the author of the book of john evidently believed that no man has seen god, while the author of exodus tells us that moses had, indeed, seen god.
either john is wrong, or exodus is; either way, the bible is in error on this point.
here is the evidence:.
>>I see God everyday. "Man was made in the image of God", so everytime I look into a mirror or into my loved ones eyes, I see the reflection of the face of my Creator.<<
I agree. I look in the mirror or in my loved ones eyes and I see TWO looking back at me.
the author of the book of john evidently believed that no man has seen god, while the author of exodus tells us that moses had, indeed, seen god.
either john is wrong, or exodus is; either way, the bible is in error on this point.
here is the evidence:.
>>There is only one YHWH<<
Tell that to the Apostle John:
John 1:1-2
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
I count two. How's your math???
the author of the book of john evidently believed that no man has seen god, while the author of exodus tells us that moses had, indeed, seen god.
either john is wrong, or exodus is; either way, the bible is in error on this point.
here is the evidence:.
>>Pom believes that there are two YHWHs, one which is seen only under penalty of death;<<
That is incorrect. First, death would be resultant of an unavoidable perishing because of the overwhelming granduer and magnificence of a human viewing YHWH Father AND/OR the FACE of YHWH Son. NOT as a "penalty" as if they did something WRONG by looking at God, but death AS A HUMAN because of the inability to be in the presence of such a Being of supreme magnitude.
The YHWH Father exists and has NEVER BEEN SEEN by ANY man. Not even his pinky toe nail.
>>this is the YHWH which is responsible for creation,<<
That is NOT what I understand or communicated to you ever...
They BOTH (Father and Son) are responsible for creation, as we in image and likeness, as a man and a woman are responsible for our living creations. It takes two to tango even in God:
1 Cor 8:6
6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father FROM whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom all things came and through whom we live.
Creation is FROM the Father THROUGH the Son. (I and the Father are One)
Pro-creation is FROM the male THROUGH the female. (The two become one flesh)
Two in God, two in flesh.
>>The other YHWH is the one who can be seen--according to Pom. Now, Pom says that the YHWH who speaks in Exodus 24 is the SAME one who speaks in Exodus 33.<<
The YHWH in both chapters is YHWH Son.
>>>Now, assuming that Pom agrees with my characterization of his beliefs, let me present my argument again.<<
I don't, see the clarifications above.
>>Exodus 33 says that no man may see God, but Exodus 24 says that Moses saw God; this is a contradiction. Here is the evidence:
"And he said, Thou canst not see my FACE: for there shall no man see me and live." (Exodus 33:20)<<
Again, Joseph just reads the tiny parts of the Bible he wants to support his argument, and ignores the Bibles further LIGHT on what constitutes or defines what YHWH Son meant by "Thou canst not SEE MY FACE: for there shall no man see me and live."
It is clear in the text above, that YHWH Son is stating that HIS FACE is the topic of which that cannot be scene by a human and he yet survive it. How do we know? Because emphasis on the FACE not being seen is reiterated for the reader as the AMOUNT of the YWHW Son that cannot be scene without dire consequences.
Ex 33:22-23
22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."
Clearly, YHWH Son says to Moses YOU WILL SEE MY BACK. YHWH Son says his FACE must NOT be seen, which sends us back to: "Thou canst not see my FACE: for there shall no man see me and live."
But YHWH Son's "back" was shown to Moses. The FACE was not seen as BOTH texts plainly state.
>>"...they SAW the god of Israel..."(Exodus 24:1-11)<<
They saw the "back" of the YHWH Son. Not the FACE of the YHWH Son. And NOT one itty bitty piece of the Father.
>>Pom tries to escape this contradiction by arguing that we should assume that the words "shall no man see me and live" actually mean, "shall no man see [my face] and live." Thus, in Pom's mind, because Exodus 24 doesn't specifically say the Moses saw God's FACE, there's no contradiction.<<
The contextual meaning here is simple. YHWH Son can be seen except for his FACE. FACE, meaning the whole enchalada in relation to the YHWH Son. The YHHW Father and FACE of the YHWH cannot be gazed upon by humans as much as staring at the sun is a sure loosing battle for your eye balls.
