The Bible - Why Trust It

[nPeace]

@firedragon I did not give @shunyadragon permission to speak in my behalf. The best he can do is misrepresent me, with a heap of lies made up in his mind, biased, and opinionated... opposed to my views... which are like East is to West from his ideas.

Authentic means of undisputed origin; genuine.
When one says the Bible is authentic, it means, it is what it claims to be - inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16

In future, if you ask me a question about what I said, or meant, please don't pay any mind to responses from others. There are two persons on here, who I think can represent me quite accurately... Deeje and Hockeycowboy.

Later though. Gotta run.

 

[shunyadragon]

Says who? The little tweety bird from the first century?
Based on certain facts, John was written no later than 70 CE. Though traditionally some hold to 85 CE.
Also, again, based on evidence the writer is John.
Why do you say no one knows... other than that just being a claim - people's preferred opinion?

We can discuss this some more, but unfortunately I have to go, right now. So, later.

Not much different from what @firedragon proposed concerning the date, maybe a little later. Yes, the actual author is historically unknown.

 

[shunyadragon]

@firedragon I did not give @shunyadragon permission to speak in my behalf. The best he can do is misrepresent me, with a heap of lies made up in his mind, biased, and opinionated... opposed to my views... which are like East is to West from his ideas.

Authentic means of undisputed origin; genuine.
When one says the Bible is authentic, it means, it is what it claims to be - inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16

In future, if you ask me a question about what I said, or meant, please don't pay any mind to responses from others. There are two persons on here, who I think can represent me quite accurately... Deeje and Hockeycowboy.

Later though. Gotta run.

I do not speak in your behalf, That is a ridiculous claim.

 

[Muffled]

I believe a discerning person can recognize truth when he sees it. For me that led to a relationship with God guiding me into a trust of the Bible.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Says who? The little tweety bird from the first century?
Based on certain facts, John was written no later than 70 CE. Though traditionally some hold to 85 CE.
Also, again, based on evidence the writer is John.
Why do you say no one knows... other than that just being a claim - people's preferred opinion?

We can discuss this some more, but unfortunately I have to go, right now. So, later.

Really? What are your "facts"? The "fact" that one's beliefs are mythical if that is not the case does not cut it.

 

[Muffled]

I think there is good reason to show that the scriptures are authentic.
It helps persons see the various reasons for trusting the Bible.

I believe It doesn't hurt. I once asked a Mormon for some archeological vindication of the book of Moromon. There was none forthcoming.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe a discerning person can recognize truth when he sees it. For me that led to a relationship with God guiding me into a trust of the Bible.

The problem remains that the claim of the 'discerning person' recognizing what one 'claims as truth' results in many diverse conflicting claims of 'discernment.' Many if not most out of touch with the simple reality of the factual nature of our physical existence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe a discerning person can recognize truth when he sees it. For me that led to a relationship with God guiding me into a trust of the Bible.

Sorry, what you are experiencing is confirmation bias. By that poor standard all religious beliefs are true.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe It doesn't hurt. I once asked a Mormon for some archeological vindication of the book of Moromon. There was none forthcoming.

Just as there is no such evidence for the first two books of the Bible.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe It doesn't hurt. I once asked a Mormon for some archeological vindication of the book of Moromon. There was none forthcoming.

. . . and not much if any forthcoming for the archaeological verification of the Bible as it is, except for the fact that it is set in history and the confirmation of 'some' facts, events and historical persons. None for the first two books of the Bible except for ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, Canaanite, and Ugarite Cuneiform text origins for Genesis.

 

[Muffled]

Much of the Bible is political and/or etiological. As with most folk tales, it is laced with history, but to take the presence of such historical tidbits as evidence of some supernatural claim is simply moronic.

I believe I don't consider it moronic. I do think it shows a lower standard of evidence. For me the folk tales are real accounts unless they specifically refer to themselves as fiction. Of course that doesn't mean the supernatural is verifiable but then it never seems to be even in current times. Say you saw a flying saucer and you will be considered nuts.

