Voddie Baucham Why I Choose to Believe the Bible Part 5

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:

Very interesting, to say the least! I enjoyed how he talks about people who claim to believe in science rather than God. In reality those people are being simply ignorant. Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr. talks about how the Bible never asks for blind faith. People often ask for the Bible to be proven on these boards! but even history can NOT be proven with the scientific method. He is a pastor of the Grace Family Baptist Church, so you all know = ][/quote]

Thanks for the post. That Pastor is fabulous. And he’s basically saying what I’ve repeatedly said on these threads. Science is science and faith is faith. And our faith is really not blind it’s based upon a rich history of strong evidence. As the Pastor puts it: “Eye witness accounts, 66 books almost 2000 years and over 23,000 archeological digs to back it all up.”

But you waste your time posting this on T Nation. The non-believers will not suddenly become believers because of this video. You are simply casting your pearls before swine. They will continue to be blinded by their over blown ego’s and ultimately their own ignorance. And a good verse for them is from Philippians.

Philippians 3:19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.
[/quote]

Science is a faith in so far as believing breathing oxygen keeps us alive; there is PROOF of scientific validity. There is no PROOF other than abstract BELIEF in religion. If you try and refute this I can’t try and convince you that evidence is evidence…it would be relatively pointless.

I just want to add the way I believe in God. I tried for years to NOT see God, because of that I could not see what was obvious and right in front of me. I chose not to look at the truth! After some different events of my life I was awakened to the obvious truth. Faith to me means not every single question is answered right away, but after years of life experience the truth becomes clear. We might not have all the answers right away, but with time the truth shows its head.

Do you follow the message I am trying to convey? Probably not but all I can do is try ; )

[quote]forlife wrote:
What does “blind faith” mean? Isn’t faith by definition the lack of knowledge? If you have no knowledge, you are shooting in the dark. You are definitionally blind.

And if you can’t define god, your definition is no more valid than the definition of a Muslim, a Hindu, or an ancient Greek.[/quote]

Nah Zeb, I found the video via a friend I went to school in Chile with and I thought others might enjoy it, like you ; ) I can only worry about myself and if others are honest with themselves they can see the truth themselves. To me, many topics tie into the same kind of thinking. Take abortion for example, yes my faith suggests how I should feel but science does nothing but confirm and solidify my stance. By the way I know the two go hand in hand on MANY topics. Now I am getting long winded, but I was just sharing a you tube and I could care less how others take it lol :o ]

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Thanks for the post. That Pastor is fabulous. And he’s basically saying what I’ve repeatedly said on these threads. Science is science and faith is faith. And our faith is really not blind it’s based upon a rich history of strong evidence. As the Pastor puts it: “Eye witness accounts, 66 books almost 2000 years and over 23,000 archeological digs to back it all up.”

But you waste your time posting this on T Nation. The non-believers will not suddenly become believers because of this video. You are simply casting your pearls before swine. They will continue to be blinded by their over blown ego’s and ultimately their own ignorance. And a good verse for them is from Philippians.

Philippians 3:19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.
[/quote]

You can take it however you want Lift, I just found the video interesting nods head jaa jaa

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
O gooood, an other religins verses sienz debate[/quote]

God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.

Larger than our entire universe is how I think of Him, He is larger, bigger and better than what we can wrap our insufficient minds around. We can NOT understand what His plans are, for me or the world. Plus did I use the word ignorant? Pretty sure I only loosely quoted the pastor shrug

edit I did use the word ignorant but I was also loosely quoting the Pastor, my bad if you took it the wrong way. This is an example of how I often fail at transcribing the words I intend to say ; ) Hopefully, no offense taken.

[quote]Mackk wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
In my mind you can NOT define God because that would limit and quantify the abilities of Him, someone who is larger than our whole universe.

