- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/8/22 at 11:42 am to MNCTigah
quote:
Faith = strong belief in God
Also,
Faith = strong belief in Secular Humanism
Posted on 4/8/22 at 11:43 am to Liberator
quote:
When you step behind the wheel of your car, is it "faith" that your car doesn't swerve into oncoming traffic? Is it faith that the jet your flying in at 30,000 ft doesn't crash? OR, is it "knowledge"? (Is "The Law of Physics" faith or knowledge? Or is it, "confidence"?)
Faith to its nth degree IS Knowledge.
I believe my car won't swerve into oncoming traffic. I don't know for sure that it won't. I believe my plane won't crash, I don't know that it won't
quote:
Faith to its nth degree IS Knowledge.
Its not though. There are hundreds of different belief systems, with many of them being under the umbrella of Christianity, with different beliefs on how to get to heaven, yet they are all sure their way is the right way.
"Jesus is the only way and the rest doesn't matter" is a phrase I hear a lot. Okay, what about God's chosen people? They don't believe in Jesus. They believe less in Jesus than Islam.
TLDR; no one knows, the best you can hope for is that if there is a God they are lenient on who gets in and who doesn't because the odds that your way actually IS the right way isn't that high.
Posted on 4/8/22 at 11:46 am to Flats
Faith is foundational trust in any first order truth
Posted on 4/8/22 at 11:58 am to TrussvilleTide
quote:It's taking a trustworthy authority at its word. It's certainly more than that, because there is the attestation of the Holy Spirit that resides within each believer, enhancing that trust.
Thats a self fulfilling prophecy, right? You're saying you "know" because the thing thats trying to convince you says its true.
There are other factors at play that show the trustworthy nature of the Bible, such as its correspondence to reality; its internal consistency; and its track record in archeology, but ultimately any source of knowledge has to be taken on faith, whether that's a religious book or a science book.
Most people in the world are not going to be able to perform the scientific experiments and tests that others have done to say something happens scientifically for some reason, so those things must be taken on faith, trusting that the work has been done and relayed truthfully and accurately. God cannot be tested scientifically, and spiritual truths cannot be tested the same way that natural ones can, but truth is still truth and the acceptance of it requires trust.
quote:Who has "absolute knowledge" except for God? We have to have a level of confidence and trust to say that we "know" anything at all. We have to trust that our senses perceive things correctly. We have to trust that tomorrow will be just like today.
But its not absolute knowledge.
quote:Faith isn't the same as hope, either. There may be an element of hope involved in faith, but you can have faith in something that you actually don't hope for. I can have confident faith that my brother will steal from me if I left him alone in my house, but that doesn't mean I hope he will do that.
I have confidence and trust that the Dodgers will win the NL West. I don't know for sure that they will win the NL West.
quote:That sometimes does happen in translation, but translation is not the same as transmission, and even the most critical serious bible scholars believe that the Bible we have has been transmitted through the ages intact.
I'm not criticizing the Bible. Ask any translator, every time you translate something there are bits that get lost. "bits" and "Small differences" like you said can change the entire context of a verse.
When it comes to translation, that's why it's good to have multiple translations to look at for study and to have commentary and notes from pastors and theologians that have taken the time to learn the languages of the manuscripts to convey what the words mean, rather than just taking the word of the translators. It's also why I personally prefer a word-for-word translation as opposed to a thought-for-thought translation.
quote:The Bible wasn't "chosen", it was "received". Those books/letters that were omitted were so because they were clearly not part of the revealed word of God. There is an entire process that you can follow to see why some books were not included, and they aren't arbitrarily rejected, nor were the books received, received arbitrarily.
Who chose which books to leave in and which to omit? There are other manuscripts they found that aren't in "the" Bible.
Another thing to note: since we have surviving copies of those books that were rejected, you can read for yourself why they were rejected. Go read the Gospel of Thomas if you haven't. If you're familiar with the books of the New Testament, you might just see right away why it was rejected.
Posted on 4/8/22 at 12:15 pm to theunknownknight
quote:
Faith is foundational trust in any first order truth
That's certainly one definition. There are an awful lot of "I live in a reality based on facts" types who have first order truths, they've just never thought about them and don't realize they have them.
Posted on 4/8/22 at 12:21 pm to MNCTigah
quote:Christianity didn't spring up out of thin air.
Christianity originated with the ministry of Jesus. Just because a book states that a God has always been omnipresent doesn't make it true.
