How do you know the Bible is from God?

by cognac 77 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  bohm

  EAS: IF someday it is genuinely discovered that Adam and Eve never existed and that evolution is the mechanism God used to create the planet over billions of years, then we would be forced to conclude that the creation account was intended as a parable instead of as history

  That is exactly what im asking for - what would it take. I can tell you what it would take for me and evolution: A cow and a dinosauer fossil found together. Or for example that the sequences that code for different proteins in the DNA in two closely related animals was in different order, spread over different chromosomes. Or that it turned out our DNA is NOT full of junk sequences. or a lot of other stuff. I mean, that was the things i was asking for, ifthe theory of the ark is falsifiable in the scientific sence.
• 

  EverAStudent

  Hi Bohm, I get it. What would be a convincing scientific find that would demonstrate that evolution was more likely the mechanism God used to create life than not? For you to believe in creation, you said it would take, "our DNA is NOT full of junk sequence" or some things like that. Would you be interested in seeing photographs of dinosaur footprints chasing and overlapping human footprints?

  Honestly, I don't know. I know I have not yet seen it. Many times the evidences I have been exposed to that are pro-evolution keep getting shelved because of more current "findings." For example, I was once taught that the calcium deposits that comprise stalacmites and stalagmites could only precipitate at a given rate, thus showing certain caves were billions of years old in their ongoing formation. Yet, it turned out that calcium precipitate leeches at a locally variable rate depending on ever-changing ground moisture content. Heavy ground water flows resulted in greatly increased formation growths.

  It is interesting that what scientists used to call "junk DNA sequences" and "vestigial organs" are frequently being more deeply investigated all the time and one-by-one being shown to have present value and use, not really vestigial or junk at all. These are all evidences and not proofs. Worse, scientific evidences have an annoying habit of being overtaken and replaced by new findings that force drastic revisions of old theories.
• 

  garyneal

  Hello all,

  I've been reading this thread with great interest. I've also watch the videos posted on here entitled "Who Wrote the Bible?" and bookmarked the you tube page for further watching. I, like the man in the documentary, was also taught at a young age to believe that the Bible is wholly inspired by God and 100% accurate. I must admit, like the man in the video, there are times when I have had some doubts. While I still believe in the Bible, and especially in Christ Jesus, I have to wonder why it seems like there are some passages that became null and void within Christian living by the first century C.E.. What about some of the passages that are becoming 'null and void' today (such as ordaining women pastors, etc.). It would seem that the only timeless teachings are the teachings of Christ Himself.

  I remember in college a Philosophy professor telling us that the creation account of Adam and Eve were a myth. He also told us that a lot of the traditions in Christendom today came primarily from the roman emporer Augustus (which by the way is also a JW teaching). I remember in art class, I was reading about a painting that dated back from around 10,000 B.C.E.. When you consider that Adam was created around 4,000 B.C.E. you have a little conundrum and the best way I was able to reconcile this is the possibility that Adam wasn't created in around 4,000 B.C.E. but was instead around much much earlier in time.

  It seems like the more I try to get at the truth, the more I find myself having more questions than answers. I used to ask myself, "What if modern man wrote the Bible?" By that I mean the human race having the intellegence and technological advancement that we have today. How will the Bible be written if the events of it were filtered by the prism of the kind of scientific knowledge that we have today? What would the destruction of Soddom and Gomorrah look like from the perspective of modern man? Would it be God pouring out his wrath, or would it be simply meteorites raining down on that city? What about the great flood? Worldwide, or only covering the fertile cresent (as has been suggested)?

  In the end, though, it would still make more sense for me to believe rather than not believe. I guess, in the end, I find myself quoting another poster who said this, "It is better for me to have questions I cannot answer, rather than answers I cannot question."
• 

  PSacramento

  The oldest recorded story of "the flood" was Sumerian:

  Sumerian

  Further information: Eridu Genesis

  The earliest extant flood legend is contained in the fragmentary SumerianEridu Genesis, datable by its script to the 17th century BCE. [ 1 ]

  The story tells how the god Enki warns Ziusudra (meaning "he saw life," in reference to the gift of immortality given him by the gods), of the gods' decision to destroy mankind in a flood—the passage describing why the gods have decided this is lost. Enki instructs Ziusudra (also known as Atrahasis) to build a large boat—the text describing the instructions is also lost. After which he is left to repopulate the earth, as in many other flood legends.

  After a flood of seven days, Zi-ud-sura makes appropriate sacrifices and prostrations to An (sky-god) and Enlil (chief of the gods), and is given eternal life in Dilmun (the Sumerian Eden) by An and Enlil.
• 

  EverAStudent

  garyneal wrote: "In the end, though, it would still make more sense for me to believe rather than not believe. I guess, in the end, I find myself quoting another poster who said this, 'It is better for me to have questions I cannot answer, rather than answers I cannot question.'"

