Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First, let me point out the appeal to authority here. The fact that Dr. Greenleaf was very important figure in American Jurisprudence in no way affect the strength or validity of his arguments. His arguments must stand on their own merits. I have not read the entirely of his apologetic work, but I have managed to get several pages in, so far. In all fairmess, let me point out that he wrote this tract in 1846 , so I cannot judge him too harsly when he doesn't incorporate modern scholarship into his work. What it does mean is that most of his premises, that may have seemed so obvious when he wrote it, now have glaring holes.
First, appeals to the federal standards for the admissibility of ancient documents ( more than 20 years old). The standards explicitly say however that such a document should be presumed authentic, but that does not mean one has to assume it is truthful, just that it is not a forgery. He tends to make the leap that since it is assumed authentic, it is also assumed true. Additionally, modern biblical scholarship has since shown that the bible as we have it today has been subject to numerous revisions, interpolations, and redactions. This throws the entire issue of authenticity back into question again.
The other major probalem I saw, just in the first few pages, as his assumption that the writers of the 4 gospels were the traditional authors. We now have significant reasons to believe that the Apostle Matthew did not actually write Matthew, Mark did not write Mark, and that John was written over a long period of time by several authors. There is also some skepticism of the authorship of Luke, however this seems at least more likely than the other gospels to be true. Thus his entire concept of treating the four gospel writers as eyewitnesses (even though only two would have been, even if the traditional authorship held) is undermined from the get-go. His analysis of their character likewise fails, as the men analyzed are not his witnesses. The whole thing kind of falls apart once modern Biblical scholarship is introduced to the equation.
I don't mean to be too critical, since much if this is information that was unavailable when he wrote his tract, however it still does not prove very compelling.
-NoCapo
We appeal to Authority virtually everyday of our lives , so that is hardly an adequate refutation . In fact, we trust and respect authorative Scientists to provide us with accurate information on a wide plethera of issues as truth. As for Prof. Greenleaf, his evidential court of law techniques DO stand on their own merits and are still applied today toward a body of work under consideration whether it be judicial in nature or the credibility of an ancient literary work . In fact using the same historicity testing procedures for secular works such as Plato and Aristotilian literature , they grossly pale in comparison to the New Testament of the Bible on several fronts. If you chose to review Greenleafs findings on the N.T., you can review them in his treatise called 'Testimony of the Evangelist' where he concludes the accuracy of the N.T. to be of the highest order.
As to the N.T.'s textural criticism you brought up, you may be interested to learn that the manuscript evidence of the N.T. we have is 99.9% accurate with only a few sentences being in question and these sentences in no way affect doctrine . WHen compared to ALL other ancient literary works, we have earlier manuscripts, more manuscripts, more accurately copied manuscripts, and more abundantly supported manuscripts including other writing from secular sources and archeology. An excellent treatise on this subject (plus emphirical scientific evidence for our personal theistic Creator , for Jesus Christ, his ressurection, etc...) is the large booklet called 'Twelve Points that Show Christianity is True' by Dr. Norman Geisler available at www.impactapologetics.com
Lastly, there is concrete proof that the writers of the four Gospels were in fact Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John by a convergence of evidence ... and it is only from liberal Groups such as The Jesus Seminar (Dominic Crossen, et al...) that call into question such things. This topic is also covered in the aforementioned booklet .
Finally, is your Addy in reference to not using a capo when playing the guitar ?
I think the confusion sets in becasue we are talking about Christianity. One can logically and reasonably get to Deism or possibly some other generic theism without a scripture. To get to Christianity requires the Bible, since without it there would be no concept of original sin, salvation, Jesus, or any of that. To be fair every religion, apart from some very abstracted forms of theism (Deism for example) require their holy writings or traditions to differentiate themselves from other traditions.
Even the idea of a personal relationship with a triune creator God specifically comes from the Bible. Even if you don't accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, it seems a little disingenuous to say that the Bible is not essential to Christianity. It is what defines the religion nd separates it from Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, polytheism, and really any other religion out there.