>>Pom, do you REALLY believe the Exodus author wanted his readers to believe that Moses didn't see God's face?<<
That's exactly what the Bible says Joseph. What I believe on this point is in fact meaningless because the Bible passages are plain as DAY. Do you flatly deny that YHWH Son said his face cannot be seen, and that Moses only saw his "back?"
Face, back and hand are obvious meanings for an AMOUNT of glory shown and seen. NOT body parts like a physical human.
>>If that's what he wanted us to believe, wouldn't he have said so?<<
Seems to me it's like a blinding light. Can't you see it?
23 "Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."
He said it exactly like it happened Joseph. YOU CAN'T SEE MY FACE. I will only let you see 50 Watts of light NOT 100 Watts. If you look at 100. POOF!!! You're a goner.
>>Pom wants to argue that death only comes if one sees God's face, but the Bible doesn't say that.<<
Repetition for emphasis:
23 "Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."
>>The Bible does say that if one sees God's face, death follows, but it does not say that's the ONLY way you will die; the Bible ALSO says that if anyone sees God, period, one dies. Seeing God's face is just ONE way of seeing the God, not the only way.<<
You are pulling a classic case of taking a small bit of scripture TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT. This is a classic way people support points of view without a contextual foundation. Just take a small snippet and say SEE!! Look what it says. But DON't bother reader the context, that will make you understand something different...That is an OLD trick the JW's use all the time. I learned my lesson from the KINGS of taking things out of context. You are doing the same thing.
Seeing YHWH Son's face is one way to expire. Seeing his back is one way one won't expire. So, seeing God, in the CONTEXT of FACE, obviously means the FULL GLORY of the Son, which WOULD CAUSE and early expiration date.
>>Moses saw God, but Moses didn't die, so the Bible is in error.<<
The Bible plainly states Moses saw the "back" of the YHWH Son. In the same context of "you can't see me and yet live," is the defining factor in both the texts mentioning FACE. The Bible is consistent in what the ONLY definition of not seeing the YHWH Son meant. Death by viewing FULL GLORY, or the FACE.
>>Exodus said that Moses SAW God. Why should we assume the writer meant for us to believe that Moses didn't see his face, as well as the rest of him?<<
First, there is no lie here in these passages. In order to go with your line of thinking above, a lie would have to be proved of which you have not proven in the least sense of the word. So this question has no merit or foundation.
>>In fact, the writer makes it clear that WHATEVER it was that Moses DID see, it ordinarily would have been enough to God to administer the death penalty, otherwise why would the author tell us that God chose not to lay his hand on Moses?<<
First, if Moses had seen more that he should have, he would have expired. He didn't, as he only saw the "back" (lesser amount) and survived, as the Bible PLAINLY details. Second, the other text you bring in as a red herring, is talking about the elders disobedience in relation to "going up." That was disobedience to YHWH Son's command where they were to worship him at a DISTANCE. YHWH Son had justifiable reason to raise his hand against THEM, NOT MOSES. Moses did exactly what he was told to do.
Ex 24:11
11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites;
EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE COMMANDED THIS:
Ex 24:1-2
24:1 Then he said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance, 2 but Moses alone is to approach the LORD; the others must not come near. And the people may not come up with him."
Did they OBEY that COMMAND???? Noooooooo. They disobeyed. THAT was the reason why the YHWH Son could have RAISED his hand against THEM, not Moses. NOT because they saw him (WHICH WAS OBVIOUSLY JUST A "BACK" VIEW), but becasue they DISOBEYED a SIMPLE COMMAND: "And the people MAY NOT come up with him."
Are you really that stubborn so as to not admit to seeing this very simple contextual proof?
>>Thus, Moses must have done something that ordinarily would have earned him the death penalty.<<
No. Do your contextual homework Joseph. The seventy elders and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu DISOBEYED GOD by going up instead of NOT going up and staying at a t distance as was COMMANDED them. THAT assuredly earned THEM the death penalty.