You are looking at chronology to say that Christianity came after Eastern religions, or Egyptian religion, or Mesopotamian beliefs, and therefore, Christianity must be borrowed or "made up". I'm looking at it from a truth-claim perspective: if what Christianity teaches about God, man, sin, and salvation is true, then the source of those truth claims pre-date Christ's incarnation. They pre-date all man-made religions. They pre-date man, himself.
And you're right that "a book" simply stating something doesn't make it true. You have to consider what is being stated, and who is stating it, and examine those claims.
quote:There's much more "proof" of God than simply the Bible, but the Bible is also a proof for reasons I stated in another response.
And it's circular. The proof of God is in a book, yet God wrote the book
(As an aside, I must state that "proof" is relative, in that what "proves" something to be true to one person doesn't tip those scales for someone else)
The question boils down to authority: is God the ultimate authority or is man?
quote:Like I said, you're looking strictly at chronology to make your claim, as if both materials don't relay elements of truth of some of the same events, like the flood. If the flood occurred, we would expect it to live on in cultural memory, and we see that with flood stories from cultures all over the world.
In the interest of brevity I'll just cite a couple of additional instances.
The parallels between the Epic of Gilgamesh (epic poem from Mesopotamia) and the book of Genesis...
If the Bible is really the word of God, then it would make sense that it not only provides a truthful account, but also those sorts of accounts would also exist in other cultures and traditions, perhaps twisted and deformed due to rejection of the one, true God.
quote:What you're calling out are similarities in themes and using chronology to assume the Bible borrowed from other civilizations rather than other civilizations sharing memories of historical events.
To deny that The Bible is a collection of fables plagiarized from older civilizations and belief systems is Christian apologetics at it's finest.
quote:You adhere to "guilt by association" for the bad things and yet are bewildered by people associating with Christianity because of its proximity to Jesus? I think you are being very inconsistent with your reasoning.
I'll clarify my original statement. I expressed bewilderment at how anyone could identify with Christianity due to historical sins. I personally don't identify with Cristianity's God, or any other god, because of evidentiary failure.
That's probably why you think the Christian God doesn't exist due "evidentiary failure". You must not have studied philosophy very much if you think empiricism is the only epistemology.
quote:Pre-Christian Rome actually considered Christians to be atheists because they didn't believe in the pantheon of gods, so I get what you're saying, but you'll have to do better than that comparison, because you aren't just rejecting "one more God", as Hitchens liked to say. You are rejecting the only God.
If I ask people if they believe in Zeus or Poseidon, the answer is usually a resounding NO. I can argue that at core they're also atheists to some extent. I just take it to the logical conclusion and include the final monotheistic God in that mix.
quote:That's a terrible definition, if I say so myself. Christians do have "proof". It's just not the sort you would accept. Faith also transcends pure religion, but even exists in your humanistic atheism. You aren't neutral: you have a positive faith that God doesn't exist.
Faith = strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Posted on 4/8/22 at 12:52 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's taking a trustworthy authority at its word.
Trustworthy to who? You personally trusting something doesn't make it trustworthy.
quote:
There are other factors at play that show the trustworthy nature of the Bible, such as its correspondence to reality; its internal consistency; and its track record in archeology, but ultimately any source of knowledge has to be taken on faith, whether that's a religious book or a science book.
There are historical events in the Bible that are outright fabrications. But I'm sure those are just the "stories".
quote:
God cannot be tested scientifically, and spiritual truths cannot be tested the same way that natural ones can, but truth is still truth and the acceptance of it requires trust.
Its truth but you can't prove it?
quote:
Who has "absolute knowledge" except for God? We have to have a level of confidence and trust to say that we "know" anything at all. We have to trust that our senses perceive things correctly. We have to trust that tomorrow will be just like today.
I have absolute knowledge that I exist in my reality. I do not know for certain that God exists in my reality. I'd like to think its true.
quote:
Faith isn't the same as hope, either. There may be an element of hope involved in faith, but you can have faith in something that you actually don't hope for. I can have confident faith that my brother will steal from me if I left him alone in my house, but that doesn't mean I hope he will do that.
I'm not a Dodger fan. I used that analogy because I can look at the situation and say that I "have faith" or "believe" they will have a good season. It isn't the same as knowing, and my stance had nothing to do with hope.
quote:
The Bible wasn't "chosen", it was "received".
it was written. the books it contained were in fact chosen, by people.
Posted on 4/8/22 at 1:21 pm to TrussvilleTide
quote:The difference between what you're defining as knowledge and faith is the amount of confidence you have. You are confident that your car won't swerve into traffic because it hasn't previously and you have no reason to assume it will be different, but you don't "know" because you simply can't predict the future. It's the future that you're struggling with in that scenario, because you're attempting to account for other possibilities.