 

[shunyadragon]

I believe I don't consider it moronic. I do think it shows a lower standard of evidence. For me the folk tales are real accounts unless they specifically refer to themselves as fiction. Of course that doesn't mean the supernatural is verifiable but then it never seems to be even in current times. Say you saw a flying saucer and you will be considered nuts.

No, seeing UFOs today would not be considered nuts, but they remain unknown, except for the fact that they are well documented by recent observations by military aircraft.

Most of the ancient writings of ancient cultures did not consider them as 'fiction' nor 'myth' when written, but nonetheless the stories of dragons, Medusa, and the Biblical flood are indeed mythological fiction.

 

[firedragon]

Since I believe it hit the nail right square on the head, I am curious as to why you think the exact opposite.

Sure.

What i said was that just because you find some figures in the Bible corroborated by archeology that doesnt mean the whole Bible is "CONFIRMED : The Bible - Historically Accurate" as said earlier. The Bible has around 50 authors.

If you made the analogy that "Since you found evidence that Spider Man exists, that doesnt mean the whole of New York is CONFIRMED: THE MOVIE - HISTORICALLY ACCURATE" thats a correct analogy.

My example is a silly one and no one would make such one, but i am only giving you the simile.

 

[firedragon]

Actually this describes it well, because @nPeace believes anybody who believes differently is not authentic. The Bible is authentic as he believes it is. He has concluded in the past that others who believe differently are 'Bible haters.'

Thanks. Its only now you made it clear. You assumed i knew exactly what you think nPeace believes. So thanks for clarifying.

 

[firedragon]

Says who? The little tweety bird from the first century?

No.

Based on certain facts, John was written no later than 70 CE. Though traditionally some hold to 85 CE.

What facts?

Also, again, based on evidence the writer is John.

What evidence?

Why do you say no one knows... other than that just being a claim - people's preferred opinion?

When you dont know who is the author, no one knows the author.

We can discuss this some more, but unfortunately I have to go, right now. So, later.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Authentic means of undisputed origin; genuine.
When one says the Bible is authentic, it means, it is what it claims to be - inspired by God. 2 Timothy 3:16

Okay. Thanks for clarifying. But when you say "Inspired by God" do you mean the whole Bible (I assume the 66 books) are all inspired by God just like you believe is the NT? As in its not Gods word, its inspired by God but written by fallible men.

is that the belief?

 

[McBell]

Sure.

What i said was that just because you find some figures in the Bible corroborated by archeology that doesnt mean the whole Bible is "CONFIRMED : The Bible - Historically Accurate" as said earlier. The Bible has around 50 authors.

If you made the analogy that "Since you found evidence that Spider Man exists, that doesnt mean the whole of New York is CONFIRMED: THE MOVIE - HISTORICALLY ACCURATE" thats a correct analogy.

My example is a silly one and no one would make such one, but i am only giving you the simile.

Thank you.

Now I know I read the post it was in reply to incorrectly.

 

[SkepticThinker]

@SkepticThinker Just a kindly reminder, in case you are not aware. I was made to understand that what you just did here - rating a post funny, when it is meant to be serious - is against the rules.
Just informing you, so that you will be aware of it in the future.

Sorry if that offended you.

I was laughing at the idea that if somebody doesn't disprove your argument, then it's true.
I find it funny any time someone tries to make such an assertion.
Feel free to report me.

 

[Audie]

I believe a discerning person can recognize truth when he sees it. For me that led to a relationship with God guiding me into a trust of the Bible.

We've seen you ability to discern fact from fiction in action,
so this is not too convincing.

 

[Audie]

I believe I don't consider it moronic. I do think it shows a lower standard of evidence. For me the folk tales are real accounts unless they specifically refer to themselves as fiction. Of course that doesn't mean the supernatural is verifiable but then it never seems to be even in current times. Say you saw a flying saucer and you will be considered nuts.

The flood story ins not referred to as fiction.

If what you do think is the correctly chosen
reading of the bible is your only standard of
evidence, that is a mighty low bar.

All evidence external to the bible plainly
shows the story to be fiction.

Discerning, you said you are?