>>The Exodus author seems to be telling us here that Moses is no ordinary man, and that's why God chose to spare him.<<
Moses was an ordinary man. Just like you.
>>Nevertheless, Exodus 24 contradicts Exodus 33.<<
This is getting old. There is no contradiction, just lack of understanding on your part whether it be willing or unwilling.
>>What the writer SHOULD have said is that no ordinary man can see God, but he would allow the most holy man of Old Testament times to do so. The writer didn't say this, so the writer was wrong about God killing any man who sees him.<<
You now use circular reasoning to bolster a dead horse argument.
Good night.
the author of the book of john evidently believed that no man has seen god, while the author of exodus tells us that moses had, indeed, seen god.
either john is wrong, or exodus is; either way, the bible is in error on this point.
here is the evidence:.
"And he said, Thou canst not see my FACE: for there shall no man see me [the FACE, FULL GLORY], and live." (Exodus 33:20….."And ….Moses SAW THE GOD OF ISRAEL [NOT THE FACE, OBVIOUSLY See Ex. 33:20]....and upon the nobles of the children of Israel he (YHWH) laid not his hand." (Exodus 24:1-11)
See the bold above?
Ex 33:20-23
20 But," he said [talking to Moses], "you cannot see MY FACE, for no one may see me [MY FACE] and live."
Notice NO ONE MAY SEE ME meant FACE. See? FACE. Which means FULL GLORY. EVEN with Christ, his FULL GLORY (FACE) can NOT be seen by man and yet live. But his "BACK" a small portion of his glory CAN and COULD be seen by who he deemed worthy to see him.
21 Then the LORD [YHWH Son] said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and YOU WILL SEE MY BACK; BUT MY FACE MUST NOT BE SEEN."
Get it? It's really quite elementary Joseph. Or do you get confused by the elementary things of God, like his face and back?
>>Pom earlier argued that there are two different YHWH’s here; one is the Father,
Here???? Where? Talking to Moses? I never said that. I said two YHWH's exist. YOU'RE saying "here" which I gather YOU mean talking to Moses. I don't see two YHWH's talking in the context do you? There's only one talking. That one is the Son. The Father watches and listens. He exists. Or can't you fathom the Son talking and the Father watching?
>>the other the Son; the former is the one speaking in Exodus 33,<<
I never said ANYWHERE, the Father spoke at all. I said two YHWH's exist. PERIOD. The Father speaking is YOUR words and YOUR WORDS ALONE, yet you are saying they are mine. Nice trick Joseph.
Jesus YWHW does ALL the speaking in the Bible, as HE is the Word of God. ALL of it. Simple. The Father exists and let's the Son run the show. Simple simple.
>>the latter--the forgiving one--is the one in Exodus 24,>>
Ex 33 and 24 are both Jesus YHWH, as I HAVE ALWAYS maintained.
>>Unfortunately for Pom, he evidently forgot that he once (Wednesday) believed there were two different YHWHs in Exodus,<<
Forgot? I never forgot. There are two YHWH's as I have always said. Re-read this thread. That's all I have been saying.
>>because NOW (Thursday) he says that since the creation, the only God who ever spoke or interacted with man was the SAME person, Jesus YHWH!<<
You haven't proved anything here except confirmed exactly what I have always said. That Christ is the one doing it all, and the Father has given all over to his Son. The Father exists and yet does not deal with man in either word or deed. The Son deals with man. Simple.
The Father has given all into the Sons hands. All.
>>Here are Pom’s self-convicting words:
“Everytime in the OT you see God speak, the Word of God spoke, that being Christ….So with simplicity, Jesus is the Word of God, EVERYTIME God spoke, it was the Word speaking.”<<<
What the heck are you talking about? This is what I always said, and you're saying I said something different? You are one weird 50 year old. Cut and paste anything else different which you are claiming, the above proves nothing. You don't have one sentence where I said the Father spoke or dealt with man at all. People that twist like this are the ones who cannot accept that their man wisdom of "Bible contradictions" can be answered with a logical explaination. The truth of Duotheism answers most of yours.
