Why do you believe the Bible?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Most conversations on this forum are based on the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God and fully trustworthy. I don't recall many, if any, that question that assumption. I would like to know why people do or do not believe the Bible.

Personally, I first believed in the Bible as God's Word when I was 19 years old and had a dramatic "born again" conversion at a "Praise the Lord" festival in Vancouver Washington. My new faith lasted for a few months. I was constantly reading the Bible and feeling amazed all the time. Then one day I was sitting at the "Cottage Inn" restaurant in Kenmore, Washington, reading Matthew and encountered this verse:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
I remember it as if it were yesterday. I felt the "bubble" of my faith simply "pop" as I read that passage and realized that it was not true. Jesus did not come back "with the glory of his father" during the lifetime of those standing there hearing him make this prediction. I was totally confused and profoundly disturbed. I went to talk to the folks who had prayed with me when I converted and they had no answer, but rather tried to cast out the "demon of doubt." It was not long before I forgot all about my new religion.

Then a few years later I went to Washington State University to study Mathematics and Physics. I would see street preachers and confront them saying that if God wrote a book, I would expect it to be at least as precise and accurate as my Quantum Physics textbook. Then I met fellow student Robin Collins, who became my best friend. He is one of the smartest people I ever met (he got three degrees, Mathematics, Physics, and Philosophy) and was also a very sincere tongue-speaking born-again Christian. After lots of interaction with him, I "returned" to the faith for a while, but it ultimately faded again.

Then I quit college after getting hung up on my PhD project and rode my bike from Seattle to Los Angeles and back, and then went to my first Rainbow Gathering in Texas (1988) after which I hitch-hiked all around the country. I became very interested in all forms of spirituality, and began searching all the worlds religions for the "ultimate unity" of them all. It was then that I encountered the I Ching, Astrology, Tarot, Kabbalah and the symbolic meaning of the Hebrew alphabet and gematria and a thousand other things. And during all my readings, I kept encountering references to the Bible. I was particularly intrigued by the Hebrew gematria of verses in the OT, and soon became convinced that it's alphanumeric design proved it was of God. I had forgotten all about Christ and thought I might convert to be a Jew. But then I met Mike Gridley who was a firm Christian. He pointed me back towards the NT and I began to search out Greek gematria of the NT and compare it to Hebrew gematria of the OT. It was at this time (1992) that I discovered my first "Holographs" and soon became convinced that the whole Bible was of God. And then I began to "realize" that I was a Christian - I felt like I was simply discovering faith in Christ "growing" in me of it's own accord. I used to liken myself to a pot of dirt in which the Word of God had been planted. I felt like I was discovering that I was a Christian rather than "choosing" it.

It was around this time (1993) that I discovered the Isaiah-Bible Correlation which seemed to be a very strong confirmation that the Bible was designed by God. And then in 1995 I discovered the Bible Wheel and this completed the "threefold thread" that I felt was strong evidence of the divine origin of the Bible: 1) Biblical Holographs (Gematria), 2) Isaiah-Bible Correlation, 3) The Bible Wheel.

As far as I know, the evidence presented in those three studies remains valid. And it is augmented by the "Big Picture" of fulfilled prophecy relating to the coming of Christ in the first century. These were the reasons that supported my belief that the Bible was the Word of God. Of course, it would have been pretty much meaningless if it had not been vivified by my personal experiences which I interpreted as "from God."

So why am I no longer a Christian if the evidence for it still stands? Well, it's because "evidence" means nothing until it is interpreted. And I believe my interpretation of the evidence was wrong. Yes, there is evidence that there is something "supernatural" going on in the Bible, but no, it does not prove any particular version of the many "Christianities" that are derived from the many contradictory interpretations of the Bible.

So those were my reasons. I would like to know your reasons. Why do you believe the Bible?

[Bob May]

Hi Richard,

I believe the bible because it has and continues to prove itself to me over and over again.

All the best,
Bob

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi Richard,

I believe the bible because it has and continues to prove itself to me over and over again.

All the best,
Bob
Thanks Bob.

But how has it proved itself? I mean, how is it different than any other book in that regards?

And what does "prove itself" mean to you? I mean, you obviously don't believe there is a solid dome "firmament" holding up the waters that are "above," right?

[Bob May]

Thanks Bob.

But how has it proved itself? I mean, how is it different than any other book in that regards?


I've mentioned before that the bible is written on four different levels. That is according to the Hebrew Scolars.


""From Wikipedia,
Pardes refers to (types of) approaches to biblical exegesis in rabbinic Judaism (or - simpler - interpretation of text in Torah study). The term, sometimes also spelled PaRDeS, is an acronym formed from the name initials of the following four approaches:

Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "plain" ("simple") or the direct meaning[1].
Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric: hidden or symbolic) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in 'bone') — "secret" ("mystery") or the mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.

Each type of Pardes interpretation examines the extended meaning of a text. As a general rule, the extended meaning never contradicts the base meaning. The Peshat means the plain or contextual meaning of the text. Remez is the allegorical meaning. Derash includes the metaphorical meaning, and Sod represents the hidden meaning. There is often considerable overlap, for example when legal understandings of a verse are influenced by mystical interpretations or when a "hint" is determined by comparing a word with other instances of the same word.""

I've broken it down a little differently in that I have said Literal, Implied, Allegorical and Mystical.

Two mindsets are addressed in Scripture. Those that look at the appearance of things and those that look behind the appearances. There is also considerable overlap here, as there are many denominations of both Christianity and Judaism.
The book is different than any other book in that it relates information that matches your level of study.
The words do not change but the level of experience of the reader is reflected in the information gleaned when reading.
So, at the beginning of study the bible is read literally.
Later it is necessary to look at implied meanings contained within the same words.
Later still, it is necessary to look for allegorical meanings, and finally the Mystical or "hidden" meanings begin to show through.

It could be likened to recieving an arithmatic book in grade school and using the same book all through highschool and college and the book would continue to teach you all through the years and studies in higher mathematics.



And what does "prove itself" mean to you? I mean, you obviously don't believe there is a solid dome "firmament" holding up the waters that are "above," right?


There is a firmament that exists but it has nothing to do with a solid dome.

Ge 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
Ge 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven.

I have commented that this firmament is heaven.
Jesus told us to follow him.
Joh 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven

Jesus had a view of the world that differed from ours. Call it cosmic consciousness or Christ consciousness.
He also said that he was one with the Father and that he was in heaven.

The waters are the word of God who washes us with that word.
The book is a book on growing in consciousness.
The waters above the firmament are "living waters." (The Mystical interpretation, which is not interpretation at all.)
The waters below the firmament are the interpretations below the Mystical.

Until we begin to read the bible in the light of that level we are in fear of not knowing what our place is in this world. Because the guide of the bible isn't making sense. That is partially because we are mixing levels.

This is the reason for the symbology of going into the promised land.
They followed Joshua on dry land in the midst of the waters. Firmament. Kingdom of Heaven.
We are to follow Jesus in the same way into the Real (as opposed to the shadow) Promised land that was promised to Jacob and his seed.
The "waters above" were upstream and the "waters below" were downstream in the story of crossing the Jordan.
The only "Firmament" when dealing with Spiritual experiences is "Following Jesus."

"Surely the Lord is in this place and I knew it not." That is the awareness we are shooting for.
"This Place", as we ultimately realize is inside of us.

So how does it prove itself?
Unlike other books, it proves itself to us, and not to everyone who happens to read it.
If we believe it it proves itself, if we do not, it will not.
Unlike other books it can speak to us in the here and now. This is why Paul calls the Scripture the "Oracles of God." It speaks.
I am in no way exaggerating this aspect of it.

The entire book, both Old and New Testaments speak of the New Covenant and what it means to us. If we believe it we recieve true spiritual knowledge of the promises and the growing awareness of "Christ in you, the hope of Glory."

Col 1:25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
Col 1:26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
Col 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this Mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

Short of relating personal experiences this is the best way I can think of to explain it.
Actually, I've been explaining it since I came to this website.
The bible is called the living word for a reason.

All the best,
Bob

[gilgal]

Most conversations on this forum are based on the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God and fully trustworthy. I don't recall many, if any, that question that assumption. I would like to know why people do or do not believe the Bible.

