Feb 17, 2012 -- 7:40PM, Blü wrote:

Blu: iama,

No point in challenging me to read anything till you tell me why any impartial and informed person should think the bible is the word of god or think the bible is inerrant.

And you need to tell me in your own words.  Links don't cut it.

iama: You have requested three things:

1. "Any impartial person should think The Bible is the Word of God:"

- From Genesis to Revelation The Bible presents ONE complete accounting.

- Rulers have attempted to destroy The Bible, but none have succeeded.

- The Bible is historically accurate in all of its accounting of history.

- The Bible does not present any scientific inaccuracies.

- The prophetic utterances of prophets have each come to pass, to date, regarding the times of their fulfillments.

- There are many more prophecies which are awaiting fulfillment.

- The Bible, taken into uncivilized communities, has brought peace and civility.

- The Bible has inspired great works of culture.

- The Bible, removed from our schools, has resulted in shootings, degradation, etc.

- The Bible is the basis for our common laws, constitutions, etc.

- The Bible was not written from a human perspective, but God's perspective.

- The Bible is honest regarding righteousness and unrighteousness.

- The God of The Bible transforms human lives via its truths and God's power.

- For me, The Bible is all that it claims to be, and it is my spiritual food, and contains The Faith of Christ Jesus, which I believe.

2. "Any informed person should think The Bible is the Word of God:"

-  An informed person would have read The Bible from Genesis to Revelation seeking to understand both himself and The God revealed via The Bible.

- Many agnostics and atheists have set out to prove some aspect of The Bible's recording as false, and have been surprised to find that it is they who are in error.

- The Bible has proved to be an indestructible Book.

- Expert archaeologists have denounced The Bible's historical recordings, and have found them to be correct.

- The Creator-God revealed to us through the pages of The Bible, is The Creator of all that exists in the material, the societal, and the spiritual realms of His Creation.

- If The Bible states something related to The Creation, and scientists are challenging The Bible's recording on that matter, the scientists will, ultimately, be admitting that they were wrong in their interpretation of their, scientifically, collected data, or that they did not have the complete set of data, from which to make their interpretations.

- You, specifically, once, stated that the book of Daniel was to be excluded from discussions of prophetic fulfillment.  Daniel's recording gives us the exact fulfillment of Christ Jesus' rejection by the nation of Israel's leaders.

- You state "informed person," by which I assume you mean to imply that the posters and readers on this thread are "informed persons."  I choose to differ, because the "informed" condition is anti-The Bible, and one of holding to liberal documentations, which are unbiblical.

- It is The Bible and The Bible, alone, which is to be the final Authority, when interpreting The Bible, itself.

- The "informed person" to which you are referring is, likely, one who has chosen the humanistic, evolution holding world view, and that world view is anti-The Bible, and its worldview presentation.

- The Bible states that there are two "comings" of The Messiah / God-Son, incarnate:

----- His first coming as a baby boy, maturing to an adult, and presenting Himself to the nation of Israel as their Messiah.  Because of their looking for a Deliverer from Rome, they rejected their Messiah at His first coming.

----- His second coming as King of Kings and Lord of Lords is still future, and there are many, many prophecies which will be fulfilled at His return, which will take place following The Time of Jacob's Troubles / The Great Tribulation of Daniel's final prophesied week - seven years.

- An "informed person" would know of the work of missionaries entering into the native regions of the Earth and bringing to them The Good News of Salvation in Christ Jesus. As a young person growing up in a Christian and Missionary Alliance Church, I viewed the slides which the returning missionaries presented, and I saw and heard of the many lives transformed by God-Holy Spirit's regeneration of their human spirits.  The Bible is alive with the power of God-Holy Spirit, and conviction of the sin of unbelief in Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord, and the righteousness of Christ Jesus, God-Son, and the judgment of Satan is Good News to these darkened human beings.  They see the Light, and believe.

- I read posts written by agnostics and atheists in these forums and am amazed at the music, art, and literary appreciation which is being expressed.  Especially, the great music which has been composed based upon the truths recorded in The Bible.  This music speaks to the spirits - the human spirits with which we have been created. 

- All human beings have a desire for something more / something better than what we, currently, are experiencing.  Our Creator-God has placed within each and every human being a desire and longing for Himself, whether or not we will admit that it is true.

- There exists a Moral Code, universally, by which all humans understand that which is right and that which is wrong.  Our consciences are designed creations intended to point us to our righteous Creator-God.  The existence of this Moral Law / Code, is evidence of our Creator-God.

- Of course, human beings are capable of silencing our consciences and of going against this Moral Code, and we ALL know what it is to experience GUILT. 

- The Bible is the Source of the WRITTEN recording of our Creator-God's moral character, and points us in the direction of righteousness.

- The Bible INFORMS all human beings of RIGHT / GOOD and WRONG / EVIL.  Our Creator-God hates all that is EVIL.  The future for human beings involves a separation of GOOD from EVIL.

- To be a, really, "informed person," you must be existing within the fellowship of / with regenerated believers.

3. "Any impartial person should think that The Bible is inerrant:"

-  The Bible is a supernaturally recorded book, God-Holy Spirit inspired, and is alive, because God-Holy Spirit, The Author, is near to the reader / hearer making the text applicable to the sincere seeker.

