‘Because the Bible says so, that’s why!’ I can understand the frustration of the skeptic when he encounters a Christian defending his beliefs like this. It frustrates me too. Why would the Christian expect the skeptic to grant the Bible the same level of authority as does he? Regardless of how situationally innappropriate ‘because the Bible says…’ is, the skeptic’s objection that because it’s the Bible, it is therefore disqualified from being a source (See: Independence Anyone?) is equally misguided.
The problem is that the dismissal lacks qualification. For example, “you only believe homosexuality is sinful because the Bible says so”, or “you only believe in Jesus’ resurrection because it says so in the Bible” are given regularly, but what is left unexplained is why because it’s in the Bible it doesn’t count. The ‘it’s in the Bible so it doesn’t count’ dismissal is applied to nearly every truth claim made by Christians. Admittedly many Christians do believe certain things on the sole basis that it is written in the Bible without further inquiry, but so what?
The objection requires too many unsubstantiated assumptions which must be made explicit in order to conclude that the Bible is not a reliable source of moral or theological information. For example:
- God does not exist therefore it cannot be a reliable nor authoritative source.
- The Bible is written by unreliable and or biased authors.
- Because the Bible is a religious text it is disqualified as an authority.
- The Bible, due to its age is unreliable.
- Because the Bible contains supernatural events it is unreliable.
These implicit assumed-to-be-true conclusions must be argued for, not simply presumed. For some skeptics, these are asserted as though they are undesputed truths. And in fact they would be good reasons to reject the authority of the Bible if they were substantiated.
I am not saying Christians who hold the Bible as a reliable authority are free from the expectation to demonstrate why they believe it deserves any authority. They do. But the reasons defenders of the Bible give must be addressed by anyone who wishes to reject them. Skeptics aren’t free to dismiss out of hand the Bible as a source simply because it is the Bible (See: A Burden The Hand, Not A Shred Of Evidence, Prove It!) without any substantiation.
Sifting Reality 
John, this post simply reinforces your attempts to shift any burden of proof to the non-believer.
You seem to constantly demand an explanation by anyone who does not accept your default position that the bible is true until proven otherwise.
Before any real conversation can take place, are you willing to admit that there’s a possibility that the book could be wrong?
Z
Let me apologize in advance because today I will likely be a bit rude for reasons that are not your fault. But seriously did you only skim the post? Did you not see where I said Christians need to defend why they hold the bible with authority. Did you miss that? All I’m saying is you atheists can’t just reject the bible just because its the Bible.
Never have I said the bible is true by default so quit playing that card. You are the one who constantly insists you’re right by default.
You can’t convince an unbeliever with the Bible as your source. If they don’t believe the Bible, they won’t believe you. This is why, whenever I make the argument against homosexuality, for instance, I rarely mention what the Bible says about it, but instead, use common sense and logic. Actually, I don’t need to bring the Bible into the discussion because the unbelievers and the supporters of Homosexuality always bring it up themselves. Happens every time.
Mark
I don’t disagree, but I don’t think it is reasonable to dismiss it out of hand without argumentation.
Skeptics can dismiss much of the bible just like a jury can dismiss testimony from an unreliable witness.
Followers just simply refuse to accept the idea that their book may be unreliable because it would undermine their entire belief system.
Way to not answer my question, by the way.
Jurys dismiss witnesses as un reliable for reasons not just because. You are just making excuses to be able to reject god by any means necessary with or without reason. And everytime you claim that you don’t have to have reasons you admit you are an atheist for no reason at all
Of course the bible could be wrong. I could also be president some day. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean its probable. You use the term possible to mean probable and you want me and others to use it that way too.
Atheist logic:
It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God made everything out of nothing. But it is rational and scientific to believe that nothing made everything out of nothing.
It is ignorant and superstitious to believe that God is eternal. But it is rational and scientific to believe that matter is eternal.
God is an effect and must have had a cause. But Matter is the uncaused first cause.
If God made everything, then who made God? Matter made everything and nothing made matter.
And this is the thinking behind people like zqtx who just dismiss the Bible out of hand with no rational reason because they’ve really done no study of its true origin and the facts to support its authenticity.
@ John
Yes, juries dismiss testimonies for reasons, and skeptics dismiss bible claims for reasons, too. You would rather argue about why you reject the skeptic’s rejections.
If you want a good place to start, go here .
The fact is you haven’t presented any reason to accept the bible as reliable or authoritative. The bible simply isn’t “true until proven false”.
