- 12,520
- 925
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
Pastor Creflow Dollar is asking for 60 million to purchase new G6 to spread the gospel across the gl
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by Proposition Joe,
- Start date
- 12,127
- 33,734
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
How Christians gonna live they life for another man?
Might as well call Jesus "Daddy."
Might as well call Jesus "Daddy."
- 917
- 310
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Ok. So there is no issue in using the Bible to prove the Bible.
- 917
- 310
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I looked at the evidence surrounding the Bible and came to the conclusion that the Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses that reports supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim that their writings are divine writings rather than human in origin.
And how is using the Bible to prove the Bible illogical? Historians use the same method to very the accuracy and validity of different documents.
darthska
Staff member
- 43,881
- 27,384
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
For you, apparently not.
For me, using the Bible to prove the Bible presents as much of an issue as using Rudolph the Red-Nose Reindeer to prove the existence of red-nosed reindeer.
But I'm logical like that.
- 3,996
- 4,930
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2014
you are arguing against a religious person....lol
in this scenario you lose...
so unless you can provide an argument that they will see as spiritual insight... you won't get anywhere
religious belief is built on emotion...
you obviously don't have the ability to write in such a way as to provoke emotional introspection.
so just fall back.... you making yaself look bad
Last edited:
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
Did these same eyewitnesses go back in time? Because those same stories are written in OLDER texts that PREDATE the bible
Why is it illogical use the bible to prove the bible? I can write a book proving my book is correct using that mindset.
Last edited:
- 134,900
- 153,402
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
Bruh seriously...using the bible to prove the bible??
That's like me making a Big Foot movie and using the same movie footage as proof of it's existence
That's like me making a Big Foot movie and using the same movie footage as proof of it's existence
Last edited:
- 917
- 310
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
But here is my issue with that. You and @Blastercombo are arguing that the Bible is essentially not written by God, but written by men's perception of God. (which is not accurate). I showed you both verses in the Bible to show you that the writings are God-breathed. Then you both agree that it is illogical to use the Bible to prove the Bible. Now consider this.
This statement is not only wrong, but completely misunderstands its own argument. Ironically, it makes the exact circular assumptions that it accuses believers of.
1. The “Bible” is not one book
When we are talking about “proving” or evidencing the truths of the Gospel message, we have to put our historian hats on (not our religious hats). The argument is meant to place Christians in this rather odd situation where they sound like they are saying the Bible is true because it says it is true. But the Bible is not one book. In fact, the term “Bible” is not in the Bible. The Bible is a collection of works that spans over a thousand years, written by dozens of authors, some who are connected, some who are not. All together there are sixty-six books in the Protestant Bible.
When we are talking about the claims of the “New Testament,” we are talking about the story of Christianity, the very foundation and apex of Christianity as it deals with the incarnation of Christ, who he was, and what he did. But even then, to say one can’t prove the New Testament with the New Testament is quite ill-informed and unreflective. The designation “New Testament” (along with its list of books) is not even in the New Testament. Like with the whole Bible, it is just a name given to a certain related corpus of writings that speaks about the story and implications of the advent of Jesus Christ. There are twenty-seven books in the New Testament.
If one were to look at this with a historian’s eye, to say we cannot use the Bible to prove or evidence the Bible is about the most misguided thing one could possibly say. What does that mean? Are you saying that we cannot use the testimony that the book of Matthew gives to evidence Mark? Or that one cannot attempt to piece together Galatians with the Book of Acts? Of course you can. In fact, you must. These twenty-seven documents, all written around the same time, all telling similar stories, must be used to prove or evidence each other. If not, the historian is not being a historian, but something entirely different.
