What makes the bible true

[mustangguy289]

Without proof, belief is illogical.

.

Do you believe your father is really your father or have you made him take a DNA test to prove it?

[Maddhattter]

So you can observe but you cannot see ... therefore you believe in oxygen.

I observe but cannot see my Lord... therefore I believe.

There also been proof that a lot of things in the bible are true. One example is the unearthing of the of the stone the ten commandments was written on.

Whether or not you believe the message in the bible is one thing... but there are many account that prove a lot of the stories in the bible.

One observes but cannot see?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/observe

ob•serve
   [uh b-zurv] Show IPA verb, -served, -serv•ing.
–verb (used with object)
1.
to see, watch, perceive, or notice: He observed the passersby in the street.
2.
to regard with attention, especially so as to see or learn something: I want you to observe her reaction to the judge's question.
3.
to watch, view, or note for a scientific, official, or other special purpose: to observe an eclipse.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/observe?show=0&t=1305851770

ob•serve
verb \əb-ˈzərv\
ob•servedob•serv•ing
Definition of OBSERVE
transitive verb
1
: to conform one's action or practice to (as a law, rite, or condition) : comply with
2
: to inspect or take note of as an augury, omen, or presage
3
: to celebrate or solemnize (as a ceremony or festival) in a customary or accepted way
4
a : to watch carefully especially with attention to details or behavior for the purpose of arriving at a judgment b : to make a scientific observation on or of
5
: to come to realize or know especially through consideration of noted facts
6
: to utter as a remark

http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1272707#m_en_us1272707

observe(ob•serve)

Pronunciation:/əbˈzərv, /

verb
[with object]
• 1 notice or perceive (something) and register it as being significant:[with clause] :young people observe that decisions are made by others
• watch (someone or something) carefully and attentively:Rob stood in the hallway, where he could observe the happenings on the street
• take note of or detect (something) in the course of a scientific study:the behavior observed in groups of chimpanzees
• [reporting verb] make a remark or comment:[with direct speech] :“ It's chilly, ” she observed[with clause] :a stockbroker once observed that dealers live and work in hell

All three involve watching or seeing. So, please explain how one can observe without seeing?

I would also like to see a source for unearthing of the stone the Ten Commandments was written on. I searched. The closest thing I could find were buried relics from The Ten Commandments, starring Charlton Heston. I would also like to know which set of commandments were found. As the first were shattered in rage, and the second were defiantly more than 10. So, could you claify?

[Maddhattter]

First, contemporary sources are not by default more "accurate" than non-contemporary sources. You simply choose to believe they are, which is fine but that does not change the actual truth or falsity of earlier historical recollections.

Second, to state that the simplest idea "must" be the more accurate one is not proof in any shape or form.

http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/libcomp/assist/guides/azguides/JCUPRD_030412

Primary Sources
Some definitions of primary sources:
• Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based
• They are usually the first formal appearance of results in the print or electronic literature (for example, the first publication of the results of scientific investigations is a primary source.)
• They present information in its original form, neither interpreted nor condensed nor evaluated by other writers.
• They are from the time period (for example, something written close to when what it is recording happened is likely to be a primary source.)
• Primary sources present original thinking, report on discoveries, or share new information.

http://www.lib.umd.edu/guides/primary-sources.html

Primary Sources
Definition:
Primary sources are original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation. Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based. They are usually the first formal appearance of results in physical, print or electronic format. They present original thinking, report a discovery, or share new information.
Note: The definition of a primary source may vary depending upon the discipline or context.
Examples include:
• Artifacts (e.g. coins, plant specimens, fossils, furniture, tools, clothing, all from the time under study);
• Audio recordings (e.g. radio programs)
• Diaries;
• Internet communications on email, listservs;
• Interviews (e.g., oral histories, telephone, e-mail);
• Journal articles published in peer-reviewed publications;
• Letters;
• Newspaper articles written at the time;
• Original Documents (i.e. birth certificate, will, marriage license, trial transcript);
• Patents;
• Photographs
• Proceedings of Meetings, conferences and symposia;
• Records of organizations, government agencies (e.g. annual report, treaty, constitution, government document);
• Speeches;
• Survey Research (e.g., market surveys, public opinion polls);
• Video recordings (e.g. television programs);
• Works of art, architecture, literature, and music (e.g., paintings, sculptures, musical scores, buildings, novels, poems).
• Web site.

So, I think that we can conclude that academia does see contemporary sources as more accurate by default. Unless your attempting to make the claim that the processes that is used to determine historical accuracy are only to be applied when you agree that they are appropriate.

I know that what I choose to believe isn’t what change the actual truth or falsity of earlier historical recollections. However, based on research and established academic process, it would seem that you could not honestly make the same claim.