- Yes, The Bible, in its original recording was inerrant.  Sincere Bible students study the texts in their original languages. 

- The Dead Sea Scrolls give sufficient evidence of accuracy of the OT Scriptures, and the NT manuscripts which we have, today, agree with the portions of the NT Scriptures which are quoted by the earliest Christian writers.

- We can be assured of the reliability of our current translations, which have adhered to the oldest manuscripts which are available.  There is no historical document which is as well preserved as The Bible.

Now, spend some time in the Genesis 1-11 resources which I posted a link to.

.

Feb 19, 2012 -- 11:49AM, Ken wrote:

Iama, why do you do nothing but make unsupported statements? Not one of the statements in your last post is adequately supported. Worse, most of them are known to be false and the few that are true are irrelevant.

iama:  You reject the support.

Your worldview allows your claims.

My worldview is derived from The Bible.

.

Feb 19, 2012 -- 11:54PM, iamachildofhis wrote:

Feb 19, 2012 -- 11:49AM, Ken wrote:

Iama, why do you do nothing but make unsupported statements? Not one of the statements in your last post is adequately supported. Worse, most of them are known to be false and the few that are true are irrelevant.

You reject the support.

No. You offer no support. You make statements but fail to provide the slightest reason for accepting them as true. The only reason you accept them yourself is that you were indoctrinated as a child and have never thought to examine them since.

Your worldview allows your claims.

I don't have a worldview. I am not a postmodernist trendy. I disapprove of worldviews. One should simply try to see things as they are.

Caduceus: "Science limits itself to number 1. in the list and regularly denies or mundanely rationalises the other two, even though there is a huge amount of evidence to the contrary."

Evidence to the contrary of WHAT?  You left out something there.  Science has studied and answered many of the 2nd, such as ball lightening and frogs and fish falling from the sky.  Ghosts, as is well known, are afraid of skeptics and scientists, so they hide from them.  Skeptics produce an aura that prevents psychic phenomena.  UFOs are common and are seen by most skeptics.  I see them all the time.  What I don't do, is jump to the conclusion that what I see flying around up there is alien, a flying saucer or anything unnatural. The 3rd is good for educated guesses, but since these things are one time events, it's hard to come up with enough evidence to make a good hypothesis.  Do you understand the concept of a good hypothesis?  Do you have one for any of the items you suggest science ignores?  How about sharing it with us?

Most scientists have real jobs and can't go running around researching every exotic claim.  You do it and report back.  It's not that science "denies" all these things.  The scientists just don't bother and "science" frankly doesn't give a damn.  It doesn't claim anything is "TRUE" or that anything is flat out impossible.  Offer us a reasonable hypothesis and we can play scientist and critique it.  You can play scientist and accept the critique either by refining or rejecting your own hypothesis.  Real scientists do this every day.

Mar 6, 2012 -- 8:16PM, ozero wrote:

Caduceus: "Science limits itself to number 1. in the list and regularly denies or mundanely rationalises the other two, even though there is a huge amount of evidence to the contrary."

Evidence to the contrary of WHAT?  You left out something there.  Science has studied and answered many of the 2nd, such as ball lightening and frogs and fish falling from the sky.  Ghosts, as is well known, are afraid of skeptics and scientists, so they hide from them.  Skeptics produce an aura that prevents psychic phenomena.  UFOs are common and are seen by most skeptics.  I see them all the time.  What I don't do, is jump to the conclusion that what I see flying around up there is alien, a flying saucer or anything unnatural. The 3rd is good for educated guesses, but since these things are one time events, it's hard to come up with enough evidence to make a good hypothesis.  Do you understand the concept of a good hypothesis?  Do you have one for any of the items you suggest science ignores?  How about sharing it with us?

Most scientists have real jobs and can't go running around researching every exotic claim.  You do it and report back.  It's not that science "denies" all these things.  The scientists just don't bother and "science" frankly doesn't give a damn.  It doesn't claim anything is "TRUE" or that anything is flat out impossible.  Offer us a reasonable hypothesis and we can play scientist and critique it.  You can play scientist and accept the critique either by refining or rejecting your own hypothesis.  Real scientists do this every day.

Evidence to the contrary of WHAT?  You left out something there.

Science has not given any meaningful explanation for ball lightening apart from ignited dust, which is incapable of passing through a window. Also proffered: plasma balls, something science admits it knows nothing about. This is also used as a get-out-of-jail for UFO's, along with Venus and brain maladies.
Such lame explanations are only taken seriously by hypnotised, brainwashed sceptics and are more fantastic than the event itself. They don't really fall into the category of "good hypothesis", more like a pitiful hand waving.

My own hypothesis in the post is that education is brainwashing and scientists happen to be more washed than the rest of us; not unlike the denizens of organised religion they are so opposed to.

I like this one: "Most scientists have real jobs and can't go running around researching every exotic claim." Can this be the reason why they reject cold fusion, something we all need at this time of austerity? The distinct possibility of a cheap and clean energy source is kicked around like a political football to save the jobs of those who have singly failed to get hot fusion working for over fifty years.

But we all kowtow in sickly admiration of those clever failures because we have been taught from childhood by education that science failure is science success.