Results 1 - 9 of 9
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Lead Pipe | 161040 | ||
"That's what faith is, there is no "evidence". Faith does not come from evidence; it comes from hearing God's word. That's what faith is, there is no "evidence". That may be true IF faith was limited to Christians. Don't Muslims have faith? Where does their faith come from? They have told me by reading the holy Koran, which I have read and researched. The historical evidence clearly points to a false god. I wish my Muslim friends looked at the evidence but they have faith in the Koran. Is their faith not faith? Is it any weaker than yours? Are they any less sincere in their beliefs? "Faith does not come from evidence; it comes from hearing God's word." Again, that’s what other religions say as well. If a seeker came to you and asked about God and had questions your only response would be read Gods word? What about the book mentioned in an earlier post "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," and More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell? Would you frown on someone reading that? Wouldn’t it be a waste of time after all you could be reading Gods word instead? Thanks for responding. I worked all night and must sleep now. Have a good day my brother. |
||||||
2 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161107 | ||
First of all, you cannot keep claiming the New Testament is accurate and reliable and then turn around and not accept what it says. It describes what faith is. You do not accept that definition but yet you still claim it is reliable and accurate. You see how when you start picking and choosing, it begins to unravel. So now, only some of it is accurate and reliable? There is power in God’s word my friend. More power than any book written by any other could ever muster. So if I had a choice between reading God’s inspired revelation to man or those other titles you mention, I choose the Bible. Jesus claimed He is the Way, the Truth, the resurrection and the life. We know Him to be the Son of God, our Savior and Lord. He claims that He is the only way, so whatever other religions claim is false. I have faith in my Lord that what he spoke was true. Therefore I also have faith, so to speak, that all other claims of faith are false and not worthy of attention. You cannot claim faith across the board or think that everyone has an entitlement to their own faith in whatever they believe. You establish your faith in Christ and holdfast that He is true. You know false claims of faith are just that. Why would you even attempt to use an argument of that nature? WOS |
||||||
3 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Lead Pipe | 161129 | ||
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1963 This article says it much better than I can, enjoy! |
||||||
4 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161140 | ||
Lead Pipe, Have you actually read this article? It puts to rest any claims that you and hetfeild have made that the New Testament is not the Word of God. This totally shoots down your reasoning, and in no way supports your stance. Read the Scripture it notes as you read the article. Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. According to your position, this reference would be irrelevant because you claim the New Testament is not the Word of God. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. Study what? According to you, this would be referencing the Old Testament. Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Read further in Acts 17. This Article quotes Acts 17:11 that they searched the Scriptures daily. Reading further in v13 Paul is preaching the word of God. But yet even further in v19 what Paul is preaching is referred to as a new Doctrine. So what was new? Was it that the Old Testament was new to these Greeks or was Paul preaching the word of God beyond what the Old Testament taught? 13But when the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of God was preached of Paul at Berea, they came thither also, and stirred up the people. 19And they took him, and brought him unto Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new doctrine, whereof thou speakest, is? Quotes from this article: 1. “God expects every individual to put to the test various doctrines and beliefs, and then to reach only such conclusions as are warranted by adequate evidence. Rather, all people are obligated to rely upon the properly studied written directives of God (2 Timothy 2:15; John 12:48; 2 Peter 3:16)” Wait a minute, the article quotes New Testament verses as written directives of God. But you say they are not. So tell me Lead Pipe, are they or are they not “written directives of God”? 2. “The Bible insists that evidence is abundantly available for those who will engage in unprejudiced, rational inquiry.” You’ll notice in my post to hetfield, I made the same claim. Our evidence, as this article points out, is the Gospel and New Testament. These are the things that we cannot see and must rely on their accurate witness. 3. “we can know that the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God, and intended to be comprehended in much the same way that any written human communication is to be understood;” The article you use to support the claim that the New Testament is not the Word of God very definitely points out that in fact, we can know it is the Word of God. So your stance is now what? That only the Old Testament is being referenced in this article? 