As far as the original topic, of course the Bible will have to enter in to Christian apologetics. For me the problem comes not in the use of the Bible, but in the blind use of the Bible. We see over and over posters cut and pasting reams of scripture without any other logical justification or coherency in their argument. This kind of proof texting is useless to those of us who don't accept the bible as divinely inspired. It is much better when posters are able to tie their arguments together in ther own words. Of course there will be references to the Bible, but it helps when there appears to be some thought behind the argument, instead of a wall of disassociated verses out of any context.
-NoCapo
You have a few misconceptions. In order -------
1. A person can be without the Bible yet still see the physical evidence thru Creation , his marvelous anatomical structure and systems, etc....and deduce that the cause was a personal theistic Creator . He can still see the darker side to his personality including self centerdness, impure motives, willingness to decieve to get what he wants, cold and calculating thoughts, and a propensity toward being responsible to no one beyond Self (narcissism). He can still see his moral oughtness yet choosing to veto it . He can still see his own depravity and sin nature. All of this can be discovered without a sacred writing to tell him so .
2. The Bible is essential to Christianity because it is a definitive record of the Creator revealing himself to us beyond just the physical creation around us. It reveals the nature , character, abilities,justice, love of our Creator toward us including his mercy which we desperately need given the depraved nature of man. Not only does the Bible reveal the Creator, but it reveals the deepest thoughts, motives, and desires of Man . It explicitly explains how sinful man can be permanently reconciled to an infinitely holy Creator thru the act of God choosing to enter time and space to live in a human body so as to identify with us. No other world religion is like this . Lastly, the Bible can be shown to be supernatural by fulfilled prophecy alone ... grounded historical and verifiable facts that modern science has discovered .
3. Modern Science has confirmed the Bible to be absolutely true time and time again when the critics said otherwise. In fact, the Old Testament records precise scientific processes written down some 3-5,000 years ago which modern science has finally gotton around to confirming as truth. Some of these include : Air has weight, the earth hangs on nothing , the hydrological cycle, atomic disentegration, life in the blood, springs on the ocean floors, incalculable number of stars , and other confirmed scientific facts. Further, approx. one-third of the Bible deals with prophecy that has been fulfilled .... NOT coming from self fulfillfed prophecy either. Critics can say The Bible is not divinely inspired, but the evidence says otherwise ; most often, the Critics arent even willing to investigate the very subject which they so readily criticise and appear to have knowledge of. They either have personal ulterior motives for not doing so, and/or, they desire to be willfully ignorant .
1. A person can be without the Bible yet still see the physical evidence thru Creation , his marvelous anatomical structure and systems, etc....and deduce that the cause was a personal theistic Creator . He can still see the darker side to his personality including self centerdness, impure motives, willingness to decieve to get what he wants, cold and calculating thoughts, and a propensity toward being responsible to no one beyond Self (narcissism). He can still see his moral oughtness yet choosing to veto it . He can still see his own depravity and sin nature. All of this can be discovered without a sacred writing to tell him so .
I think in this one we are saying the same thing. While the logical arguments for a creator or creative force do not require the Bible, they also only get one as far as a creator. I think the concept of depravity and sin nature are not so self evident, but regardless, one can follow both of these conclusion through, but without the Bible you still will never arrive at Christianity. The Bible is what divides Christianity from any other form of religion, just as the Koran is what sets Islam apart, the teachings of the Buddha for Buddhism, and the oral traditions or countless tribal and indigenous religions.
The rest of the post is your view of why the bible is true. I don't think it is useful to try to hash through this discussion, particularly on a thread that is about something else. Suffice to say as compelling as you find these arguments many of us find them equally unconvincing. There is a separate thread where some of the "Bible as science" claims are dealt with, and I think there have been a multitude of threads on the historicity and accuracy of the NT.
My point in this is that without the Bible you don't arrive at Christianity. From the sort of deistic starting point that one can achieve through observation and inference, one can move to literally any religion, depending on whose holy book or tradition you choose to believe. This is why I say it is a little disingenuous to say that Christianity does not depend on the Bible (not that I think you are making that claim, but it has come up in the thread).
