Are verifiable facts/artifacts mentioned in the Bible taken as proof of divinity?

Great Debates
41

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
This was in Athens, not the entire country. There is reference in Acts about poems to the unknown God, I suspect it was fairly well known.
[/quote]
So were other gods.

If you mean created everything, yes, it says that. If you mean the Bible says that the unknown god provided not only that which was missing but all that the Greeks required spiritually, i’m going to need a cite, since I don’t see that in Acts 17. I don’t actually see the Bible saying the Greeks felt any need for that unknown god, in fact. We can infer it from them having altars to it, but they don’t necessarily refer to the same god.

Really? So those that have never heard of God or Jesus, they may never be saved?

42

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]

Even though I’ve already decided to continue providing my co-worker with media that references The Bible, I’m trying to wrap my head around a method of sharing a respectful dialog with her that poses the problem of confirmation bias without offending her. As I said earlier, I feel confident that the verifiable historical and scientific articles and videos that I frequently provide her with are beneficial, but I am concerned that she might be guilty of using her rather strong personality to steamroll her sizable (mega-church) youth class into Biblical inerrancy rather than allowing them to arrive at conclusions that reconcile their public educations with their faith. (And that bugs me a bit, and I am allowed to be bugged by this, as I am facilitating her teaching methods.)
[/QUOTE]
I sympathize with your feelings, and here’s what I might say to sort of put it in a way that will make sense theologically (it might not; I’m not an evangelical, I’m LDS–and there’s a language difference, and so I’m ‘translating’ into an unfamiliar way of speaking here).

It seems to me that using archaeology to ‘prove’ the word of God is relying on the arm of man rather than the arm of the Lord. All the artifacts in the world are not going to prove that Jesus Christ is the Savior. That is a matter of faith and spiritual witness. When you rely on archaeology to prove spiritual truth, you open yourself up to particular sorts of error. Scholarship evolves and changes, and if you stake your faith on a discovery that later turns out not to show what you think it did, then your faith may suffer, having been built on the wrong foundation.

43

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
When a discovery matches the Word I am surprised that we were able to figure that out.

[/QUOTE]

I am not sure I understand this statement. Scientists are not white-coated morons bumbling about in an attempt to prove or disprove Biblical history; our knowledge is either a product of our success in understanding our environment, or we are granted insight and knowledge by divine permission, depending on your POV. But neither of these warrants such a throwaway and derogatory comment.

44

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
I thought insults of other members were frowned on in Great Debates?
[/QUOTE]
Is Beaucarnea’s friend a member?

He didn’t refer to any members, as far as I can tell, so the analogy is a bit strained.

45

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Your irrelevant and unsolicited advice is unnecessary, as is your faulty analogy. You cannot justly compare an opinionated poster to a dangerous, poisionous cult leader who routinely causes heartbroken families in mourning unspeakable distress.

I am far from young and impressionable and happen to share many of **Der Trihs’ ** opinions, and support his right to speak his mind, just as I support the rights of those I profoundly disagree with. In fact, I often learn more from those I profoundly disagree with. Perhaps you could open your mind a bit before tossing out unwarranted insults in a thread which is, in the opinion of the original poster, already quite productive and successful.
[/QUOTE]
This is a riot. In the middle of a thread where, hmm, now you’re not quite sure, heck, you’re beginning to feel downright silly, because another poster points out the ulterior motive of your friend whom he has never met–in this thread you assure me you are far from impressionable, eh? That’s one persuasive post to sway a rock like you, that’s all I can say.

The analogy is absolutely apt for exactly the reason I pointed out: both people have predictable, automatic responses as they relate to certain topics, regardless of circumstance.

Well, we are all judged to some extent by the “company we keep.” The opinion I offered about Der Trihs does indeed say something about me, and I’m quite comfortable with that. That said, what, exactly, do you think I need to open my mind about? Der Trihs’s opinion, without ever having met your friend, that she must have a bad motive? That one? Or does my suggestion that someone religious need not be deliberately and dishonestly manipulative by definition (though of course a particular one may have just such a shortcoming), does this suggestion place me out of necessity in the closed-minded tribe? Because I offered no opinion as to your friend’s motives–I specifically said I don’t know if they’re good or bad–so I’m not sure what else you’re implying about my “close-mindedness.”

And if you don’t want opinions offered, I’d strongly suggest a forum different than a message board to provide your views. I didn’t notice the “I only want opinions from certain posters” notice in the OP. Sheesh.

