|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/10/2008 9:11:06 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 400
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
An Athiest friend of mine argued: You cannot support an argument based on words alone. Those words must be supported with evidence. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a human being can be created from dust, no scientific evidence that shows god even exists. None. Words from a book does not count.
My response: Evidence is that which is offered in argument in support of a contention at issue. Legal evidence is data presented to a court or jury in support of a contention at issue and may include testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects. The only testimony not allowed is hearsay evidence.
Evidence is any information given in support of a contentious issue, or issue in contention,, whether furnished by witnesses or derived from documents or from any other source. Again, hearsay evidence is the only testimony rejected consistently.
"Proof" does not exist. "Fact" does not exist. "Fact" is the result of agreement among people who think they have adequately examined a matter sufficiently to render a judgement as to its truth or falsity. If a preponderance of those involved, after examining the evidence in support of a perspective as to what the thing means or is, agree, then it is said that they have "proved" their premise. The actuallity of course is, they have agreed upon a popular opinion as to the merits of what has been examined.
Many times examination is faulted by virtue of examining the wrong thing. Look at how many times the earth was "proved" flat. The examinors who were in agreement "proved" their scientific acumen by examining the wrong thing. As soon as someone tried successfully to sail around (circumnavigate) the earth, it became obvious they were examining the wrong thing. In this case the "wrong thing" being examined was Portugese sailor's testimony, who only wanted to protect their trade with other nations, from English and French interference.
Proof is a conclusion reached by examination of evidence so compelling as to remove all reasonable doubt. A point has been "proved" when those examiners of evidence agree as to a conclusion with a preponderance of agreement as to its value in determining truth.
Any argument may be supported by words alone if the words can convey sufficient accord as to their evidentiary value toward apprehending truth. The words themselves may be offered as evidence, their value to be determined by the examiners. (In other words, "leave it to the jury to decide")
My Athiest friend stated:
There is absolutely no scientific evidence that shows a human being can be created from dust,
My RESPONSE: To what does a body return, if not to dust? Are you saying that a body deteriorating into dust is a metamorphosis? It certainly serves as "scientific evidence" whether it alone is sufficient remains for argument. But scientific evidence it is.
My Athiest friend said: "no scientific evidence that shows god even exists. None. Words from a book does not count."
My RESPONSE: "Words in a book does not count" where? It most certainly DOES count in a court of law, a court of enquiry, and a court of scientific investigation. Where does it NOT count?
All theological documentation, upon discovery, are taken through a vigorous scientific examination to determine authentication, age, and degree of probability as to its claims for itself. Scientific documents on the other hand, are NOT given the same exposure to theological examination. And properly so. But how about just a little bit of regard for truth here? Scientific examination is not for the purpose of making every theological discovery a lie, nor is it for the purpose of manufacturing new truths; it is for the purpose of allowing the documents to serve as evidence in their own right. It offers identity to the document, credentiality so to speak.
You need to reevaluate the value of scientific experience to the conclusion of truth. You see, when you experience something in the scientifically controlled laboratory, how can you possibly teach others of what you have discovered except through TESTIMONY? You can publish written composition with explanations, graphic illustrations, bell curves, geometric figures, statistical data, whatever you want to include as having evidentiary value. Or you can give a speech, have a debate, or lecture till your heart is fully satisfied you have offered your best evidence. But it remains TESTIMONY, not experience, that is the best evidence.
Experience only constitutes evidence to YOU. EVERYONE else must depend upon your TESTIMONY, whether it be regaling the experience, showing the depth of enthusiasm it has conjured up, showing how a moral change has been effected by this experience, or some other focus of influence. The fact remains, the only way you will get others to understand why your experience is significant, is with your TESTIMONY.
SPOKEN AND OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY is and has always been the best evidence. And a written record is accepted as testimony in any court IN THE WORLD as evidence. To say a book cannot speak for itself, is to say "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts."
Far too much credence is given to allegations about "experience" than those experiences warrant, for the simple reason, experience is only as good as the testimony that relates it. Experience was never inspired. Testimony was inspired in over forty authors who wrote sixty-six books, called the bible. Eye-witness testimony was inspired in participants in some of the most profound historical events ever recorded.