Personally, I first believed in the Bible as God's Word when I was 19 years old and had a dramatic "born again" conversion at a "Praise the Lord" festival in Vancouver Washington. My new faith lasted for a few months. I was constantly reading the Bible and feeling amazed all the time. Then one day I was sitting at the "Cottage Inn" restaurant in Kenmore, Washington, reading Matthew and encountered this verse:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.
I remember it as if it were yesterday. I felt the "bubble" of my faith simply "pop" as I read that passage and realized that it was not true. Jesus did not come back "with the glory of his father" during the lifetime of those standing there hearing him make this prediction. I was totally confused and profoundly disturbed. I went to talk to the folks who had prayed with me when I converted and they had no answer, but rather tried to cast out the "demon of doubt." It was not long before I forgot all about my new religion.

Then a few years later I went to Washington State University to study Mathematics and Physics. I would see street preachers and confront them saying that if God wrote a book, I would expect it to be at least as precise and accurate as my Quantum Physics textbook. Then I met fellow student Robin Collins, who became my best friend. He is one of the smartest people I ever met (he got three degrees, Mathematics, Physics, and Philosophy) and was also a very sincere tongue-speaking born-again Christian. After lots of interaction with him, I "returned" to the faith for a while, but it ultimately faded again.

Then I quit college after getting hung up on my PhD project and rode my bike from Seattle to Los Angeles and back, and then went to my first Rainbow Gathering in Texas (1988) after which I hitch-hiked all around the country. I became very interested in all forms of spirituality, and began searching all the worlds religions for the "ultimate unity" of them all. It was then that I encountered the I Ching, Astrology, Tarot, Kabbalah and the symbolic meaning of the Hebrew alphabet and gematria and a thousand other things. And during all my readings, I kept encountering references to the Bible. I was particularly intrigued by the Hebrew gematria of verses in the OT, and soon became convinced that it's alphanumeric design proved it was of God. I had forgotten all about Christ and thought I might convert to be a Jew. But then I met Mike Gridley who was a firm Christian. He pointed me back towards the NT and I began to search out Greek gematria of the NT and compare it to Hebrew gematria of the OT. It was at this time (1992) that I discovered my first "Holographs" and soon became convinced that the whole Bible was of God. And then I began to "realize" that I was a Christian - I felt like I was simply discovering faith in Christ "growing" in me of it's own accord. I used to liken myself to a pot of dirt in which the Word of God had been planted. I felt like I was discovering that I was a Christian rather than "choosing" it.

It was around this time (1993) that I discovered the Isaiah-Bible Correlation which seemed to be a very strong confirmation that the Bible was designed by God. And then in 1995 I discovered the Bible Wheel and this completed the "threefold thread" that I felt was strong evidence of the divine origin of the Bible: 1) Biblical Holographs (Gematria), 2) Isaiah-Bible Correlation, 3) The Bible Wheel.

As far as I know, the evidence presented in those three studies remains valid. And it is augmented by the "Big Picture" of fulfilled prophecy relating to the coming of Christ in the first century. These were the reasons that supported my belief that the Bible was the Word of God. Of course, it would have been pretty much meaningless if it had not been vivified by my personal experiences which I interpreted as "from God."

So why am I no longer a Christian if the evidence for it still stands? Well, it's because "evidence" means nothing until it is interpreted. And I believe my interpretation of the evidence was wrong. Yes, there is evidence that there is something "supernatural" going on in the Bible, but no, it does not prove any particular version of the many "Christianities" that are derived from the many contradictory interpretations of the Bible.

So those were my reasons. I would like to know your reasons. Why do you believe the Bible?
I understand what you're going through. But approaching God with knowledge and reason isn't the way. You have to approach God with faith. Our minds are limited. The verse you pointed out is an interesting verse which I will ask my friends but my guess on that verse is that Jesus is referring to what happened in the next chapter:

Matthew 16:28 KJV - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 17:1 KJV - And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
Matthew 17:2 KJV - And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
Matthew 17:3 KJV - And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
Matthew 17:4 KJV - Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
Matthew 17:5 KJV - While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Matthew 17:6 KJV - And when the disciples heard [it], they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
Matthew 17:7 KJV - And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
Matthew 17:8 KJV - And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.

There might be a good reason which we who are unlearned have missed. We're not called Christians because we're knowledgeable, but because we believe.

My friends, would you walk out the door in the morning and refuse to believe there is no God? Wouldn't that create anger and frustration? What's your goal in life? Why do you live? What's the point of all this?

I find that we, lie Jonah are thrown out of our comfort zone into a world of cruelty where on one hand are chastened by God if we refuse to preach and live and on the other hand are scoffed by unbelieving men because we don't have that much knowledge but by God's miracle we do survive another day.

What kind of words would you give to a dying person to encourage him?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I understand what you're going through. But approaching God with knowledge and reason isn't the way. You have to approach God with faith. Our minds are limited.

I'm sure many Mormons and Muslims would agree with you.

Without using reason, how am I supposed to discern between the True Religion (TM) and all the false ones?



The verse you pointed out is an interesting verse which I will ask my friends but my guess on that verse is that Jesus is referring to what happened in the next chapter:

Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 17:1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, 2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. 3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. 4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. 5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
Yes indeed, that was the solution I found when I became Christian again in my 30s. And I think it's a pretty good one ... especially when compared with 2 Peter:
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Peter described the vision on the mount of transfiguration as a revelation of the "power and coming" of the Lord. It's too bad that few people have any understanding of the Bible, despite being Christians their whole lives. Like I said, the folks I talked to about this problem years ago had no answer, and tried rather to cast out the "demon of doubt." That's what's wrong with Christianity - it's most ardent followers tend to be totally ignorant of what the Bible actually states, and are full of mindless superstitions almost as bad as voodoo.



There might be a good reason which we who are unlearned have missed. We're not called Christians because we're knowledgeable, but because we believe.

And that's the same reason Muslims are called Muslims. I don't see the value in blind "belief." On the contrary, I think the teaching of blind belief to be one of the worst things that religion has done to humanity. It leads to endless evils. Our only hope is to use our minds. We all died of the plague when all we could do is "believe" and beg God to heal us. He never did. He let us die by the millions until we figured out how to kill the bugs with antibiotics. This seems to me to be a primary proof against belief in the kind of God presented in theistic religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.



My friends, would you walk out the door in the morning and refuse to believe there is no God? Wouldn't that create anger and frustration? What's your goal in life? Why do you live? What's the point of all this?

Life is fuller and better without false ideas of "gods" of the Abrahamic religions. The world makes a lot more sense when I don't have to explain why there really is a God who goes about acting like he doesn't really exist.

Haven't you ever wondered why Christians talk out of both sides of their mouths. First they say that we should believe in God and give many reasons why, and then they say that it's all about faith and not reasons. In other words, they just say whatever to try to make their religion seem true, just like Mormons, Muslims, Hindues, JWs, Roman Catholics, and everyone else.



I find that we, lie Jonah are thrown out of our comfort zone into a world of cruelty where on one hand are chastened by God if we refuse to preach and live and on the other hand are scoffed by unbelieving men because we don't have that much knowledge but by God's miracle we do survive another day.

Exactly how did you determine that it was God who was "chastening" you? Did he leave a calling card? A voice mail? Or is it possible that you just assumed that the unpleasant event was caused by God? This is the amazing thing that most Christians do. They interpret random events as coming from God without any evidence at all. At the really interesting thing is that Muslims do the same thing. And JWs. And Catholics. They all attribute their own thoughts to God.



What kind of words would you give to a dying person to encourage him?
Kind words.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

If there is a Creator; written language and the capacity of humans to interact with it is one of parts of his creation.

It made logical sense to me that if this Creator is a creator of LOVE; that his creation, including written forms of communication, would reflect characteristics, evidence and testimony of himself.

In other words; If there is a Creator/designer of mankind and written and spoken language and communication which are part of the capacities of that mankind; then would a God of Love interject into the human race a relatively trustworthy written evidence and testimony of his Character, essence, ways and will for mankind?

Yes, It would be logical and reasonable to consider and expect that a Loving Creator God of the depths and abilities of mankind and of Life would include, among the testimonies and evidences of his being, a relatively accurate [very accurate in original form] written testimony and progressive revelation of his being, his Love, his nature, powers and so forth.

Would it also be reasonable and logical that this Creator entity would come himself into existence in the highest form of his Creation in Love to satisfy mens doubts and fears and to verify and confirm his essence, his written word; his being, His Love, his existence, his character, ways and will of Freedom?

Wouldn't' both of these actions seem reasonable and logical TO YOU for a Creator God of Love who had created the depths of mankind to perform????

Yes, it would be logical and reasonable to expect a Spirit Creator of Love to enter himself into Creation and impart his Spirit into his Created after the confirmation and testimony of his being, character and will. The Bible is the only record I know of which claims and verifies through the fulfillment of prophecies about Him that a specific seed of God entered and remains into the Creation.

