Is The Bible The Word Of God?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Then we'll defer to let Didymus answer. The response I gave required thinking from that point onward. That thinking would gravitate to consider that If God is Creator and he Created men with the ability to have thoughts, questions, uncertainties, and insecurities about Him, life, death then he would provide satisfaction for those insecurities, questions and so forth. Even to the point to ask that if this was a Loving God, as evidenced from the depth of intricacies in his Highest creation, if he would come to earth himself to confirm his existence, and answer the insecurities, questions and so forth and to give internal Peace and knowledge of truth. Those are the differences between Islam and Christianity which can be arrived at through deductive reasoning and faith in a Loving God.

I guess I expected you to read the replies in the second post before responding to the first answer.

Since it was asked to Didy... and since I've now explained my answer.... we'll let Diddy respond.

And I hope Diddy will respond to that question.

But as for your rather philosophical "reasons" for believing the Bible. They seem entirely circular to me. Hindus believe God frequently comes to earth to teach. They call such incarnations "avatars." So that concept is not unique to Christianity. And Muslims believe that Mohammad was the "perfect man" and their devotion to him seems much more passionate and real than Christian devotion to Christ because Muhammad was a real man, whereas Christians can't think of Christ as a real man because they are taught he is really God. I came to this conclusion after listening to how Muslims talk about their prophet. It seemed like a dramatic difference to me.

But most importantly, you are just explaining why you like Christianity and why you think the Bible is true, but your explanations do not provide any objective evidence that would convince anyone of the truth of the Bible. Indeed, it wouldn't convince you if you had not begun with a belief in the Bible. In other words, you arguments seem circular.

This was answered partly in the last question. He gave them over [past tense] to and channeled their rebellious and stiffnecked nature in a way that would reveal himself and his love in a future generation. This was spoken to them when the covenant and instructions were given, In chapter 8 or 9 i think in Deuteronomy. This was temporal covenant and instruction; possibly to show them AND US the fruits of the henious way of disbelief and rebellion that would become like the babylonian cult religions. He declared it as 'not the good way in Is 65. Paul called it the way of the administration of death... due to it's frustration in not knowing God's perpetual blessing or obtaining peace and satisfaction through keeping the law.

The 'world' did not begin with the mosaic covenant nation and instructions.

This is part of result of the free will in which He created man in his image and likeness combined with the absence of faith in Him and presence of rebellion from Cain and Nimrod onward.

Recall that Moses himself did not partake of that covenant [though they battled in the wilderness in the formation of the militant nation]. Notice that the norther tribes left the covenant.

I likely shouldn't have jumped in to this at this time. Other things n the go, though I appreciate the discussion, the opportunity to testify and the growth from interacting.

I'm glad you jumped in, and I hope you will find more time to discuss this issue.

Unfortunately, your explanation is completely unconvincing to anyone who has not already "drank the kool-aid." God did not "channel their rebellious and stiffnecked nature in a way that would reveal himself and his love in a future generation." On the contrary, God ordered the murder of every man, woman, and child, and allowed Moses to keep the virgins for sex-slaves and reproductive units. There is no "apology" for this moral abomination attributed to the God of the Bible.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

[QUOTE]

And I hope Diddy will respond to that question.

But as for your rather philosophical "reasons" for believing the Bible. They seem entirely circular to me.

That's ok, they are not to me.

Hindus believe God frequently comes to earth to teach. They call such incarnations "avatars." So that concept is not unique to Christianity.

In Christianity, the concept is a singular coming of the only begotten son. Generation after generation have teachers in his Spirit, such as you mentioned above. Leo Tolstoy,...numerous.

Some in the scientific communities revere some of their men on parallel with a son of God, such as Stephen Hawking, Asminov, Pasteur, Newton and so forth. Not much difference. If any particular one be the Son of God and infallible, then serve and worship them.

In the book I sent you titled the song, there is a section where "everyman" is taken by Sarkon to visit the gravedigger who claims to have buried the Singer and that his grave has remained untouched. "Anthem" representing the apostles in the story tells everyman that this cannot be and gives him a scroll to open at the site, Everyman is promised that he will see the grave and be able to talk with the gravedigger. Sarkon is full of knowledge of the sciences, of art, literature and is very striking and charismatic. "Everyman" is drawn to Him.