  That's a pretty good philosophy with regard to this matter. There are passages of the Bible I still cannot figure out and one that nags at me because it has the appearance of a prophecy that failed. Yet, I am constantly reminded that just because I cannot understand something does not mean it is wrong, it just means I cannot understand it. If every mysterious thing was immediately assumed to be error, then study, exploration, and inquiry would be squashed.

  Over all, I look at the evidences of the majority of prophecies in Scripture (e.g. Isaiah and Daniel) and am utterly convinced that God has revealed Himself and the future to certain persons. It is kind of funny. The world says, "Show me just one valid supernatural event and I will gladly believe in spirits, demons, and magic, however, for me to believe in the God of the Bible you must first prove to me that every comment and event in the Bible is true." When it comes to belief in the true God the world changes their standard of evidence and proof.
• 

  PSacramento

  One thing we need to remember, a prophecy is a vision of a possible, a foreseeable event, it doesn't mean the event is GOING to happen, itmeans the event may come to pass or will coem to pass unless something changes, that whole pesky free will thing you know.
• 

  inkling

  "Show me just one valid supernatural event and I will gladly believe in spirits, demons, and magic, however, for me to believe in the God of the Bible you must first prove to me that every comment and event in the Bible is true."

  My standard for proof of "supernatural knowledge" is exactly the same
  for the Bible as for modern day psychics, mediums, and prophets.
  
  They would have to demonstrate clear, unambiguous preknowledge
  of a non-common event, documented before the fact, with a high
  enough ratio of correct details to false that I know they are not
  just shotgunning plausible guesses and getting a few right.

  I have not found even a single convincing case of true prophecy
  in the bible that can stand up to reasonable critical thinking.
  
  Of all the claimed prophecies in the bible, I have found that they
  all fall into either the category of vague enough to be stretched
  to fit, or without any good evidence that they are written BEFORE
  the events they purport to predict.
  
  So yeah, if there was even ONE prophecy in the Bible that was proven
  to be ONLY possibly via supernatural intervention, I would be convinced
  that SOMETHING supernatural interacted at least once with Bible writers.
  
  Of course,, why should that supernatural information provider be god?
  Maybe it was a demon, who made the prophacies come true later.
  Maybe it was time traveling aliens. Why should it redeem the rest
  of the book as a reliable guide, seeing how filled it is with things
  which are at best wrong, and at worst dangerous?

  How would I tell the difference between the true and false aspects of the bible?

  [inkling]
• 

  EverAStudent

  Inkling wrote: "I have not found even a single convincing case of true prophecy
  in the bible that can stand up to reasonable critical thinking.
  
  Of all the claimed prophecies in the bible, I have found that they
  all fall into either the category of vague enough to be stretched
  to fit, or without any good evidence that they are written BEFORE
  the events they purport to predict.
  
  So yeah, if there was even ONE prophecy in the Bible that was proven
  to be ONLY possibly via supernatural intervention, I would be convinced
  that SOMETHING supernatural interacted at least once with Bible writers."

  Wow! So not even the fact that no prophets wrote Scripture in Israel for 400 years before Jesus was born is evidence that all the prophecies about His birth were written centuries before they happened?

  How about the well documented event where the Jews, having read the book of Daniel, went out of Jerusalem with a copy of the book of Daniel and met Alexander the Great on his way to destroy Jerusalem, and showed him the prophecies with his name in them which caused him not only to spare Jerusalem but to decree that Jews in his empire would have favored status?

  None of these things prove the veracity of the biblical prophecies, but they sure are interesting evidence.
• 

  inkling

  Wow! So not even the fact that no prophets wrote Scripture in Israel for 400 years before Jesus was born is evidence that all the prophecies about His birth were written centuries before they happened?

  I'm confused by your grammar here, but I am assuming you are
  referring to the OT writings that are claimed to predict specific
  events in Jesus' life and death?
  
  To simplify things for example, could you point to a just few that
  you find most compelling?

  How about the well documented event where the Jews, having read the book of Daniel, went out of Jerusalem with a copy of the book of Daniel and met Alexander the Great on his way to destroy Jerusalem, and showed him the prophecies with his name in them which caused him not only to spare Jerusalem but to decree that Jews in his empire would have favored status?

  That's a pretty specific and detailed story, especially since
  modern historians date the writing the book of Daniel at
  164 BCE, hundreds of years after the fall of Jerusalem.

  Where exactly is this event "well documented"?

  [inkling]
• 

  inkling

  I am also still curious as to your positionon an issue I brought up
  a few posts back, because it's a subject close to the heart of my
  personal crisis of faith:

  Romans 5:12 tells us that death first came into the world when Adam and Eve sinned.

  So... to be clear, do you mean that before Adam and Eve
  sinned, there was NO death, even of animals?

  [inkling]