Jump to content

Verifying The Bible


IAm_Lucifer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quotes By Kat22

 

Here's the thing. God shows up in a ton of ways. The most noticeable miracles happen when we move out of our comfort zone and trust Him to handle what we cannot. THEN we really give Him a chance to show up. With everything I have learned (early church teachings, verification of miraculous events, such as the resurrection, happening etc), it all comes back to those experiences.

 

 

How have you verified the resurrection?

 

 

People have testimonies to help encourage others to reach out to God and see the truth for themselves. I am not talking about a "feeling" or "trust it because the bible says so". I am talking about real, tangible experiences. Those people are the ones God uses to help others see that He really does work in the lives of those He created. So, people hear the miracles and make a choice if they want to learn more or if they want to shrug it off as no big deal... as nothing miraculous.

 

 

People do see things as miraculous, such as yourself with the event surrounding the car. Where I do just shrug it off as no big deal. This is not a tangible experience like you say. Something like this will never lead me to believe in a God of any religion. I see it as things that happen in life. Why you attribute it to God, and the Christian God at that, I have no idea.

 

 

If they want to learn more, they try to trust God and give God an opportunity to show THEM He really is there and ready to change their lives for the better. If they don't want to learn more, they explain away everything and push away the chance to know God's love and miracles. Those are the ones who will fight, to the bitter end, any evidence presented. They will find a way to make it all fit their bias; that God does not exist or the Bible is not His word.

 

 

That’s the thing, there has been no evidence presented so how can I fight to the bitter end? Something that has low odds of occurring is not evidence. If it was, every time someone wins lotto it would be proof of God.

 

 

So, which one have you been up to this point? Do you WANT to know God or are you too set in the idea that God does not exist. If you want to know God, then we can go into the whole evidence thing and logical faith. If not, it's just a waste of my time and yours.

 

 

I do not believe in God. However I am not set in the idea, I just don’t see it as likely. I cannot say I want to know God so show me the evidence. I would be lying. I can say that on a balance of probability, I do not think it’s possible for a God to exist. If you want to show me evidence that suggests otherwise, I would be very interested to see it.

 

 

In order to understand that, you must first believe the bible is God's word. If you don't trust that, you won't trust the way God put the book together.

 

 

I can’t make myself believe something that I find so obviously fictitious. I did not choose to disbelieve the bible. I read it and simply did not believe what was contained within it. The way I see it. If you choose to believe something before you read it, you will find a way to make it fit your world view and it is you who is using bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m going to take a look at these too as it touches on some thoughts I’ve had lately.

 

Here's the thing. God shows up in a ton of ways. The most noticeable miracles happen when we move out of our comfort zone and trust Him to handle what we cannot. THEN we really give Him a chance to show up. With everything I have learned (early church teachings, verification of miraculous events, such as the resurrection, happening etc), it all comes back to those experiences.

So are you saying that seeing miracles is about moving away from objectivity and assuming an altered perception, one that sees the “miracle” of a thing? This is what I am hearing in everything you say here and below. I will correct one wording above, the “verification of miracles” is an incorrect term. Nothing is verified that demands someone assume a predisposition of belief in it. What is accurate is to say is that people “see miracles”.

 

People have testimonies to help encourage others to reach out to God and see the truth for themselves. I am not talking about a "feeling" or "trust it because the bible says so". I am talking about real, tangible experiences. Those people are the ones God uses to help others see that He really does work in the lives of those He created. So, people hear the miracles and make a choice if they want to learn more or if they want to shrug it off as no big deal... as nothing miraculous.

Based on people who have a strong perception of miracles, “God” uses them to speak to others? Think about this in terms of art. I respond to the works of Jackson Pollock, where others see nothing but random lines.

 

My experience with his art is real. It really, genuinely moves me. You however may see nothing at all and feel nothing. Does this make you blind to his “truth”, or do you respond to other art instead, like maybe someone like Thomas Kinkade? I see no difference whatsoever between what you said and what I say, other than I recognize that this is art and not some external god-being.

