2 years in prison for Attempted Murder and Assault and I enjoyed the rush from that anger, it was like a drug. Today I am nothing like that totally opposite and I give all the Glory to God and His Word for making a better person. All His promises are mine and He has fulfiilled them to me He has never left me nor forsaken me.
This is why I know the Bible is without error, because I live it and know it is the LIVING WORD OF GOD, just as applicable to life today as it was back then. And this is why I will never retract my statement.
Argenta the only way you can get the "evidence" you search for is to whole heartedly accept Christ into your heart and believe on Him. And His Word comes alive to you, it is then you will see how true and inerrant the whole Word of God is.
With Brotherly Love
james |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