>>So, Pom, according to you, it must have been “Jesus YHWH” who was speaking when he said, “Thou canst not see MY face,” and it was that SAME “Jesus YHWH” who allowed Moses to see him. Thus, Exodus contradicts itself, and therefore the Bible is in error.<<
Look at the man twist and writhe. I love when I see this happen. You are just like Jehovah's Witnesses, only you take pride in the darkness, they just hide in the darkness.
See the above. I covered YOUR contradiction up there.
inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.
that makes perfect sense, on one level.
if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.
>>You are so *personal attack removed*.<<
You're entitled to your OPINION. As is he, as is I.
>>You know that if Alward tried to present his material in a "positive light" you would attempt to paint him as an "evil angel of light" simply because you disagree with him.<<
What is at issue is truth. Not me. Why don't you try and attack what is at issue rather than your opinion on who's getting personal or not. You will be able to find a zillion faults with me my friend, I am the most of imperfections, believe me.
>>You Trying to make yourself look like some kind of super-nice crusader of good by uttering "you offer nothing positive" is almost as funny as Ms. Cleo offering psychic readings to those who "call now".<<
I'm not trying anything. I am successfully defending my beliefs. If you don't like it, move on. Or, do you think by your textual oppression you'll change me or my beliefs?
You're dreaming.
the author of the book of john evidently believed that no man has seen god, while the author of exodus tells us that moses had, indeed, seen god.
either john is wrong, or exodus is; either way, the bible is in error on this point.
here is the evidence:.
>>"Father YHWH" who will kill anyone who sees his face.<<
Man cannot handle the sheer magnifience and glory of the TOTALLY unfathomable majestic Father God. You make Him out to be a murderer. Regarding the Father, one cannot even look at his LITTLE TOE without full demise. The Father cannot be seen PERIOD without dire consequences. It is ALWAYS the Son YHWH that was seen.
The one that is always talking to Moses is Jesus YHWH (The Word of God), NOT the Father. Why do you think Christ is called the "Word of God?" Because HE'S the one that did all the talking in the OT, HE was the one speaking when it says, "Then the LORD (YHWH) said." The words of God come from the Word of God, because Christ is the One who spoke the words. Pretty simple. The Father has done absolutely NOTHING in relation to dealing with man besides the initial creation, and the resurrection of his Son after his death. Everything else has been handed over to the Son.
>>But, Pom hasn't answered my question:
When scripture shows the tetragrammaton "YHWH," what rule do you use to decide which of the two gods it refers to?<<
Simple. Christ is the Word of God. Everytime in the OT you see God speak, the Word of God spoke, that being Christ. Also, Christ himself says that EVERYTHING has been handed over to HIM. The Father has given the Son full charge of EVERYTHING since the rebellion in heaven, all the way to the full reconcilliation of all creation in Revelation. Then everything goes back in charge fully under the Father.
Matt 11:27
27 "All things have been committed to me by my Father.
John 13:3
3 Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power,
So with simplicity, Jesus is the Word of God, EVERTIME God spoke, it was the Word speaking. ALL things, EVERYTHING is in JESUS power, the Father sits back and watches his Son salvage that which was corrupted. The WHOLE shootin' match Bible is Jesus doing HIS thing as the Father LET's him do. Jesus inspired the whole BOOK to be written. HE is the author of the Mosaic Law. HE IS THE ONE who is the Messiah. He is the ONE the Father is letting save that which would be lost.
The Father has been jointly responsible for the initial creation of all things, and for the resurrection of his Son after death and for permitting all things to be in Christ's full power and responsibility.
Other that that, He's been a spectator.
>>How do you know that the "YHWH" Moses saw was the forgiving one?<<
Because he lived through seeing a part of him (his back, not [FULL Glory, face.] As if God has a front, back and face) If that WAS the Father, Moses would be a goner. Man is a "perishable" species, and would collapse under this Being of gigantic proportions in everyway. We would be like an ice cube in a hot frying pan, and that example is ridiculously short coming. Words can't explain or communicate it. The Son also forgave the elders who went up in disobedience, as the Bible plainly states, and the forgiving one did not strike them FOR THE DISOBEDIENCE, not the "seeing" of YHWH Son's partial glory, of which they OBVIOUSLY did.