Moving on to your second point, your right, to state that the simplest idea "must" be the more accurate one is not proof in any shape or form. But again, you are only right superficially. Just stating that is not proof. When applied to the scenario I gave, it does. That is how Occam’s razor works. You apply it to a scenario. That is what determines proof. As the simplest answer is the more logical one, making it more accurate. It is regularly practiced in both science and history by the professionals, not because I declare it to be so, or because I believe it to be so. They use it because it is right more often than it is wrong.

[Maddhattter]

If you are 100% sure, then why do you even care?

Could you please point out where he said that he was 100% sure?

While you’re at it, could you please explain how it would be impossible to be 100% sure and test your assurance by asking others in case new information came to light?

[Maddhattter]

The point is valid insomuch as: though we ourselves never experienced the existence of historical characters, we choose to accept their existence and works on the faith that the historical accounts are correct.

This is only sentence in the entire post that I had a problem with. There is a process that historians use to check data to remove the faith element. If there weren’t, there would be no historic reason not to assume that ALL literature is historical fact. You could not draw a line between that which is imaginary and not because you'd have no line to distinguish the two. By stating that “to state that the simplest idea "must" be the more accurate one is not proof in any shape or form” you insult all historians.

[Maddhattter]

You want proof that would required me to go and research and spend time. After doing said research and time it would not help. Yes, some events in the bible can be proven, some can't. It is called faith when you believe in something that you can not see.

You are asking for proof by showing you physical things or documentation of said things. That is not what that verse is saying. If you would like I would be glad to explain the path to salvation and what the Lord has done for us. I would probably be accused of cramming my beliefs down your throat.

I’m noticing a pattern here of you making a claim and providing no evidence to support your claim. I understand that you did not respond to my request for a source, but you were asked for one by Racrguy. This would be the second time you’ve made a claim with no evidential backing whatsoever. You also claim that it would not help to do research and spending time on the issue. If that’s the case, why would you pretend you did by making unsubstantiated claims?

The verse states that you are to answer every man who asks you a reason for the hope inside you. If the reason you carry hope inside you is the explanation of the path to salvation and what the bible claims the Lord has done for us, and you could explain it, then you are called to do so regardless as to whether you would be accused of cramming your beliefs down someone’s throat or not. To not do so is a direct violation of that passage.

[Maddhattter]

I thought of this several times even during this thread. The problem with it is that you will not except the Bible as truth. So it wouldnt matter, right?

I'll also quote you another...
Matthew 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Now, if you truly wanted or was seaking a answer instead of provoking a argument 1st Peter 3:15
would apply.

Even if one were to accept the Bible as truth, you couldn’t accept the bible as proof of the bible and maintain any intellectual integrity. This is due to the logical fallacy of circular reasoning, which was covered earlier in this thread.

Quoting Matthew 7:6 relieves no obligation set down by 1 Peter 3:15 as you are giving nothing holy. You are spreading the word, as commanded by the bible multiple times. If Matthew 7:6 revokes what 1 Peter 3:16 later in the bible, then the book couldn’t be as inspired as is claimed, or Matthew was wrong, eliminating your point. Also, never does 1 Peter 3:15 state that one asking should be seeking an answer instead of provoking an argument, you added that stipulation.

[Maddhattter]

Then its not what I can prove to you, but what you are willing to chance. I say give it a shot. A honest go at it. Go to a church service and open your Bible and read it. I believe that in a short time you will begin to see what true faith is. Its completely awsome to what will happen to your life. Then there will be no denying it. The truth will set you free my friend.

Its not about being super religious or even religious. Its just having a relationship with God. Not a pretend imaginary friend. You will know what I'm talking about when it happens.

I'm no saint and I probably wont ever be the guide on in God's parade, but I am loved.

The Bible will prove "itself" if you will give it a chance. Come and see why its called the "Living Word."

While I admit that I’m making an assumption here, I’d assume that people on this board have lived in Texas for a while, or were born here. With those circumstances, it’s safe to assume that most atheists you come into contact with on this board have done exactly as you ask. Most of the atheists I’ve ever met were religious at an earlier point in their life. We’ve had a relationship with God, although I’d suspect that you’d claim that it was false or we were lying to ourselves and others. The Bible has not proven itself as to do so would be illogical. To my knowledge, no point in history has an illogical situation ever found to be true. If my knowledge is incorrect, please show some supporting evidence, cite some sources, and demonstrate that there is something that indicates that there is something that violates logical absolutes.

[racrguy]

This video was posted a little while ago, and applies to this thread and an overwhelming majority of the world.

[racrguy]

Do you believe your father is really your father or have you made him take a DNA test to prove it?