4. “By abandoning the Bible as a literal, inerrant, infallible standard by which all human behavior is to be measured, the scientist has effectively rendered biblical religion, biblical faith, and New Testament Christianity sterile…” The Bible can only be infallible if it is the inspired Word of God. You are part of those making New Testament Christianity sterile when you abandon it as inerrant and infallible and you do just that when you claim it was simply written by men and not God. All men our fallible. Only God is not. So you see, your argument that the New Testament is not the inspired Word of God has no substance. It’s a weak argument at most and easily refuted. You disproved your claim yourself with this article. Thank you for the article. I found it very informative. WOS |
||||||
5 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Lead Pipe | 161172 | ||
I knew you would like it. WOS "The article you use to support the claim that the New Testament is not the Word of God very definitely points out that in fact, we can know it is the Word of God. So your stance is now what?" Clearly I was using the article to point out how blind faith "I believe because the bible tells me to" is not the best approach or the only approach, as you say, the bible allows for. I purposely used an article where the author referenced the bible and believes, as you, that the bible is the WOG. I was hoping it would carry more weight with you. I thought we moved off the WOG debate and moved to a where does faith come from debate. Back to WOG If you read the article with the question in mind "does this prove the bible the WOG" it surly does not. It’s clearly the author’s opinion which he holds strongly as do you. You cannot prove the bible is the WOG by using the bible alone or saying it's the WOG because it says it is. I think that’s called circular reasoning or something like that and you, I suspect wouldn't stand for it in any other area except this one. Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to prove to you that the bible is not the WOG. I'm here as I think hetfield is as well, looking for enough evidence to take the leap of faith with confidence. I have been duped before and it will not happen again. Enough evidence in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit exist outside the bible for me to believe. There is enough historical evidence that proves to me the bible is accurate, however I have not seen enough to believe it is the WOG or why it even needs to be. Let me explain it this way; Some WOG believers believe that the only bible without error is the original manuscripts and that minor errors have occurred during translation. Does this make the bible any less valuable to the WOG believers, no of course not? Some guy who spoke all the languages of the original documents and was a strict manuscript only guy may say to you, your bible isn't the WOG because of translation issues, why do you read it? He may be right but would it matter to you? You study the bible apply it to your life and learn from it, isn't that what is important? If I believe its truth and hetfield believes its truth, as he states, and we apply it to our lives. Isn’t that what’s important? I read the bible go to my bible studies and look to the bible for guidance. If someone in here gave me enough evidence to convince me that the bible is Gods word my life wouldn't change all that much, as I said earlier I would be allowed to join my church is about all. Thanks for responding and I'm glad you liked the article. |
||||||
6 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161194 | ||
Just a quick response to this. Please realize it is not and never was my intent to have you change your thoughts or view Scripture from the way that you currently view it. Just my attempt to show you support from the other side of the fence concerning Scripture as being the Word of God which is where I reside. I believe if your thought or opinion is going to change, or even need to for that matter, in your searching, God will enable you to do this, through His Word or through other means. Keep the faith and keep searching for the truth. That's about all you and I can do really. In love, WOS P.S. in one of my last posts to hetfield, I included a link to some other reading material you may find interesting if you would like to check them out. I did. http://www.mbrem.com/bible/bible.htm |
||||||
7 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | hetfield | 161206 | ||
I liked the site I have never heard the view of list of "Partial inspiration views". Lead pipe Check out,view iii. I could almost go for that one. I particularly liked when the guy closes with... "In closing, it is only fair to say that the doctrine of verbal plenary inspiration is not without difficulties." peace wos any idea why this thread is temp restricted? who is the mod? wos r u? |
||||||
8 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 161213 | ||
I think it may have been restricted because it became so long. I didn't see any warning posted of any offenses to have it restricted. I'm not a moderator, only a participant. I wish it wasn’t restricted. I thought it was a good topic of discussion and it becomes much more difficult to follow when it is restricted. WOS |
||||||
9 | Is belief in the bible needed to be save | NT general Archive 1 | hetfield | 161215 | ||
Yeah, I thought it was good too. People got into it. | ||||||