@ Glenn
Nice rant with the usual rhetoric. Way to contribute to the conversation.
You are particularly confounding today. On the one hand you seem annoyed that I expect skeptic to substantiate their rejections, now you are accepting that notion, all the while rejecting it.
You’re right, I haven’t defended it in this post. Nor will I retread ground in every post. I have offered at least one reason elsewhere so lets not pretend i am only making assertions.
So can you admit that the bible cannot be rejected without substantiation? Or is it just a given that it can’t be used as a source?
Sorry – the link got lost.
http://truth-saves.com/the-bibles-secrets/
zqtx,
It wasn’t a rant – I was making a point about your inconsistent and illogical worldview. I looked at the site you linked to and found IT to be a long rant about nonsense, claims that have been responded to myriads of times and yet still pulled out as if they’ve never been answered.
Let me recommend a book for you: “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” by Norm Geisler and Frank Turek. It is much better than your ranting and error-filled link.
Sure, I’ll say that the bible cannot be rejected without substantiation, as long as it’s understood within the proper context as a work of fiction or inspirational literature.
Just like the unreliable witness in the courtroom, the bible can be easily dismissed as unreliable in many arguments, be it history, science, prophecy or morality.
So as long as I accept your UNSUBSTANTIATED ASSERTION that it is a work of fiction you’ll offer reasons for rejecting? Face, meet palm.
How exactly would you like me to prove to you that the bible is a work of fiction?
Remember, fiction until proven factual, not the other way around.
It’s not not the assertion you want it to be.
zqtx,
So, by what standard do make the decision that the Bible is fiction until proven otherwise? Just your arbitrary opinion? Of course, because you came up with that standard.
Interesting that lots and lots of the history discussed in the Bible has been verified by secular sources which are contemporary, as well as archaeological finds. Much of the O.T., as well as the N.T. claims to be historical and has never been proven to not be. So how can you then claim it is fiction?
Since much has been proven to be accurate history, and none has been proven to be fiction, I guess the onus of proof is on you.
Glenn
Z thinks his view is correct by default and doesn’t need to be defended, only refuted by detractors, yet he scolds people who he thinks does that. Hypocrite extraordinaire
There isn’t a historian secular or theistic who would hold the view that a historical document is fiction/false until proven otherwise! Does it work like that for every document or just the bible?
(oops – I got an extra “not” in there…)
@ Glenn
You seem rather defensive… I must have struck a nerve.
What standard? Well, let me ask you this – do you believe everything you read or hear until proven otherwise? Santa Claus? Leprechauns? I didn’t think so. It’s called skepticism, look into it.
Historically accurate? “None of it has proven to be fiction”? Really?
Do you actually believe the book of genesis to be factual?
@ John
So you believe any and all historical documents written anywhere by anyone to be true and factual until proven otherwise?
You seem to not understand the irony of you being skeptical of skepticism.
If you think that my position of skepticism is the default position, then I guess you’re correct. What would you like me to do to prove my position of not accepting the nonsense you believe in?
“What would you like me to do to prove my position of not accepting the nonsense you believe in?”
For myself, I’d like to see your argument regarding what makes the Bible, or, more specifically Its authors, unreliable. Each book of the Bible suggests a testimony, either of the author or of people about whom the author writes. Most of the stories related also speak of the shortcomings of the characters as well as their good points, with shortcomings often getting more press. For most of the Bible, nothing suggests that anything written is fictional and instead, reads like a record of events. Thus, it is put forth as historical record, and it is done so by a people who have as a major mandate that they should not lie.
You assume unreliability on the part of this Book and it’s authors or people depicted within it. To run with your court analogy, you have convicted them without doing a thing to prove their guilt. But here’s a tip: if you wish to try to make your case based on whether or not miracles have ever occurred, don’t bother. Miracles, by definition, occur outside the rules of the physical world. There can be no way to prove they happened or not EXCEPT by the testimony of reliable witnesses. Hence, the reliability of the witness must be explored and confirmed or found unreliable.
@ Marshall
For just a sampling of false biblical accounts, visit http://truth-saves.com/false-historical-claims/
As for the reliability of the authors – Do you actually believe stories in the five books of the Pentateuch? How do you think those authors could possibly write about events that supposedly took place before they (or anyone else for that matter) existed?
As for you defense of miracles, it’s interesting that you sit back and claim they do not obey the rules of the physical world. How exactly would you know that?