When they get to the gravedigger, he is quite convincing and repeats that he himself buried the Singer. Even Sarkon becomes agitated at "Every man's insistence and questions. Then just before leaving Everyman pulled out the scroll which Anthem had given him and reads, "In the name of Earth-maker and Father Spirit and of truth, be thou what you are". The gravedigger shrivels into a lizard and is stepped on by Sarkon.

If we seek truth with a pure heart from faith in a Creator and faith in truth, we can ask HIM about systems and ideologies which may contain partial untruth and lies to reveal any inconsistencies or faults and untruths of their ways. With patience and faith in truth they will be revealed and answered.

And Muslims believe that Mohammad was the "perfect man" and their devotion to him seems much more passionate and real than Christian devotion to Christ because Muhammad was a real man, whereas Christians can't think of Christ as a real man because they are taught he is really God. I came to this conclusion after listening to how Muslims talk about their prophet. It seemed like a dramatic difference to me.

In Christianity of the Way of Life of access to the Creator through faith, the concept is Fully God and Fully man. Fully Human and completely whole in his being and in fulfilling his heart motives and will.

But most importantly, you are just explaining why you like Christianity and why you think the Bible is true, but your explanations do not provide any objective evidence that would convince anyone of the truth of the Bible. Indeed, it wouldn't convince you if you had not begun with a belief in the Bible. In other words, you arguments seem circular.

They may seem that way, but they are not. They were the recollection of the beginning formation of reasonable and logical questions about life which led to relatively early faith and sealing in the Spirit. The beginning foundation was a belief in a Creator God due to the abounding evidence in his creation, including the depth and complexity of the human being of who I was one.

The evidence of the way and power of truth and of God is in the fulfilled prophecies which we so often discuss.

Unfortunately, your explanation is completely unconvincing to anyone who has not already "drank the kool-aid." God did not "channel their rebellious and stiffnecked nature in a way that would reveal himself and his love in a future generation." On the contrary, God ordered the murder of every man, woman, and child, and allowed Moses to keep the virgins for sex-slaves and reproductive units. There is no "apology" for this moral abomination attributed to the God of the Bible.

I'll stand by my perspectives now twice offered. The scriptures themselves explain the perspective in Deut 8. To continue is just repetition of the same. There will be nothing I can say to alter your view.

Your statements reflect a lack of willingness to understand, accept or comprehend or of faith. But I do agree with you that these questions are free to be asked and demanded of God.
But there are questions asked in rebellion, disbelief, accusation and judgment; and there are questions genuinely asked from a seeking heart of faith that he IS and he is good. Your responses and rejection of explanation reflect that of the former questions. See again the above statements and recommendation about asking HIM in faith. He never commanded you or any post Christ individual to those actions of the mosaic covenant nationals.

As noted Paul declared this as the ministry of death and the veiled way, which is lifted when the individual heart would turn to Christ. Is 65:2 declares this as the way and principles which are not good.

They were the ones just like their Egyptian and Babylonian ritualistic religions had crafted a Golden cow in disbelief, impatience and self will.

Thanks again for the opportunity of testimony and the growth through interaction. And thanks especially for an open forum where the preterists perspectives can be hashed out. But I think we covered some of these concepts before. Perhaps I'll check back in on this in a few weeks. As mentioned other things on the go.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

There's the difference. You are questioning the actions of God. I am not, and hope others are not either. God can and does do whatever He wants.

I have a question. Are you a Christian?

I am not questioning the "actions of God." I am stating facts about moral abominations that are attributed to God. There's a big difference there.

As for my religious affiliation: I identified myself as a "blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian" for many years. I no longer do so.

So tell me - why do you believe the Bible? Do you have evidence? Or are you just believing what you were programmed to believe like folks born into Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, Mormonism .... ?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

But as for your rather philosophical "reasons" for believing the Bible. They seem entirely circular to me.