>>For example, what textual or linguistic evidence do you look for, and what criteria do you apply, in order to determine which is which?<<
See the above. It's Christ ALL THE WAY. The Father is so huge, so powerful, so uncomprehensible, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for Him to even condescend in any way shape or form, AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE EVEN SPEAKING TO MAN. The universe is a dust speck in the Father's house. He CANNOT deal with us. If the Father did deal with us, I would suspect it would not be pretty. God is a complementary two, just as the male and female are a complimentary two. The Father is the God that CANNOT and WILL NOT condescend, the Son is the one the CAN condescend and DID condescend. NOT because he HAD to, but because HE wanted to.
The beginning and the end. The Alpha and the Omega. The First and Last. The Holy and The Most Holy. They are the ROCK.
Such is my God.
inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.
that makes perfect sense, on one level.
if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.
>>The message is this: Unless you have something substantive to say, don't say anything.<<
Your full post above is nothing but hot air. You have NOTHING to offer except negativity. I responded with all that was needed.
>>You waste the time of dozens of readers who will note that there's a new message on this thread, then go to the trouble to log on to read it, only to find an informationless, one-line sarcasm.<<
That's your negative opinion again. The fact is, you offer nothing positive. Where does that get you or anyone that listens to you?
>>Please be more considerate in the future.<<
Considerate? I must have struck a chord eh?
>>If you want to make sarcastic remarks, save them until you can bury them inside of more substantive comments.<<
I will post in whatever manner I see fit. If you don't like it...
respond accordingly. That way we can see the real Joseph in action.
the genesis writer tells the story of labans agreement to give as wages to jacob, the tender of his goats and lambs, all light-streaked goats and dark-streaked lambs born while the flocks were in his care.
to increase the birth rate of streaked animals, jacob made white stripes on brown tree branches by peeling away dark strips of bark to expose the blond wood underneath, and put these branches in the animals drinking troughs, where they came to drink when they were in heat.
after the animals had mated in front of the branches, they bore young that were streaked; the normally brown goats were streaked white, and the normally white lambs were streaked brown.. its hard to believe that this story can actually be found in the bible, but it can.
>>Happy? That's a criterion you use for believing? If it feels good, believe it?<<
Do you have a hair across your butt or something? What ever reason or manner I put my faith in God, WHO the are you to criticize it? And what is your reasoning for doing so? To protect me? Are you the Messiah here to show the world the right WAY??? All I see is a pattern of dim negative demeanor with no positive replacement.
>>I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're interested in your salvation, having a "life" after earthly death, so it SHOULD matter to you very much whether you're right or wrong in your beliefs in the miracles described in the Bible. If you're wrong about the miracles, then perhaps you're wrong about which steps you must take to be saved; if you misunderstand the message of the "miracles," perhaps you also misunderstand other parts of the Bible as well. Being right or wrong when it comes to the Bible is extremely important, isn't it?<<
You have offered NOTHING to counter what I believe except your measley worthless OPINIONS on everything you speak about, with nothing else to offer.
>>Is baptism necessary to be saved, or will faith in Jesus alone do it?<<
Rom 9:16
16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
>>Does one have to do good works to validate faith in Jesus, and only then be saved?<<
Eph 2:8-10
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-(and this not from yourselves), it is the gift of God- 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.
Rom 9:15
15 For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."
There is NOTHING anyone can do to be salvaged. That is God's decision alone...saved by grace and mercy.
>>How do you know?<<
A little birdie told me.
>>Are you just happy to pick a belief, and stick with it, or should you question your belief?<<
I always question my belief. Just as you questioned my belief. But I don't DOUBT my belief. I refine my belief.
>>Which is safer: Believing because it makes you "happy," or believing because you've carefully studied ALL of the evidence objectively and without preconceived notions? Can you afford to be wrong, even if you're happy?<<
It doesn't make any difference. God saves whom ever HE wants. Not by works, but by the grace of the faith he gives to people like me to believe in a God like Him. Heck, he might even save you...