 

If they want to learn more, they try to trust God and give God an opportunity to show THEM He really is there and ready to change their lives for the better. If they don't want to learn more, they explain away everything and push away the chance to know God's love and miracles. Those are the ones who will fight, to the bitter end, any evidence presented. They will find a way to make it all fit their bias; that God does not exist or the Bible is not His word.

This again is the difference between the religious and the aesthetic. I could use this same judging language against you for not loving the work of Jackson Pollock. “You’re just not giving the Pollock a chance to speak to you; You have closed your mind and your heart to hearing his voice”; etc, etc.

 

BTW, what people like myself fight is not the value of God-Art, but the claim that something qualifies as objective evidence when its really about subjective, personal responses to a language system, a form of poetry, a mythological mindset intended to inspire. I will fight against intellectual dishonesty, but don’t confuse that with fighting against a god.

 

So, which one have you been up to this point? Do you WANT to know God or are you too set in the idea that God does not exist. If you want to know God, then we can go into the whole evidence thing and logical faith. If not, it's just a waste of my time and yours.

Faith needs evidence?

 

In order to understand that, you must first believe the bible is God's word. If you don't trust that, you won't trust the way God put the book together.

Exactly. It is not about objectivity. You must first want it to be true in order for you perception to open to its power. This is the prerequisite for being “raptured” away in any story of supernatural lore – the suspension of disbelief. The early teachers of the faith understood the power in the words of the story teller and what inspired the listener to respond. "Just belive and let it speak to you". "Just set aside your expectations of what art should be and let the Pollock speak to you." Same thing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t make myself believe something that I find so obviously fictitious. I did not choose to disbelieve the bible. I read it and simply did not believe what was contained within it. The way I see it. If you choose to believe something before you read it, you will find a way to make it fit your world view and it is you who is using bias.

 

My sentiments exactly! I didn't choose to disbelieve, either. In fact, now I'm sort of embarrassed to admit it, but back in the day, I even prayed for god to give me faith and let me believe what the True Christians™ believed. But my rational mind and sense of justice just could not accept it; I cannot force myself to believe. Yet, the True Christians™ proclaim that we unbelievers are just being wilful and sinful and will be punished for all eternity for ... what? being rational, just as god supposedly created us????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey:) Thanks for starting up this thread. Please be patient if I do not answer right away. The next few days are going to be very busy. However, when I get the chance to write more, I will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this thread is supposed to be about verifying the bible, why don't we start with some evidence. If it's OK with...ummm....Lucifer, maybe we could shake things up a bit by bringing up what archaeological evidence has been found which proves certain events, in the bible, never happened. Instead of starting out the other way 'round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this thread is supposed to be about verifying the bible, why don't we start with some evidence. If it's OK with...ummm....Lucifer, maybe we could shake things up a bit by bringing up what archaeological evidence has been found which proves certain events, in the bible, never happened. Instead of starting out the other way 'round.

 

That is not the road I wanted to go down but if its what you prefer it is ok with me. I'm not sure how to pursue it though as I will have to quote outside sources instead of using my own biblical knowledge or personal experience. For example;

 

The exodus from Egypt never happened and Canaan was never conquered by force by the Hebrews as Joshua tells us. The great kingdoms of David and Solomon are fantasies. These “kings”, if they really ever existed at all, ruled at best some insignificant parts of the province.

http://www.bandoli.no/archaeology.htm

 

This on it's own is not evidence but how exactly do you disprove it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this thread is supposed to be about verifying the bible, why don't we start with some evidence. If it's OK with...ummm....Lucifer, maybe we could shake things up a bit by bringing up what archaeological evidence has been found which proves certain events, in the bible, never happened. Instead of starting out the other way 'round.

 

this is not my thread, and IAm_Lucifer seems ok with this, but just so you know, the ball is in your court. you make the claim that something exists-you prove it. it is no one's responsibility to disprove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Using archaeology to "prove" the bible is an uphill battle to say the least.