Experience is not evidence. It is experience, and proves nothing. It still requires analysis, and testimony to even understand what it is being experienced. Even in those circumstances in which testimony is silent, it is still considered by the one experiencing whatever it is that happened to him/her.
Even fingerprint evidence is worthless in a court proceeding, without testimony to instruct the jury as to their significance. I may produce fingerprints in court, but without explaining (testimony) whose fingerprints they are, where they were found, and a myriad of other considerations, the "evidence" supposed by the fingerprints would not even be allowed to be shown to the jury.
And it is "evident" that many experiences are misunderstood, and fanaticism may develope from just such a misunderstood experience. "The earth is flat" for example.
Testimony therefore, remains the best evidence. All testimony can be rebutted with equal credence given to the author of the rebuttal. All he has to do is establish equal credentials with those of the author of the original statement.
Consider -
Original Testimony of God "Be still and know that I am God."
Rebuttal?
What resolves the issue is consideration of the following: God separated the seas from dry land. In their first state, they shared a common DNA source. Separated, they still share a common DNA source. Do I "have evidence" that God separated dry land from the sea? You bet I do. It is in the form of original factual unrebutted testimony.
When one says "Be still and know that I am God." and also says that he created the heaven and the earth, and separated the dry land from the sea, until there is at least equal testimony from someone with equal credentials, testifying in opposition to the former, I will accept the testimony of the former before I will accept the doubt promoted by the latter.
When the creator speaks, the creation does not have an adequate rebuttal when it offers "everyone knows" as an argument. And when scientists offer "Evolution" as a FACT when IN FACT IT IS ONLY A THEORY, I have even less reason to accept the argument.
When God created fish and birds from the sea, why does it concern some if they have a "certain percentage" of common DNA?"
Because men who study this, determine how closely related they are. And based upon their consensus, decide birds didn't directly come from the sea, they evolved from therapod dinosaurs.
But the unrebutted author God said, "let the waters under the heaven be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he seas;" [Gen 1:9-10]
"And God said let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, AND FOWL THAT MAY FLY ABOVE THE EARTH IN THE OPEN FIRMAMENT OF HEAVEN. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which THE WATERS BROUGHT FORTH abundantly, after their kind, and EVERY WINGED FOWL AFTER HIS KIND;" [Gen 1:20-21]
But man says not so, our scientists have determined that our theories are facts, and "God" is only a theory accepted by a dellusional few. But, my friend, the evidence is on my side. It is simple, factual, and unrebutted by equal authority.
To establish "equal credentials" with God science will have to produce a scientist who is God. And they will have come full circle; Disproving God by being God.
Again, When God made the trees, herbs, animals, and man, there is a common source for DNA. IT does NOT prove one descended from the other, rather it proves a common creator."
Quote profferred by Athiest:Again, no evidence that God did it. When you look at nested hierarchies that confirm genetic similarities of closely releated lifeforms, it DOES overwhelmingly support a common ancestor for all of life.
My RESPONSE: Again, the best evidence, my friend..... Unrebutted testimony from not just a witness, but from the perpetrator himself.
To rebutt the testimony of God it is required that you show by unrefutable evidence that he did not make the statements attributed to him, or that he lied, or that his testimony is innacurate in some manner.
"I disagree" or "I do not believe it" is not rebuttal my friend, it is a simple statement of doubt.
Science will never PROVE any of their speculations about the inheritance of special peculiarities because the testimony has already been given by one who brought it about, and there is no rebuttal to the testimony, only doubt and disbelief. Doubt and disbelief do not make good witnesses.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/10/2008 9:43:21 AM
|
|
|
Ephesians4_32
Posts: 2278
Joined: 4/30/2005
From: The Crossroads of America
Status: offline
|
There is no scientific evidence that God does not exist. It is only conjecture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/10/2008 12:34:12 PM
|
|
|
Bluethread
Posts: 831
Joined: 11/8/2007
Status: online
|
Science can't prove who started this thread. We accept by faith that you(stand in for Moshe if you will) speaking honestly as Adonai directs you and that the moderators(translators) have verified your information.