@ John, Glenn & Marshall
As for your decision making process, how do you personally determine what is reliable and what is not?
Would you have the same fervor to defend the book of Mormon as a reliable historical document?
After all, by your own standard – it must be considered factual and true until proven otherwise.
My method is investigation until conclusion.
Take note, you repeatedly attribute my view that a document is reliable until proven false, which I have denied repeatedly. I will delete or edit any further comments which you do that, unless lying about ideological opponents is a fair tactic in your opinion, in which case I’ll begin shortly.
zqtx,
Um, no you struck no nerve and no I wasn’t being defensive. Is that how you marginalize debate? I was proving a point.
Interesting that you play the atheist talking points by comparing the Bible to fairy tales. There is no comparison.
And yes, the book of Genesis is factual. Can you prove otherwise?
You again post your “truth saves” site, with no truth on it. It is nothing but rehashed atheist claims that have been rebutted by numerous scholars. You and your ilk are in denial because if you ever accepted the truth, you’d find yourself accountable to God.
Funny you should talk about the Book of Mormon. That book has been soundly proven as a hoax almost from its inception. Joseph Smith was a known con man and necromancer, and not one thing in that book (except his plagiarisms of the Bible) has any truth to it. And, yes, you can indeed put the Bible and the BOM to the very same tests and the Bible passes every time and the BOM fails every time.
And if you really want to know how I can prove the BOM wrong, I’d be willing to accommodate you. I’m and ex-Mormon and have studied that fake system for almost 40 years. And I can prove Smith was NOT a reliable source.
Ok, John, fair enough – my mistake. I was basing my conclusion on your previous comment.
You said:
I’ll revise my questions for you:
1. As for your decision making process, how do you personally determine what is reliable and what is not?
2. If I approached you with the book of Mormon and asserted that it was a reliable historical document, how would you go about trying to prove me wrong?
Oh, you mean where I didn’t say reliable til proven untrue, the one where I said your view of false until proven true? That one? Oh yes. Historical documents are considered either accurate until shown otherwise, OR no decision either way. I did not say one way or the other except to point out that professions in the field don’t take your view.
As to 1, just like I said earlier, investigation until conclusion.
#2, I would compare it to what information is already known about the location and time.
Your problem is you think all religious idiots believe everything they’re fed without question. That makes you prejudiced. What’s worse is you insist your prejudice is correct about individuals even when corrected.
This is why its difficult to take you seriously. You are uninformed about religious matters but are incorrigible nonetheless.
I really don’t know why you resort to personal attacks, John. While I do believe that many followers believe without question, I am more fascinated by those who say they reached their religious conclusion after serious inquiry.
Ok, let’s examine your reply in more detail.
I asserted that the book of Mormon is a reliable historical document. You reply with:
Do you have evidence to prove that Joseph Smith did not receive the golden plates from the angel Moroni? On what basis would you say that Joseph Smith was not a reliable source?
Z
Perhaps you have heard of the book of abraham, smith said he translated it the exact same way as the book of mormon. That right there is enough even by your standards to conclude smith was a professional swindler
@ Glenn
Wow – I just don’t know where to begin with you. Part of me is really interested in learning how you’ve reached your conclusions about your beliefs, but it really is hard for me not to just simply make fun of you based on your convictions and the impermeable nature of your opinions. So you went from Mormonism to Christianity? Interesting…
Is there anything anyone could ever say to you or do that would ever cause you to waiver from your beliefs?
@ John
So how would you go about convincing the millions of Mormons out there that they’re wrong? (or does it matter?) I’m sure they’ll just say Smith was inspired by god…
zqtx,
So you would just make fun of me? Really an intelligent thing to do, isn’t it? NOT!
I grew up with no beliefs and was heavy into science fiction. At 18 and in the Army I was proselytized by a Mormon and it fit with my science fiction beliefs. But after a year I found some information about some odd teachings and began to investigate the religious system and its history and learned what a complete fraud it was and how much it contradicted the Bible (which at that time I knew very little about) and after two years as a Mormon I dropped from the LDS and became just an agnostic of sorts. A bit over a year later I encountered someone who decided to teach me about the truth of Christianity and after study I determined it was the correct faith and accepted it as my own in January 1974. Since then I have spent all these years studying the Scripture in depth, studying the history of the Church and also studying Mormonism so as to be able to teach Mormons the truth. During this time I have also studied apologetics until I finally started an apologetics ministry. There you have a nutshell version of why you will never get me to waiver from my beliefs – because I have studied the Christian faith very thoroughly from every possible angle.