[quote]Mackk wrote:
Just a quick question, please define for me ‘god’ and then explain, based on this definition, why YOU believe it is ignorant to deny the existence of god.[/quote]
[/quote]
Well you’ve already defined as a singular being and male by referring to it as ‘him’. What do you mean by larger? and again…why is it ignorant to not believe in a singular male god?[/quote]

May I ask if you have performed the scientific steps to confirm the science of breathing, by yourself? I never did, I had faith in what the teachers told me.

The pastor talks about science needing to be observable, repeatable and measurable. History is none of these things. You can NOT prove anything in the past because the past is in the past, ie gone and done. I interpreted the Pastors words as ‘he says the adjectives are ignorant’, not the people themselves. Now that was just my take.

[quote]Mackk wrote:
Science is a faith in so far as believing breathing oxygen keeps us alive; there is PROOF of scientific validity. There is no PROOF other than abstract BELIEF in religion. If you try and refute this I can’t try and convince you that evidence is evidence…it would be relatively pointless.
[/quote]

With this sort of thing going on, you want me to have “faith”? I have faith in a creator, not your religion. What follows is just a single textual criticism suggesting specious additions to the bible. This particular addition is thought to have occurred some 200 years later, yet made it to the “official canon”.

It would appear you, and others like you, place their faith in men. Those of us that reject your religion, yet lean toward the divine, truly have “blind faith”.

Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark in the New Testament of the Christian Bible. It begins with the discovery of the empty tomb by Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome â?? there they encounter a man dressed in white who announces the Resurrection of Jesus.

Verse 8 ends with the women fleeing from the empty tomb, and saying “nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.” Many scholars take 16:8 as the original ending and believe the longer ending (16:9-20) was written later by someone else as a summary of Jesus’ resurrection appearances and several miracles performed by Christians. In this 12-verse passage, the author refers to Jesus’ appearances to Mary Magdalene, two disciples, and then the Eleven (the Twelve Apostles minus Judas). The text concludes with the Great Commission, declaring that believers that have been baptized will be saved while nonbelievers will be condemned, and pictures Jesus sitting at God’s right hand.[1]

Most scholars, following the approach of the textual critic Bruce Metzger, hold the view that verses 9-20 were not part of the original text.[1] Textual critics have identified two distinct endingsâ??the “Longer Ending” (vv. 9-20) and the “Shorter Ending,” which appear together in six Greek manuscripts, and in dozens of Ethiopic copies. The “Shorter Ending,” with slight variations, runs as follows: â??But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this, Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation."

In one Latin manuscript from c. 430, the “Shorter Ending” appears without the “Longer Ending.” In this Latin copy (Codex Bobbiensis, “k”), the text of Mark 16 is anomalous: it contains an interpolation between 16:3 and 16:4 which appears to present Christ’s ascension occurring at that point; it omits the last part of 16:8, and it contains some strange errors in its presentation of the “Shorter Ending.” Other irregularities in Codex Bobbiensis lead to the conclusion that it was produced by a copyist (probably in Egypt) who was unfamiliar with the material he was copying.

Because of patristic evidence from the late 2nd century for the existence of copies of Mark with the “Longer Ending,” it is contended by a majority of scholars that the “Longer Ending” must have been written and attached no later than the early 2nd century.[2] Scholars are divided on the question of whether the “Longer Ending” was created deliberately to finish the Gospel of Mark (as contended by James Kelhoffer) or if it began its existence as a freestanding text which was used to “patch” the otherwise abruptly ending text of Mark. Its failure to smoothly pick up the narrative from the scene at the end of 16:8 is a point in favor of the latter option. There is disagreement among scholars as to whether Mark originally stopped writing at 16:8 – and if he did so, if it was deliberate or notâ??or if he continued writing an ending which is now lost. Allusions to a future meeting in Galilee between Jesus and the disciples (in Mark 14:28 and 16:7) seem to suggest that Mark intended to write beyond 16:8.[2]

The Council of Trent, reacting to Protestant criticism, defined the Canon of Trent which is the Roman Catholic biblical canon, and Mark 16:9-20 was accepted as canonical. It is part of the King James Bible and other influential translations. In most modern-day translations it is included but is accompanied by brackets or by special notes.

