1 pointFirst, thank you for reading my post with such detail! I really appreciate it! Taking things in order and starting first with your first (and incidentally also your last) stanza: I'm not really sure why I became a Christian; I grew up in a good Baptist household, and I was baptized when I was very young. So you have realized that you were a sinner, in need of the Savior, and have asked Christ to save you from hell? Is this what you mean by “became a Christian”? Or are you depending on your good upbringing and baptism? However, I can tell you why I stayed in: exposure to the works of CS Lewis. I know he's just a man, but he was probably the most good, wholesome, and honest Christian from whom I have ever read, excepting of course the apostles and Paul. He, like the great St. Thomas Aquinas and Plato the ancient Athenian, believed that not only nature and the moral laws contained evidence of Christ, but logic itself too. He was a great boon to my Christian life, because he provided such compelling logical arguments that I became totally convinced of the validity of God's word in my mind as well as in my heart. He was wrong about some things no doubt, but he was undoubtedly a great man of God; I would stake my life on that. If you ask why I still manage to cling to God even as I doubt the Bible (and the earth might as well have collapsed for how stressful that is) it is because of the straightforward and Godly logic and teachings of CS Lewis. I'll try anybody you think will help, including Dr. Peter Ruckman, but CS Lewis is the one man I most hold responsible my salvation. He's not a source of doubt Jordan Peterson I can take or leave, I just mentioned him because he seemed relevant. As to your second set of paragraphs, the one that references 2nd Peter: I don't really doubt God, I just doubt that the Bible is his word. You don't really need to talk about proof of God, I'm already there. You must not have understood the passage in 2nd Peter, which is part of the problem you are having. The passage quoted in 2nd Peter was not a proof of God, but a proof of the word of God, and how great it is. Please read the passage carefully: 2 Peter 1:16-19 “For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” – Firstly, he starts out describing that he was an eyewitness to the evidence to the truth of the scriptures when he SAW the glory of the second coming of the Lord upon the Mount of Transfiguration. He is stating that he has SEEN a great wondrous sight with his own eyes. Also, a side note….notice that Peter is stating that we are NOT following fables (I believe this to be the opposite as what CS Lewis teaches, correct? That Genesis and Job are fables?) “For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” “And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.” – Secondly, he goes on to say that we have also HEARD the evidence of God’s voice confirming the truth about the Messiah on the Mount of Transfiguration. So the set up for the next verse, is “I am telling you that I and a few others have seen the GLORIFIED transformation of Jesus, and heard the very AUDIBLE voice of God himself, and these great signs are less SURE than the very scriptures that you hold in your own hands.” “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:” - I have enlarged it, bolded it, underlined it, and italicized it for you to READ, SEE, and HEAR. This is the context of the passage in 2nd Peter. The written word of God is MORE SURE than the SEEING, and HEARING God himself. The Lord holds his word in such high esteem that he said the following: “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Ps. 138:2) As to the set that referenced 1 Kings: Yes, the widow might have doubted that the command "give your last biscuit" was really from God, but she had the prophet Elijah there, who she did know spoke on behalf of God, to verify and back the claim up. She didn't take it as blind faith either; she had a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. I, in perhaps a similar situation, might (reasonably I think) doubt that the Bible is really from God, so like the widow, I think I should have a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. Now, I don't know anyone God has trusted enough to perform miracles and speak for him like he did Elijah, so I have to resort to other verified mouthpieces of God to confirm the Bible. The only other mouthpiece I know of is truth, which God confirms to us by way of logic. If you (or anyone) can logically prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, then I will accept that as Godly verification. I want that proof, so that's why I'm out searching for it, but if I can't tell if God wants me to give away my starving son's last biscuit to a fat man, then I think I should feed my son. Please show me where she knew who Elijah even was when he showed up? The widow was a Gentile woman that lived in Zidon. She