The existence of the written record, as well as the incarnation are the evidences of the Creator reaching out in Love to maintain and re-establish a friendship of knowledge and freedom [John 17:3] with his beloved.

I find it interesting that Christ is called 'the Word" while the written words could also be considered an 'incarnation' of God's word into humanity through their being given to the prophets who heard them.

Written [and spoken] language and the means and abilities of mankind to communicate through this medium is part of the Creation and of a testimony to the Creator; just as mathematical formulas and scientific laws are part of evidence of order and harmony of the Creation. All these means as well as the visible intricacies and depth of Creation testify to the Creator.

Incidently, the preterist views of fulfilled prophecies fits right in with the positive goodness and character of the living God and of Life as they confirm his existence, powers, essence and positive and Good will. This is shown through the full circle from the Edenic beginning in ignorance to the personal Edenic restoration in personal experiential knowledge of the New Garden depicted in Revelation [Ez 36 also] . The old garden people failed in somewhat innocent ignorance while the 'new Garden' people succeed in experiential knowledge, in forgiveness and forgetting of sin, in Freedom and Love. John 17:3; And this is eternal life; that we might know [experientially] God and Jesus his son.

I think you may be confusing some of the interpretations, doctrines and legalistic deadening aspects of the religion of Christianity versus the understanding and experiential knowledge of God which can and does come through the written and incarnate testimony of his being.

[jce]

Richard

Thank-you for opening the door to a most essential question. I found the testimony of your personal journey toward faith to be very interesting. You appear to me as a very unusual person who has exceeded the formal and experiential education of others.

In answer to your basic question, I have listed below a few of the reasons I accept the Bible as a revelation from God.

1. It answered (for me) the most fundamental questions of:

a) Origin
b) Purpose
c) Morality
d) Destiny

2. The fellowship of other believers.

3. Spiritual Revelation

4. Biblical Prophecy

A few weeks ago I was sitting in our Sunday School class with a group of believers, and the thought occurred to me "how is it that many in this class believe that there is a god? They have never heard his audible voice nor seen his physical body". The only evidence they had for His existence was the same as mine... The Word.

Even the folowing questions are answered in the Word:

Why is it that there are so many different religions?
Why are there so many well educated individuals who are not convinced there is a god?
Does this creation we find ourselves in exhibit credible evidence for intelligent design?

Considering the many versions of religion, Only the biblical one makes sense to me because it offers the only credible solution to man's problem. After all, God does not need men to carry out his work of exterminating infidels. Why would he? If this was the type of god he was, it seems he would take the pleasure of doing it himself. Neither does he accept the humiliating acts of an individual to earn his pardon for misdeeds, as many religions teach "this you must do to attain". There is ample evidence that man is a rule and law breaker.

You too are evidence of His Word. You are not the first believer to lose or question your own faith. Adonirum Judson, missionary to Burma had his "departure experience" as well, yet returned as you will also.

Richard, you are on the list of intellectuals who have been influenced and challenged by the Word.

God Bless you Richard. You have made great contributions to the community of believers in The Word and I suspect that you will continue to do so as time goes by.

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If there is a Creator; written language and the capacity of humans to interact with it is one of parts of his creation.

It made logical sense to me that if this Creator is a creator of LOVE; that his creation, including written forms of communication, would reflect characteristics, evidence and testimony of himself.

In other words; If there is a Creator/designer of mankind and written and spoken language and communication which are part of the capacities of that mankind; then would a God of Love interject into the human race a relatively trustworthy written evidence and testimony of his Character, essence, ways and will for mankind?

Yes, It would be logical and reasonable to consider and expect that a Loving Creator God of the depths and abilities of mankind and of Life would include, among the testimonies and evidences of his being, a relatively accurate [very accurate in original form] written testimony and progressive revelation of his being, his Love, his nature, powers and so forth.

Would it also be reasonable and logical that this Creator entity would come himself into existence in the highest form of his Creation in Love to satisfy mens doubts and fears and to verify and confirm his essence, his written word; his being, His Love, his existence, his character, ways and will of Freedom?

Wouldn't' both of these actions seem reasonable and logical TO YOU for a Creator God of Love who had created the depths of mankind to perform????

Yes, it would be logical and reasonable to expect a Spirit Creator of Love to enter himself into Creation and impart his Spirit into his Created after the confirmation and testimony of his being, character and will. The Bible is the only record I know of which claims and verifies through the fulfillment of prophecies about Him that a specific seed of God entered and remains into the Creation.

I agree it would seem logical that a God who exists would provide a book that accurately revealed his character and will. And Muslims would agree. And Mormons. And Jews. And Hindus. So the question seems to remain unanswered. Why do you believe the Bible as opposed to some other book like the Koran or the Book of Mormon? And why do you believe one version of the Bible as opposed to some other - e.g. Protestant vs. Roman Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox?

If I use the same kind of logic as you, I would have to reject the Bible because it has many characteristics that indicate it is not from the true God. For example: it has a strong male bias against women, it has many errors in logic and fact, it attributes many moral abominations to God. So if I use my own "expectations" concerning my a priori ideas about what a God would do, then I would conclude that the Bible is not of God.

All the best.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard

Thank-you for opening the door to a most essential question. I found the testimony of your personal journey toward faith to be very interesting. You appear to me as a very unusual person who has exceeded the formal and experiential education of others.

In answer to your basic question, I have listed below a few of the reasons I accept the Bible as a revelation from God.

1. It answered (for me) the most fundamental questions of:

a) Origin
b) Purpose
c) Morality
d) Destiny

2. The fellowship of other believers.

3. Spiritual Revelation

4. Biblical Prophecy

A few weeks ago I was sitting in our Sunday School class with a group of believers, and the thought occurred to me "how is it that many in this class believe that there is a god? They have never heard his audible voice nor seen his physical body". The only evidence they had for His existence was the same as mine... The Word.

Even the folowing questions are answered in the Word:

Why is it that there are so many different religions?
Why are there so many well educated individuals who are not convinced there is a god?
Does this creation we find ourselves in exhibit credible evidence for intelligent design?

Hi John,

Thanks for weighing in on this question.

Your answers make a lot of sense to me, even though I don't find satisfaction with those answers myself. Here are my reasons:

1. a) Origin: The Bible does not give a true account of origins if it is interpreted literally. Indeed, the Bible is the source of much error in this regard, and has caused many people to reject much scientific truth.

1. b) Purpose: This was a very strong line of evidence for me because the Bible presents an amazingly coherent "Big Picture" spanning the whole Bible from Creation, Fall, Redemption, Re-Creation. I am still impressed with this line of evidence, but it has one fundamental shortcoming. I don't believe the story is "true" - but it is a great story. So I am guessing it is a "teaching story" like all the other parables in the Bible, and not meant to be interpreted literally.

1. c) Morality: This is a mixed bag for me. On the one hand, the Bible presents very high morals like the Golden Rule and Love. On the other hand, it says that God commanded his people to act like maniacal merciless genocidal baby killers. And besides that, there is no logic to why God must demand punishment before he is willing to forgive. Any human can forgive without demanding punishment. Are we greater than God?

1. d) Destiny: Don't know what you are getting at here.

2. The fellowship of other believers. The lack of this, after decades of effort, did not confirm but rather eroded my faith. Especially because I witnessed how the Christian religion tends to corrupt the minds and morals of many people. It corrupts their minds because they attempt to defend the indefensible, and it corrupts their morals when they believe that all people are intrinsically evil and that it's OK to murder babies if God says so, etc.

3. Spiritual Revelation: I very much relate to this, as it was the source of my of my living faith. But a little reflection soon reveals that Muslims and Mormons feel their religions are confirmed the same way, and that this is because we humans simply map our personal numinous experiences onto whatever religion we happen to believe. It's just confirmation bias - a believer of any religion will take their numinous experiences as proof of their religion. It really doesn't prove anything.

4. Biblical Prophecy: This is one of the greatest proofs of the Bible. And it also is one of the greatest ironies that most Christians fiercely reject it as if it were the greatest of heresies. I'm talking about the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse and Revelation that were fulfilled in 70 AD. See this article from 1805 entitled THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM: An Absolute and Irresistible Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity (http://www.tentmaker.org/books/destruction-of-jerusalem.htm). And while reading it, don't forget that it's conclusions are now rejected by nearly all "Christians."

Well, I gotta go for my morning walk with Rose. I'll answer more when we get back.

Great chatting!

Richard

[gilgal]

I'm sure many Mormons and Muslims would agree with you.

Without using reason, how am I supposed to discern between the True Religion (TM) and all the false ones?