[quote]Mackk wrote:Just a quick question, please define for me ‘god’ >>>[/quote]The Westminster Confession of Faith - 1646. Exceedingly biblical.

[quote]CHAPTER II.
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.
I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.
II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.
III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. [/quote]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Holy Ghost was such a kidder right?

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.

Larger than our entire universe is how I think of Him, He is larger, bigger and better than what we can wrap our insufficient minds around. We can NOT understand what His plans are, for me or the world. Plus did I use the word ignorant? Pretty sure I only loosely quoted the pastor shrug

edit I did use the word ignorant but I was also loosely quoting the Pastor, my bad if you took it the wrong way. This is an example of how I often fail at transcribing the words I intend to say ; ) Hopefully, no offense taken.

[quote]Mackk wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
In my mind you can NOT define God because that would limit and quantify the abilities of Him, someone who is larger than our whole universe.

[quote]Mackk wrote:
Just a quick question, please define for me ‘god’ and then explain, based on this definition, why YOU believe it is ignorant to deny the existence of god.[/quote]
[/quote]
Well you’ve already defined as a singular being and male by referring to it as ‘him’. What do you mean by larger? and again…why is it ignorant to not believe in a singular male god?[/quote]
[/quote]

Thanks for the vid.

I don’t think that most people demand “the scientific method” to be applied to the case of the bible. Or if they do, they’re talking loosely about the burden of proof + standard of evidence required rather than lab testing. Most people talk about the problem of evidence when speaking of the bible.

It is pretty disingenuous for the guy not to mention any of the specifics of the 23,000 archeological digs. What did these digs show? Also, sentences like “2000 years” doesn’t really achieve anything - 2000 years of what? 2000 years of people believing in christ’s divinity? Fair enough. That’s no evidence for it actually happening though.

Also, all of his prophetic proofs and logic can be applied to the koran.

[quote]byukid wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Thanks for the post. That Pastor is fabulous. And he’s basically saying what I’ve repeatedly said on these threads. Science is science and faith is faith. And our faith is really not blind it’s based upon a rich history of strong evidence. As the Pastor puts it: “Eye witness accounts, 66 books almost 2000 years and over 23,000 archeological digs to back it all up.”
[/quote]

As a person who believes in the bible, I have to say that’s a weak argument because all it proves is that Biblical locations are accurate. That proves nothing about faith- do we have archaeological records of the charred remains of Sodom? Do we have video of the red sea parting? No.

So while these things may prove the bible as precise, it does not follow everything in it is true. E.g. If I wrote historical fiction and in 2000 years people noticed that what i wrote was exactly correct geographically, that wouldn’t make what I had written true.

Also, I do recognize there is some corroborative extra-biblical evidence from letters or tablets that record the same events, but I don’t know that it’s an overwhelming amount. Also, absence of evidence (i.e. for the miracles) is not evidence of absence.[/quote]

The point went flying over your head I see. It’s called evidence. Do you understand what evidence is? If you get arrested for a crime you will go before a judge and the judge will give you (or your lawyer) a chance to offer up evidence that you are innocent. And of course the prosecution will also have the opportunity to offer evidence that you are guilty. Based upon that evidence you will be found guilty or not guilty. It doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone actually saw you commit the crime. Or even that someone saw you on the other side of town during the commision of that crime.

There is enough evidence for me to believe in God and that the Bible is accurate and on and on…

Do you understand the difference between evidence and scientific inquiry?

[quote]Mackk wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:

Very interesting, to say the least! I enjoyed how he talks about people who claim to believe in science rather than God. In reality those people are being simply ignorant. Dr. Voddie Baucham Jr. talks about how the Bible never asks for blind faith. People often ask for the Bible to be proven on these boards! but even history can NOT be proven with the scientific method. He is a pastor of the Grace Family Baptist Church, so you all know = ][/quote]

Thanks for the post. That Pastor is fabulous. And he’s basically saying what I’ve repeatedly said on these threads. Science is science and faith is faith. And our faith is really not blind it’s based upon a rich history of strong evidence. As the Pastor puts it: “Eye witness accounts, 66 books almost 2000 years and over 23,000 archeological digs to back it all up.”