 

The first concession should be is that the bible is aware of ancient cities, peoples and locales. This, in and of itself, is fairly meaningless. Does the fact that the bible has the name of a city within its text somehow mean the text that contains that name is, in fact, all true? Of course not.

 

So then, what kind of archaeological evidence are you looking for and what would you like it "prove?"

 

A link to a page (not the best page) was given with a number of problems on it. The bible makes the positive assertion that the Israelites came out of Egypt. To date it cannot even be established that there was a single Israelite IN Egypt during any of the three most popular dates people like to use for the Exodus (or during the entire range of dates for that matter). Semites? Yes. The Hyksos very early on but nothing we'd call Israelites. The rest of the story is a non-starter but even if we ignore that each and every piece of that story taken by itself simply has no supporting evidence.

 

Now, all you need to do is imagine a city the size of Los Angeles, get up and mobilize itself on foot (roughly 2 million people) to see the scope of the evidence we're looking for in just this one story alone. It took the "Pharoah" nearly a month to notice that nearly half the population of his entire country was leaving...only the bible has them doing it in a matter of days. Can you picture Los Angeles up and leaving in just days and no one noticing? These were slaves as well so their country should have noticed when no one showed up to work the very next day but a month went by.

 

Then you march the people across the Sinai peninsula. That many people in columns described in the bible gets you a line that stretches down the peninsula and back again. Literally hundreds of miles (nearly 300 miles if I recall). They then setup camps with borders and the Levites (and others) are able to go from one end of the camp to the other easily (the Levites did it to kill those who worshiped the calf and only killed about 3000...not too bad out of 2 million or so).

 

After about 2 years of wandering they spent the rest of the time at one place, Kadesh Barnea. Biblical Archaelogists have been looking for this place for years and years. They found a place that should be it but since there isn't one shred of evidence for a population the size of Los Angeles they think maybe it's somewhere else. Keep in mind they've found campsites, in the tens of people, for nomads from the same time period but a massive compound that would have many times larger than the largest known city of the day is simply non-existent.

 

So does this mean the story isn't true? Does it mean that since the evidence can't be found it isn't there? Nope. It might be a few feet from where the people are digging right now. It's the old "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" story.

 

However, what we do have is another story coming out of Israel and this story says that the Israelites are really off-shoots of the Canaanites and that the went up into the hills and later came back down into the cities. That there was no conquest and that the whole thing was fairly peaceful up until you get to the books of Judges and Kings. It's at this point where biblical history starts gelling with what's in the ground.

 

So it's not absence of evidence alone but the contradiction of evidence that damns the Exodus tale to one of myth. However, it does get the names of places and other things correct which brings me back to my original point and that is I concede the bible does, in fact, get those things right without making the story they're contained within true.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, which one have you been up to this point? Do you WANT to know God or are you too set in the idea that God does not exist. If you want to know God, then we can go into the whole evidence thing and logical faith. If not, it's just a waste of my time and yours.

Faith needs evidence?

 

In order to understand that, you must first believe the bible is God's word. If you don't trust that, you won't trust the way God put the book together.

Exactly. It is not about objectivity. You must first want it to be true in order for you perception to open to its power. This is the prerequisite for being “raptured” away in any story of supernatural lore – the suspension of disbelief. The early teachers of the faith understood the power in the words of the story teller and what inspired the listener to respond. "Just belive and let it speak to you". "Just set aside your expectations of what art should be and let the Pollock speak to you." Same thing?

 

I agree with Antlerman. Christians often talk about the reason for disbelief in God as the person's not wanting to believe, not wanting to abandon sin, etc. They also talk about making the decision to believe before being able to understand the evidence for God. This leaves me with the impression that people believe primarily because it makes them feel good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this thread is supposed to be about verifying the bible, why don't we start with some evidence. If it's OK with...ummm....Lucifer, maybe we could shake things up a bit by bringing up what archaeological evidence has been found which proves certain events, in the bible, never happened. Instead of starting out the other way 'round.