Yes indeed, that was the solution I found when I became Christian again in my 30s. And I think it's a pretty good one ... especially when compared with 2 Peter:
2 Peter 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Peter described the vision on the mount of transfiguration as a revelation of the "power and coming" of the Lord. It's too bad that few people have any understanding of the Bible, despite being Christians their whole lives. Like I said, the folks I talked to about this problem years ago had no answer, and tried rather to cast out the "demon of doubt." That's what's wrong with Christianity - it's most ardent followers tend to be totally ignorant of what the Bible actually states, and are full of mindless superstitions almost as bad as voodoo.


And that's the same reason Muslims are called Muslims. I don't see the value in blind "belief." On the contrary, I think the teaching of blind belief to be one of the worst things that religion has done to humanity. It leads to endless evils. Our only hope is to use our minds. We all died of the plague when all we could do is "believe" and beg God to heal us. He never did. He let us die by the millions until we figured out how to kill the bugs with antibiotics. This seems to me to be a primary proof against belief in the kind of God presented in theistic religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.


Life is fuller and better without false ideas of "gods" of the Abrahamic religions. The world makes a lot more sense when I don't have to explain why there really is a God who goes about acting like he doesn't really exist.

Haven't you ever wondered why Christians talk out of both sides of their mouths. First they say that we should believe in God and give many reasons why, and then they say that it's all about faith and not reasons. In other words, they just say whatever to try to make their religion seem true, just like Mormons, Muslims, Hindues, JWs, Roman Catholics, and everyone else.


Exactly how did you determine that it was God who was "chastening" you? Did he leave a calling card? A voice mail? Or is it possible that you just assumed that the unpleasant event was caused by God? This is the amazing thing that most Christians do. They interpret random events as coming from God without any evidence at all. At the really interesting thing is that Muslims do the same thing. And JWs. And Catholics. They all attribute their own thoughts to God.


Kind words.
Well the whole bible teaches about men of faith. But Jesus said to believe on him, his ministry, his humility to the point of death and resurrection for our justification.

[joel]

My new faith lasted for a few months. I was constantly reading the Bible and feeling amazed all the time. Then one day I was sitting at the "Cottage Inn" restaurant in Kenmore, Washington, reading Matthew and encountered this verse:
Matthew 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

I remember it as if it were yesterday. I felt the "bubble" of my faith simply "pop" as I read that passage and realized that it was not true. Jesus did not come back "with the glory of his father" during the lifetime of those standing there hearing him make this prediction. I was totally confused and profoundly disturbed. I went to talk to the folks who had prayed with me when I converted and they had no answer, but rather tried to cast out the "demon of doubt." It was not long before I forgot all about my new religion.



Richard, "...see the Son of man coming.." Is this with the eyes? Joel

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard, "...see the Son of man coming.." Is this with the eyes? Joel
I don't know. I think the best answer is probably Peter's explanation that the vision on the mount of transfiguration was a revelation of the "power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." But it doesn't really matter to me now. That passage (Matthew 16:28) is not central to any of the reasons I recently quit Christianity. It was a big deal when I first encountered it back when I was 19 and quite ignorant of what the Bible is all about. I just mentioned it for historical context.

But it's very interesting to me that the Bible is really nothing but a big pile of words. And words are the source of endless debate and disputation. It's interesting, but I can't imagine why anyone would think it contains information that we must believe or be damned.

Great chatting.

[jce]

Yes it is good to chat Richard!

I must admit that I am a little surprised that you seem to doubt any involvement of God in the delivery of the scriptures to mankind. I'm also curious as to what you do accept as truth considering the amount of exposure you've had to the scriptures and the accumulated worldly knowledge you've acquired... not to mention your outstanding contribution of the amazing "Bible Wheel".

I just cannot imagine you without some type of an anchor. I know this seems to be getting off topic, but Richard, of all people to doubt the Bible, i would have put you near the bottom of such a list. I'm reminded of the question Jesus posed to His disciples when he asked them in John 6; "Will you also go away?" and Peter replied "To whom will we go for you have the words of eternal life!".

John

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

I agree it would seem logical that a God who exists would provide a book that accurately revealed his character and will. And Muslims would agree. And Mormons. And Jews. And Hindus. So the question seems to remain unanswered. Why do you believe the Bible as opposed to some other book like the Koran or the Book of Mormon? And why do you believe one version of the Bible as opposed to some other - e.g. Protestant vs. Roman Catholic vs. Greek Orthodox?

If I use the same kind of logic as you, I would have to reject the Bible because it has many characteristics that indicate it is not from the true God. For example: it has a strong male bias against women, it has many errors in logic and fact, it attributes many moral abominations to God. So if I use my own "expectations" concerning my a priori ideas about what a God would do, then I would conclude that the Bible is not of God.

All the best.

The question is not unanswered to me. As was stated above:

The Bible is the only record I know of which [also] claims and verifies through the fulfillment of prophecies about him that a single specific seed of God entered into Creation and remains in the Creation in his indwelling Spirit. Even Islam doesn't claim Mohammed as a virgin born, only begotten son of God. But they and the Jews both have the testimony of the Seed [of God] promised to Eve [woman] to reverse and cancel the effects of the law of sin/death. Islam professes that Mohammed was the new prophet of Deut 18 and thus must also be 'the seed' of God promised from Eden; though I haven't seen that particular claim about him. Additionally their claims of Mohammed being the 'new prophet' of Deut 18 aren't supported as they contradict the statements of Jesus himself to be the prophet Moses spoke about and the affirmation of apostles in Acts 3 whom they also hold in high regard. Hinduism from what little I gather claims several 'lights' have come....

The other objections you raise are somewhat the results of your interpretations and of your coming at the question in rejection, rather than faith in the existence and Goodness of the power and ability of his Good will. Meaning... you either view the spaceship as a haphazard collection of molecules that fell from the sky and arranged themselves into a magnificent interstellar space craft without a designer. Or perhaps you view that the motives and intelligence of the designer and creator of the spacecraft is to be UN-endingly questioned and even denounced.

The solution and answers MUST come from the different angle; that the Creation is of a Good, Living Creator who is Good, truthful, omniscient, omnipotent etc.

Jesus said to the one man who questioned Him.....If you call me Good; you call me God, for only God is truly Good. Goodness emanates from God... Again.... Jesus said.. I've not come to condemn the world, but the world stood in condemnation through ignorance and lack of experiential knowledge of Him....but he had come to save the world from the absence of individual, personal knowledge, acceptance, adoption and friendship with HIM.

You judge the creator by his permissive will and purposes to the free will of the people of the hardened heart and negative covenant, called not the good way in Isaiah 65:2 and Ezek 36 which we've just reflected on together. [among likely many places]. Or you judge him and his testimony in Christianity through your partial and perhaps erroneous understandings and interpretations in the mosaic covenant and even perhaps by lack of inductive study; or by the errors of the church indoctrinations and infiltrations.

Man is a being that learns by experience due in part to free will and inquisitiveness. If the positive covenant and friendship with the Creator is clarified and explained partly by the failures and characteristics of the negative covenant and the ignorance of the heart about God up until that time; then the negative ways and covenant were in service to the positive 'new' covenant.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes it is good to chat Richard!

I must admit that I am a little surprised that you seem to doubt any involvement of God in the delivery of the scriptures to mankind. I'm also curious as to what you do accept as truth considering the amount of exposure you've had to the scriptures and the accumulated worldly knowledge you've acquired... not to mention your outstanding contribution of the amazing "Bible Wheel".

I just cannot imagine you without some type of an anchor. I know this seems to be getting off topic, but Richard, of all people to doubt the Bible, i would have put you near the bottom of such a list. I'm reminded of the question Jesus posed to His disciples when he asked them in John 6; "Will you also go away?" and Peter replied "To whom will we go for you have the words of eternal life!".

John
Hi John,

I have not doubted that there is some sort of "supernatural" origin of the Bible. That seems impossible given the Bible Wheel. But I also cannot deny that there are many problems with the idea that the Bible is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." And indeed, I don't even believe that the "theistic" style God of traditional Christianity is true because there is no evidence of any God that answers prayers. So I have a huge conundrum. All the evidence I published concerning the Bible Wheel remains valid. I have not found any errors in it. But the interpretation is now a mystery because I do not believe the concept of an omniscient God who is an "agent" that goes about "doing things" is logically coherent. For example, God's omniscience means that he never had an opportunity to make any choices whatsoever because he always knew what he would do. This means he is nothing like any "person" that we could relate to in any way at all. And there are many other problems.