I believe my car won't swerve into oncoming traffic. I don't know for sure that it won't. I believe my plane won't crash, I don't know that it won't
When I say that I "know" that my wife loves me, I'm saying that I have a high level of confidence that she loves me based on my experience with her and the evidence that I've seen, including taking her at her word when she says she loves me. What's probably more accurate is saying I "believe" or I "have faith" that my wife loves me, but the strength of conviction compels me to say "know". That's where confidence comes in.
quote:I'm reminded of the quote from Men in Black: "1500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you "knew" that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll "know" tomorrow."
Its not though. There are hundreds of different belief systems, with many of them being under the umbrella of Christianity, with different beliefs on how to get to heaven, yet they are all sure their way is the right way.
Human beings may have an extremely high level of confidence that what they believe to be true is true--even to the point where they would say they are certain--yet we can still be wrong.
quote:I'd argue that the Bible teaches that God's "chosen" (elect) are chosen unto salvation, not just blessings on this earth, and in that way, there are Jews that are chosen that will come to a saving faith and trust in Christ, while those that reject Him aren't "chosen" unto salvation.
"Jesus is the only way and the rest doesn't matter" is a phrase I hear a lot. Okay, what about God's chosen people? They don't believe in Jesus. They believe less in Jesus than Islam.
quote:I have confidence that God knows what is true and that He has communicated that truth to us in the Bible. Repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus Christ's work on the cross to save us from the penalty of our sins before it is too late.
TLDR; no one knows, the best you can hope for is that if there is a God they are lenient on who gets in and who doesn't because the odds that your way actually IS the right way isn't that high.
Posted on 4/8/22 at 1:51 pm to TrussvilleTide
quote:The Bible is still considered "generally trustworthy" by historians and archeologists, just in terms the amount of specific information it provides in regards to people, places, locations, and events that there is a lot of evidence to support. Time after time, those critical of the Bible have been proven false through additional archeological excavations.
Trustworthy to who? You personally trusting something doesn't make it trustworthy.
quote:The Bible has a great track record with history, being proven correct time and time again, but if you'd like to be specific on those "fabrications", I'd gladly look into why you think that way.
There are historical events in the Bible that are outright fabrications. But I'm sure those are just the "stories".
quote:I believe that the transcendental argument or proof for God's existence is compelling enough: the God of the Bible must exist due to the impossibility of the contrary.
Its truth but you can't prove it?
But that being said, how do you prove empirically that which is not bound by sense perception? How do you prove using science something that cannot be tested scientifically? You seem to be relying heavily on empiricism as your epistemological approach yet don't seem to realize that it is self-defeating, since the assertion that all knowledge can only be obtained through sense perception is not something obtained through sense perception.
quote:Your lack of certainty doesn't mean God doesn't exist. I am certain that God does exist just as I am certain I exist.
I have absolute knowledge that I exist in my reality. I do not know for certain that God exists in my reality. I'd like to think its true.
quote:I assumed your example of the Dodgers was based on preference, which would therefore involve hope. Ignore that, then, as hope doesn't apply in that analogy.
I'm not a Dodger fan. I used that analogy because I can look at the situation and say that I "have faith" or "believe" they will have a good season. It isn't the same as knowing, and my stance had nothing to do with hope.
quote:God's revelation was, indeed, written down so that it could be transmitted to others who could read the truth and receive it as such.
it was written. the books it contained were in fact chosen, by people.
I don't think you're using "chosen" the same way I am. When I hear people argue against the Bible by saying that it was written and assembled (books chosen) by men, it is to show the arbitrary and preferential nature of men developing a religion based on their own desires (whatever they may be) rather than based on divine revelation or guidance. In this case, you are saying that men "chose" what books to include. I assume you mean that there was something like a number of equally plausible number of books to choose from to include in the Bible and some men picked and chose what was according to their own liking. That's generally how it is presented, any way.
I'm saying that's not what happened, and the Bible wasn't "chosen", but "received", because the authors of the books wrote to specific churches, and those letters and books were passed around the churches in the regions, copied, and sent on by messengers who were known by the congregations and who were close to the writers, themselves. There wasn't some vast library of books that were of unknown origin, not accepted by the Church broadly already, that were picked through by men with an agenda to form the canon of scripture.
Perhaps a crude analogy, but it would be like if you were assembling accounts to compile into a biography that you are writing of a person, and you had friends and family of that person present to you stories and accounts of that person that were consistent with one another and accepted as true by those people. Then later, you received accounts from anonymous sources, or sources who claimed to be friends or family that verifiably weren't, and that those accounts were not consistent with the accounts from the known friends and family. By choosing to receive the accounts from the friends and family and rejecting those obvious frauds from the anonymous sources, you aren't strictly "choosing" which information is true to the person you're writing about, but you are simply receiving what is trustworthy and previously accepted as true and not receiving that which is clearly not true.