But you waste your time posting this on T Nation. The non-believers will not suddenly become believers because of this video. You are simply casting your pearls before swine. They will continue to be blinded by their over blown ego’s and ultimately their own ignorance. And a good verse for them is from Philippians.

Philippians 3:19 Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things.
[/quote]

Science is a faith in so far as believing breathing oxygen keeps us alive; there is PROOF of scientific validity. There is no PROOF other than abstract BELIEF in religion. If you try and refute this I can’t try and convince you that evidence is evidence…it would be relatively pointless.
[/quote]

Just as it’s pointless to explain to you how confused you are about the word “him” as it is referenced in the Bible regarding God.

And you’re all wet about it being an “abstract belief”. It is no more abstract than any other part of history where evidence is offered up and a logical conclusion is drawn.

Science is science and faith is faith…

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.

Larger than our entire universe is how I think of Him, He is larger, bigger and better than what we can wrap our insufficient minds around. We can NOT understand what His plans are, for me or the world. Plus did I use the word ignorant? Pretty sure I only loosely quoted the pastor shrug

edit I did use the word ignorant but I was also loosely quoting the Pastor, my bad if you took it the wrong way. This is an example of how I often fail at transcribing the words I intend to say ; ) Hopefully, no offense taken.

[quote]Mackk wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
In my mind you can NOT define God because that would limit and quantify the abilities of Him, someone who is larger than our whole universe.

[quote]Mackk wrote:
Just a quick question, please define for me ‘god’ and then explain, based on this definition, why YOU believe it is ignorant to deny the existence of god.[/quote]
[/quote]
Well you’ve already defined as a singular being and male by referring to it as ‘him’. What do you mean by larger? and again…why is it ignorant to not believe in a singular male god?[/quote]
[/quote]

Thanks for the vid.

I don’t think that most people demand “the scientific method” to be applied to the case of the bible. Or if they do, they’re talking loosely about the burden of proof + standard of evidence required rather than lab testing. Most people talk about the problem of evidence when speaking of the bible.

It is pretty disingenuous for the guy not to mention any of the specifics of the 23,000 archeological digs. What did these digs show? Also, sentences like “2000 years” doesn’t really achieve anything - 2000 years of what? 2000 years of people believing in christ’s divinity? Fair enough. That’s no evidence for it actually happening though.

Also, all of his prophetic proofs and logic can be applied to the koran. [/quote]

Just google man, it doesn’t get any easier than that. If you want the truth it’s out there. But with that said anything can be picked apart that’s what human beings do.

Here’s only a fraction of the amount of evidence which demonstrates the validity of the Bible.

http://www.cogwriter.com/news/old-testament-history/archaeology-again-supports-the-hebrew-scriptures/

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article7.htm

http://www.puertorico.com/forums/bible/8805-archeology-proves-bible-facts.html

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/israeli-archaeology-digs-proof-bible/

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.

Larger than our entire universe is how I think of Him, He is larger, bigger and better than what we can wrap our insufficient minds around. We can NOT understand what His plans are, for me or the world. Plus did I use the word ignorant? Pretty sure I only loosely quoted the pastor shrug

edit I did use the word ignorant but I was also loosely quoting the Pastor, my bad if you took it the wrong way. This is an example of how I often fail at transcribing the words I intend to say ; ) Hopefully, no offense taken.

[quote]Mackk wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
In my mind you can NOT define God because that would limit and quantify the abilities of Him, someone who is larger than our whole universe.

[quote]Mackk wrote:
Just a quick question, please define for me ‘god’ and then explain, based on this definition, why YOU believe it is ignorant to deny the existence of god.[/quote]
[/quote]
Well you’ve already defined as a singular being and male by referring to it as ‘him’. What do you mean by larger? and again…why is it ignorant to not believe in a singular male god?[/quote]
[/quote]

Thanks for the vid.