Science can only verify what is, it can not prove what has happened in the past or what will happen in the future. The scientific method requires the replication of an observable event in a controlled environment. We might be able to prove that Adonai works among His people to reveal His will today, if we can develop a clear hypothisis, objectively record our observations and develop a procedure based on those observation that can be replicated. However, even then once that experiment is complete, it must then be repeated again, because things change over time. Therefore, we can't even prove that the experiment took place scientifically.
There are at least two other ways of proving something, legally an logically. Legally we can prove that the above mentioned experiment took place as long as there were two or more witnesses to the experiment or there is a written record of the experiment attested by two or more witnesses. We can also verify the conclusions of the experiment logically. If we accept the observations as legal fact, we can compare them with rules we have developed from other observations and conclude whether they are consistant or not.
We see the legal proof in the Torah and the logical proof is encouraged by Paul inthe Apistolic writings. The scientific method is extrabiblical and less reliable because, unless it is verified by the other two methods, its conclusions are only valid at the present time. Which just passed inton history.
_____________________________
"Show me wherein I have errored and I will hold my tongue." Iyov(Job)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/10/2008 9:36:19 PM
|
|
|
mistichd
Posts: 4
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Tennessee
Status: offline
|
The only way we will ever prove that God wrote the Bible is to do exactly what Jesus did. Let His Word manifest in our lives until it shows in every thing we do even unto death. Theological discussions aren't getting us anywhere in advancing the Gospel. It has to be real.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/10/2008 11:04:04 PM
|
|
|
Doc65
Posts: 277
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Consider -
Original Testimony of God "Be still and know that I am God."
So, if your atheist friend was to appear in a court and more than two witnesses corroborated the fact that he had committed a crime (e.g., they saw him, in broad daylight, stab a man in cold blood), and he had no alibi and no refuting evidence other than hearsay, would that not be enough to convict him?
This is the same evidence by which we know that Christ's life, death by crucifixion, resurrection and ascension are true - there are witnesses to at least one or more of the events to ascertain and verify that they occurred.
To state that God, and His scripture, is false, on the same terms, without witnesses, without evidence, without any verifiable circumstantial evidence, proves itself wrong - your friend, in the same manner that he wishes to prove God wrong, can no more prove his case, in a legal or juriprudical sense, than through hearsay evidence. Believers do not say that "God wrote the Bible" but that it was written by many witnesses under inspired testimony - more witnesses who are more consistent than so-called "scientific fact", which changes testimony as evidence comes to light; indeed, if "scientific reason" were called to testify before a judge in a truly objective court, it would be found to be, at best, unreliable and, at worst, ambiguous. Even astrophysicists, who seek to find what there was before what is, are reduced to admitting that there is something greater than what they can fathom (OK, so there was a big bang, and one before that and one before that - what came before all of that and where did it all come from and why did it happen....?Chance does not happen by chance, even the best mathematician will agree).
The 2.5 cents of myself...
_____________________________
"The Sovereign Lord is my strength; He makes my feet like the feet of a deer, He enables me to go on the heights." Hab. 3:19
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/11/2008 6:37:58 AM
|
|
|
GrahamCracker
Posts: 2134
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Dallas, TX
Status: offline
|
theo-book
When I get into discussions I make a mental distinction between "proving" something to someone and "convincing" someone of something. You can prove things when people will communicate what they will accept as proof. But convincing someone is a different story. Often, when they say you cannot prove something, what they really mean is that you cannot convince them. That is to say, they will never be convinced, no matter what evidence is presented.
Typically, by asking them for the kind of proof they require and then demonstrating how their "proof" has led them to different types of conclusions may convince them that their thinking process is seriously flawed. You might not convince them, but you might make them feel stupid. That might be the best you can do.
_____________________________
Larry
Granddaughter, Skyler Lynn was born July 1, 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/11/2008 9:23:55 AM
|
|
|
timf
Posts: 705
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline
|
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/12/2008 3:00:35 AM
|
|
|
BibleL7
Posts: 438
Joined: 2/1/2008
Status: online
|
Just had to put in my pennies worth. If the only thing your Atheist friend can come up with is there is no way to prove man was made from dust then he is a sore excuse for an atheist. Ask him to prove that evolution is possible seeing as science has never proved it possible let alone a fact. Where is the evidence of any of the so called claims of evolutionary theory or big bang theory. Even the foremost expert on DNA claims to have proved that all humans came from the same tribe in Africa. Yet he can not link any evidence of evolving from another species. If the big bang theory were true why are there constellations and why are they always in the same area of the sky each year to show seasons. Not possible in chance, and contradicts the big bang theory. And where are the evolving creatures on the earth if man evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Where is any proof of this happening. This should be evident all around in transforming beings and plants etcetera. Not going to find it simply because it does not exist.