never heard Elijah preach or seen him perform one miracle her entire life. The miracle came AFTER she believed him, and the word he preached to her. Again the blessing and miracle comes after faith. This is the point I was trying to make….Until you receive the word of God to be the word of God, the word of God cannot work effectually in you. “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13) The blessing and miracles come AFTER the faith in the word. You have been corrupted by Thomas Aquinas, Plato, and even CS Lewis to think it is received any other way. These men did not receive nor believe the word of God, and have instead instilled in you and countless others a doubt just as the Devil put into the ears and heart of Eve when he asked just one question…”Yea, HATH GOD SAID…????” This has been the tool of the Devil from the beginning and continues to this day. As to the part about Judas: Yes, we do use "he" in that manner, but we still don't say 'he broke his arm' or 'he fell down on his face' about cadavers, and I think this usage of "he" falls closer to that usage. I have shown you from scripture that this statement is not true. And ten young men that bare Joab's armour compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him. And Joab blew the trumpet, and the people returned from pursuing after Israel: for Joab held back the people. And they took Absalom, and cast him into a great pit in the wood, and laid a very great heap of stones upon him: and all Israel fled every one to his tent. You have chosen to ignore the scripture, and set yourself as the authority to determine what words God should have used. As to the use of "headlong", yes I agree, just like you said, how could a hanged body fall headfirst? Well this is the definition of headlong: And that makes it seem like he wasn't hanging. I'm think it's pretty clear the author here meant "headfirst" because saying a body fell "in an impetuous manner", "rashly", "without deliberation" or "without respite" makes even less sense than the other meaning. I did give the wrong definition of the word headlong, and I apologize for that. I should have kept reading and would have seen the correct definition. (HEADLONG, adjective Steep; precipitous – Websters 1828 dictionary) (PRECIPITOUS, adjective Headlong; directly or rapidly descending; as a precipitous fall – Websters 1828 dictionary) Again, I apologize for giving the wrong definition in the first post, but it was this definition that I was trying to convey. So, I have done all that I can to show you the truth of this supposed discrepancy...I still hold to what I originally said: Judas hung himself, and either died from hanging, and then hung for 3 days till the great earthquake caused his fall, or hung himself, and something broke immediately and he fell to his death. Either way it happened….Judas died, just as scripture says he did. Finally, to touch back on your last paragraph: Piecing the truth together from the Bible is exactly what I am trying to do, with your (plural) help. The problem is that the closer you look, the more disjoints you find between the pieces. What disjoints are you speaking of? I have shown you the supposed disjoints of the last 2 examples you gave. The first I showed was due to a simple skimming over words (Man shall live by EVERY word of God) that added more detail to the numbering of the army. You saw them being in error because you wanted to believe the scripture was in error. If you truly wanted to believe the word, you would have studied EVERY word and compared EVERY word, and would have saw the DIFFERENCES in the scripture not as error, but as more detail. And then the second example was in 2 parts: 1) You assumed the 2 scriptures were the same event, even though there was clearly a difference in the two scriptures with one being him at the age of 8 and the other at 18, and if that wasn’t enough to show you that they were different events the scripture gave you further proof they were not the same event with one saying 3 months and 10 days and the other being just 3 months. And 2) You failed to perform simple arithmetic which would have led you to the same conclusion that the two verses were not the same event. You saw them being in error because you wanted to believe the scripture was in error. If you truly wanted to believe the word, you would have studied EVERY word and compared EVERY word, and would have saw the DIFFERENCES in the scripture not as error, but as more detail. I say again…Heb. 4:12 & Ezek. 14:4 – The scripture read your heart and answered you according to your idols (CS Lewis, Aquinas, and Plato) Also, as a mostly irrelevant aside; even if you believe the Bible is inerrant, there's still lots of passages that you can't believe in literally. You have already determined in your heart that the scripture is wrong and that you are right. You can’t believe the Lord….I can believe, I can believe