So that's where I am at. The evidence for some sort of supernatural origin of the Bible remains, but I have no idea what it means! If you have any suggestions that might help me out, I'm all ears. :thumb:

[Richard Amiel McGough]

The question is not unanswered to me. As was stated above:

The Bible is the only record I know of which [also] claims and verifies through the fulfillment of prophecies about him that a single specific seed of God entered into and remains into the Creation in his Spirit. Even Islam doesn't claim Mohammed as a virgin born, only begotten son of God. But they and the Jews both have the testimony of the Seed [of God] promised to Eve [woman] to reverse and cancel the effects of the law of sin/death. Islam professes that Muhammed was the new prophet of Deut 18 and thus must also be 'the seed' of God promised from Eden; though I haven't seen that claim about him. Hinduism from what little I gather claims several 'lights' have come....

That answers the question well. Sorry I didn't get it the first time you wrote it. But I can't agree that the "fulfillment of prophecies" verifies everything in the Bible. I do believe that the prophecy of Christ coming followed by the destruction of the Temple is the best external evidence for the Bible since Daniel was written long before the events were fulfilled, but that's not really enough to establish the entire Bible as true. Especially since the prophecy itself spans only a few verses in Daniel and it's not particularly lucid and many if not most Christians don't even recognize it as fulfilled in 70 AD. So .... there's not nearly as much "fulfilled prophecy" as one might think. Of course, there are also many intriguing prophetic typological connections, like Psalm 22 and Genesis 22 that fit very well with the Christian gospel and from a Christian perspective they are very impressive. But that doesn't really "do it" for me because I have no reason to believe the premises about "sin" and the need of "redemption" and "forgiveness" and all that. So though I agree that there is evidence for the Bible, I see little evidence for the various "Christianities" that are supposedly derived from it.

As for Islam - that's just a Judeo-Christian heresy of little real significance from a religious point of view. It contains no new concepts - it's just a confused copy-cat mish-mash of ideas lifted from Christianity and Judaism.

The real contender for an alternate point of view comes from our own minds. We are just now (from a historical point of view) awakening from the primitive ignorance that produced all the religions in the world. There is no reason to think any of them are "true" in the sense that they "should be believed" by modern folks. We don't believe the earth is flat or that diseases are caused by demons. Why believe any of the other superstitions of ignorant ancestors?



The other objections you raise are somewhat the results of your interpretations and of your coming at the question in rejection, rather than faith in the existence and Goodness of the power and ability of his Good will. Meaning... you either view the spaceship as a haphazard collection of molecules that fell from the sky and arranged themselves into a magnicant interstellar space craft without a designer or perhaps that the motives and intelligence of the designer and creator of the spacecraft is to be UN-endingly questioned and even denounced.

The solution and answers MUST come from the different angle; that the Creation is of a Good, Living Creator who is Good, truthful, omniscient, omnipotent etc.

Well, if I begin by believing that God is Good and Intelligent then I cannot believe the Bible is "his word" in the sense understood by most Christians, or that he wiould care what I opinions I have about his existence. As soon as we begin with our own presuppositions like "the Creation is of a Good, Living Creator who is Good, truthful, omniscient, omnipotent etc." then we have committed ourselves to our own understanding of those terms, and the Bible does not stand up under such high standards. At least not the way it is usually understood.

And I also can't agree with your assumptions. The concept of omniscience leads to all sorts of logical problems and it certainly is not necessary to explain the fact of our existence. And neither is the concept of a "Good God" who goes about "doing things" like creating universes. The more I understand science, the less I see a need for a "designer." Folks used to think there had to be a God to design every variety of bug. We now know that they evolved. Sure, there's questions about the origin of DNA, but there is no question about evolution. And this brings up the problems in the Bible again - such as Noah's ark. That story simply is not true, yet Christ referred to it as fact. This creates huge problems for anyone who wants to believe Jesus was infallible. If you want to pursue these topics, I think they'd make a great thread.



Jesus said to the one man who questioned Him.....If you call me Good; you call me God, for only God is truly Good. Goodness emanates from God... Again.... Jesus said.. I've not come to condemn the world, but the world stood in condemnation through ignorance and lack of experiential knowledge of Him....but he had come to save the world from the absence of individual, personal knowledge, acceptance, adoption and friendship with HIM.

Why then is he absent? He exists only in the minds of people who believe in him. How then is he different than any other illusion?



You judge the creator by his permissive will and purposes to the free will of the people of the hardened heart and negative covenant, called not the good way in Isaiah 65:2 and Ezek 36 which we've just reflected on together. [among likely many places]. Or you judge him and his testimony in Christianity through your partial and perhaps erroneous understandings and interpretations in the mosaic covenant and even perhaps by lack of inductive study.

The Bible is a book made of words. I have no choice but to judge according to the meaning of its words to the best of my abilty. And the words in the Bible contain much that is not consistent with itself, let alone with the concepts such as justice, love, mercy, and goodness. Do you believe in hell? There is no justice in the concept of eternal punishment.

Great chatting! Thanks for taking time to work with me on this.

Richard

[throwback]

Richard,

You have a knack for asking the questions that I find myself pondering. To address the OP, I will say that I have my doubts about the Bible being what it is claimed by most to be, and that is the Divinely inspired word of God. I will admit that I am unfamiliar with and thus doubtful about the Bible Wheel and how it illustrates Divine inspiration.
I will admit that I still feel that there is something inexplicable about many of the Bible writings especially some of the prophetic parts including Isaiah's prophesy of Cyrus, Daniel's 70 weeks, and of course Jesus' prophetic words concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and his parausia.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Richard,

You have a knack for asking the questions that I find myself pondering. To address the OP, I will say that I have my doubts about the Bible being what it is claimed by most to be, and that is the Divinely inspired word of God. I will admit that I am unfamiliar with and thus doubtful about the Bible Wheel and how it illustrates Divine inspiration.
I will admit that I still feel that there is something inexplicable about many of the Bible writings especially some of the prophetic parts including Isaiah's prophesy of Cyrus, Daniel's 70 weeks, and of course Jesus' prophetic words concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and his parausia.
I'm glad to find someone who has similar questions.

I think you picked up on the primary points of evidence that support the idea that "something supernatural" is going on in the Bible. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove the date of the Cyrus "prophecy" so it could be "vaticinium ex eventu" (prophecy after the event). This certainly is the default assumption amongst the skeptics, and they are fully justified in making that assumption since it is a lot easier (and common) to forge a prophecy after the event than to actually make a valid prediction.

And of course the skeptics make the same assumption concerning Christ's prophecies of the destruction of the Temple. And again, without any hard evidence as to when the Gospels were written, the case must be admitted to be weak.

So the only remaining prophecy is from Daniel, and we know that was written before Christ. But unfortunately, the prediction is not particularly lucid, and the "messiah" it mentions is not "The Messiah" (Ha-Meshiach) but only "a" messiah, and the "prediction" could be explained as luck. It's not that impressive in isolation - but it is the best evidence of any real prophecy in the Bible. And that leads to the great irony that most Christians DENY it was fulfilled in the first century, and claim rather that there will be yet another temple made and desolated. So most Christians, let alone skeptics, deny it is "proof" of anything! :hysterical:

Bottom line: The only solid evidence for a divine origin of the Protestant Bible is the Bible Wheel, and it too is rejected by most Christians. So I say forget it all. If the Bible is the product of the God portrayed in it's pages, it seems he is pretty determined to keep that fact hidden. Just like the fact of his existence - he acts as if he doesn't exist.

It's so ironic - God does everything he can to hide from any form of detection, both as an existing entity and as the author of the Bible, yet his followers run around claiming that the truth of Christianity is "obvious" and the only reason folks don't believe is because they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. And they make up silly things like "Intelligent Design" to try to prove a God of the gaps, but then when they are shown that their arguments are fallacious they say that you can't "prove God" because it's all about faith. :blah: :blah: :blah:

Logical incoherence is the hallmark of the Christian mind.

[gilgal]

I'm glad to find someone who has similar questions.

I think you picked up on the primary points of evidence that support the idea that "something supernatural" is going on in the Bible. Unfortunately, there is no way to prove the date of the Cyrus "prophecy" so it could be "vaticinium ex eventu" (prophecy after the event). This certainly is the default assumption amongst the skeptics, and they are fully justified in making that assumption since it is a lot easier (and common) to forge a prophecy after the event than to actually make a valid prediction.

And of course the skeptics make the same assumption concerning Christ's prophecies of the destruction of the Temple. And again, without any hard evidence as to when the Gospels were written, the case must be admitted to be weak.

