FK, no one believed that something called dinosaurs existed until there was evidence of their existence! That is precisely my point. No one can seriously take pink unicorns on Jupiter until there is credible evidence of their existence.
It appears that your approach is that nothing is IN the Bible until it is proved IN.
In absence of credible evidence, doubt is justified. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Credible evidence is crucial, FK. We see evidence of all sorts of things; it is the cause-and-effect relationship that is crucial. Primitive man saw lightening and heard thunder and attributed it to God's anger. Others interpreted rumbling of a volcano to be of divine origin. Others saw natural disasters and disease as "evidence" of wrath. It took logical and systematic approach otherwise known as science to show that these frivolous interpretations were anything but true. In fact, they were superstition. We must guard against our natural tendency to create superstitious beliefs, FK. Trouble is, FK, we also see many of these superstitious beliefs expressed in the Bible itself.
My approach is that nothing is OUT until it is proved OUT.
To me, your approach is the same as an a priori acceptance of pink unicorns on Jupiter.
However, I give the presumption to God's word instead of 21st century scientists.
Presumption is the word, FK. Yet that presumption turned out to be false on many an occasion. It doesn't mean it proves God wrong; it only puts in question what men wrote about God, claiming God spoke to them and through them! Take the Koran and the Five Books of Moses; the presumption is that they were dictated to the authors by none other than God, word-by-word. Of course, such presumption is based on nothing short of blind acceptance that it is indeed so. The initial starting point in any religion is a presumptive a priori acceptance of God revealing himself to man as absolute truth, yet offering nothing absolute as proof.
Yes. Among that which was created, that's what I trust the most
I understand and respect that as an honest admission of one's own bias, choice, preference, comfort level, what not. I do not accept that as "evidence" of the veracity of such beliefs.
I don't understand. Your position is that the OT and NT cannot both be true. Wouldn't that make at least one of them a lie by simple logic?
Simple logic also suggest that the Old Testament might contain some truth or less truth than te New Testament, not that all of it is untrue.
It certainly IS ridiculous to think that God "needed" that. But that wasn't the point, was it? Those who trusted that it would work were saved, those who didn't have that faith suffered the consequences. THAT is a theme we see throughout the Bible
Those who trusted that God would save them would have been saved with or without physical markers, FK! The Egyptians were not given Moses' instructions to mark their homes; but if they did they God would have known they were false markers. We don't know if some Egyptians would have believed or not. The Exodus is a typical "us vs them" story, where all Egyptians are enemies of God and all Hebrews are his children. There is not a single Egyptian soul that is worth saving! Is that what Christian God teaches us? Obviosuly Christ thaught differently.
Contrary to the popular opinion, any reference to the OT diminished as Chritsianity progressed in the first century and as the religion became more and more non-Jewish. This is evident even in later Pauline epistles, in Corinthians, Philemon and Philippians, as well as in John's deuterocanonicals and the Revelation. The early Church had difficulties reconciling the OT with the Gospels, for obvious reasons.
That's why allegorical interpretation was a rule. It was not until the end of the 2nd century that a coherent and unified theology was formulated by allegorical comparisons between the OT and the NT by +Irenaeus at the dawn of the 3rd century (c. 200 AD).
In absence of credible evidence, doubt is justified. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Credible evidence is crucial, FK.
And you have already testified that there IS no credible evidence for you, which leaves only, naturally, the extra-Biblical Church as your sole basis of faith.
We see evidence of all sorts of things; it is the cause-and-effect relationship that is crucial. Primitive man saw lightening and heard thunder and attributed it to God's anger. Others interpreted rumbling of a volcano to be of divine origin.
I'm not sure what your point is. If you believe in evolution, then presumably primitive man did not have ANY sort of revelation comparable to the scriptures. And even after the scriptures did begin with Moses, many misinterpreted them too. What has any of that to do with us?
FK: "However, I give the presumption to God's word instead of 21st century scientists."
Presumption is the word, FK. Yet that presumption turned out to be false on many an occasion. It doesn't mean it proves God wrong; it only puts in question what men wrote about God, claiming God spoke to them and through them!
Well, if ANYONE had ever credibly proved the Bible false, then I think there would be far fewer Christians on earth than there are. Of course there have always been critics of it since it was written, even part by part. However, by God's grace and truth none of them have been able to defeat it.
Simple logic also suggest that the Old Testament might contain some truth or less truth than the New Testament, not that all of it is untrue.
But Jesus speaks of the OT being true, so we would have to throw that statement out. Logic fails here because who would be in a position to say which parts of the OT are true (and the NT) and which parts are false? The hierarchy of the Church?
[On the first Passover:] Those who trusted that God would save them would have been saved with or without physical markers, FK!
Not if God said THIS is how it's going to work, which He DID! :) As the OT proves a million times, when God says something, He MEANS it.
The Egyptians were not given Moses' instructions to mark their homes; but if they did God would have known they were false markers.
Then maybe that's why God didn't bother notifying them. :)
We don't know if some Egyptians would have believed or not.
Yes, we do, by inference. God does not forsake the elect.
The early Church had difficulties reconciling the OT with the Gospels, for obvious reasons.
If the early Church was basically the same as the current Church, then that makes perfect sense. :) Yet, from the general Orthodox readings I have been showed, I would still say that there are many Orthodox who probably think to this day that the OT is very important to Christianity. It's just an impression.