We've been over this same topic, have anything else to add sparky?

[BlackSnake]

Wrong. This isn't a case of "something bad happened to me." This is a case of "There's no proof, so why believe it?"

Stop attempting to dive deeper into why I'm an atheist, I've already said it more than once, there is not enough evidence to support the belief that the bible is true and that god exists. Short of that proof, no amount of emotional pleading, or "give it an honest shot" is going to change my mind. You take things on faith, I require more than someone's word that something is true.

"What Can Be Asserted Without Evidence Can Be Dismissed Without Evidence"- Christopher Hitchens

You said that you simply just read through tha Bible like a fairy tale. I'm telling you that you missed the whole concept. How can anyone help you if you are not willing to give a little here.

If and I stress IF you truly want to know the answer to your question, then do as I have provided for you. If not, be happy knowing that your are in good hands where you are at.

Ever concider that your requirement isnt Biblical?
Mark 8:12
And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.

[ceyko]

I'm going to give this thread a one star rating in the morning. Have faith, it will happen.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[racrguy]

You said that you simply just read through tha Bible like a fairy tale. I'm telling you that you missed the whole concept. How can anyone help you if you are not willing to give a little here.

If and I stress IF you truly want to know the answer to your question, then do as I have provided for you. If not, be happy knowing that your are in good hands where you are at.

Ever concider that your requirement isnt Biblical?
Mark 8:12
And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this generation seek after a sign? verily I say unto you, There shall no sign be given unto this generation.

Your quote is out of context. In that passage Jesus was talking to Pharisees. Since that generation is no longer alive, your argument fails.

Science is designed to convince those that don't believe, because it doesn't require a lick of faith or belief to show results. And the best part, there's no such thing as "exclusive knowledge." Anyone can get into the science game, do research, understand topics, dive into the data. You can see for yourself, through observable, measurable, tangible evidence that things are true. Not because someone tells you it's true, but because they prove it to be so.

[racrguy]

I'm going to give this thread a one star rating in the morning. Have faith, it will happen.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

OH NOES, A ONE STAR RATING!? What ever shall I do. I don't know if I can save myself...

[BlackSnake]

While I admit that I’m making an assumption here, I’d assume that people on this board have lived in Texas for a while, or were born here. With those circumstances, it’s safe to assume that most atheists you come into contact with on this board have done exactly as you ask. Most of the atheists I’ve ever met were religious at an earlier point in their life. We’ve had a relationship with God, although I’d suspect that you’d claim that it was false or we were lying to ourselves and others. The Bible has not proven itself as to do so would be illogical. To my knowledge, no point in history has an illogical situation ever found to be true. If my knowledge is incorrect, please show some supporting evidence, cite some sources, and demonstrate that there is something that indicates that there is something that violates logical absolutes.

False? Not necessarily. I was saved at the age of 12. Had a great relationship with God till somewhere around 16/17. Got mixed up on drugs and ended up working my way up the ranks of a local biker club. Religion and God were no longer a part of me as I could tell you stories that have never been spoken. Not even to my wife.

Sometimes I felt I knew he was "there", but I also questioned the reality of the whole God/Bible thing. Through this period, I had been through the gut of living hard. Drugs, guns, girls, fights and bikes. There was no time for God. There was only time to look over your shoulder and have no fear.

After my life had been threatened and another local club made it clear that I was a target, (not the 1st time) something clicked. For the first time in as long as I can remember, I was afraid. I wasn't afraid of dying though. I was afraid of waisting my life in the whole. I realized I didn't want to grow old living that way.

Without saying a word to anyone, I walked away, sold my bike and soon walked into a church and asked God to forgive me and to help me get through it all.

I was a 3 six pack a day drinker, smoked weed and snorted crank everyday. Acid, Mescaline (sp) Tea, etc as it came around. Dropped it all in one day. I never went to any drug treatments. I simply asked God to take it all away so I could serve him. I have never touched drugs since and no one has ever come looking for me. 2 miracles right there.

In just a few years, I was teaching Sunday school...long hair, beard and all. I have been involved in street ministry, and I don't mean like the idiots on the corner screaming, "God is coming!" We helped those that were in need because of drugs, divorce, etc.

Just because you had a relationship with God at one time doesn't mean that you will always feel that way. The Prodical Son is a prime example of this. We all have a free will to do as we please. Had I never walked away and questioned my savior, I would have never had to go through the insanity that I did.

The reason you walked away is on your back friend. The question, is there a place you have to come to before you realize the beauty of the relationship you once had? Our Father knows what to whisper in your ear. Do you remember how to listen, or has your heart grown cold with "show me a sign" if you are real? Prove it, etc...