 

this is not my thread, and IAm_Lucifer seems ok with this, but just so you know, the ball is in your court. you make the claim that something exists-you prove it. it is no one's responsibility to disprove it.

 

I know that this will be going backwards but I really don’t mind. I have been involved in the same old discussions for years now. This would actually be a change for me. I didn’t have a good link to use for historical inconsistencies because most of the reading I have done has been from books. It’s not the historical inconsistencies that make me not believe the bible anyway. I can tell that Kat22 is trying to shift the burden of proof and I am interested in how it pans out.

 

If someone has a good link to bible inconsistencies feel free to jump in. I tried to have a look but unfortunately my time on the computer is very limited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell that Kat22 is trying to shift the burden of proof and I am interested in how it pans out.

Kat22 is holding the bible. The bible makes the positive assertions. So the burden is on Kat22 to come up with the evidence. I know for a fact that archaeology will not support their position other than the concessions I made in my post (a few cities and whatnot). Pointing to "finds" by the likes of Wyatt can be dismissed since they have no peer review and unless you want to argue junk science and outdated (~50 year old) research there's not much that can be brought to the table in support of the bible. So don't worry about inconsistencies. They aren't needed.

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this thread is supposed to be about verifying the bible, why don't we start with some evidence. If it's OK with...ummm....Lucifer, maybe we could shake things up a bit by bringing up what archaeological evidence has been found which proves certain events, in the bible, never happened. Instead of starting out the other way 'round.

 

That is not the road I wanted to go down but if its what you prefer it is ok with me. I'm not sure how to pursue it though as I will have to quote outside sources instead of using my own biblical knowledge or personal experience. For example;

 

The exodus from Egypt never happened and Canaan was never conquered by force by the Hebrews as Joshua tells us. The great kingdoms of David and Solomon are fantasies. These “kings”, if they really ever existed at all, ruled at best some insignificant parts of the province.

http://www.bandoli.no/archaeology.htm

 

This on it's own is not evidence but how exactly do you disprove it?

 

How about we pick one at a time? Otherwise my responses will become very long and, well, that's just irritating to everyone. Which point would you like to tackle first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just remeber that historical elements ina book dont make it true. Just becuase Troy was a real city fairly recently discovered, doesnt mean the greek gods are true. Just becuase Atlanta was burned in the book Gone With The Wind and for real, doesnt make Rhett Butler a real person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about we pick one at a time? Otherwise my responses will become very long and, well, that's just irritating to everyone. Which point would you like to tackle first?

 

And here is the problem with the apologist. Each point is examined on its own yes, but if they all point the same way then you have to look as a whole. look at one thing and you can say its a 50/50 chance whether it supports me and it didn't so, fine, it was an even shot. Maybe it was a freak result. If ten peices of evidence have a 50/50 chance of saying you are wrong and they all do then the chance of it all being chance or freak results is 0.09765625%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the exodus?

 

Request:

1. Can all arguments and rebuttals come from you? This way I don't get overwhelmed by a bunch of people throwing their opinions and arguments at me.

 

Ok. What is your number one piece of evidence which points to this section being ficticious? If we go through them one at a time, it will be much easier to keep it simple and not hop from one section to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about the exodus?

 

Request:

1. Can all arguments and rebuttals come from you? This way I don't get overwhelmed by a bunch of people throwing their opinions and arguments at me.

 

Ok. What is your number one piece of evidence which points to this section being ficticious? If we go through them one at a time, it will be much easier to keep it simple and not hop from one section to another.

 

 

I didn’t realize that this was going to turn into a formal debate. Originally it was supposed to be about evidence that supports the bible. :shrug:

 

As I said before, to go down the route we are taking now I can only quote other people. Not sure what the point of doing it this way is but any-who

 

I Kings 6:1

It happened in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of Yahweh..

