i just wanted to share an experience i've been having for the past couple of days. someone has been emailing me i think to "save" my eternal soul. i think its a witness. my responses are in italics.
so, has anyone else had people emailing trying to convert/save your soul? how did you respond?
what doctrines do you question?i debated responding to your email because i have a feeling you're trying to "save" me...
if this is the case, don't worry about me. i'm confident in my decisions and when the time comes if i have to answer for my actions, so be it.
if you're genuinely just curious, well ok!...sorry about that first part. i guess to say i "question" certain doctrines is a little bit 'last week', if you know what i mean. i think i'm past questioning certain things and at this point i simply don't believe them.
-i don't believe that jesus took the throne in 1914 (if he did, why do the JWs still celebrate the memorial? jesus said to continue doing it in remembrance of him until he returned.) also, the 607BC date for the destruction of jerusalem is highly suspect.
-i don't believe that the bible is inspired by god. the pyramids date back to a couple hundred years after the bible says adam was created. we've found fossilized human skeletons that predate the bible's date for adam's creation. according to genesis, the incident at the tower of babel occured 144 years after the flood. noah and his sons must have been busy to create entire civilizations in 144 years. oh, another one...methusaleh (sp?) the oldest man, noah's elder, was not on the ark, however according to bible chronolgy, for him to reach his ripe old age he would've had to live through the flood. did he just swim? all these things plus many, many more add up to not allow me to believe the bible is the inspired revelation of god.
-that being said, it calls into question heaven, a paradise earth, satan, jesus as the christ, i can go on. i'm not saying i've completely written off everything in the bible...i'm just saying i'm sorting it out.
so, as far as "doctrines i question", i'd have to say all of them. i've also completely written off a bunch. hope this helps with whatever motivated you to write.
michael
thank you for responding to me but if the bible is not true then what is do you belive in evolution that is something that cant be proven but the bible has been proven to be true on many subjects such as the earth being a circle this is in isaha 40:22 at that time many people belived the earth was being held up by an elephant or something alse like that how would the bible writer known the earh was a sphere unless he was inspired archeology has proven the bible to be true there is much evidence fo the bible and for the truth of the life of christ the historian josephus wrote of jesus and 2 of the gospels were written by eyewitnesses the other to mark and luke could have spoken to eyewitnesses you should think seriously think about it before you disregard the bible and the truth about jesus he said i am the way the truth and the life know man comes two the father but through me either jesus told the truth or he is a liar if this is true that would mean you are throwing away eternal life i dont know if you feel the way you do because of the way some peple have treated you who claim the serve god or not but just because someone claims ther a christian dont mean they i always do what god wannts or act in a christian way i cant save you only the shed blood of christ can save you you have the right to belive what ever you want god gives man that right thank you for respondung to my email please write back
Wow?you covered a lot of bases with that one.
First of all, I believe as you do, that everyone has the right to believe what they like. As such, I refuse to argue for or against matters of faith. Faith as you know, is defined as a belief in things unseen or unprovable. I respect the faith of others and would never try to intentionally dismantle that faith. That being said, I?d like to respond to some of the issues you mentioned. I was brought up believing these things and I?d like to explain to you why I no longer do.
You mentioned that Josephus wrote of Jesus. I suggest that you research that fact. The document that you refer to has been shown to be a fraud (the reference to Jesus being stuck in between two paragraphs having nothing to do with the subject whatsoever). That point aside, considering the fact that Josephus wrote around 60-70AD (relatively shortly after Jesus? time) and wrote extensively of the entire history of the Jews, does it make sense that he would make one small reference in passing to the Son of God? Surely, Jesus would deserve at least 2 or 3 sentences of the Jewish history. Also, Rome being the great learned empire of the time, a multitude of writings and documents have been found from the time Jesus supposedly walked the earth. There is not one mention of Jesus in all these writings other than that by Josephus that you mentioned. Considering the supposed impact of Jesus? life, does it seem reasonable that not one secular historian even so much as mentioned him or his life?
You wrote that "archaeology has proven the bible true" and that there is "much evidence for the bible and the truth of the life of christ." Please, explain what evidence you?re referring to. I, too, was told for years that there was this evidence but so far I?ve been unable to locate it. so, please tell me exactly what evidence you are referring to. I?m not doubting that some events in the bible did actually occur (certain wars or even the fall of jerusalem definitely occurred). This does not in itself prove that the bible is directly inspired by God. The newspaper records events that definitely did occur on a daily basis, but this does not make the newspaper inspired.
I don?t really feel like I?m throwing away eternal life because I don?t believe it was ever offered to humans. But, again, people are free to believe as they like and it?s not my intention to destroy your faith. I?m simply explaining my stance which you questioned.
I don?t know what else to tell you, but that I have come to my beliefs after months and months of reading and studying. It was not easy to give up beliefs I held dear all my life, but in the light of evidence that I have found (and a lack of evidence to support my old beliefs) I had no other choice but to reassess my stance on all things religious.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to write back. And if I?ve offended you in any way, please accept my apologies. That was definitely not my intention.
michael
I am just going to mention a few archeology discoveries that have been found that prove the truth of the bible
Isaiah 20:1 , because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20 , his capture of Ashdod , was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey. Many thought the Biblical references to Solomon's wealth were greatly exaggerated. Recovered records from the past show that wealth in antiquity was concentrated with the king and Solomon's prosperity was entirely feasible. It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in
Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar , king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5 . The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel "third highest ruler in the kingdom" ( Dan. 5:16 ) for reading the handwriting on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the "eye-witness" nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out by the discoveries of archaeology.As I mentioned, I have no doubt that many incidents recorded in the bible actually occurred. You have mentioned many events reported by the bible that archeology has verified. The archeological authenticity of these events are not in question in my mind. I firmly believe that the Hittites were a real people. I believe that Sargon was an actual king. I believe that Ashdod was indeed captured. These things are not in question in my mind. But again, these things in and of themselves do not prove divine authorship. If, in the future, we discover proof that the lost continent of Atlantis did indeed exist would that prove that Plato was inspired by god? No, it would simply prove that Plato was there and saw Atlantis or heard a detailed account of it. Whether he was inspired by god remains to be proven by the content of his writings. Similiarly, the archeological evidence you sited only proves that the authors of those scriptures either saw or heard about the events or conditions that you mentioned. Their divine authorship would still remain to be proven.
It is my belief that for the bible to be considered the infallible Word of God, Divinely Inspired and provided directly by God Himself, it must be wholly true and free from inaccuracies. If certain portions are proven inaccurate, then it throws into question all other portions of the bible. Simply put, it is either wholly inspired or it is not. If it is not, then all passages therein have to be verified and accepted on their own merit and not simply because it is contained in what we refer to as "The Word of God". The passages you have mentioned have been verified by archeology and thus some may accept those passages as accurate. However, what of all of the scriptures for which there is no scientific, archeological or secular evidence to support their claim of divine revelation or even secular accuracy? (please refer to my first email for a small sampling of some of these scriptures) What then?
It is clear that you wish to convince me of something I cannot believe. I have no problem sharing my viewpoint with you (in fact, I enjoy it) but like I said in my previous email, I draw the line at theological debate. Nothing productive can come from it if its only aim is to convince the other to change their beliefs. The only benefit of an open theological debate is the gaining of perspective by broadening your viewpoint and that doesn?t seem to be your aim. As I said before, if you?re trying to "save" me (or guide me to the one who you feel can), don?t worry about me. I stand by my decisions and beliefs.
But again, if you?re just curious, feel free to write anytime.
michael