That's ok, they are not to me.

It's not really ok because circularity is an objective feature of a fallacious argument. Nothing you said presented any objective evidence for your belief in the Bible. Basically, your argument came down to "I believe the Bible because I believe the Bible." That's circular. Do you really have no evidence? When did you choose to believe? And why?

In Christianity, the concept is a singular coming of the only begotten son. Generation after generation have teachers such as you mentioned above. Leo Tolstoy,...numerous.

Why does the "singular" coming matter? The term "only begotten" refers to his relation to the father, not the number of times he incarnated.

But that doesn't matter anyway. The essential point of your argument was only that God had incarnated, not that it was the only time he did it.

If we seek truth with a pure heart from faith in a Creator and faith in truth, we can ask HIM about systems and ideologies which contain partial untruth to reveal any inconsistencies or faults and untruths of their ways. With patience and faith they will be revealed and answered.

You have just stated the essence of Harold Camping's hermeneutic. I listened to him frequently out of morbid curiosity, and there rarely was a time when he did not mention how fervently he prayed for God to open his humble eyes to His truth. Look at the result of your hermeneutic. A thousand different denominations that all claim to have gotten their differing truths from the same God! It can't be correct, can it? Do you understand this problem?

In Christianity of the Way of Life of access to the Creator through faith, the concept is Fully God and Fully man. Fully Human and completely whole in his being and in fulfilling his heart motives.

The Bible never mentions anything about Christ being "Fully Human" and "Fully God." That doctrine was invented by folks who were just like you and me, and we have absolutely no reason to take their doctrines as God-given truths. Again, we are confronted with the question "Why do you believe what you believe?" We now see that you have gone outside the Bible to believe things taught by tradition. And of course, the Bible itself is the result of tradition, and you still have not explained why you accept the Protestant Bible over the older (and hence more authentic?) Bible of the Catholics or Greek Orthodox.

But most importantly, you are just explaining why you like Christianity and why you think the Bible is true, but your explanations do not provide any objective evidence that would convince anyone of the truth of the Bible. Indeed, it wouldn't convince you if you had not begun with a belief in the Bible. In other words, you arguments seem circular.

They may seem that way, but they are not. They were the recollection of the beginning formation of reasonable and logical questions about life which led to relatively early faith and sealing in the Spirit. The evidence of truth is in the fulfilled prophecies which we so often discuss.

Yes, the "fulfilled prophecies" relating to the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem are the strongest evidence I have ever seen other than the Bible Wheel. But Christians usually attempt to REFUTE that evidence, and some argue vehemently that if Preterism is true then God had abandoned His Church to 2000 years of gross error. So if you are correct, then we are left to wonder what other gross errors God has let His Church fall into, such as Trinitarianism perhaps? Definitely the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is false beyond any question. See the problem? Your argument about God guiding his people is quite obviously contradicted by the history of the church.

[EndtimesDeut32/70AD]

[QUOTE]

It's not really ok because circularity is an objective feature of a fallacious argument. Nothing you said presented any objective evidence for your belief in the Bible. Basically, your argument came down to "I believe the Bible because I believe the Bible." That's circular. Do you really have no evidence? When did you choose to believe? And why?

That may be what you perceive of my argument based on conversations with others, but that is not my experience. If' I've not conveyed that by this time, further attempts will not do it service either. The evidence is of an internal witness of peace, love, the witness of the creation and it's complexity, including the complexity and attributes of man, and the confirmation of truth and the answer of prayer.

You have just stated the essence of Harold Camping's hermeneutic. Do you understand this problem?

No, I have not stated the essence of his hermeneutic. His is a forced hermeneutic based on faulty definitions, words and faulty doctrines. The fact that many are coming to understand the preterist perspectives for their personal lives reflect that this is not the same as an individualist Camping Hermeneutic. The fulfilled prophecies of the preterist perspectives are the testimony of Jesus and Spirit of prophecy. And the oppositions to the futurists 'end of the world' or end of the church age doctrines are reasonable, defend-able, able to be taught, logical and explainable.