Correlating this with the other dates in the Bible (see the Biblical Chronology given in table 3.2 in the previous chapter) gives this as 1495 BCE. However the Bible also says that the Israelites were forced by the Egyptians to build the city of Ramses:

 

I Exodus 8:11

Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who didn’t know Joseph. He said to his people, “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we. Come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it happen that when any war breaks out, they also join themselves to our enemies, and fight against us, and escape out of the land.” Therefore they set taskmasters over them to afflict them with their burdens. They built storage cities for Pharaoh: Pithom and Raamses.

 

Now the first Egyptian Pharoah named Rameses came to power only in 1320 BCE. It would be impossible to build a city of that name before that time. However there is evidence from Egyptian sources that a city called Pi-Raamses was built under Ramesses II who was Pharoah from 1279-1213 BCE. Thus the story of the forced labor to build the city could only happen during this time.

However the moment we start looking for sources outside the Bible for this event we come up empty handed. Now according to Exodus 12:40, the Israelites lived in Egypt for 430 years. Yet for all this time, there is simply no literary nor archeological evidence outside the Hebrew scriptures that records the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. As the archeaologists Israel Finkelstein and Neil Silberman noted:

 

[W]e have no clue, not even a single word, about the early Israelites in Egypt: neither in monumental inscriptions on the walls of temples, nor in tomb inscriptions, nor in papyri. Israel is absent - as a possible foe of Egypt, as a friend, or as an enslaved nation.

It is amazing that four centuries of settlement left not a single trace. When we comes to the actual Exodus, things are even worse. According to the Pentateuch that more than a million people were involved in the Exodus:

 

Exodus 12:37 (Also Numbers 1:45-46)

The children of Israel traveled from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot who were men, besides children.

With six hundred thousand men, besides children and presumably women, we are talking about an Exodus of more than one million people. We are also told (Joshua 5:6) that this one million plus wandered for forty years in the wilderness in Sinai Now surely more than more than a million people wandering around for forty years would have left some traces for archeaologist to find. Yet not a single archeological evidence have been found. This is not for want of trying. Between 1967, when Israel captured the Sinai peninsula from Egypt, and 1982, when it was returned in the peace treaty, Israeli archaeologists made dozen of expeditions throughtout the peninsula. Yet, not a single shred of evidence for an ancient Isrealite presence was found.

 

The case is not helped by arguing that the numbers stated in Exodus may have been exagerrated and that these people were mainly wandering in the desert without any permanent station.

Firstly, modern archaeological techniques, as archaeologists Finkelstein and Silberman point out, are capable of detecting even the smallest remains of hunter-gatherers and pastoral nomads all over the world. Secondly, in this case, even a relatively small group of escape slaves, would not have escaped detection by the Egyptians. Archeaologists have discovered a letter dated to 13th century BCE from an Egyptian border guard who reported the escape of two slaves from the city of Ramses into the desert. Thirdly, although the Pentateuch do describe wanderings in the desert, thirty eight out of the forty years was supposedly spent in one location: Kadesh-Barnea (Numbers 13:26, 20:1, 20:14; Deuteronomy 1:46.). The location of Kadesh-Barnea has been safely identified.

 

Yet after despite many expeditions and digs over the entire area not a single evidence of occupation earlier than the tenth century BCE - 300 years after the supposed Exodus - has surfaced. Ezion-Geber, which the ancient Israelites supposedly encamped (Numbers 33:35), is another site has been identified by archaeologist. Yet here too no artifacts dating to the time of the Exodus can be found. [9] Needless to say despite numerous digs on Mount Sinai, on the southern tip of Sinai peninsula, no evidence has been found of any ancient Israelite presence there.