2. One must assume the inspiration of the Bible to say the Bible can’t prove the Bible
You see, if a person says, “You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible,” he probably doesn’t realize he is borrowing a bit from the Christian worldview in order to even make such an assertion. What is being borrowed? The idea of the basic unity of Scripture or the single-authorship of the Bible. The only way to say the Bible can’t prove the Bible is to presume the inspiration of Scripture. Otherwise, there is no reason to link the canon of Scripture together in such a way. For the non-Christian especially, the Bible should be seen as sixty-six ancient documents, all of which stand or fall on their own. In order to make them stand or fall together, one must assume a single authorship of some sort. At that point, the argument becomes self-defeating, as the very statement (“You can’t use the Bible to prove the Bible”) proves the Bible!
3. Most events of ancient history have no more than one contemporary witness (if that many)
The twenty-seven ancient documents called the New Testament are unparalleled in ancient history as far as their testimony. The contemporary multiple attestations for the story of Jesus (eyewitness or not) are without equal. Look to the sources we have for other ancient historical events and people, and you will find that they have nowhere near the amount of documented writings discussing the central claims.
Yet when it comes to the claims about Christ, we are talking about twenty-seven documents in the New Testament alone! And all of these come within sixty to seventy years after the events. And if you expand the data beyond just Scripture and allow extrabiblical sources to be considered, then we are talking about dozens and dozens more from early church fathers (whose testimonies cannot be ignored simply because they believed; what if we did that with the seemingly miraculous landing on the moon? “All those who do not believe it happened, step up to the evidence table!” Uh, no.) and from ancient historians such as Tacitus and Josephus.
In the end, the story of Christ has plenty of independent documentation, all of must prove or evidence the rest. So in this sense, we must use the Bible to prove the Bible or else we are not being historians, but religious zealots, fighting to keep hold of our unbelief through stupid statements.
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
Ok, when did God hand write the bible? When was it proof read by God?
Who eyewitnesseses and wrote the book of genesis during the conception of time and space?
I can gather thousands of books claiming aliens have visited earth, Bigfoot lives, and ghosts exist. All backed by "scientists" and experts in their own right. NONE OF THAT means anything.
You're using the conveinance route
1. You've never touched upon how the stories of the bible are derived by the SAME stories written in older documents. The people in the bible somehow lived decades before the time of the bible to see all that?
2. Not all events in the bible contain eyewitnesses or even COULD of.
3. Their is documentation for plenty of other religions complete with structures built and stories told yet for some reason those don't count.
4. Your claims are just that, claims. Let's ask the real questions, where is the proof of God? You want to prove jesus and the gang lived, fine, but where is the proof of God and the super natural events that took place?
5. There's absolutely an I ssue with using the source to prove its own validity. Just because you believe in it doesn't make it escape this fundemental fallacy. Greek mythology proves itself correct using your logic. As does Scientology, Hinduism, ect..
Name one creation made by the all powerful and PERFECT creator of all that is perfect? Matter of fact, take a step back and think of what it means to even be absolute perfection. Such an entity couldn't even truly exist. THATS the illusion. Utopia, heaven, perfection, all things that by definition cannot exist.
Who eyewitnesseses and wrote the book of genesis during the conception of time and space?
I can gather thousands of books claiming aliens have visited earth, Bigfoot lives, and ghosts exist. All backed by "scientists" and experts in their own right. NONE OF THAT means anything.
You're using the conveinance route
1. You've never touched upon how the stories of the bible are derived by the SAME stories written in older documents. The people in the bible somehow lived decades before the time of the bible to see all that?
2. Not all events in the bible contain eyewitnesses or even COULD of.
3. Their is documentation for plenty of other religions complete with structures built and stories told yet for some reason those don't count.
4. Your claims are just that, claims. Let's ask the real questions, where is the proof of God? You want to prove jesus and the gang lived, fine, but where is the proof of God and the super natural events that took place?
5. There's absolutely an I ssue with using the source to prove its own validity. Just because you believe in it doesn't make it escape this fundemental fallacy. Greek mythology proves itself correct using your logic. As does Scientology, Hinduism, ect..