I think in this one we are saying the same thing. While the logical arguments for a creator or creative force do not require the Bible, they also only get one as far as a creator. I think the concept of depravity and sin nature are not so self evident, but regardless, one can follow both of these conclusion through, but without the Bible you still will never arrive at Christianity. The Bible is what divides Christianity from any other form of religion, just as the Koran is what sets Islam apart, the teachings of the Buddha for Buddhism, and the oral traditions or countless tribal and indigenous religions.
The rest of the post is your view of why the bible is true. I don't think it is useful to try to hash through this discussion, particularly on a thread that is about something else. Suffice to say as compelling as you find these arguments many of us find them equally unconvincing. There is a separate thread where some of the "Bible as science" claims are dealt with, and I think there have been a multitude of threads on the historicity and accuracy of the NT.
My point in this is that without the Bible you don't arrive at Christianity. From the sort of deistic starting point that one can achieve through observation and inference, one can move to literally any religion, depending on whose holy book or tradition you choose to believe. This is why I say it is a little disingenuous to say that Christianity does not depend on the Bible (not that I think you are making that claim, but it has come up in the thread).
-NoCapo
I think Ones sin condition (coming in the form of other names)...is quite clear to each and everyone of us ; its just that we like to think too highly of ourselves and compare ourselves to those who are 'worse' than we are. We also have the propensity to veto our God given moral Conscience .
Having the Bible and being thorougly immersed in it expounds on the common knowledge of the Creators existence, power, and character shown thru his creative abilities ; thus, the Bible becomes a confirmation of what we know instrinsically, what we discover personally, and what we learn based on scientific reasoning. Not only does it confirm the interaction of a personal theistic Creator , but it allows us to discover very deep mysterys concerning ourselves by way of motives, desires, urges, etc... of the heart and Mind. No other Book on earth is close to the Bible on such . If only people were willing to dig into it, they would discover how unique it is ; it is a Book that has changed the heart of the cruelist Criminal , has reformed the worse addicts, and affords true hope for mankind both in this life and especially for eternity.
I wonder how many of those who find the Bible 'non-compelling' , have truly investigated it with a total unbiased Mind (?) .
Reiterating, you dont need to open the Bible to prove our personal theistic Creator ; scientific evidences with a small connecting of the dots (small faith) will get you there . Same for Ones inherent sinful nature , waning morality , desire for situational 'ethics' if wanted , and pursuing lifestyles that are immoral with dangerous observable consequences. What you DO need the BIble for, is, to understand the Creator better, to understand Oneself better, to understand redemption , and a fuller understanding of the punishment we all deserve for willfully disobeying the moral Law God has written on all our hearts. So, in that sense, The Bible leads us to Christianity the same that the Humanist Manifestos 1 and 2 lead us to a fuller understanding of atheistic Secular Humanism.
1. A person can be without the Bible yet still see the physical evidence thru Creation , his marvelous anatomical structure and systems, etc....and deduce that the cause was a personal theistic Creator . He can still see the darker side to his personality including self centerdness, impure motives, willingness to decieve to get what he wants, cold and calculating thoughts, and a propensity toward being responsible to no one beyond Self (narcissism). He can still see his moral oughtness yet choosing to veto it . He can still see his own depravity and sin nature. All of this can be discovered without a sacred writing to tell him so .
2. The Bible is essential to Christianity because it is a definitive record of the Creator revealing himself to us beyond just the physical creation around us. It reveals the nature , character, abilities,justice, love of our Creator toward us including his mercy which we desperately need given the depraved nature of man. Not only does the Bible reveal the Creator, but it reveals the deepest thoughts, motives, and desires of Man . It explicitly explains how sinful man can be permanently reconciled to an infinitely holy Creator thru the act of God choosing to enter time and space to live in a human body so as to identify with us. No other world religion is like this . Lastly, the Bible can be shown to be supernatural by fulfilled prophecy alone ... grounded historical and verifiable facts that modern science has discovered .
3. Modern Science has confirmed the Bible to be absolutely true time and time again when the critics said otherwise. In fact, the Old Testament records precise scientific processes written down some 3-5,000 years ago which modern science has finally gotton around to confirming as truth. Some of these include : Air has weight, the earth hangs on nothing , the hydrological cycle, atomic disentegration, life in the blood, springs on the ocean floors, incalculable number of stars , and other confirmed scientific facts. Further, approx. one-third of the Bible deals with prophecy that has been fulfilled .... NOT coming from self fulfillfed prophecy either. Critics can say The Bible is not divinely inspired, but the evidence says otherwise ; most often, the Critics arent even willing to investigate the very subject which they so readily criticise and appear to have knowledge of. They either have personal ulterior motives for not doing so, and/or, they desire to be willfully ignorant .