As Genesis chapter one states People beget people cattle beget cattle all after their own kind same with plants. As for proving God wrote the Bible lets see how else can a collection of 66 books written by over 40 authors over a time span of at least 1500 years or so all point to one person, Jesus, in agreement and for-tell events with accuracy unless God inspired it? Forget proving your side let him try to prove his point. Not possible of course then when he comes before the Lord he will only have to admit that he did not listen to you when he was told the truth. Therefore convicting himself of deserving hell. His choice of course.
Just the opinion of a small town preacher who is former Atheist.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/12/2008 6:51:50 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 400
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
Far from the case. He did demonstrate a good bit of knowledge promoting evolution. My main focus was not on a challenge to his evolution defense. What I focused upon was his challenge that the bible has no champion, that words are not evidence; and that it cannot be demonstrated that there is a god who wrote the bible.
After showing him that evolution is not a fact, but is very much theory,
I posted my thoughts on testimony being the best evidence, then went over some of the testimony found in scripture, and he never came back.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 4/12/2008 7:00:16 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/12/2008 11:17:54 AM
|
|
|
Doc65
Posts: 277
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
and he never came back.
To some, the truth of the Gospel is a great offense...perhaps one day he'll come back, once he realizes the truth of Christ...
_____________________________
"The Sovereign Lord is my strength; He makes my feet like the feet of a deer, He enables me to go on the heights." Hab. 3:19
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/12/2008 3:28:38 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 400
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
That is my sincere hope. That God will so bless him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/13/2008 4:25:27 AM
|
|
|
FurGodWurLivin
Posts: 1076
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
|
Pardon my realism... You will not prove that God wrote the Bible... because men wrote it. True, they were under inspiration of God, but God did not pen the book and deliver it in completed form to men at any time. Now that my literalist stuff is taken care of, lets deal with the topic.
My answer to the lack of evidence argument is that they are operating on just as much assumption and lack of evidence as they claim you are. Nothing in science necessitates that God does not exist. Supposing for a minute the evolution was 100% complete scientific law... so? If they can prove beyond shadow of a doubt how the universe began, it will not destroy the notion that there is a God. All you proved is that He didn't actually speak the world into existence by His words. As much as the atheist likes to puff himself up with arguments, data, and whatever else, nothing in his arsenal demands that God not exist at all. And that is where the argument really breaks down. Until they prove an idea is true that is mutually exclusive with the idea of the existence of God, the existence of God is not in question.
Adam
_____________________________
I am hyena, Jesus is my Mufasa...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/13/2008 4:52:47 AM
|
|
|
iSERVEaJEW
Posts: 445
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline
|
I agree that you cannot prove it. You can come up with many convincing arguments that might sound logical, but people will only believe if He is drawing them. You can show them amazing miracles where the blind regain their sight or people are raised from the dead and they will not believe.
For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach [Messiah] crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, [Messiah] the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Corinthians 1:22-24, NASB)
Pray for your friend, that their heart is softened and live a life of holiness. Here's a quote on prayer that I really love:
Prayer moves God. If it did not, then we would not bother to pray, for there would be no expectation of an answer. But the Bible tells us that God does hear prayer and that He acts upon it. As the bumper sticker proudly proclaimed, "God takes requests."
Prayer moves the people of God. Because God is the One who changes hearts, a prayer to Him is able to bring about change in the heart of another. It has been said that everyone becomes a Calvinist when he prays. This is because even the most ardent Arminian will pray that the Lord will change the heart of the sinner.
That's my best advice.
On the whole evolution/creation issue, I would like to introduce you to this idea:
http://www.yashanet.com/library/missing_link.htm
I don't believe what this link teaches, but I think that there is some merit to it and I am investigating it. If what this link teaches is true, the evolution/creation stumbling block might be removed for some. I was adamant on the whole six day creation idea until I read this - now, I'm considering the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
< Message edited by iSERVEaJEW -- 4/13/2008 5:05:49 AM >
_____________________________
Saved by His grace alone.