I know you put the question to John about how to reach the Mormons with the truth, but one of the first things to do is demonstrate that Smith was a false prophet, which is very, very easy to do. Come over to my blog and look at the posts labeled “Latter Day Saints”. You will see I have a series exposing Smith as a false prophet as well as a series exposing just the surface problems with the Book of Mormon. But to read those you’d have to be serious about wanting to know why the Mormons are a cult.
Glenn,
I’ve noticed you spend a lot of time discussing false teachings. How did you come to conclude that anything contrary to your own beliefs is false?
Z
You really think all Christians simply dismiss out of hand all other religious doctrines and beliefs for no other reason than they prefer Christianity, don’t you? It really shows by the way you keep harping at it with insinuating questions like this one to Glenn.
zqtx:
Glenn, I’ve noticed you spend a lot of time discussing false teachings. How did you come to conclude that anything contrary to your own beliefs is false?
It’s not just MY beliefs. I compare teachings to what the Bible says. The Bible is the gold standard of the Christian faith.
I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve countered arguments in regards to subjects like SSM or abortion using hard data, statistics and logic, only to be told to stop forcing my religion on other people, or have them throw out anti-Biblical “gotchas” rather than countering the information I put forward. I’m not the one who brought religion into the discussion, but they can’t concieve of any other reason why someone would object to their oh-so-enlightened position. It would be amusing, if the consequences weren’t so devastating.
Funny you should say that Kunoichi. Today on twitter I linked to a post by Wintery Knight who simply quoted statistics and the hell fire that brought was befuddling. People came out of the woodwork calling me a hateful bigot, among other things. Ugh
John,
I’m interested in finding out how people come to the conclusions they do about what they believe, that’s all.
In my experience, believers seem to be more tolerant towards other believers (even those they may consider false teachings) and more contentious towards people who don’t believe any of it.
Z,
In my experience, believers seem to be more tolerant towards other believers (even those they may consider false teachings) and more contentious towards people who don’t believe any of it.
That’s interesting, because in MY experience Christians aren’t the contentious ones! It is atheists and cultists who are the contentious ones, always attacking the true faith, requiring us to “contend earnestly for the faith” Jude 3)
@z
Same ole’ record man. You go round and round asking the same ole’ questions and then when people give you an answer, you reject it upon the basis of you don’t like the answer.
Let me give you just a small example of what I’m saying:
You asked/told John – “Do you have evidence to prove that Joseph Smith did not receive the golden plates from the angel Moroni? On what basis would you say that Joseph Smith was not a reliable source?”
Then you asked him, “So how would you go about convincing the millions of Mormons out there that they’re wrong? (or does it matter?) I’m sure they’ll just say Smith was inspired by god…”
I know you didn’t ask me, but watch/listen closely because I’m going to answer these questions for you – – – – because the Bible says so!
“I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:6-9)
Plain enough!? You may not like the answer, but for the sake of entertainment it’s the only one I’m going to give you.
Thanks for the contribution, Eugene – we can always count on you for a verse.
After doing a bit of research, I’m afraid you’ve taken this scripture out of context. This epistle from Paul addresses the question of whether Christians were obligated to follow Mosaic Law. It has nothing to do with Joseph Smith.
Good try, though.
@z
Read the context again. It’s about false teachers moving people away from the gospel and toward them. False teachers and false gospels are to be avoided…even if angels from heaven give them another one, Z. Sound familiar to you when it comes to Joseph Smith?
Sounds like you’re ignoring the context, not to mention that you’ve done exactly what I said you’d do: reject the answer because you don’t like it.
Nice job, there, fulfilling your own prophesy. Fun, isn’t it?
Here we are – yet another misinterpretation of the good ol’ scripture. You’re trying to twist it to mean anything you want it to. The context here was relative to the period. The letter addressed controversy concerning circumcision, Sabbath observance, and the Mosaic Covenant.
Z,
Eugene is correct and you are in error. The context was about legalism, which is requiring the works of the law for salvation. That is another gospel and not the gospel Paul preached. Mormonism is legalistic and requires the works of the law – that other gospel Paul was talking about. In fact, every cult requires works for salvation.
You lose.
Glenn,
Which denomination of Christianity would you say most closely represents your understanding of the bible as the “true faith”?
