He then moves on to the next internal "evidence," the prophesies:
Needless to say, even here is there a no consensus of opinions, and opinions are not "evidence.
I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean that it is not clear that Biblical prophecies have come true? Obviously, men for many hundreds of years have been trying to show that, but they have all failed, haven't they, since Christianity is still going strong? Do you think you have evidence showing a Biblical prophecy to be false? I mean, I'll bet you could really make some money from some interested parties in that sort of thing.
By his logic any holy book is of divine origin because it holds unique authority and power over those who believe! The Bible has no authority or power over those who don't already believe.
Well, I remember well that when I really first read into the Bible I was by no means a believer and I remember to this day the power it had over me. It wasn't anything like I expected, and it just rang absolutely true to me in very simple terms. I know that's just my testimony so it doesn't count as "proof" for you, but I'd bet anything that a lot of other Christians would say something very similar.
Of course, he doesn't say anything about the archaeological evidence contradicting or not supporting the Bible. And there is plenty of that. Take the alleged Exodus and the alleged 40-years being lost in Sinai, or the alleged 460 years living in Egypt for openers. Biblical archeology was a colossal failure; it failed to prove a preconceived outcome.
If you are right I would think that Christianity would have been severely damaged because so many people would be on board with your view of the facts. Yet, this has never happened. I mean, you have to remember that you are not the first here. There have been countless THOUSANDS of men who even spent their whole lives trying to discredit the Bible. Yet they all failed. Perhaps this means something. :)
Now that he has "proven" this to himself, then author writes about it as a "fact."
Sounds positively jihadist! Bin Laden could have written that paragraph! Being honest and sincere doesn't mean you are right! One can be honestly and sincerely wrong!
Sure one can be honest and sincere and be wrong. However, look at what the Biblical authors taught. They didn't teach murder, etc., as the jihadists do. No, they taught what has well passed the test of time for an effective and fulfilling way of life. They taught things that hit directly home to ME. It's no contest. After God had opened my eyes, there is no way the jihadist message could ever be for me. The Biblical message, though, fit everything perfectly.
The Bible remains intact, not because there is something magical about the Bible, but because the Jews and Christians and even Muslims hold on to it to various extent. When and if these religions disappear, so will the Bible, as a word of God at least.
Ah, so we have the Jews and the Muslims to partly thank for our Bible still being around and relevant today. I see. And as for your opinion of the weakness and fleetingness of God's word, God obviously disagrees:
Isa 40:8 : The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."
-------------------------
Nothing could be farther form the truth. The Bible is a mumb-jumbo of disconnected, copied, plagiarized, and what not books written over a period of many centuries. It incorporates a pagan-like proto-Judaism, Davidic Judaism, Judaism of the post-Babylonian era (messianic and apocalyptic), the various sects (Sadducees, Pharisees, Essens, etc.) whose beliefs were incompatible with each other, and dozens of sects which had nothing in common, some of which were not even considered "Jewish" by the Pharisees (i.e. Samaritans) because, get this, they didn't believe the Temple should be in Jerusalem!
Well, I think your response goes to prove the truth of what the author says. Certainly among other Christians, almost NO ONE agrees with you. :) And among the atheists, etc., who make these types of arguments, their views have not seemed to have had any effect on how true believers view the Bible. Now, certainly they and liberals in general have done some damage in fooling SOME people (those who have never believed), but I am unaware of very many who called themselves true believers, but then became atheists because the "lies" of the Bible had somehow been revealed to them by science or logic or the arguments that we have been discussing.
FK: Now, outside the church, in the mission field of the whole world, ALL believers are called upon to be Christ's ministers of His Gospel.
Where does the Bible say that?
The Great Commission says that, but I know that you believe that is someone else's job. Following God's commands really isn't so hard when so few of them apply to you. :) If it was possible to know, I would be interested in knowing if the average Apostolic spent more time following the extra-Biblical commands of the Church or the Biblical commands of God. A hunch says I would be disappointed in the answer.
Oh, FK, it would take the a whole new thread and probably years to discuss this. But the short answer to your statement is yes. Some of the so-called prophesies were not prophesies at all, but after-the-fact statements, often made up of several unrelated passages in the Bible. Others have not been fulfilled yet. Others were "fulfilled" depending on how you interpret and which version of the Bible you use, etc. I could list, and list and list and take up tremendous band width with examples. If you wish, I will be happy to. It's up to you.
Obviously, men for many hundreds of years have been trying to show that, but they have all failed, haven't they, since Christianity is still going strong?
What a naïve statement, imo. Christianity has opposed Islam with "truth" which is so plain and perspicuous in the Bible /sar/, for centuries and failed! Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the world because it fits human psyche more than even the Reformed theology. Failure of one side doe snot make the other side true. Besides, people base everything they are and their lives even into what they believe. If they admit to being wrong, what's left? So people to varying degrees believe things in spite of evidence to the contrary.
People don't want to be left without faith because faith is hope and people want to have hope that something good will result from their deaths (i.e. eternal life) and that this life is not about nothing, but a preparation or expectation of the life to come, and a glorious one at that! It's soothing and comforting. But, there is no guarantee in hope, Reformed theology and Islam notwithstanding. That's why it's called hope. It's an expectation, not a guarantee.
So, fear is a strong element in faith and with fear people tend to hang on more tenaciously than with other things, which often leads to denial. And denial is not rational, so using reason is ineffective in changing one's mind.
It's much easier to make money selling hope without guarantee, as people flock to hope for comfort and security, even though it may be a false or non-existent security. People don't want to hear the negative. Negative doesn't sell. :) That's why politicians will never tell you the truth, but only make you feel hopeful that something will change (some people even get elected on selling such hope!). No politician will say "I will raise your taxes, because such is the reality" and expect people to vote for him.