Regardless, the canon of scripture wasn't arbitrarily chosen by men.
Posted on 4/8/22 at 2:11 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
The Bible has a great track record with history, being proven correct time and time again, but if you'd like to be specific on those "fabrications", I'd gladly look into why you think that way.
What age does the Bible give the Earth?
Posted on 4/8/22 at 2:14 pm to Esquire
quote:
What age does the Bible give the Earth?
It doesn’t
Posted on 4/8/22 at 2:15 pm to catholictigerfan
quote:
As St. Jerome said, "ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."
Especially if having had access to Scripture -- though they could have accessed Scriptures passed down orally (as before the advent of the printing press.)
Moreover, if Jesus Christ is "The Way, the Truth, and the Life", can it be said that no man can claim to be privy to the ultimate Truth unless hearing His voice through the Holy Spirit?
More on Truth: "Is ALL Truth God's Truth?" (Is THIS the real reason Secular Humanists try to claim, "Truth is 'relative'"?)
Posted on 4/8/22 at 2:41 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
archeological excavations.
Funny you mention this, because the lack of any archeological evidence is actually used against the bible quite often.
quote:
The Bible has a great track record with history, being proven correct time and time again, but if you'd like to be specific on those "fabrications", I'd gladly look into why you think that way.
For some specific examples, try the book of Daniel when he meets with "king" Belshazzar
How about 0 archeological or recorded evidence outside of the Bible for the Exodus?
quote:
I believe that the transcendental argument or proof for God's existence is compelling enough: the God of the Bible must exist due to the impossibility of the contrary.
But that being said, how do you prove empirically that which is not bound by sense perception? How do you prove using science something that cannot be tested scientifically? You seem to be relying heavily on empiricism as your epistemological approach yet don't seem to realize that it is self-defeating, since the assertion that all knowledge can only be obtained through sense perception is not something obtained through sense perception.
I don't think you can hold this view and specifically say the "God of the Bible" must exist. I think you can get away with saying "A" God must exist.
A lot of that just Sounds like an argument people use to make up a gender to identify as.
quote:
Your lack of certainty doesn't mean God doesn't exist. I am certain that God does exist just as I am certain I exist.
Your certainty doesn't mean he does exist
You are really trying to sound super deep about this but you aren't really saying anything that proves your point or disproves mine. Speaking in absolutes doesn't make you correct.
Posted on 4/8/22 at 3:12 pm to Esquire
quote:
What age does the Bible give the Earth?
It was stated by a poster you responded to that The Bible IS a great "track record" -- absolute true. (emphasis on 'RECORD")
Secular Humanists insist Earth's age is "billions" -- and at that, Science's high priests have constantly been changing it -- but based on what "evidence"?
Man began teaching an unfathomable, unproven "billion"-year plus age by the mid 1800s --to justify a VERY "Old Earth" (that could plausibly explain "EVOLUTION" and a pre-Adam man.) THIS is the REAL "Fairy Tale".
Genesis was especially targeted by Scientists for discrediting. By having Genesis account doubted, earth's true age could also be doubted -- along with with it -- the Adam & Eve account and especially 'Original Sin' and need for a Redeemer.
With the new invented timeline, the need for Redeemer, Noah & The Flood (and even rest of Scriptures) could be discounted, and was -- EVEN BY BIBLE-BELIEVERS till this day.
Genesis told a MUCH different account. IF this world is ONLY 6,000-7,000 years old, then how many theories claimed over "prehistoric" Man, Dinosaurs, Universe, and "Big Bang" fall apart? (Only one or the other theory on the Age of Earth can be true.)
Back to your question -- according to the Bible starting with Genesis and its timeline, it is about 6,000 years old (give or take.)
The Bible is History. Documented History. That's right -- according to the Bible, we're looking at typical 800 year old lifespans. During the Antediluvian World, all the DNA of human, animal and plant was far superior. Afterall, it was based on God original design for our Creation. Post-Flood the lifespan of man began degrading (and here we are, maxxing out at @120 years old -- just as God had promised would be the case.
This post was edited on 4/8/22 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 4/8/22 at 3:23 pm to FooManChoo
Thank you for articulating scripture well and defending and standing God's Word. (same of many others here in this thread)
(Nodding along with you all on MANY points.)
Truth is Truth.
Among many, here is one particular bulls eye:
(Nodding along with you all on MANY points.)