So am I to understand that it is your believe that salvation does not require works at all, just faith and accepting that Jesus died for your sins?
Z,
There are NO mainline denominations which adhere strictly to the Scripture. In fact, I have yet to find ANY church which agrees with the Scripture 100%. There might even be things in the Bible I misunderstand. But that isn’t the point.
My point is that those who adhere to what the Bible says are Christians whether or not they are members of any church assembly. Those who do NOT adhere to what the Bible says are NOT Christians.
Salvation does not require any works. That is the fact of Scripture. Eph 2:8-9 is a classic passage which states this. The point is, that salvation is only by faith. One who IS saved will do the works out of love for God and salvation, but they don’t do the works in order to be saved.
(correction) belief
Glenn,
I agree – you don’t have to attend a church to be a believer. It is interesting, however, that you think no church agrees with scripture 100%. Is it safe to say then that to you they all represent some degree of false teaching?
So what happens if you and another self-declaring Christian disagree over scripture? Do you just consider them “not really a true Christian”?
Regarding salvation then, you say it’s only by faith. Is it possible to be saved if you believe but do not adhere to scripture?
Z,
To be a Christian, there are fundamental doctrines of the Bible to which you must adhere, or you are not a Christian. Salvation by faith only, must include faith in the true God, the true Christ and the true Gospel.
Some churches may have very little of true biblical teachings and only in spite of their teachings do people actually come to Christ (such as Roman Catholics, Orthodox Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, etc). Most fundamental churches probably follow most of the Bible’s teachings but have aberrational beliefs that give Christians burdens to carry (such as Strategic Level Spiritual Warfare, “slain in the spirit,” patriarchy teachings, etc). “Some degree of false teaching” may only be their teaching of theistic evolutionism, or – in my opinion – teaching “Calvinism.” Some of the “false” teaching may minor and not worth bothering about. False teaching can run the gamut from outright heresy to just bad ideas.
If you want to continue this line of dialog, it might be best to not load of the comment string. If you are serious about learning, e-mail me at jude3.gctwm@yahoo.com
Z, getting back to the original content of John’s post:
One thing that has been helpful for me in looking at the Bible is to view it as 66 separate books – not as a single book. I’m not going to sit here and defend the absolute historicity Genesis or Numbers. But I will defend the historicity of Acts and Luke. An amazing amount of archaeology allows us to confirm that the author reported things accurately. (I’ll let you dig up the data – there’s loads of it) Manuscripts of most New Testament books were in wide distribution within 100 years of Jesus’s death. We have partial copies of many from this time period, and we have testimony from leaders in the church that the manuscripts were in existence. Therefore, thinking about it as a “witness” in a courtroom, I would posit that Luke and Acts would be “admissable evidence”.
Secondly, I would posit that if you THROW OUT the other 64 books of the “Bible”, you would still have essentially the entire message of Christianity outlined in those two books. (really, in either book alone)
You can make the same argument from Galatians, which is widely assumed to have been written and circulated only 20 years or so after the death of Jesus. You can reconstruct the entirety of Christian faith (as defined in the Apostles Creed) from any single one of the books I mentioned.
That’s why I have confidence in the Bible as truth. The message is INDEPENDENTLY confirmed by numerous New Testament authors, each with their own unique perspective and their own unique writing style. I can’t defend each statement that the Bible makes. But I can defend (historically) that the authors wrote independently, wrote near the time of the events, claimed to be historically accurate, and were in general agreement about the “big picture” of the Christian faith (as defined in the Apostles Creed).
A great many people who denounce Christianity do so by their stance that the Bible was written by men, or at least through fallible men even if they were “inspired”. I find it interesting that most people who claim God didn’t write the Bible, would never say that because Steven King narrated his words to a typing expert assistant while writing The Shining or Shawshank Redemption would never say, “Well, Stephen King didn’t actually write Shawshank Redemption, somebody else wrote it so the interpretation margin of error invalidates King as the actual writer.” Sounds silly when it’s put into context. God Authored the Bible through human writers specifically chosen and inspired. And incidentally has been protecting it from onslaughts of apocryphal teachings since Jesus rose. And yes, that also includes the oral, narrative witnessed accounts.
Also, the legendary tradition of oral history should not be dismissed just because you now have an additional more efficient method of transferring information. Scouts in 18-19th century wartime were many times relied on completely for vital information that led to the winning of many battles throughout history. The balance of national victory or defeat often hung in the balance as their orally delivered reports tipped the scale one way or another. Does the lack of computer email and video recorders make him any less reliable? Just making a point about the validity of orally translated history often culturally referred to as storytelling.