So, when you sarcastically say I could make money on the issue of biblical prophesies not necessarily being fulfilled or true, I support your doubt and fully agree that such a thing will not sell but not because it is false.
Lots of people have seen and even recorded the Loch Nest Monster and the UFO, FK. The lots-of-pople-do-it-so-they must-be-right approach is not a certificate of authenticity. Just because multitudes approve of something doesn't make it right. Hitler was put in power by a democratic process; he was elected. Democracy doesn't guarantee that the person elected is necessarily good, but simply that the majority of the people (or delegates) votes for him. History as well as present-day reality tells us that the majority can be and has been wrong.
I am not trying to discredit the Bible. Most archaeologists are not trying to discredit the Bible. The only archaeologists who intentionally worked in order to prove something (i.e. their preconceived biblical beliefs through archeology) are the ones who failed. That's the factual truth.
If, according to the Bible, hundreds of thousands of Hebrews lived in Egypt for 460 years and there is no trace of them archeologically, it is difficult to say archeology is wrong and the Bible is right.
Your line of thinking finds those, who base their doubt on someone else's failure, as "wrong!" What we have here is this: the Bible claims Hebrews lived in Egypot for 460 years; biblical archaeologists look for evidence and fail and that discredits those who express doubt in the veracity in the biblical claim?!? LOL!
The Israeli archaeologists have been looking feverishly for 41 years for traces of post-Exodus Hebrews in the Sinai since the Seven-Day War (1967)! They found zilch! According to the Bible, more than a million Hebrews left Egypt and stayed in Sinai for 40 years, mostly in one place, which has been found and positively identified. There are no traces of Hebrew in it. There are traces of Egyptians from the same time period all over Sinai, but not Hebrews.
We are talking a city of one million-plus people (what settlements had so many people in the ancient world?!?) and not a trace of it! A city of 1 million-plus people (the Bible says 600,000 men and their families), a settlement for most of the 40 years, and not a single artefact of any Hebrews in it!
You can deny it, but until such time as something is found we just have to assume that Exodus did not happen because evidence shows that it didn't. I realize lots of people teach that it did, but that is an unsubstantiated claim and the people who really failed are not those who doubt it, but who started to dig for evidence based on their preconceived biblical beliefs and found nothing.
Again, when something very threatening happens, the first reaction is denial, and nothing can be more threatening than for someone, who believes every word in the Bible, to discover that a whole chapter of it never happened! Quick, dig hole in sand, stick head in it!
Ze'ev Herzong, Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University writes ("Deconstructing Walls of Jericho," Oct. 1999)
"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. … the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort [Aserah, and] the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai."
Now, I am sure he is not very popular among Evangelicals, but they can only hate what he says based on failed evidence . I can see that being threatening to many people who believe every word in it.
But we do know from other sources of learning, such as biblical criticism, that the bulk of the books of Exodus was composed from four different sources, and over a long period, each contributing different aspects of it. The largest revisions and additions to the book were made c. 400 BC, so we are talking a period of about 1,000 years. Again, this evidence is like a bombshell for those who put their blind trust in the Bible and naturally their reaction will be denial. I expect nothing short of that.
Now, which would one believe? Overwhelming amounts of evidence to the contrary or one's own personal testimony of a blind belief? LOL!
Dear Lord! Have you read the Bible?!? You must be joking, FK! :) Time simply doesn't permit me to list all of them.
I see. And as for your opinion of the weakness and fleetingness of God's word, God obviously disagrees: Isa 40:8 : The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever."
Truth will remain truth. Nothing new there. It doesn't mean that what we believe is all truth and nothing but the truth.
So, what Christians believe or agree with is the absolute rule? I have found that if you dig deep enough every Christians disagrees with another Christian while on the surface pretending to be of the same and equal faith. We are not talking about the faith, FK, we are talking about the Bible. Two different things. One can believe in God and give thanks to God without quoting or even knowing the Bible!
As for the views of those who call it the way it is, whether atheist or not, you use the same failed argument as before: they didn't change "true believers." No, there were "true" (I would say fanatical) believers who fought to the last moment in the Reichstag defending Hitler. Does their tenacity prove them "right?"
If the truths about the Bible make anyone an atheist it's because they believed in the Bible and not in God. Because the Bible is/was their God. God does not exist because of the Bible, nor does God "cease" to exist because the Bible is not as perfect as someone once believed. It is idolatry, once exposed, that leads to demise of the idols but not the faith in God. Only pride and arrogance, not archeology, can deny that something much bigger than we are created all this.
If it was possible to know, I would be interested in knowing if the average Apostolic spent more time following the extra-Biblical commands of the Church or the Biblical commands of God. A hunch says I would be disappointed in the answer.
The OT lists 613 God's commands in the Torah. If they are in the Bible then they are from God, right? Do you follow them? Do you fast? Oh, wait, Paul says we don't have to, because it doesn't apply to us? Right? So, what's left? The Ten Commandments, which we say (for some reason) apply to us but other OT Commandments don't (even though I am reminded that everything in the Bible, every dot in it, is the word of God!), and of course the Two Commandments of our Lord Jesus Christ, to love God with everything we have and our neighbor as ourselves (both of which are found in separate places in the OT).
Am I to assume that, unlike some of us, you follow God's commandments (and we don't)? While I am sure you love God with everything you have (especially when things are going well), do you really want me to believe that you love your neighbor as you love yourself? Do you pray for your friends? I am sure you do. Do you fervently pray for your enemies too? I don't, just as I don't love my neighbor as I love myself. I am simply not there (yet, if ever).
I think the disappointment should begin from us before we proclaim disappointment with the world. Religious pride (which is still pride) is alive and well, FK. At times it seems it has never been better, especially after the Reformation.