Truth is Truth.
Among many, here is one particular bulls eye:
quote:
I'd argue that the Bible teaches that God's "chosen" (elect) are chosen unto salvation, not just blessings on this earth, and in that way, there are Jews that are chosen that will come to a saving faith and trust in Christ, while those that reject Him aren't "chosen" unto salvation.
Posted on 4/8/22 at 3:29 pm to Esquire
quote:It doesn't provide an age of the Earth, just like it doesn't speak to a lot of specific things we deal with each day. However, it does provide enough context clues to lead us in the right direction, just like it gives us enough principles to be able to deal with moral situations that are seemingly unique to the age we live in.
What age does the Bible give the Earth?
Posted on 4/8/22 at 3:44 pm to TrussvilleTide
quote:
There are historical events in the Bible that are outright fabrications. But I'm sure those are just the "stories".
If this is true I'm sure you can cite even one "fabrication."
quote:
There are other factors at play that show the trustworthy nature of the Bible...
"Factors"? What might they be? I'm open to hearing you out. Available legit citations and or claimants?
"Nature"? Are you sure you understand the definition of the word?
quote:
It [the Bible] was written. the books it contained were in fact chosen, by people.
Of course books or chapters of the Bible were "chosen" to be the texts most disseminated and shared. The question or context here is whether widely disseminated by the Will of Holy Spirit of God or of man.
If your question is with respect to tampering (instead of translations), there is no doubt that tampering and altering Biblical text has occurred and STILL occurs (present tense) in several versions of the Holy Bible. Much like Google or Wiki, some texts subtly or even obvious.
The MAIN thrusts and points of Scripture have remained intact.
Again -- you are challenged to provide your evidence or proof that:
"Historical events in the Bible that are outright fabrications" -- along with your other claim of, "factors at play that show the trustworthy nature of the Bible."
Posted on 4/8/22 at 3:54 pm to Liberator
quote:
then how many theories claimed over "prehistoric" Man, Dinosaurs, Universe, and "Big Bang" fall apart?
What is dinosaur “theory”? There are bones of dinosaurs..
Posted on 4/8/22 at 4:16 pm to TrussvilleTide
quote:That's interesting considering the amount of evidence that exists to support its historical claims. For example, during the period of higher criticism in the 1800's, the higher critics argued that the Bible was not trustworthy because it mentioned a people known as the Hittites that were, at the time, lacking in historical evidence. That is, until the 1871 when Carchemish was discovered and evidence was shown that the Hittites were a historical people.
Funny you mention this, because the lack of any archeological evidence is actually used against the bible quite often.
I give that example to show that "the lack of historical evidence" is not the same as contradictory historical evidence. Saying there isn't any evidence for a claim is not evidence of a false claim at all. But, we do have evidence for a lot of people, places, and events in the old and new testaments that don't place the Bible as a work of fiction. While it is a spiritual book, it is also a historical one, detailing historical events to establish its authenticity.
quote:Belshazzar was son of Nabonidus, the last official King of Babylon. Nabonidus had gone away for some 10 years or so, leaving his son, Belshazzar in charge. There are many records showing Belshazzar in a position that is consistent with how he was described in the book of Daniel. I'm not sure why you chose this example since archeology seems to support the historicity of the Bible in describing people (Cyrus and Belshazzar) and places (Babylon, Medea and Persia) during an accurate time frame in recorded history.
For some specific examples, try the book of Daniel when he meets with "king" Belshazzar
quote:Got Questions? has a short read on this that I'm linking so I don't have to go into the detail. Suffice it to say, there plausible evidence of the Exodus, and even if that evidence is rejected, all you're really left with is an absence of evidence outside of the Bible. And as we all know, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
How about 0 archeological or recorded evidence outside of the Bible for the Exodus?
quote:It's important to understand the characteristics that a god must have in order for my claim to be true. Some spiritual being existing outside of humanity isn't enough. There must be a being that is personal, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, perfectly holy, logically necessary rather than contingent, and unchanging, to name a few. The God of the Bible is perfect in every way possible.
I don't think you can hold this view and specifically say the "God of the Bible" must exist. I think you can get away with saying "A" God must exist.
quote:I didn't say He does exist because I am certain.
Your certainty doesn't mean he does exist
quote:I'm addressing your comments. Whether my comments are satisfactory or not to you is another matter. I don't think I'm going to convince you of anything because you have a hardened heart and must be "born again" by the Holy Spirit to accept the truth.
You are really trying to sound super deep about this but you aren't really saying anything that proves your point or disproves mine. Speaking in absolutes doesn't make you correct.
Page 14 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News