I don’t debate on God’s word. People have access to all I have access to. If they decide to interpret a certain way I don’t try to convince them to see it my way. People have blinders to the truth because they want to do what they want to do..simple as that. The Bible says I will turn them over to a reprobate mind. There is no need to prove anything..to convince one of anything. In the new testament Jesus said of the old testament that Moses made these laws to the best of his ability. So, with the new testament a different perspective came about. People still divorce because Jesus didn’t come out plainly and say no to divorce. He only said but it was not that way in the beginning. Matt. ch.19 He said some are like that from the womb others are man made etc. But he did not elaborate. Why debate? Why argue? I might not believe in ones habits I’m not going to kill them or treat them badly because of it. That’s a matter between them and God.
I don’t believe parents should abandon their children if they want to live another life style. That only proves their love is a conditional love. But, at the same time I expect the homosexual should not force his/her life style on the parents. They have a different concept of sexual relationships and the child should respect that. For the ones who are not born a homosexual and desires that life style after experimenting it have to understand the sexual drive/orientation is very strong….and you have to be aware that others may object and object harshly. I think it is best that you and your lover live separately from the family otherwise it’s, seemingly, forcing others to accept your life style when they don’t. It’s not fair to force us to accept because you feel it;s okay. That’s where the conflict comes in. And I must add that homosexuals should not be able to adopt children or teach in schools…or work around children. That can be a great influence on a child. They should grow up as most homosexuals did in a normal situation. I know there may be objections to some things I’ve said…but these are my thoughts just as yours are yours. I have experienced teachers luring the teenage boys with money and cars in the school I went to…so, that is why I object to this social togetherness.
“God does not exist therefore it cannot be a reliable nor authoritative source.
The Bible is written by unreliable and or biased authors.
Because the Bible is a religious text it is disqualified as an authority.
The Bible, due to its age is unreliable.
Because the Bible contains supernatural events it is unreliable.”
“These implicit assumed-to-be-true conclusions must be argued for, not simply presumed.”
I don’t even know where to start here. If you state that something is true and then ask me to prove it is not, how then does the burden of proof lie with me? If you propose something to be true, then you must have proof to reinforce your claim, otherwise it is rubbish. Just as you suggest that skeptics cannot dismiss things because they are in the bible, you cannot accept the Bible as truth just because it IS the Bible without substantiation.
I don’t feel I have to defend the Bible. There is nothing hidden. It is out there for all to see and read. If it’s a fantasy and not believable to some..then so be it. (I know the Bible has been tampered with..making it come under persecution) Yet, I don’t understand why people get so heated up and argumentative. In my earlier yrs. I was discussing God with a friend who did not believe the Bible. I didn’t bring it up he did. The Holy Spirit gave me this to say: “I would rather believe there is a God and He not be..than to not believe in God and He be. For to not believe and He not be you lose nothing but if He be you will lose all. The Holy Spirit talks to me and Jesus has visited me on several occasions. I have seen my Guardian Angel fight off a demon. (the demon I saw was not a monster. He looked like a human, but he glowed) People don’t take what I say seriously..and they laugh at me. I don’t get mad (or feel embarrassed) anymore. I have comfort where I am with my belief and what I have witnessed. And I grieve silently for those who don’t believe, even for those who say they believe (false preachers) and still do sinful things. They are bold in their sin..showing no regrets, making excuses. Preachers don’t understand that they must step down when there is sexual immorality or stealing from the treasury. The blind can not lead the blind.
What evidence is there that the bible has been tampered with?
One more thing..I want to Elaborate on …”SALVATION is free” (but only) to those WHO BELIEVE. And when you believe you follow God’s LAW. You are forgiven when you repent and ask God’s forgiveness when you break the law, which is given readily. You can believe and still go to hell if you die in your sin. (The demons believe. They know Jesus exist. They try very hard to make people believe there is no God..no Hell..no Satan.) WORKS are important for rewards given by Jesus when we come into His new kingdom.
You cant buy your way into heaven with good works.