Camping is futurist and gloom and doomer of a still 'angry' God. Praying over scripture with an intention to force an answer from God to a false doctrine with the motives of getting the right answer in order to advancing and promoting yourself is not any sort of biblical hermeneutic. I seldom listen to him except when I catch it by chance.

Same with a radio program where a man proclaims himself as 'last days prophet".

Strange though, how similar his emphasis on numerology is with some. Camping used scriptures and numerology to soothsay and crystal ball according to his end of world, not end of age doctrine and indoctrination.

It's similar to the guy who opened up the book the scripture about Judas going to hang himself, and then the next time it says: go and do thou likewise that is NO hermeneutic.

CWH posted the formulation of his reasoning and opinion. Flabbergastingly contrived.

The authority to ask God individual honest questions of ones heart [like Everyman did to the gravedigger, or you can of evolution] and from a predisposed will and motive of Glorifying him in our own lives is found in section of the ministry of the Spirit in John 14-16 and in I John 5. He desires of us to ask him in confidence that he hears us. The principles of entering the holy of holies and the presence of God in Hebrews are also the authority for prayers from his Children.

I think it's Isaiah 65 which proclaims that before they ask, I answer. [Like Daniel, believers are the beloved] The answers are then found in and during the walk of life as well as study in the scriptures...

The Bible never mentions anything about Christ being "Fully Human" and "Fully God." .

It does within scriptural principles and precepts, but it would be a long search and research to express them.

Yes, the "fulfilled prophecies" relating to the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem are the strongest evidence I have ever seen other than the Bible Wheel. See the problem? Your argument about God guiding his people is quite obviously contradicted by the history of the church.

I don't' believe God is done guiding or expanding his true people, nor that 'his church' was always accurately represented by doctrinal statements and hierarchical entities of history and especially those who depended on the ECF's rather than the Holy Spirit for their doctrines. Some or many of those may not even have been part of HIS people and church of Peace.

Later, to continue points in the conversation would be redundant.

[Didymus]

I am not questioning the "actions of God." I am stating facts about moral abominations that are attributed to God. There's a big difference there.

As for my religious affiliation: I identified myself as a "blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian" for many years. I no longer do so.

So tell me - why do you believe the Bible? Do you have evidence? Or are you just believing what you were programmed to believe like folks born into Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, Mormonism .... ?

You are now claiming the actions of God are moral abominations.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

I am not questioning the "actions of God." I am stating facts about moral abominations that are attributed to God. There's a big difference there.

As for my religious affiliation: I identified myself as a "blood-bought Bible-believing Trinitarian Christian" for many years. I no longer do so.

So tell me - why do you believe the Bible? Do you have evidence? Or are you just believing what you were programmed to believe like folks born into Islam, Hinduism, Catholicism, Mormonism .... ?

You are now claiming the actions of God are moral abominations.

No, that is NOT what I said. Please re-read the words I highlighted bold red.

And why do you not answer my question? I've asked it many times. What evidence do you have that the Bible should be regarded as the "Word of God?"

[Didymus]

No, that is NOT what I said. Please re-read the words I highlighted bold red.

And why do you not answer my question? I've asked it many times. What evidence do you have that the Bible should be regarded as the "Word of God?"

You can twist it anyway you want but it amounts to the same thing. And I just lost my zeal for this site.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

You can twist it anyway you want but it amounts to the same thing. And I just lost my zeal for this site.

I twisted nothing, and no, it does not "amount to the same thing." The problem is that you don't understand the difference between criticism of what the Bible says about God as opposed to criticism of God. I have not criticized God in any way at all in this thread.

As for your lost "zeal" for this site. Why did you have any zeal for this site in the first place?

[Kangaroo Jack]

I twisted nothing, and no, it does not "amount to the same thing." The problem is that you don't understand the difference between criticism of what the Bible says about God as opposed to criticism of God. I have not criticized God in any way at all in this thread.

As for your lost "zeal" for this site. Why did you have any zeal for this site in the first place?

It is the same thing RAM. What the bible says about God is who God is. Otherwise everyone is free to invent the god of their own imagination.

KJ