So the only remaining prophecy is from Daniel, and we know that was written before Christ. But unfortunately, the prediction is not particularly lucid, and the "messiah" it mentions is not "The Messiah" (Ha-Meshiach) but only "a" messiah, and the "prediction" could be explained as luck. It's not that impressive in isolation - but it is the best evidence of any real prophecy in the Bible. And that leads to the great irony that most Christians DENY it was fulfilled in the first century, and claim rather that there will be yet another temple made and desolated. So most Christians, let alone skeptics, deny it is "proof" of anything! :hysterical:

Bottom line: The only solid evidence for a divine origin of the Protestant Bible is the Bible Wheel, and it too is rejected by most Christians. So I say forget it all. If the Bible is the product of the God portrayed in it's pages, it seems he is pretty determined to keep that fact hidden. Just like the fact of his existence - he acts as if he doesn't exist.

It's so ironic - God does everything he can to hide from any form of detection, both as an existing entity and as the author of the Bible, yet his followers run around claiming that the truth of Christianity is "obvious" and the only reason folks don't believe is because they are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. And they make up silly things like "Intelligent Design" to try to prove a God of the gaps, but then when they are shown that their arguments are fallacious they say that you can't "prove God" because it's all about faith. :blah: :blah: :blah:

Logical incoherence is the hallmark of the Christian mind.
Sigh! RAM you're worse than Job. At least Job believed in God even though God didn't answer his questions.

Job 19
25 For I know [that] my redeemer liveth, and [that] he shall stand at the latter [day] upon the earth:
26 And [though] after my skin [worms] destroy this , yet in my flesh shall I see God:
[B]27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; [though] my reins be consumed within me.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Sigh! RAM you're worse than Job. At least Job believed in God even though God didn't answer his questions.
That's an odd comparison. Job is an "ideal" that most people strive for. If we were talking about painting, your comment would be like saying "Sigh! You're worse than Rembrandt!"

Job is the perfect example of irrational belief. Like you said, God did not answer his questions. Job had no reason to believe that God is good or righteous. Basically, God told him "Shut up you ignorant human!" That does not sound like a "righteous" way to answer, and neither is it a very nice way to talk to people. It certainly does not show any kind of "love" or care that most people attribute to God. And while we are talking about the story of Job, look at how it treats human lives as utterly worthless. God played a game with Satan using human lives like throw-away props. Job's children were all killed for no reason and then merely replaced at the the end of the story as if that made everything better! What about the lives that were destroyed? They don't matter? This God is supposed to be the foundation of OBJECTIVE MORALITY. That means you can't just go around killing people to make a theological point! But that's exactly what the "God" of the Bible did. Why are Christians so blind to the moral abominations attributed to God throughout the Bible?

It's a good thing Job is just a story, rather than real history. Nothing like it ever really happened. It is not historical in any way at all. But then again, it doesn't matter if it's historical or not because it is presenting ideas that are supposed to be "true" about God. And that's a real problem.

[gilgal]

That's an odd comparison. Job is an "ideal" that most people strive for. If we were talking about painting, your comment would be like saying "Sigh! You're worse than Rembrandt!"

Job is the perfect example of irrational belief. Like you said, God did not answer his questions. Job had no reason to believe that God is good or righteous. Basically, God told him "Shut up you ignorant human!" That does not sound like a "righteous" way to answer, and neither is it a very nice way to talk to people. It certainly does not show any kind of "love" or care that most people attribute to God. And while we are talking about the story of Job, look at how it treats human lives as utterly worthless. God played a game with Satan using human lives like throw-away props. Job's children were all killed for no reason and then merely replaced at the the end of the story as if that made everything better! What about the lives that were destroyed? They don't matter? This God is supposed to be the foundation of OBJECTIVE MORALITY. That means you can't just go around killing people to make a theological point! But that's exactly what the "God" of the Bible did. Why are Christians so blind to the moral abominations attributed to God throughout the Bible?

It's a good thing Job is just a story, rather than real history. Nothing like it ever really happened. It is not historical in any way at all. But then again, it doesn't matter if it's historical or not because it is presenting ideas that are supposed to be "true" about God. And that's a real problem.
Ravi Zacharias:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-msCm_NmX3U

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Job is the perfect example of irrational belief. Like you said, God did not answer his questions. Job had no reason to believe that God is good or righteous. Basically, God told him "Shut up you ignorant human!" That does not sound like a "righteous" way to answer, and neither is it a very nice way to talk to people. It certainly does not show any kind of "love" or care that most people attribute to God. And while we are talking about the story of Job, look at how it treats human lives as utterly worthless. God played a game with Satan using human lives like throw-away props. Job's children were all killed for no reason and then merely replaced at the the end of the story as if that made everything better! What about the lives that were destroyed? They don't matter? This God is supposed to be the foundation of OBJECTIVE MORALITY. That means you can't just go around killing people to make a theological point! But that's exactly what the "God" of the Bible did. Why are Christians so blind to the moral abominations attributed to God throughout the Bible?

It's a good thing Job is just a story, rather than real history. Nothing like it ever really happened. It is not historical in any way at all. But then again, it doesn't matter if it's historical or not because it is presenting ideas that are supposed to be "true" about God. And that's a real problem.
Ravi Zacharias:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-msCm_NmX3U
Why did you post that link? Ravi began by asserting that we need God as an example of perfect morality since otherwise we will have nothing to use a standard. But what do we see when we look to the God of the Bible? Do we see examples of OBJECTIVE MORALITY? Of things that are actually "good?" Nope. We see just the opposite. We see God destroying lives in a bet with the Devil. Is that moral?

[TheDivineWatermark]

If "Adamic life" is "cursed" and "Eternal life" is "blessed,"
how is the "taking away" of the "Adamic [cursed] life" and
replacing it with the "Eternal life" (by the action of God)
considered [B]"immoral" of Him?

If a murderer enters my home with the intention of killing my family, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger in order to protect my precious family.
The "murderer," in this case, would be considered "immoral" for his evil intentions, but my action in defending my family would not be considered "immoral," even though the end result of both "actions" would have resulted in someone's death.
"Death" is ultimately due to "Sin," in this cursed world, but our good God works all things together FOR GOOD to those who love Him. "Death" does not win, He does (as do those who trust in Him), because He has provided Eternal LIFE, and at great cost to Himself.


Oh, and one more thing...
People die every day, as a result (ultimately) of "Sin" (the Adamic "Sin principle" we've inherited from Adam), but our gracious God offers Eternal LIFE, by grace through faith in the Person and Finished Work of Jesus Christ.




"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have LIFE, and that they might have it more abundantly."
- John 10:10

[Richard Amiel McGough]

If "Adamic life" is "cursed" and "Eternal life" is "blessed,"
how is the "taking away" of the "Adamic [cursed] life" and
replacing it with the "Eternal life" (by the action of God)
considered [B]"immoral" of Him?

The morality of actions in this life is not measured by what happens to the victims in the next life. You seem to be thinking along the same lines as William Lane Craig who says that God did no wrong to the children he commanded to be killed because they all went to heaven. If we use that logic, then neither did abortionists do any harm to the children they killed.

The real problem is that God is supposed to be the foundation of all morality. It is argued that without God setting down the law, we would have no justification for any moral judgments. I think this argument is entirely fallacious, but it's worse for Christianity if it is true because many of the actions of the God of the Bible are not "moral" in any sense at all. Therefore, if the Argument for God from Morality is true, then it proves the God of the Bible is not the true God.



If a murderer enters my home with the intention of killing my family, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger in order to protect my precious family.
The "murderer," in this case, would be considered "immoral" for his evil intentions, but my action in defending my family would not be considered "immoral," even though the end result of both "actions" would have resulted in someone's death.
"Death" is ultimately due to "Sin," in this cursed world, but our good God works all things together FOR GOOD to those who love Him. "Death" does not win, He does (as do those who trust in Him), because He has provided Eternal LIFE, and at great cost to Himself.


Oh, and one more thing...
People die every day, as a result (ultimately) of "Sin" (the Adamic "Sin principle" we've inherited from Adam), but our gracious God offers Eternal LIFE, by grace through faith in the Person and Finished Work of Jesus Christ.




"The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have LIFE, and that they might have it more abundantly."
- John 10:10
You are assuming that physical death is the penalty for sin. If this were true, then why would Christians (who have had all their sins forgiven) still die? We discussed this at length in the thread called Is Physical Death the Penalty for Sin? (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1507). I think the answer is conclusively a "No."

Also, you are assuming that the Bible teaches there is something called an "Adamic nature" or "Sin Nature." That is not correct. The Bible teaches that there is a conflict between spirit and flesh, but "flesh" does not mean "sin nature." I explained this in one of my first threads when I made this forum back in 2007 called Sin Nature - the Phlogiston of Christian Theology? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13).