No, you can not. Good works will determine your rewards. You get to Heaven by believing in God’s son and by following the 10 commandments. You know what God demands of you. So, you must pray..you must be consistent. If you need to forgive someone and it’s hard to do..then you can give it back to our Savior and ask Him to give you the forgiving spirit. He will give it to you. The Holy Spirit will speak to you. You won’t have to guess if it is truly God’s spirit speaking. If you have doubt just start praising God and if the spirit is not of God the spirit will flee from your presence. May the Lord, our Savior, bless and keep you close.
Many words through translation were misinterpreted incorrectly. King James had a revised Bible written taking out certain words and forbade his people to read the first interpretation. There was no “J'” in the Hebrew language. Certain Books were not lost but hidden. These Books would certainly clear up many misunderstanding of today. The Samaritans indicated that they took certain things out of the Bible because people would not understand it. The fact is they did so as to hide their true identity.
So I take it you are a religious conspiracy theorist? What evidence do you have that any of that took place?
Wow, L.Stone,
You have bought into a lot of mythology by conspiracy theorists. Too bad there is no evidence for such claims. Have you even thought about studying the issue of textual criticism, the history of the manuscripts and the history of English translations or any thing factual about the transmission of the Bible? Because your rhetoric doesn’t lend itself to demonstrating such.
Glenn, my info comes from what I’ve read in the Crusade analytical edition of the Bible. Truths about the Bible. “The word of God In The World Of Men” by Charles W. Conn. We only know what we read, hear and see. None can we fully trust which is the reason we have so much controversy.
I know what I sound like to some, but it is okay. For so long I held back what I know about the Holy Spirit because of people’s reaction to me for what I relate. 1. One night my heart felt as if some one was squeezing it. Every night there after it would happen. But I always managed to sit up, put my hand on my heart and say “My heart is alright with the Lord”, and the pain would stop. One night as I lay in bed waiting for it to happen…I, for no apparent reason, looked over my head…there standing over me was a demon. His face glowed, his eyes had a mischievous look in them.He was over dressed. I had seen him twice before. When he realized I saw him he walked quickly from the head of the bed toward the hall. In the light I could not see him. Then from the right corner of my room I saw a figure in a long hooded cloak with a sword raised in his hand soar across the room. I imagine they made it to the door at the same time..for there was a loud clash. 2. A young man came into my work area and began to accuse me of being unfriendly, stuck up..on and on he went. He worked upstairs I worked downstairs at a hosp. I had only seen him once or twice. I asked the Lord why wasn’t I getting mad. Suddenly I saw something like a moonbeam surrounding me. I looked up at him..he had not once looked at me. I wondered if he saw it, too. Apparently not. Now, I could not hear his words but his mouth was still moving. His words came out as a mist on a cold day. I watched the mist as it reached the shield. It made a spark & dissipated. I learned 2 lessons that day. Words are powerful and that God was protecting me as I had asked Him when I had left my hometown going to LA. There were many, many more. I would be happy to share with anyone wanting to hear.
L.Stone,
Well, I’ve never heard of the Bible you cited, nor that author, but I’ve studied the issue for almost three decades and can say with 100% fact that what you have read is bunk – pure bunk. You need to read better stuff and not things from conspiracy theorists.
Your story about the demons does not ring true for real Christians – we don’t have to worry about demons.
And, no we do not have to follow the 10Cs to be saved. That is works, and works won’t save you. You sound like you’ve been wrapped up with some charismatic folks who chase demons.
Your story about the demons does not ring true for real Christians – we don’t have to worry about demons.
And, no we do not have to follow the 10Cs to be saved. That is works, and works won’t save you. You sound like you’ve been wrapped up with some charismatic folks who chase demons.
To Glenn with Respect * No. I attended a regular Baptist Church. A minister once said if you never met the Devil then you and he must be walking side by side. The things I’ve told you were actual things that happened. Even the Bible tells you to test the spirits. Many preachers are sending their members to hell because they are preaching exactly what you are saying. God says the 10 commandments stand forever. Works don’t save this is how you get your rewards in Heaven. The Holy Spirit whispered to me don’t tell so you can get your reward in Heaven. Jesus died on the cross so that God would not destroy all man kind. Nothing we could offer could sate Him..nothing we could offer was precious enough.. all was His anyway. Following the 10 c has to be followed along with believing that Jesus is the Son of God. If you follow the 10 commandments that is proof that you believe. 10c is LAW. Things you do( feed the poor, help an old lady across the street, pay someones electric bill is works.)The first commandment God gave was to have no other Gods before me. If you don’t follow the 10c you will not enter Paradise. Demons know Jesus is the Son of God, so just believing does not get you to Paradise either.. Anyway, as I said I don’t argue the Bible….we will agree to disagree. May God rest His eyes upon your heart and mind. Good night.