 

It is not that the archaeologists found nothing in Sinai dating to the 13th century. In fact much evidence about the situation in Sinai was discovered. What they found is further evidence that the Exodus story is myth. Elizier Oren, an Israeli archaeologist, led expeditions over a period of ten year studied more than 1,300 sites on northern coast of Sinai. What he found was ancient campsites, forts, cities, cemetaries and granaries for the Egyptian army. This infrastructure allowed the Egyptian army to cross the Sinai peninsula quickly and with ease. Contemporary Egyptian texts tell us that the Egyptian troops could reach Gaza from the eastern delta (some 250 kilometers) in only ten days. Excavations in Canaan also found Egyptian strongholds dating to the time of the Exodus and conquest. In short, the evidence shows us that in the 13th century Egypt was at the height of its powers and had complete control over not only Egypt but also Canaan. Throughout the period of the New Kingdom (c1569-1076 BCE), Egyptian armies have been known to march through Canaan as far north as the Euphrates in Syria. From the 15th to the 11th century BCE, Canaan was a province of Egypt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn’t realize that this was going to turn into a formal debate. Originally it was supposed to be about evidence that supports the bible. :shrug:

 

This isn't really meant to be a formal debate. However, in my time spent in this forum (and others), I notice that things can quickly turn from one on one discussion, of why two people believe what they believe, to a "many on one" debate. So, to head off any "team up on the Christian" efforts, I figured I would make a formal request... just in case we start debating the issues. It makes it much easier for me to follow the discussion when I only have one person to respond to.

 

As for your response, I want to give it the proper respect and reply when I have more time than I do right now. Don't think I've run off if it takes me a couple days. My husband's birthday is tomorrow :woohoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't forgotten about ya:) I'm just limited on my computer time right now. I am currently working on my reply little by little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe before you get into offering evidence for God, you can quick answer this simple question: why does faith need evidence? Is it faith then, or knowledge? If man is saved by faith, then why offer proof?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe before you get into offering evidence for God, you can quick answer this simple question: why does faith need evidence? Is it faith then, or knowledge? If man is saved by faith, then why offer proof?

 

Faith does not need evidence, otherwise it is not faith (as you stated). However, God tells us to think. To use the brains that He gave us. To "prove" or "test all things" and "hold fast to that which is good." If we are called to prove what can be proven, then He must have provided enough proof for one to be able to say "OK. Not all my questions are answered. However, I can see that there is a lot of good here and that many of it is proven. Therefore, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have faith in the rest. Maybe even to have faith that God really does have our best interests at heart...even though it doesn't always seem like it from my perspective. Which, if I were being completely honest, is rather limited compared to His."

 

As for this thread, I am hoping I can get to it. However, I am having trouble finding the time to spend more than a few minutes at a time here. But I am still trying to figure out how to make more time. If not, I may just have to ask for a raincheck for when things are less busy. If I need to do this, L, will it be a problem? I wanted to work on this but it's getting hard to find the time and I feel burnout coming on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe before you get into offering evidence for God, you can quick answer this simple question: why does faith need evidence? Is it faith then, or knowledge? If man is saved by faith, then why offer proof?

 

Faith does not need evidence, otherwise it is not faith (as you stated). However, God tells us to think. To use the brains that He gave us. To "prove" or "test all things" and "hold fast to that which is good." If we are called to prove what can be proven, then He must have provided enough proof for one to be able to say "OK. Not all my questions are answered. However, I can see that there is a lot of good here and that many of it is proven. Therefore, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have faith in the rest. Maybe even to have faith that God really does have our best interests at heart...even though it doesn't always seem like it from my perspective. Which, if I were being completely honest, is rather limited compared to His."

 

As for this thread, I am hoping I can get to it. However, I am having trouble finding the time to spend more than a few minutes at a time here. But I am still trying to figure out how to make more time. If not, I may just have to ask for a raincheck for when things are less busy. If I need to do this, L, will it be a problem? I wanted to work on this but it's getting hard to find the time and I feel burnout coming on.

Don't let yourself get burned out. Take as much time as you need.

 

As a follow up to the above, if you feel it is right and honorable to use your mind and to prove things, do you agree that we should be open to being wrong about certain ideas we had concluded without having done the "proving" yet? In other words, as we seek to prove something and find out that we can't, do you consider it honoring to God to not hold your preconcieved ideas above what the facts support, even if it meant everything we learned from our teachers has misinformation as its basis; even if it meant having to walk away from you church; even if it meant walking away from Christianity? Are you willing to go that far in your "testing all things"?