By the way, Happiness is way better than what you are offering. Which so far has been absolutley nothing.
inerrantists believe that every word in the bible is literally true; to believe otherwise, they say, is to remove the foundation upon which one may have a certain understanding of how one may achieve salvation and reach the kingdom of heaven.
that makes perfect sense, on one level.
if one could indeed know that everything in the bible is true, then one would just have to turn to the part where the method of salvation is described, do what the bible says, and live forever.
>>If there is a salvation to be gained, taking these men's word literally might cost one everlasting life.<<
Did God tell you that? Or is that from your "book."
the genesis writer tells the story of labans agreement to give as wages to jacob, the tender of his goats and lambs, all light-streaked goats and dark-streaked lambs born while the flocks were in his care.
to increase the birth rate of streaked animals, jacob made white stripes on brown tree branches by peeling away dark strips of bark to expose the blond wood underneath, and put these branches in the animals drinking troughs, where they came to drink when they were in heat.
after the animals had mated in front of the branches, they bore young that were streaked; the normally brown goats were streaked white, and the normally white lambs were streaked brown.. its hard to believe that this story can actually be found in the bible, but it can.
>>Pom is overlooking the most important point in my post. The writer of the story about Jacob and the prenatal influence of the striped sticks made zero effort to warn us that what was happening was truly extraordinary, that it was a miracle, and not something that the laws of nature normally permit.<<
I don't think it takes a brain surgeon to understand that what happened was extraordinary. Besides, why would God have to warn us about a miraculous happening? I don't follow this train of thought at all. None of the Biblical miracles had a precursory warning stating "Do not try this at home, this is a miracle coming up."
Do the laws of nature normally permit ANY of the miracles that the Bible records? No they don't. That's what makes a miracle a miracle, they go contrary to the known laws of nature and science. That is what I would expect from God...to be able to go against the physical laws that He Himself created and put into existence.
>>Why would the God Pom believes in allow millions of readers over the subsequent millennia be misled into holding a childlike notion of prenatal influences?<<
The only way anyone would be misled is if it didn't really happen. And as far as that goes, you are as powerless as I in either proving or disproving the matter.
>>The answer, I believe, is clear: He wouldn't.<<
That answer is based on your opinion of believing these events didn't happen. You weren't there to see if it is true or not. Your belief that it didn't happen is based on the same thing that I base my belief that it didn't happen. Faith. You put your faith in man, I put my faith in God.
>>Therefore, the person who wrote that story was not guided by God, and if he wasn't guided by god, why should we believe that this this extraordinary event actually happened?<<
Again, that is postulating and 100% assumption that it didn't happen of which you can neither prove or disprove.
>>The answer is, We should not.<<
Speak for yourself. YOU cannot, for you presume that it did not happen.
>>Thus, we conclude that the Bible is in error;<<
Again, thus YOU conclude by pure human speculation, because you were not witness or privy to the event, that the event didn't occur that the conclusion you have come to is correct. All based on the human intellect that if it seems miraculous, and it goes against the laws of physics, and you didn't see it for yourself, that it can't be true. That's great for you. Feel good about your faith, because that is all YOU are also going on.
>>if it's in error regarding Jacob and his goats and lambs, then could it not be in error just about anywhere?<<
Again, you have no way to prove it NOT happening. You were not there.
>>If Pom is going to respond to this post, I hope he will explain why he doesn't think this Bible story probably led generations of unsophisticated readers to hold a false beliefs and expectations regarding reproduction.<<
I think the Bible stories of miraclulous and extraordinary events are true for the EXACT same reason you believe them to be false.
Faith. Without EITHER of us being there to witness ANYTHING the Bible says, means that one has to have the faith to believe it did or it didn't happen.
I look at those miracles this way. If I am wrong, what do I have to lose? Absolutley nothing. Presently, I am happy and content with what I believe to the core.
On the other hand, if Joseph is wrong, what does he have to lose? Whatever it is, Joseph obviously thinks it is of little value.