Very well said my friend! Bullseye!
But as Jesus said , "Light has come into the world, But men loved darkness rahter than light, becuse their deeds were evil."
Even our intellects are "fallen"....sinful. If a man does not have an open mind to this, he will not accept the truths you just gave.
Nope. I believed in God for years before becoming a Christian. My faith is based on my relationship with God. Not a book. I am sorry that your faith was based on a book.
If I found that the bible was bunk, I'd still believe in God. His Spirit indwells me and I know He's real. Stuff happens that remind me of His reality.
If I found that the bible was bunk, I'd still believe in God.
Me too. The origins of Christianity may be rooted in the Bible, however, faith has a way of growing legs on its own.
The Bible is a starting point for me, however I don't cling to it. If something in the Bible doesn't jibe with science or discovery it doesn't waver my faith at all. Why should it? Does science being wrong in the past waver one's faith in science?
I agree that it's kind of sad, if not bordering on idolatry to have one's faith based on a Bible to the extent that their faith washes away at the notion of something in the Bible not being true.
Me too. The origins of Christianity may be rooted in the Bible, however, faith has a way of growing legs on its own.
The Bible is a starting point for me, however I don't cling to it. If something in the Bible doesn't jibe with science or discovery it doesn't waver my faith at all. Why should it? Does science being wrong in the past waver one's faith in science?
I agree that it's kind of sad, if not bordering on idolatry to have one's faith based on a Bible to the extent that their faith washes away at the notion of something in the Bible not being true.
I agree. With that said I believe the Bible to be true. Esp the NT. It contains the Truth of God.
I was Saved thru discussion and personal prayer. God "said" yes and I said OK.
Me too. The origins of Christianity may be rooted in the Bible, however, faith has a way of growing legs on its own.
The Bible is a starting point for me, however I don't cling to it. If something in the Bible doesn't jibe with science or discovery it doesn't waver my faith at all. Why should it? Does science being wrong in the past waver one's faith in science?
I agree that it's kind of sad, if not bordering on idolatry to have one's faith based on a Bible to the extent that their faith washes away at the notion of something in the Bible not being true.
This was well said. And some of it doesn't need science to make it obvious when a story is just a retold tale from ancient times. It just takes common sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150
I agree. With that said I believe the Bible to be true. Esp the NT. It contains the Truth of God.
I was Saved thru discussion and personal prayer. God "said" yes and I said OK.
Then I studied the Bible and said wow!
LOL, I was the opposite. I was raised on the Bible, in a hell and death and fear type of church. Read the whoile thing before I hit double digits, I guess. That sort of upbringing caused me a lot of problems later on, and it was only when I put the Bible aside for a while and walked away that I was able to find God through prayer.
The Bible is a starting point for me, however I don't cling to it. If something in the Bible doesn't jibe with science or discovery it doesn't waver my faith at all......
It shouldnt , since Science is in the business of discovering things and causes which (often) have not become fully understandable to Man and which are constantly being revised, updated, or completely abandoned . Even the great Prof. Albert Einstein is quoted as saying he knows less than one percent of everything . Conversely, the Bible goes way out on a limb by declaring things, events, and causes as absolute fact to which modern science has never controverted and to which all of our modern sciences are confirming as absolute truth .
When very popular NASA Scientists as agnostic Dr. Robert Jastrow , cofounder of the NASA Goddard Institute and esteemed thruout the world, writes a book and says 'ALL of science is leading to the God of the Bible who in the beginning made the heavens and the earth' .... and the Leader of the Human Genome Project says that 'science and the Bible are compatible' .... it should be enough to make an honest Skeptic (that is..one with an UNBIASED mind) to become more educated on the Bibles credibility providing personal pride doesnt stand in the way to veto that endeavor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
YOUR faith is based on a book,