Called to be His disciple and imitating Him.
Keeping the Torah with zeal.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/13/2008 5:44:42 AM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 364
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
That link blows me away a little. The reason being, that I have always held this thought, that the creation of Adam approx 6000 years ago could refer to the creation of the spiritual side of the man, seperate to the physical development of mankind. This would explain why Adam's sons could find a wife, for example. But, in all of the debate on the issue, I have never heard this possibility raised. I would be reluctant to quote 13th century kabbalists in support, but it is interesting to see where Jewish theological ideas lie, in regard to the age of the creation. (ie that the six "days" refer to "ages") My understanding is that early Christianity held similar ideas, that the "literalist" interpretation of Genesis is a relatively recent development.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/13/2008 11:17:45 AM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 400
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FurGodWurLivin
Pardon my realism... You will not prove that God wrote the Bible... because men wrote it. True, they were under inspiration of God, but God did not pen the book and deliver it in completed form to men at any time. Now that my literalist stuff is taken care of, lets deal with the topic.
Adam
quote:
ORIGINAL: theo book
"Proof" does not exist. "Fact" does not exist. "Fact" is the result of agreement among people who think they have adequately examined a matter sufficiently to render a judgement as to its truth or falsity. If a preponderance of those involved, after examining the evidence in support of a perspective as to what the thing means or is, agree, then it is said that they have "proved" their premise. The actuallity of course is, they have agreed upon a popular opinion as to the merits of what has been examined.
Now that my literalist stuff is taken care of, lets deal with the topic.
It is not necessary for one to "hold the pen" for it to be said of him that he "wrote the book." If one authors the concepts, dictates the punctuation (the "jots" and the "tittles"), and directs the direction of the work, he has in fact written the book.
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book"[Exo 17:14] is the beginning of a long list of occasions in which God directed men to write designated information in a book.
God directed Moses to record the account of the covenant;
"And the LORD said unto Moses, Write thou these words: for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant with thee and with Israel." [Exo 34:27]
God even directed that kings should make for themselves a copy of that work that was the possession of the priests, the books that were commanded by God to be written:
"And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites: 19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them:" [Deu 17:18-19]
Isaiah was specifically told to write, and was given his subject by God:
"Moreover the LORD said unto me, Take thee a great roll, and write in it with a man's pen concerning..." [Isa 8:1]
God told Isaiah to warn Israel from calamities to come by writing it in a book: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever:" [Isa 30:8]
Jeremiah was told to write in a book, all the words tha tGod said to him:
"The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 2 Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book." [Jer 30:1-2]
God told Jeremiah to write all the words he had spoken to him since Josiah: "And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, 2 Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day." [Jer 36:1-2]
Jeremiah dictated the Lord's words to Baruch and Baruch wrote them in a book. Baruch was not the author, Jeremiah was not the author. God was the author. "Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book." [Jer 36:4]
Baruch heard Jeremiah's words from the Lord, and wrote them in a book:
"And they asked Baruch, saying, Tell us now, How didst thou write all these words at his mouth? 18 Then Baruch answered them, He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book." [Jer 36:17-18]
When the king had the roll burned, "Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, 28 Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned." [Jer 36:27-28]
Both Ezekial and Habakuk were told to write in a book, the words of God.
God spoke mouth to mouth with Moses: " My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; " [Num12:7-8]
God appointed Moses' brother Levi to speak God's words to the people:
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Moses, and he said, Is not Aaron the Levite thy brother? I know that he can speak well. And also, behold, he cometh forth to meet thee: and when he seeth thee, he will be glad in his heart. 15 And thou shalt speak unto him, and put words in his mouth: and I will be with thy mouth, and with his mouth, and will teach you what ye shall do. 16 And he shall be thy spokesman unto the people: and he shall be, even he shall be to thee instead of a mouth, and thou shalt be to him instead of God." [Exo 4:14-16]
God prophesied that he would put his words in the mouth of his prophet, the promised Messiah:I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." [Deu 18:18]
Josiah ignored God's words to him through Necho: "Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo." [II Chron 35:22]
God put HIS words in Isaiah's mouth: "But I am the LORD thy God, that divided the sea, whose waves roared: The LORD of hosts is his name.