I don’t think that most people demand “the scientific method” to be applied to the case of the bible. Or if they do, they’re talking loosely about the burden of proof + standard of evidence required rather than lab testing. Most people talk about the problem of evidence when speaking of the bible.

It is pretty disingenuous for the guy not to mention any of the specifics of the 23,000 archeological digs. What did these digs show? Also, sentences like “2000 years” doesn’t really achieve anything - 2000 years of what? 2000 years of people believing in christ’s divinity? Fair enough. That’s no evidence for it actually happening though.

Also, all of his prophetic proofs and logic can be applied to the koran. [/quote]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/israeli-archaeology-digs-proof-bible/

[/quote]

Well let’s see here. It seems the only non-religious “source” above only “support the biblical narrative about the era.”. It is not proof of Christianity and its tenets. Even the most hardened atheist concedes the limited historicity of the bible.

It is true that no historical “fact” is absolutely and objectively above doubt or skepticism. For practical intents, however, historians have developed very reliable methods of making sense of a past unfortunately filled with lies, misdirection, and utter bullshit. The trustworthiness of primary (or first-hand) historical accounts depends upon a number of factors, which are perhaps best presented as questions:

–Was this account written soon after the event it describes? How soon? Hours would be best. Days or even months will do. A century is less than optimal to say the least.

–What bias did the authors have? When Procopius was the official historian of Justinian’s court, accounts of the emperor’s life and exploits bordered on hagiography. When the very same author retired and in old age decided to put a lifetime of grudges to paper in a document called secret History, the same wise and benevolent emperor to which he had been subject suddenly looks like a lunatic foaming at the mouth. His every action is guided by malice/jealousy/hubris. His wife, before deified as the purest woman around, is suddenly a complete whore who fucked her stepson and even complained that the holes in her nipples weren’t big enough to take dicks so that she could have more in her at one time.

Keeping this in mind, shouldn’t we consider that the the early Christians who wrote the Gospels had an obvious bias?

–Is the account believable? Homer may have based his writings on a historical war, but we as modern thinking human beings are inclined to ignore the parts about sea monsters and sirens. Why? Because we must assume that the laws of nature and the nature of the world have been uniform, i.e. that the way I have observed the world to operate has always been the way the world has operated and always will be. I’ve never seen sea monsters or Gods and therefore when I read an ancient document that talks about either of them I am immediately and justifiably skeptical.

–Can anything in the account be proven wrong objectively? Scientific evidence has made it nearly impossible for anyone in the modern world to be a true Biblical literalist. Taken at face value, the Bible paints a cosmological picture that is just plain not how the world works. Now, the faithful can ignore flaws in the Bible and continue to have faith in the important parts. I see no problem with that. But don’t tell me that that is analogous to my reading and believing primary accounts of the Civil War, because it isn’t.

Are you kidding me?

Belief in God is blind faith. That’s all you’ve got. You can’t prove his existance and you can’t disprove it. Your faith is amazing, but it is faith.

I think it’s amazing that people can decide to believe something so strongly.

Kneedragger79- I’ve changed my opinion about many things when I discovered I was wrong. Show me evidence of your religion that I can experience with my senses and thus know, and I will happily change my mind again, because honestly, there are some selfish benefits to believing in God and those were nice.

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I just want to add the way I believe in God. I tried for years to NOT see God, because of that I could not see what was obvious and right in front of me. I chose not to look at the truth! After some different events of my life I was awakened to the obvious truth. Faith to me means not every single question is answered right away, but after years of life experience the truth becomes clear. We might not have all the answers right away, but with time the truth shows its head.

Do you follow the message I am trying to convey? Probably not but all I can do is try ; )

[quote]forlife wrote:
What does “blind faith” mean? Isn’t faith by definition the lack of knowledge? If you have no knowledge, you are shooting in the dark. You are definitionally blind.

And if you can’t define god, your definition is no more valid than the definition of a Muslim, a Hindu, or an ancient Greek.[/quote]
[/quote]

I tried for years to believe in God and was very happy because of it. Certain horrors of the world were easier to bear because I strongly believed they all worked together for my betterment because I was God’s child.

