The Holy Bible proves its inspired accuracy again...

by Derrick 54 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abaddon

  Lord of the Rings is true too, I've seen photographic evidence.
• 

  LittleToe

  Rem:We're surely not gonna get into the flood one again! It was a land or country, not the whole planet.
• 

  greven

  Historic details like buildings, cities and people are not the vital points one should look at when deciding the bible to be inspired or not. Proving them means nothing but some historical accuracy. What we should be interested in when discussing the inspiration are the extra-ordinairy claims.

  I could write a book describing an alien atack on NYC in which I mention buildings and cities and people as decorum like that movie Independance Day. Then when archeologists will dig up such cities a few thousand years in the future does that make the aliens real too?

  Greven
• 

  Blueblades

  Hi Derrick! The Bible itself says at 1Corinthians 5:7"We walk by faith,not by sight".So,the christian hopes for the things not seen.His hope is not based on any objects,relics,things of physical sight.While Paul was talking about his heavenly hope,what he said demonstrates that Christianty is a Bible based belief of faith.

  As to the Bible being HOLY and INSPIRED of and by God,well,that too is a question of faith,not sight.This faith is something that only the individual can arrive at by personal conviction,so, ultimately it is all a matter of faith.

  I am not convinced that the Bible is HOLY or INSPIRED of and by God.

  Blueblades
• 

  AlanF

  Hi Derrick, : You've got a good point. It's not just good -- it's crucial to the proper use of arguments like yours. Remember that you presented your information as if it actually proved the inspiration of the Bible. I've seen a lot of other online Christians do the same. All of you forget this "good point" in your scramble to justify your beliefs. : Proving the historic accuracy of the Bible is nevertheless important. The Bible is not necessarily inspired because of its proven historic accuracy. I will agree to this point. However, set aside any skepticism you may have for a moment to consider a very important point: If the Bible was proven as NOT historically accurate then skeptics could dismiss its Author. Any further attempts to prove its divine inspiration would be easy to invalidate. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of removing the barriers of historic accuracy in order to clear the overgrowth blocking the path to the one universal truth. You're absolutely right. But as people have already pointed out, the Bible does contain a number of historically inaccurate claims. That's why people like me, in good conscience, dismiss its supposed Author. We have no choice, if we're honest with ourselves. AlanF
• 

  AlanF

  Hi LittleToe,

  Greven's point is dead on.

  You said:

  : We're surely not gonna get into the flood one again! It was a land or country, not the whole planet.

  I've argued this point with other Christians many times. One poster on this board, "aChristian", has brought out a number of reasons to support your claim. But on careful examination, I think that they all amount to special pleading -- they're arguments designed to get around the obvious fact that a natural reading of the Genesis Flood account conflicts with the established fact that there was no global "Noah's Flood". Special pleading may be correct sometimes, but the arguments must be rock solid.

  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that a natural reading of Genesis demands that the Flood was global. God set forth, 120 years in advance, his plan to destroy the earth. The ark was his plan to save Noah and his family. If the Flood weren't global, but confined to a locality a few hundred miles in extent in Mesopotamia, all God would have had to do is instruct Noah to leave the area at the appropriate time. If the Flood were local, it would have been unnecessary to bring all sorts of animals on the ark to save them. A local Flood could not possibly have lasted a year, since it would require some sort of major damming, perhaps near the mouths of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. There is no evidence for such damming, and in fact, a careful look at the geology of the region shows that it consists of nothing but normal floodplain deposits rather than a scrambled geology that bespeaks massive amounts of flowing water. We have a number of examples of massive floods and the sort of destruction they leave; nothing like this is found in the southern part of Mesopotamia. The comparison that Jesus made of the end of the world of Noah's day with the end of the world of mankind sometime in the day of his hearers (which obviously didn't happen) begs for an understanding that the Flood was global. There would be little sense in comparing a local event with a worldwide one, but comparing the complete destruction of the world of Noah, except for a tiny group of faithful, and the ushering in of a new one, with the complete destruction of the world of mankind, except for a tiny group of faithful, and the ushering in of a new one, makes complete sense.

  AlanF
• 

  Dansk

  Hi LT,

  This is MOST interesting coming from you:

  Rem:We're surely not gonna get into the flood one again! It was a land or country, not the whole planet.

  Considering Christians are expected to take the Genesis account of the flood as literally global how can you, as a BAC (Born Again Christian), go against such a strong Christian tenet?

  Dansk
• 

  frenchbabyface

  Sorry DERRICK but :

  AlanF / Abanddon / Rem / Funcky Derrick / ascott / Greven ... the all staff of APOSTATE EFFICIENT KINGS !!!Well ...Make sure you've got solid evidences ...

  For my part what I want to know is why you believe in the BIBLE ? Tell me just THAT ...
• 

  LittleToe

  Alan:
  I was actually going from the language. The Hebrew word is also used for country and land.
  I guess it's all down to interpretation, but when the language and science have a lowest common denominator of "country", then I'm happy to go with that.

  Dansk:
  Christians are people who have a personal relationship with Christ. It has nothing to do with bible stories - maybe some "religionists" do.
  I find no conflict.

  If you are stating that I must act like the church did with Galileo, then you've mistaken me for someone else
• 

  frenchbabyface

  You know what I like with you Little Toe : You are always sweet as candy ... (I have to say it)
  you are probably very strong somewhere (don't know how to explain it in english to long to explain)
  
  Well ... I've maybe miss some specific post but that's what I read till now