16 And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people." [Isa 51:15-16]
It was part of God's covenant with Israel to give his words to his prophets:
"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." [Isa 59:21]
God put his words in the mouth of Jeremiah: "Then the LORD put forth his hand, and touched my mouth. And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth." [Jer 1:9]
While these examples do not serve to "prove," they certainly testify and serve as evidence. And it is testimony from the mouth of God, who has not been refuted successfully by anyone of equal credentials.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/13/2008 9:42:02 PM
|
|
|
Godhead
Posts: 351
Joined: 1/28/2006
Status: offline
|
a) It shows us who God is and what He wants of us.
b) In the Bible we can see God's glory, His character and wisdom. His majesty and power.
c) In the Bible we can read about His great works since the beginning of creation.
d) We can read about His work in individual lives to bring about our Salvation.
c) We can read about the Son of God and what He means to us as individuals.
Can you find another book that does all these things?
Can science show you all these things?
_____________________________
A Seventh day Adventist came up to me and said, “Do you know that there is no hell?”
I then immediately replied, “Well you have nothing to worry about then.”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/20/2008 7:38:12 PM
|
|
|
Shrommer
Posts: 118
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline
|
There are some very good thoughts in what you wrote. Unfortunately, a lot of people are not open to reason when these subjects come up.
A few observations:
You completely lost me in the part about the sea and the dry land having a common DNA source. This is the kind of statement that often makes Christians look ridiculous, and thinking individuals tune us out. You probably meant something different, and may want to go back and edit.
Many people call themselves "atheists" because the term is so popular now, and a lot of people think it's cool to be an atheist. A term which is not so much in vogue, but probably describes a lot of people much better, is "agnostic".
When a friend simply says that there is no proof that God exists, that is primarily an agnostic position. An atheist should have to come out and say that they believe it is proven that God does not exist; otherwise, we are left with the thought that there is no proof he exists, so we can't really know for sure.
As far as the Bible, I like to slow down and consider a book of the Bible individually with a skeptic. We shouldn't dismiss "the Bible" straight out, but let's read the book of Esther together and see what you think is wrong about it. (The book of Esther does not even mention God.) Or let's read Richard Dawkins' favorite book of Ecclesiastes, and see what Dawkins likes about it. Now let's consider one of the four Gospels and see what evidence there is that this is really eyewitness testimony or a record of what eyewitnesses experienced with their five physical senses - not as a religious belief or philosophy of life. What about the Exodus? If it is not a true story, how did the writer convince the entire nation of Israel to accept it as true when their grandparents did not have similar accounts to back it up?
Another way of putting some of what you've written is to say that the atheist argument "There is no evidence" is a flat-out lie. It is okay to say "The evidence does not convince me", but it is not okay to say that there is no evidence. Just getting someone to admit these finer nuances of different meanings and being more precise with their language is a good starting point in apologetics.
One last thought - apologetics don't hold a candle next to the fulminous brilliance of the Holy Spirit working in someone's heart. Someone may convert to theism without getting born again, and there is even the odd testimony out there of atheists who first get born again and then struggle to have their minds renewed to understand theism and explain to themselves what God has done in their lives. A prayer like, "God, I know you don't exist, but just in case you do, if you do, I'd really like to know you." That kind of prayer can open up doorways that no theist or rational argument will ever get through!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/20/2008 8:52:41 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 400
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Shrommer
There are some very good thoughts in what you wrote. Unfortunately, a lot of people are not open to reason when these subjects come up.
A few observations:
You completely lost me in the part about the sea and the dry land having a common DNA source. This is the kind of statement that often makes Christians look ridiculous, and thinking individuals tune us out. You probably meant something different, and may want to go back and edit.
If the sea and dryland were not separated, and there is DNA present, how could it NOT be the same in primordial soup?
quote:
Many people call themselves "atheists" because the term is so popular now, and a lot of people think it's cool to be an atheist. A term which is not so much in vogue, but probably describes a lot of people much better, is "agnostic".