Then one day I read Reveletations and realized that God has less creational discrepancy than a 12 year old girl whose mother is on welfare, and that if he was really as awesome as stated, he would have seen which humans would choose him before he created them. Or, if he was love as he stated, he wouldn’t be as jealous as he also stated, since love isn’t envous. He probably wouldn’t sentence his children who turned away from him to an eternity in a burning hell either, a punishment which even the most hateful father wouldn’t wish on his own children.

After a while, I a realized I was benefiting a lot from the set-up this God gave me, but others weren’t and it was God’s fault in the end that they weren’t: he knew ahead of time which way they were going to choose with their free will and yet still chose to make them. Therefore, the responsibility lay soley with him for their eventual torture.

There were three paths of reason: 1. This idea of God is false, yet there is a creator. 2. It’s true, but I can’t in good conscious side with God 3. The entire idea of a creator is false.

I don’t see of a way of us humans knowing for sure about the first and third option, although there is a lot of anthropological data pointing to the development of judeo Christian religions over time, which means the second is likely false.

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Magicpunch wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.

Larger than our entire universe is how I think of Him, He is larger, bigger and better than what we can wrap our insufficient minds around. We can NOT understand what His plans are, for me or the world. Plus did I use the word ignorant? Pretty sure I only loosely quoted the pastor shrug

edit I did use the word ignorant but I was also loosely quoting the Pastor, my bad if you took it the wrong way. This is an example of how I often fail at transcribing the words I intend to say ; ) Hopefully, no offense taken.

[quote]Mackk wrote:

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
In my mind you can NOT define God because that would limit and quantify the abilities of Him, someone who is larger than our whole universe.

[quote]Mackk wrote:
Just a quick question, please define for me ‘god’ and then explain, based on this definition, why YOU believe it is ignorant to deny the existence of god.[/quote]
[/quote]
Well you’ve already defined as a singular being and male by referring to it as ‘him’. What do you mean by larger? and again…why is it ignorant to not believe in a singular male god?[/quote]
[/quote]

Thanks for the vid.

I don’t think that most people demand “the scientific method” to be applied to the case of the bible. Or if they do, they’re talking loosely about the burden of proof + standard of evidence required rather than lab testing. Most people talk about the problem of evidence when speaking of the bible.

It is pretty disingenuous for the guy not to mention any of the specifics of the 23,000 archeological digs. What did these digs show? Also, sentences like “2000 years” doesn’t really achieve anything - 2000 years of what? 2000 years of people believing in christ’s divinity? Fair enough. That’s no evidence for it actually happening though.

Also, all of his prophetic proofs and logic can be applied to the koran. [/quote]

Just google man, it doesn’t get any easier than that. If you want the truth it’s out there. But with that said anything can be picked apart that’s what human beings do.

Here’s only a fraction of the amount of evidence which demonstrates the validity of the Bible.

http://www.cogwriter.com/news/old-testament-history/archaeology-again-supports-the-hebrew-scriptures/

http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article7.htm

http://www.puertorico.com/forums/bible/8805-archeology-proves-bible-facts.html

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/israeli-archaeology-digs-proof-bible/

A great reply found on one of those sites:

Apologies for replying so late, your site just sent me an alert telling me there had been a reply.

In any case, I’m sure you can understand my confusion about your intentions: this is a religious site setup to discuss the Bible from a Christian perspective. For example, as I write this, there is a link to an article entitled “Jesus Christ is the Fulfillment of Prophecy” in which you use a common trick of circular logic: you use the Bible to try and prove the Bible is true. (BTW, the fundamental flaw in that argument comes from here “Additionally, He would be connected to the lineage of King David, who was from the tribe of Judah.” JOSEPH was from the line of David, but JOSEPH wasn’t Jesus’ father, was he?) Why would I think this article is any different?