 

I ask that question because in the search for facts, you must be willing to go wherever it may go. If you start with the answer and will not allow for any answer, then you are not interested in truly "testing all things". You are only looking to support a preconcieved idea, and that does not lend itself to being honest about what you discover. Should we conclude a truth before, or after we have done the "testing"?

 

I'd really like to hear your honest answer to that difficult question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe before you get into offering evidence for God, you can quick answer this simple question: why does faith need evidence? Is it faith then, or knowledge? If man is saved by faith, then why offer proof?

 

Faith does not need evidence, otherwise it is not faith (as you stated). However, God tells us to think. To use the brains that He gave us. To "prove" or "test all things" and "hold fast to that which is good." If we are called to prove what can be proven, then He must have provided enough proof for one to be able to say "OK. Not all my questions are answered. However, I can see that there is a lot of good here and that many of it is proven. Therefore, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have faith in the rest. Maybe even to have faith that God really does have our best interests at heart...even though it doesn't always seem like it from my perspective. Which, if I were being completely honest, is rather limited compared to His."

 

As for this thread, I am hoping I can get to it. However, I am having trouble finding the time to spend more than a few minutes at a time here. But I am still trying to figure out how to make more time. If not, I may just have to ask for a raincheck for when things are less busy. If I need to do this, L, will it be a problem? I wanted to work on this but it's getting hard to find the time and I feel burnout coming on.

Don't let yourself get burned out. Take as much time as you need.

 

As a follow up to the above, if you feel it is right and honorable to use your mind and to prove things, do you agree that we should be open to being wrong about certain ideas we had concluded without having done the "proving" yet? In other words, as we seek to prove something and find out that we can't, do you consider it honoring to God to not hold your preconcieved ideas above what the facts support, even if it meant everything we learned from our teachers has misinformation as its basis; even if it meant having to walk away from you church; even if it meant walking away from Christianity? Are you willing to go that far in your "testing all things"?

 

I ask that question because in the search for facts, you must be willing to go wherever it may go. If you start with the answer and will not allow for any answer, then you are not interested in truly "testing all things". You are only looking to support a preconcieved idea, and that does not lend itself to being honest about what you discover. Should we conclude a truth before, or after we have done the "testing"?

 

I'd really like to hear your honest answer to that difficult question.

 

OK. I want to answer this question but I have to leave this message quick. My computer has been rejecting this forum since...yesterday I think. I was answering the question and then I got some "fatal error" message. So, I am going to attempt to answer but if you don't get it, then that means my link has been cut again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK. I want to answer this question but I have to leave this message quick. My computer has been rejecting this forum since...yesterday I think. I was answering the question and then I got some "fatal error" message. So, I am going to attempt to answer but if you don't get it, then that means my link has been cut again.

the site was being upgraded. It should be stable now :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By faith, which doesn't debate fairly, it would be easy to explain why the Exodus didn't leave any evidence of itself.

 

The people wouldn't leave any evidence of food production, because they were fed manna and quail from heaven. Since this food came from God it would be perfectly nutritious and thus completely absorbed and therefore they didn't need any place to put the estimated minimum of 250 tons of poop/day from that a million people ordinarily would generate.

 

We don't find a million+ graves for the same food reason. Being made from perfect food these people didn't rot when they died they just instantly discorporated into the environment which perfectly absorbed them as the food they ate was perfectly incorporated in their bodies. Remember that any manna that they didn't pick up just faded away like the dew.

 

These people didn't leave any marks where they stayed because having perfect bodies from perfect food their passing didn't disturb anything they lived around. Their feet didn't disturb the ground where they marched.

 

As for not leaving any record in Egypt, we know that the Egyptians often worked hard at erasing embarrassing history. Not noticing your slaves have run away for a month is sort of embarrassing so the Egyptians just chiseled Israel out of the record.

 

As you can see, faith leaves plenty of room to work out this dilemma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.