I very much agree with your insight. He was an agnostic. But did you ever try to convince someone who thinks he is an "Athiest?" I let him continue to call himself an Athiest, while he made agnostic arguments.
quote:
When a friend simply says that there is no proof that God exists, that is primarily an agnostic position. An atheist should have to come out and say that they believe it is proven that God does not exist; otherwise, we are left with the thought that there is no proof he exists, so we can't really know for sure.
Agreed!
quote:
As far as the Bible, I like to slow down and consider a book of the Bible individually with a skeptic. We shouldn't dismiss "the Bible" straight out, but let's read the book of Esther together and see what you think is wrong about it. (The book of Esther does not even mention God.)
The book of Job does not mention Israel or Moses, but that does not make me doubt the book of Job. It has a different focus. Esther is a book about great faith of a prisoner of war who happened to be married to the king, under very difficult circumstances. For example, she could not approach the king without invitation, under penalty of death, yet she did, and it turned out alright because she beleived in God.
quote:
Or let's read Richard Dawkins' favorite book of Ecclesiastes, and see what Dawkins likes about it.
I'd rather read the bible instead of books about the bible. That way I always remember my source for what I believe.
quote:
Now let's consider one of the four Gospels and see what evidence there is that this is really eyewitness testimony or a record of what eyewitnesses experienced with their five physical senses - not as a religious belief or philosophy of life.
But it is an inspired work, dependent upon eye-witness for circumstances, but dependent upon soul-witness for meaning.
quote:
What about the Exodus? If it is not a true story, how did the writer convince the entire nation of Israel to accept it as true when their grandparents did not have similar accounts to back it up?
The same way I can speak of things that appeared in my lifetime that were not in my parents lifetime. I remember "before t.v;" and rumble seats; and no jetplanes; no superhighways; and etc.
Yet I can speak to my children and grandchildren about what I have seen, that my parents did not.
The Exodus happened during the lifetime of the entire nation of Israel, for forty years. And it lasted long enough for the generation to die out, that was unfaithful; and for the next generation to learn the lessons it was intended for them to learn.
quote:
Another way of putting some of what you've written is to say that the atheist argument "There is no evidence" is a flat-out lie. It is okay to say "The evidence does not convince me", but it is not okay to say that there is no evidence. Just getting someone to admit these finer nuances of different meanings and being more precise with their language is a good starting point in apologetics.
Again, I appreciate your insight. And I agree with what you are pointing out.
quote:
One last thought - apologetics don't hold a candle next to the fulminous brilliance of the Holy Spirit working in someone's heart. Someone may convert to theism without getting born again, and there is even the odd testimony out there of atheists who first get born again and then struggle to have their minds renewed to understand theism and explain to themselves what God has done in their lives. A prayer like, "God, I know you don't exist, but just in case you do, if you do, I'd really like to know you." That kind of prayer can open up doorways that no theist or rational argument will ever get through!
Don't think I could take that approach, but I see where it might have merit. I would much rather show from the testimony itself, for testimony is the all around best evidence. AND it can be tested for veracity.
< Message edited by theo_book -- 4/20/2008 9:00:08 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/21/2008 6:13:55 AM
|
|
|
Jet_A_Jockey
Posts: 46
Joined: 4/9/2008
From: pensacola florid
Status: offline
|
Profess Truth, let the Spirit do the convincing. Atheists are just as steadfast in their belief (or lack of) system as Christians. I spent years as an ex-catholic atheist, and I was bent on how much of a joke my experience with Christianity was. It literally took an act (or foot) of God to get me back on the straight path. God bless.
_____________________________
And I don't care what they say, if what you need is your faith, then take a look in my face and know...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Can I prove God wrote the bible? - 4/21/2008 6:47:30 PM
|
|
|
theo_book
Posts: 400
Joined: 4/8/2008
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Jet_A_Jockey
Profess Truth, let the Spirit do the convincing. Atheists are just as steadfast in their belief (or lack of) system as Christians. I spent years as an ex-catholic atheist, and I was bent on how much of a joke my experience with Christianity was. It literally took an act (or foot) of God to get me back on the straight path. God bless.
Interesting observation. I have a question I would like your opinion on:
If Faith in God is the substance of things hoped for, by the evidence of things not seen (and it is, according to scripture) how do you think the athiest's faith system differs?
I see | | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