Name one creation made by the all powerful and PERFECT creator of all that is perfect? Matter of fact, take a step back and think of what it means to even be absolute perfection. Such an entity couldn't even truly exist. THATS the illusion. Utopia, heaven, perfection, all things that by definition cannot exist.
Last edited:
- 11,265
- 5,440
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
darthska
Staff member
- 43,881
- 27,384
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Yes.
"Coke is the best. Says so right in their handbook."
=
"The bible describes God. We can trust the description to be accurate because God says that the Bible is his word. He said so... in the Bible."
"Coke is the best. Says so right in their handbook."
=
"The bible describes God. We can trust the description to be accurate because God says that the Bible is his word. He said so... in the Bible."
Last edited:
- 36,045
- 12,024
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2012
i can confirm that the bible says that the bible is telling the truth
- 12,127
- 33,734
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2012
- 917
- 310
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Why is that?
- 917
- 310
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Poor analogy and all you have done is repeat your initial claim of you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. I showed you that you can. The response you provided doesn't even address any of the information I provided.
darthska
Staff member
- 43,881
- 27,384
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
And you can use the Coke employee handbook as valid claim for Coke's reign in the drink world.
It's supposed to make a difference that the Bible a collection of volumes?
Ok...
The bible is a collection of volumes that describe God. We can trust the description to be accurate because God says that the Bible is his word. He said so... in the collection of volumes that is the Bible.
Same concept.
It's supposed to make a difference that the Bible a collection of volumes?
Ok...
The bible is a collection of volumes that describe God. We can trust the description to be accurate because God says that the Bible is his word. He said so... in the collection of volumes that is the Bible.
Same concept.
- 43,402
- 42,952
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2013
Ok, I can't do this anymore......
I mean where is the proof of this? Who was the eyewitness before people were even created?
Last edited:
- 155,696
- 135,039
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2001
darthska
Staff member
- 43,881
- 27,384
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
In the collection of volumes contained in the Bible.
God.
Says so in the collection of volumes comprising the Bible...
... as told/inspired by God.
And the reason we know it was God inspired is because it says so...
...in the Bible.
Last edited:
- 917
- 310
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Ok, no one is claiming the Cokes's employee hand book didn't come from the powers that be at Coke. We know it came from Coke because it says it came from Coke.
But let's use your logic. If we know it came from Coke because it says it came from Coke, then we can say the same thing about the Bible. So in essence I guess that actually is a good analogy. The Bible did come from God!
darthska
Staff member
- 43,881
- 27,384
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Exactly.
We know the Coke handbook came from the Coke powers that be, and we take every word in there accordingly.
"Coke is the best. Says so in our book, written and ordained by our supervisors."
And we all understand it that way.
That part, you seem to finally understand.
The next next part, you're hung up on.
- "Coke is the best. Says so in our book, written and ordained by our supervisors."
- "Wait, I want to meet these supervisors. Where are they?"
- "According to the handbook, they're everywhere. You can meet them by simply swearing allegiance to Coke, and speaking to them."
- "How do you know this?"
- "Says so in the handbook."
- "So it says in the handbook that you can meet the supervisors by swearing allegiance to Coke, and the authority of the supervisors is explained in the handbook... and the authority of the handbook is granted by the supervisors that are explained in the handbook."
We know the Coke handbook came from the Coke powers that be, and we take every word in there accordingly.
"Coke is the best. Says so in our book, written and ordained by our supervisors."
And we all understand it that way.
That part, you seem to finally understand.
The next next part, you're hung up on.
- "Coke is the best. Says so in our book, written and ordained by our supervisors."
- "Wait, I want to meet these supervisors. Where are they?"
- "According to the handbook, they're everywhere. You can meet them by simply swearing allegiance to Coke, and speaking to them."
- "How do you know this?"
- "Says so in the handbook."
- "So it says in the handbook that you can meet the supervisors by swearing allegiance to Coke, and the authority of the supervisors is explained in the handbook... and the authority of the handbook is granted by the supervisors that are explained in the handbook."