All the best.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

. Especially since the prophecy itself spans only a few verses in Daniel and it's not particularly lucid and many if not most Christians don't even recognize it as fulfilled in 70 AD. Hi Richard;
This is where understanding Daniel's 'time of the end' prophesies as being additional clarity and information of prophecies given by Moses 1000 yrs earlier [or even by Israel to his sons in Gen 49]. They are part of God explaining his purposes and freeing will to mankind via the negative principles of ritualistic religions.

In connection with the other thread, the 'end purposes' or foundations and principles of God and relationship with Him were coming into open revelation.


But that doesn't really "do it" for me because I have no reason to believe the premises about "sin" and the need of "redemption" and "forgiveness" and all that. So though I agree that there is evidence for the Bible, I see little evidence for the various "Christianities" that are supposedly derived from it. The original concept of 'sin' is simply that of an archer missing the mark of the target [even in gullibility and ignorance]. I believe that the concept of 'justification by faith' and being declared righteous and "perfect" by faith in Christ could be better portrayed by the archer either not having to shoot at the target at all or hitting the center of the bulls-eye. That state of righteousness is declared to be that of gaining knowledge [John 17:3] about God through the revelation of him found in His incarnation in Christ, and thus his words as having the very authority of God and having the words, freedom and Spirit of positive life.

I do agree that some various aspects of 'Christianites' are in error and based on faulty interpretations and practice.


As for Islam - that's just a Judeo-Christian heresy of little real significance from a religious point of view. It contains no new concepts - it's just a confused copy-cat mish-mash of ideas lifted from Christianity and Judaism.Of this we agree. In the little I know about it, Islam seems to be built on similar principles as Judaism mixed with some aspects of Catholicism and of seeking blessing and approval through conditional, legalistic, even corporal means by nationally following certain laws. Mohammed and the different codified systems of law replace the talmud.


The real contender for an alternate point of view comes from our own minds. We are just now (from a historical point of view) awakening from the primitive ignorance that produced all the religions in the world. There is no reason to think any of them are "true" in the sense that they "should be believed" by modern folks. We don't believe the earth is flat or that diseases are caused by demons. Why believe any of the other superstitions of ignorant ancestors? I don't know that all our ancestors believed those things. I also question the motives of the designers of some of our educational systems, including the higher educations. There is a focus on certain historical facts and events to mis-represent some things in a negative light while projecting others in a positive light; and this for the humanist, evolutionary, communistic and subordinating, enslaving goals of govt.

This is also evident in our historical education about the formation and progress of our country. The progress of the government through exalting certain men or groups of men as 'illuminaries' may actually be a regression. The objective evaluation of the historical activities is usually not considered. For example; "We" or the armies of the Incorporating "Fathers" did NOT fight the British but the Hessians in the revolution. The British refused to fight against their cousins. The King was basically owned by Amschel Mayer, the founder of the Rothschild banking empire, and forerunner of the IMF. Mayer bought Hessian soldiers; forced the King to borrow money from him to pay them $1/day and paid the soldiers .50/day. This following article even states that many of the 'founders' were double agents for "the king" with the motivations of enslaving the population. See pages 4 and 5 of the linked article for one account. You like to read; the whole article (http://usa-the-republic.com/matrix-us_constitution/Matrix-US_Constitution.pdf)should be interesting to you.

Likewise, exalting certain men of science as 'illuminaries' may actually be a regression and the education systems which exalt them as gods may have ulterior motives. Their doctrines may be perpetuated by approved accreditation; similar to how the accredited approval of bible colleges hinges on the acknowledgment of the futurists interpretations. Parts of the accredited, 'approved' education thus becomes a brainwashing and an indoctrination with ulterior Judaic, enslaving motives.


Well, if I begin by believing that God is Good and Intelligent then I cannot believe the Bible is "his word" in the sense understood by most Christians, or that he would care what I opinions I have about his existence. As soon as we begin with our own presuppositions like "the Creation is of a Good, Living Creator who is Good, truthful, omniscient, omnipotent etc." then we have committed ourselves to our own understanding of those terms, and the Bible does not stand up under such high standards. At least not the way it is usually understood. I don't view or consider them as 'pre-suppositions' but of reasonable considerations and possibilities from the same free thinking view that you claim.
You, on the other hand would believe that the molecules of the spaceship accumulated themselves from the sky without the aid of a designer.... but perhaps 1 molecule every 100 yrs...[atheistic evolution] and they all 'happened' to fall in the right place at the right time.

Whether from the sky... or from the ground, the implications, parallels and models of a spaceship and the divine origen and ownership of a human life are similar except the spaceship doesn't have the additional aspects of feelings or thoughts or of a divine will, intellect, 'soul' or organic [living] materials needing oxygen daily and needing two sexes and reproduction in order to perpetuate. [in some cases of species, reproduction within a lifespan of only a few days]

Objectively and truthfully speaking....which model belongs in the nuthouse.??

And neither is the concept of a "Good God" who goes about "doing things" like creating universes."Good" God is a reference to the moral character of his creation and of life, and to his good intentions and for the happiness of life itself. A persons 'smile' and the endorphins released by various activities alone testify to the intent of Goodness and happiness far beyond any undesigned, unfeeling and un-intelligent spontaneous generation. What makes a child smile when they run?? What causes vocal cords to formulate into a laugh? Why??
Even the most basic documents of human constitutions of peoples state [still at the present time] that the free rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are to be held in esteem.



The more I understand science, the less I see a need for a "designer." Folks used to think there had to be a God to design every variety of bug. We now know that they evolved. Sure, there's questions about the origin of DNA, but there is no question about evolution. And this brings up the problems in the Bible again - such as Noah's ark. That story simply is not true, yet Christ referred to it as fact. This creates huge problems for anyone who wants to believe Jesus was infallible. If you want to pursue these topics, I think they'd make a great thread.
I think there may already be a thread elsewhere. I won't take time to interact at this time. I question and refute your declaration of them being 'not true' and of "knowing" that they evolved and of evolution, but will not debate or discuss at this time.

Again, see the comment about multi-generational education systems and curricula being designed from certain subjective viewpoints and to accomplish and accommodate certain goals including a religion of socialist, communist, atheist, or humanist goals. A german philosopher named Hensel [or similar] was supposedly one of the founders of modern education. He proposed, believed or at least entertained the concept that 'the state' was GOD walking the face of the earth. Sounds like a religion, doesn't it. The pope convinced King George that he was God walking the face of the earth.


I think we also mentioned this before, that Peter and the apostles believed, understood and 'knew' of some sort of physical 'flood' of Noah. Doesn't the talmud even record of people knowing the location of the ark? According to Peter's analogy of 2 Peter 3; If they did not consider that flood as physical, they would have no reason to expect and preach the physical removal of the mosaic ordinances and principles as physically coming. The physical fulfillment of the desolation of Jerusalem 'as a flood' was pre-figured by the flood of Noah and the saving of 8 in the ark. 8 being the sign of the new creation, and new beginning apart from and contrast against the law of sin/death [the first Garden] from knowledge of God [due in part to gullibility, inexperience and ignorance] and apart from and contrast against the law of Moses.


Why then is he absent? He exists only in the minds of people who believe in him. How then is he different than any other illusion? He exists elsewhere; in lives and politics, in nature. Did the earth physically quake at his death? Did the temple curtain tear and the wool not turn white never again after the cross.? Was a voice heard from Heaven. Did the apostles see him after the cross?

You mentioned before that you do not believe the miracles of Christ. [and in doing so, basically reject the historical account, and of his claim of Deity and being lord of the earth and Creation.] But the evidence and historical accounts of the desolation of Jerusalem still stands and is difficult to deny. You have no foundation or logic to declare the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the fulfillment of prophecy and referred to by Christ, the OT prophets and the apostles, but then renounce Jesus' miracles or his referal to [at least some physical reality of] Noah's flood as being historical and also referred to by them. Could there possibly be evidence for Noah's flood which you have not discovered or considered yet?

Remember, if you dont' believe that the spaceship was designed and formed by a higher intelligence than yourself; you can't be an astronaut and participate in it's flight. You'll crash and burn.

What about the Indians belief and experiences with 'the Great Spirit'??



The Bible is a book made of words. I have no choice but to judge according to the meaning of its words to the best of my abilty. And the words in the Bible contain much that is not consistent with itself, let alone with the concepts such as justice, love, mercy, and goodness. I believe that sometimes you judge by the letter of the words, not the spirit in the same manner as the dispy's. Or you judge by the claims and interpretations of others, or through the lens of other religious indoctrinations and educations you may have experienced; some of which may not be truthful. We talked about this before in this forum; that only one axiom need to be faulty before the whole house of cards comes down. No need or time to repeat.