every passage as literal, unless the scripture says otherwise. If the scripture said the sky was orange, I would believe the scripture no matter what my eyes, or science, or any other outside source told me. Because scripture is from God’s point of view NOT mine. This is not blind faith, this is believing in the written word, that I can see, hold, hear, and read. I believe God to be true and EVERY MAN a LIAR…including my own self. The Catholics loved to use the passage from Psalms 19:6 about the sun: "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth." as supposed "proof" that the sun revolved around the earth, and there's plenty of other, darker passages like Psalms 137:9, which gives a blessing to any man who would snatch a Babylonian baby from its mother and bashes it's brains out on the ground. That clearly don't align with God's will. Those passages don't necessarily mean the Bible is errant, it just means that some books (like Psalms) are meant as just holy poetry and not serious theological teachings. In those cases, it would be just as wrong to take them literally as it would to take some other passages symbolically, because it's wrong to use parts of the Bible outside their intended purposes, and the intended purpose of those passages is only related to music and worship. As to Ps. 19:6, I will admit that I am not 100% sure what this verse implies. I see what it says, I don't fully understand it, but just because I do not understand it, doesn’t make it untrue or not literal. I point back to my prior statement. If God said the sky was orange then I would believe it was orange, because that is the way he sees it. Whether I believe it or not does not change what God said. I would pray over it, study it, and seek teaching. And even IF I never know for sure what it is saying, I would not question God’s view on the matter. BECAUSE does it really amount to a hill of beans if I know whether the sun is still or moves? What does that have to do with me living an everyday life that he is pleased with, or how will knowing this make me a better preacher of the gospel to lead sinners from hell to the Savior, or how will having this knowledge gain me any mercy at my eventual giving account for what I did in the body at the Judgment seat of Christ? God is interested in how big my heart is, not how big my head is. As to the Ps. 137:9, I’m not sure where you see that God blesses a man for dashing babies. That is not what I read. I read a sad song of when Israel was carried away to Babylon, and the Psalmist prophesying against Babylon that when they get destroyed they will be done as they did to the Israelites. The Babylonians came in to Israel and were happy to dash the Israelite’s babies against the rocks. So when Babylon’s time was come to be destroyed, then the Meads and the Persians would be happy to dash the Babylonian babies against the rocks. But I suppose this is what happens when you go back to the “original” language to get a “better” definition of an already translated and PLAIN English word. You end up turning “happy” into “blessed”. The KJV translators had enough sense to know that God wouldn’t bless any man that dashed babies to death, and therefore did not translate that word into “blessed”. But you better believe that man can become so depraved, and cruel that he would get some sick twisted enjoyment from dashing babies. So they translated it “Happy shall he be”. So, I would once again suggest that you start reading EVERY word AS IT IS WRITTEN, and quit CHANGING what the scripture actually says to thereby further yourself in your unbelief. CS Lewis didn't think Genesis and Job were symbolic/fictional because he believed they were in error, he just thought they were meant to be passages like Psalms and taken symbolically, not literally. As far as I know he still believed in biblical inerrancy, that part is my own 'discovery', not his. I think Jordan Peterson does think the Bible is all a myth though, (in a way that is less reverent towards the Bible than me). In that way Peterson is pretty sacreligious, but he seems to be an admirer nonetheless, and he has studied the Bible so thoroughly that sometimes he extracts lessons that you probably would have otherwise missed, and he still sometimes (inadvertently) provides teachings genuinely useful to a Christian life. Like I said, I don't approve of his attitude though, so I wouldn't call myself a fan. As I said before…Cut off CS Lewis, Peterson, Aquinas, and definitely that putrefying, unsaved, wicked reprobate Plato, and turn your heart to God. If you continue to reject the truth you have been given, you will find yourself exactly where Herod found himself in Luke 23:9. God will completely ignore you. Herod had chance after chance, and the last thing he heard from the Lord before his terrible, and excruciating death (Acts 12:23) was silence.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00