Creation

[siegi91]

5 minutes ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

marvel not,   no man can come to ME unless the Father draws Him.

 OH how often I would have gathered  you only You would not .

And why .

What is the real reason that many will not Come to Christ .

Because men love darkness , sin , MORE than the Light .   Unless their evil be reproved .

 I should know ,  I was one of the worst .  When folks told me I needed Christ ,   I would feel a conviction , BUT I WANTED to live MY LIFE and have my Sin .

Thank GOD for HIS wonderous mercy ,  for indeed one day , HE just drew me out and led me to Christ and my whole heart was changed .

IF you want to learn to bake a cake , you go where .  To a baker .

IF you REALLY wanted to KNOW ,  then why keep fighting against us who are only trying to help you .

  

No. The main reason people do not come to Christ is not because they love darkness. It is either because they are not Christians (e.g. Jews), or because they do not buy the evidence you proclaim to have.

 siegi

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by siegi91

[frienduff thaylorde]

5 minutes ago, siegi91 said:

No. The main reason people do not come to Christ is not because they love darkness. It is either because they are not Christians (e.g. Jews), or because they do not buy the evidence you proclaim to have.

 siegi

 

Science is a religion , philosophy is a religion .    Yet you love those .

WHY .      Big bang is just a theory .   it cant be proved , yet billions worship man as though its truth .   But its just best guess is all .

Philosphies to life is just men that had thoughts that while they can contain truths ,  Are not THE TRUTH .

WHY do you choose those .   You ask us for evidence ,  YET not a soul can prove the big bang ,  or evolution . NOT a soul .  WHERE is your evidence .

Exactly .  its all best guesses .  mans way of trying to figure it out , to make sense of it .

BUT NO PROOF .  any scientist worth his weight would say that .   ITS called the THEORY of EVOLUTION because its just a theory .

YOU ask us to provide evidence as to why we BELIEVE .    THEN PROVE TO ME BY EVIDENCE  .   You cant .

So instead of looking for PROOF .    Which neither one of us can do .  You cant prove ,  and I cant prove .   

I cannot make you see .  Only GOD can .    But if one rejects that stirring in their conscious , if they reject that conviction .   THEN how will they hear .

JESUS is absolutely right .  NO man , no one can come to ME , unless the FATHER draw Him .    All I can do is point to Christ .  IF anyone rejects that .

I aint GOD .   I just move on .     But I will pray for you .   

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, siegi91 said:

Ok, point taken,

That will lead us back to the evidence you have. Which is? A book? Please don't tell me it is because Christianity is so peculiar LOL

 siegi

 

Evidence for what?   For the credibility of the Bible's claims?   And specifically, for which claims are you asking for evidence?  And yes, the internal evidence within the Bible itself does qualify as "evidence."

[siegi91]

27 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Evidence for what?   For the credibility of the Bible's claims?   And specifically, for which claims are you asking for evidence?  And yes, the internal evidence within the Bible itself does qualify as "evidence."

The internal evidence qualifies as evidence? That sounds a bit circular

Whatever do you mean?

siegi

 

[Guest shiloh357]

10 hours ago, siegi91 said:

The internal evidence qualifies as evidence? That sounds a bit circular

Whatever do you mean?

siegi

 

No, it's not circular.  

There is internal evidence for the credibility of the Bible.   Circular reasoning would argue that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.   That's not what I am saying.

I am speaking only to the credibility of the Bible's claims with respect to historical claims and whether or not the Bible's historicity has any credibility based on what we know archeologically and historically.

All of the Bible's truth claims are rooted in historical and geographic fact.  They take place in a setting of real places, people and events, many of which we can historically verify.   While we cannot yet verify every historical event that the Bible records due to the fact that only 20% of the ancient near east has been uncovered and/or lost to history (such as the Library of Alexandria, the destruction of the Temples in Jerusalem, etc.), it can be strongly argued that the Bible is accurate insofar as it can be checked.

And we need to maintain a sharp distinction between "unverified" and "discredited."  Simply because we don't yet have evidence one way or the other  regarding a specific event recorded in the Bible doesn't mean the account is untrue or discredited.

[Uber Genius]

On November 12, 2018 at 5:57 AM, Pencil24 said:

Creation makes sense to me. How do you combine people that evolution is not accurate?

Well the same way you would respond to someone who claims the Copernican model of the universe is the best explanation of the scientific data we have about the universe. Explain how most ancient cultures adopted the Ptolemaic view that the Earth was at the center of the universe. Then argue that all science is corrupt. Then argue the Bible has only source of truth, and that there is only one (not 7 as most Evangelical scholars claim) possible interpretation(s) for Gen 1 and 2. And then pronounce loudly, "The Bible said it, I beleive it, that settles it!" And walk away before any counter-argument can ensue.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Uber Genius
Word correction

[Uber Genius]

6 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I am speaking only to the credibility of the Bible's claims with respect to historical claims and whether or not the Bible's historicity has any credibility based on what we know archeologically and historically.

External evidence test has to do with archeological and historical facts such as Luke's specification of censuses, names of procouncils, and other Roman prefects, existence of towns, cities, architectural features that were known to exist mid-first century. 

 

It it does not look at coherence of the ideas in the narrative. 

 

Internal evidence has to do with answering, "How reliable is the Biblical account?

It asks why would there would be such a tight agreement by 40+ authors on dozens of controversial issues spanning dozens of cultures, over a period of 1500 years.

It drills down on individual accounts by specific authors. It looks to see if there are any contradictions in their accounts. It looks to see if their account can be supported by other historical accounts. Does the authors account fit in with other known facts, or even better, does it produce unintended consequences of filling in details of another separate account that make that account more coherent. 

One can apply the internal evidence test to the credibility of any historical work. We could ask similar question about Shelby Foote's account of the Civil War. So this is a common method to all historiography 101 classes.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Uber Genius
Modification of format.

[Guest 1sheep]

On 12/2/2018 at 5:43 PM, one.opinion said:

On 12/2/2018 at 5:20 PM, siegi91 said:

tuning argument here.

Hmm... a little bit, I would say. But I would be out of my depth attempting to have such a discussion with you.

Yes . I agree. But not in the sense you mean it. You are not qualified to defend the gospel!

You are being strung along like a rag doll because you have no biblical understanding. Atheists love unlearned " christians" like you!  They preen. 

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, 1sheep said:

You are not qualified to defend the gospel!

Oh? Why? Am I not smug enough about my Christian beliefs for you?

[Guest 1sheep]

4 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

Oh? Why? Am I not smug enough about my Christian beliefs for you?

Your understanding about MANY BIBLICAL TRUTHS is CONTRARY to truth. That is why.