Take care.
I was going to clip most of this; due to not wishing to interact in the evolution, creation debate at this time but decided to let it posted. The first paragraph is the one to focus on.

[heb13-13]

Also, you are assuming that the Bible teaches there is something called an "Adamic nature" or "Sin Nature." That is not correct. The Bible teaches that there is a conflict between spirit and flesh, but "flesh" does not mean "sin nature." I explained this in one of my first threads when I made this forum back in 2007 called Sin Nature - the Phlogiston of Christian Theology? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13).

All the best.

That is true, Richard. I believe the NIV introduced the "sin nature". We are not schizophrenics with two natures. The conflict indeed is against "Flesh" and spirit.

All the best,
Rick

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Also, you are assuming that the Bible teaches there is something called an "Adamic nature" or "Sin Nature." That is not correct. The Bible teaches that there is a conflict between spirit and flesh, but "flesh" does not mean "sin nature." I explained this in one of my first threads when I made this forum back in 2007 called Sin Nature - the Phlogiston of Christian Theology? (http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13).

All the best.
That is true, Richard. I believe the NIV introduced the "sin nature". We are not schizophrenics with two natures. The conflict indeed is against "Flesh" and spirit.

All the best,
Rick

:specool:

I'm glad we agree about that. It solves a lot of problems. And yes, the NIV introduced the word "sin nature" as a "translation" of the Greek sarx (flesh). That "version" is not worth of being called a "translation." It's pure crap. Too bad it's the most popular modern translation. Go figure, eh? If the Christian scholars are producing crap Bibles and all the Christians accept them, it's no wonder the religion is such a confused mess. It's even stranger if you believe there is a God watching over this whole mess and letting it all happen....

[jce]

Contradiction anyone? After all, the world is full of them and there are certainly some apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, and they do indeed rise above human reason, but... might not that be the problem?

Contradiction is frustrating. That's why there is a law against it. Even physics has its challenges (unifying theory?). Why can't we just figure this one out? Phooey on revelation, who needs it? We just need to "work the problem people". "We don't need no stinking" revelation on the matter (dark anyone?). "But wait, there's more". Isn't it possible that somebody knows a little more about it than us? I mean after all, us guys here, the big thinkers (stinkers)... aren't we the ones managing the planet... kinda runnin' the show? We're doin' okay on that one aren't we?

Why looky here, we're even on the verge of solving the common cold and servin' up a reliable, accurate weather forecast. Don'tcha think it's about time to demand a complete explanation of the Biblical Mystery from God? I mean, why is this guy holdin' out on us? I suppose he expects us to get in line behind all them Futurists, Preterists, Millennialists, Dispensationalists, along with the likes of Daniel, Paul, Thomas, Richard (Dawkins?) and all them other thinkers waitin' on an answer. Why can't the Big Guy stand up like a man and act like one. I mean hey, he needs to explain a few things around here! He ought to act like a man (you know, like torturing little flies & spiders, and tying things to the cat's tail and maybe even scorching some men with great heat thru that big magnifying glass in the sky. That's pretty manly stuff eh?

Seriously, is that what we really want? Do we want God to behave like a man? Or should we prefer that he patiently challenge our mental capacities as he tries to push us past 20% to the gallon??

Consider the debate between the Preterist and Futurist. Both sides present a somewhat defensible case, but are either arguments totally conclusive? Not in my humble opinion (but what do I know?). I will say this, I have been enriched through that debate simply by studying the more thoughtful (and graceful) posts in those threads and comparing them to the scriptures. Take Matthew 24 as an example. For many years, I simply assumed that it was all about the end of the world (silly me). After studying the Preterist view, I'm pleased to say that I have a much broader understanding of Matthew 24 and its relationship to AD 70. Not only was it fun in the discovery, but it strengthened my faith by providing another accurately fulfilled prediction. Furthermore, I can now speak to others about it having a better understanding on the subject. The point being... debate can be very beneficial. Mystery's foster debate and debate forces logic. Does God really want to just feed us the same old same old stuff over and over (manna anyone?)?

Bottom line, we all benefit in some way from intellectually thoughtful and graceful debate on the hard stuff. Now, if quality debate creates a learning atmosphere and stimulates thinking, why shouldn't God provoke a little debate over His Character and His Word? I mean, if it was too simple, it wouldn't even satisfy the simpleton. It must necessarily be difficult for the intellectually gifted.

And so Richard (not Dawkins) the questions you are raising here are important. If you give up on the Bible now, you leave us all less enriched. Even Jesus endured doubt, why should you be the exception? AFTER ALL, WHAT GOOD IS FAITH IF THERE IS NO DOUBT.

Your Brother in the Faith,

John

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Contradiction anyone? After all, the world is full of them and there are certainly some apparent contradictions in the Scriptures, and they do indeed rise above human reason, but... might not that be the problem?

Contradiction is frustrating. That's why there is a law against it. Even physics has its challenges (unifying theory?). Why can't we just figure this one out? Phooey on revelation, who needs it? We just need to "work the problem people". "We don't need no stinking" revelation on the matter (dark anyone?). "But wait, there's more". Isn't it possible that somebody knows a little more about it than us? I mean after all, us guys here, the big thinkers (stinkers)... aren't we the ones managing the planet... kinda runnin' the show? We're doin' okay on that one aren't we?

Why looky here, we're even on the verge of solving the common cold and servin' up a reliable, accurate weather forecast. Don'tcha think it's about time to demand a complete explanation of the Biblical Mystery from God? I mean, why is this guy holdin' out on us? I suppose he expects us to get in line behind all them Futurists, Preterists, Millennialists, Dispensationalists, along with the likes of Daniel, Paul, Thomas, Richard (Dawkins?) and all them other thinkers waitin' on an answer. Why can't the Big Guy stand up like a man and act like one. I mean hey, he needs to explain a few things around here! He ought to act like a man (you know, like torturing little flies & spiders, and tying things to the cat's tail and maybe even scorching some men with great heat thru that big magnifying glass in the sky. That's pretty manly stuff eh?

Seriously, is that what we really want? Do we want God to behave like a man? Or should we prefer that he patiently challenge our mental capacities as he tries to push us past 20% to the gallon??

Consider the debate between the Preterist and Futurist. Both sides present a somewhat defensible case, but are either arguments totally conclusive? Not in my humble opinion (but what do I know?). I will say this, I have been enriched through that debate simply by studying the more thoughtful (and graceful) posts in those threads and comparing them to the scriptures. Take Matthew 24 as an example. For many years, I simply assumed that it was all about the end of the world (silly me). After studying the Preterist view, I'm pleased to say that I have a much broader understanding of Matthew 24 and its relationship to AD 70. Not only was it fun in the discovery, but it strengthened my faith by providing another accurately fulfilled prediction. Furthermore, I can now speak to others about it having a better understanding on the subject. The point being... debate can be very beneficial. Mystery's foster debate and debate forces logic. Does God really want to just feed us the same old same old stuff over and over (manna anyone?)?

Bottom line, we all benefit in some way from intellectually thoughtful and graceful debate on the hard stuff. Now, if quality debate creates a learning atmosphere and stimulates thinking, why shouldn't God provoke a little debate over His Character and His Word? I mean, if it was too simple, it wouldn't even satisfy the simpleton. It must necessarily be difficult for the intellectually gifted.

And so Richard (not Dawkins) the questions you are raising here are important. If you give up on the Bible now, you leave us all less enriched. Even Jesus endured doubt, why should you be the exception? AFTER ALL, WHAT GOOD IS FAITH IF THERE IS NO DOUBT.

Your Brother in the Faith,

John
That's a great post! :anim_32:

Some kinds of contradictions are signs of reality colliding with our limited systems of thought. Such contradictions have played an essential role in the development of science. People finally realized that epicycles couldn't account for all the problems of the geocentric cosmology. And Quantum Mechanics is so "contradictory" that it drives some physicists nuts.

Simple systems are the product of simple minds, and when they encounter reality, their shortcomings are quickly exposed.

This is the kind of thinking that makes folks think the Christian "mysteries" like the Trinity are a sign of truth from God, since no human would want to make up such an apparently contradictory system. I think there is some merit in that.

But then there are contradictions that don't fit this model. For example, the eternal evil of hell looks more like the product of a wicked human imagination of hatred against one's enemies than a teaching from God.

Well .. it's dinner time. This is a very interesting topic. I'll comment more after dinner (it's date night with my baby :flowers:).