L.Stone
I test the spirits and the Bible, and no where in the Bible does it have Christians harassed by demons. It doesn’t happen. And to say if one doesn’t experience it then they must be walking side-by-side with the devil is pure unbiblical nonsense.
The 10 Commandments were given only to the nation of Israel. Especially the command about the Sabbath.
http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2010/05/are-christians-required-to-keep-sabbath.html
It is legalistic and aberrational ideas such as yours which make people LEAVE the church.
Perhaps you should learn about the Bible before you spread more legalistic silliness.
Are you saying you don’t have to follow the 10 commandments to be saved? Are you thinking that it isn’t necessary? That you can have a God before our creator, that you can kill, steal, lie, covet, as you take your last dying breath and still have salvation? That is just as bad a lie as the one Satan told Eve. Please don’t let the deceiver deceive you any longer. The Bible says that Satan is like a roaring lion seeking who he can devour. Satan has an army of demons..they have ranks. Give yourself a chance. All you have to do is ask God to prove Himself. Tell Him you don’t believe..that you are a skeptic and if He really does exist let His spirit speak to you. Perhaps He’ll come to you as He did Paul. Remember the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God and remember,too, that everything that was written that happened was not inspired by God. This may sound weird to you skeptics gut here goes. I was abandon by my friend one night and an angel walked me home. He wore a cloak from his head to his feet. I could feel the power that exuded from him. Once when a relative was attacking me because I had gone to hear a woman preach(My brother and wife had tricked me there because she thought I had aborted a baby. The lady preacher had called me up attacking me then I get a home this relative was there to attack me.) The Holy Spirit told me to be quiet. How can you defend me when you have stopped reading the Bible. As for demons…the man with demons and they went into the pigs. When 2 of Jesus disciples tried to free a man with demons and the man attack them. Jesus said this type you had to fast to get out. It seems you skip over things…or just dismissed them. How do you interpret Duet: Ch. 28. Where are those people now? What does the Bible say of their financial state? Are they rich or are they poor?
L.Stone,
DID YOU READ THE ARTICLE I LINKED TO? It doesn’t appear as if you did so.
Yes, I am saying it is not necessary to follow the 10 commandments TO BE SAVED. There is only one requirement to be saved, and that is, as Romans 10:9 states: “Confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead.” Faith in Christ and His work is all that is necessary for salvation.
The 10Cs were for no one else but Israel anyway, so I don’t follow them, nor should any Christian follow them.
HOWEVER, as I noted in my article which I linked to, all the moral law listed in the 10Cs are what we obey BECAUSE we are Christians – BECAUSE we are saved, and not so as to be saved. Of the 10Cs, all the laws but the law of the Sabbath were given either explicitly or implicitly to humanity prior to the 10Cs. The command about the Sabbath is only for the Jews, as I demonstrated in my article. The Sabbath was the sign of a covenant between God and the Jews and not for anyone else. Read that article so I don’t have to restate everything here.
Nowhere in Scripture does it even hint that we are to demand that God prove Himself. Instead, we are told to NOT test God! The Bible says God will reveal Himself to those who seek Him – not to those who don’t believe He exists.
Deuteronomy 28 is a covenant between God and Israel ONLY. Israel is in the poor state it is today because they have not turned back to the Lord. BUT, this has nothing to do with Christians.
Are the Ten Commandments still law for Christians?
http://www.sabbathfellowship.org/…/biblestudy_gane_lawcommands.htm
They think it possible to discover all the commandments restated in the New Testament …. Grace came first; obedience followed as an inseparable result. …. He did not abolish the Ten Commandments; He established them permanently … In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul wrote that the Gentile believers who once had no …
L.Stone,
Your link didn’t work, but as I see it comes from a “sabbath fellowship,” I know it will preach following Sabbatarian rules, against all logic, against Paul’s commands to let no one judge you according to a sabbath, and against the facts that the Sabbath was ONLY for Israel and no one else. THAT is what the Bible says, which you would know if you read the passages I cited in my article.
No one said that the 10Cs were abolished – I only stated that as such they were only for the nation of Israel, but that nine of the 10 (not the sabbath) were already in effect for all of mankind and are written on our heart, as well as being reiterated for all in the N.T. The law Paul was discussing was the Moral Law,.