But, I see where my confusion crept in. Your article starts from a false premise: “the Old and New Testament writings of the Bible have long been considered fables and mythsâ??thereby, deemed untrustworthy. For some critics, if you cannot prove something with empirical evidence, it is not to be taken seriously.”

That’s absolutely not true (the “considered myths” bit, not the “empirical evidence” bit). Even the devoutest atheist understands that the Bible is a collection of stories passed down through generations. We get that there is a lot in the Bible that his historically accurate, but also find the fantastical bits are hard to swallow. We believe that there was a man named Joshua who conquered the Canaanites, and started that campaign by destroying the city of Jericho. We do NOT believe, however, that there was a supernatural component to it. The STORY was made into a myth by the addition of the supernatural, but the act and historical event were not myths.

If you want to see how people can believe the veracity of the Bible in a historical context and not a supernatural one, I HIGHLY recommend Battles BC on the History Channel. The season’s over, but you might be able to catch a rerun, or you can buy the DVDs. The stories of Joshua, Moses and David are all covered in detail from a historical and archeological perspective. "

In addition, there are many other recounts of the past from different religions, such as the Aztecs, which involve mention of supernatural dieties’ influence on real events. These deities are not the god discussed above, yet the documents are verified recounts of historical events. Do you believe in the Atzec gods because their ancestors recounts of historical events mention the gods influence?

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]byukid wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Thanks for the post. That Pastor is fabulous. And he’s basically saying what I’ve repeatedly said on these threads. Science is science and faith is faith. And our faith is really not blind it’s based upon a rich history of strong evidence. As the Pastor puts it: “Eye witness accounts, 66 books almost 2000 years and over 23,000 archeological digs to back it all up.”
[/quote]

As a person who believes in the bible, I have to say that’s a weak argument because all it proves is that Biblical locations are accurate. That proves nothing about faith- do we have archaeological records of the charred remains of Sodom? Do we have video of the red sea parting? No.

So while these things may prove the bible as precise, it does not follow everything in it is true. E.g. If I wrote historical fiction and in 2000 years people noticed that what i wrote was exactly correct geographically, that wouldn’t make what I had written true.

Also, I do recognize there is some corroborative extra-biblical evidence from letters or tablets that record the same events, but I don’t know that it’s an overwhelming amount. Also, absence of evidence (i.e. for the miracles) is not evidence of absence.[/quote]

The point went flying over your head I see. It’s called evidence. Do you understand what evidence is? If you get arrested for a crime you will go before a judge and the judge will give you (or your lawyer) a chance to offer up evidence that you are innocent. And of course the prosecution will also have the opportunity to offer evidence that you are guilty. Based upon that evidence you will be found guilty or not guilty. It doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone actually saw you commit the crime. Or even that someone saw you on the other side of town during the commision of that crime.

There is enough evidence for me to believe in God and that the Bible is accurate and on and on…

Do you understand the difference between evidence and scientific inquiry? [/quote]

Wow you have a low requirement for evidence. Even after I became an agnostic, I didn’t believe evolution was happening until I saw live footage of microevolution and learned of real examples of one species changing into another during my lifetime (one type of snail, one mutation in one generation resulted in a reversal of the spiraling pattern, which reversed the way the snail had to align for sex and therefore made it impossible for it to breed with those who didn’t share the mutation)

[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< A typical neato self worshiping post >>>[/quote]If the God who is actually there has decided you are one of His you will be stunned to learn that nothing is about you and everything is about Him. See it’s like this. He’s God and we ain’t. Though we like to delude ourselves into believing that God must conform to us or be either wrong or non existent.

I do not joyously offer to God my most grateful, humble and adoring worship simply because He does for me. Though He does and I am unspeakably grateful. Or because He bows to my pitiful notions of love or justice. I worship Him because He is God and it is natural and right for men to recognize the derivate nature of their existence and render due glory to their creator. It is natural that is where sin does not dominate. In the garden of Eden and the hearts of the redeemed. Death in sin has made the unnatural natural wherein the creatures live in stiff necked rebellion against He to whom they owe their very existence.