46

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Beaucarnea there is a archaeological bible where the scriptures are paired with the known discoveries and artifacts.

Which one of them? One temple they had, well at least a alter, is to a ‘unknown God’, this was revealed to Paul as the one true God in Acts 17:16-31. Even though the Greeks were in spiritual darkness, they somehow knew there must be something more, a real God beyond what they knew in their gods but had no way to find Him on their own. It was a missing part of their being till Jesus opened up God and salvation to all people.
[/QUOTE]

? The Agnosotos Theos?

Certain ‘greek’ philosophers were aware that they did not know everything and were basically hedging their bets. [I use greek loosley as at the time they considered themselves ‘athenian’ or ‘spartan’ or syracusan’ depending on what cuty state they were from … the idea of a total greek kingdom is fairly modern.]

Heck, most of the christian viewpoint that they were benighted in darkness and just waiting fer JAyzus mainly comes from gnostic writers of the christian era, including Plotinus [which is where I read it, IIRC the Enneads]

Please do not fall into the fallacy of considering someone from 2500 years ago and a nonchristian background of feeling like they were living in a spiritual darkness just jonesing fer jazus … they had to them what was a fulfilling religious life. Simply because there was a philosophic movement to gnosis does not make everybody an empty hollow shell just jonesing for jazuz.

47

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
This is a riot. In the middle of a thread where, hmm, now you’re not quite sure, heck, you’re beginning to feel downright silly, because another poster points out the ulterior motive of your friend whom he has never met–in this thread you assure me you are far from impressionable, eh? That’s one persuasive post to sway a rock like you, that’s all I can say.

The analogy is absolutely apt for exactly the reason I pointed out: both people have predictable, automatic responses as they relate to certain topics, regardless of circumstance.

Well, we are all judged to some extent by the “company we keep.” The opinion I offered about Der Trihs does indeed say something about me, and I’m quite comfortable with that. That said, what, exactly, do you think I need to open my mind about? Der Trihs’s opinion, without ever having met your friend, that she must have a bad motive? That one? Or does my suggestion that someone religious need not be deliberately and dishonestly manipulative by definition (though of course a particular one may have just such a shortcoming), does this suggestion place me out of necessity in the closed-minded tribe? Because I offered no opinion as to your friend’s motives–I specifically said I don’t know if they’re good or bad–so I’m not sure what else you’re implying about my “close-mindedness.”

And if you don’t want opinions offered, I’d strongly suggest a forum different than a message board to provide your views. I didn’t notice the “I only want opinions from certain posters” notice in the OP. Sheesh.
[/QUOTE]

Had your opinion been even remotely pertinent to the OP, I’d have accepted it gracefully.

The company I keep obviously includes both Christians and atheists, and the opinions of both will be considered equally. The fact that a few are a bit more enthusiastic than others does not in any way detract from the valid (and valued) contributions they make to this thread, or to any.

48

[QUOTE=dangermom]
I sympathize with your feelings, and here’s what I might say to sort of put it in a way that will make sense theologically (it might not; I’m not an evangelical, I’m LDS–and there’s a language difference, and so I’m ‘translating’ into an unfamiliar way of speaking here).

It seems to me that using archaeology to ‘prove’ the word of God is relying on the arm of man rather than the arm of the Lord. All the artifacts in the world are not going to prove that Jesus Christ is the Savior. That is a matter of faith and spiritual witness. When you rely on archaeology to prove spiritual truth, you open yourself up to particular sorts of error. Scholarship evolves and changes, and if you stake your faith on a discovery that later turns out not to show what you think it did, then your faith may suffer, having been built on the wrong foundation.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with you entirely, and you’ve eloquently summed up what I meant when I said “…so to me this seems a lazy way to reinforce faith.”

I would like a dialog with her, but I’ve no interest in a debate, and I’m not at ease discussing topics of a spiritual nature (I’m nowhere near as familiar with Scripture as your average Southern Baptist). So I will actually borrow your words and make the statement “All the artifacts in the world…” at the next opportunity. It might either open up a dialog and ease my curiosity, or it might go nowhere at all, but I will at least give it a try. I have another NatGeo recording from today’s schedule that I’ll be giving to her after the holidays. Thank you again for your input.

49

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Had your opinion been even remotely pertinent to the OP, I’d have accepted it gracefully.
[/quote]
Right! The post I referred to had everything to do with the OP, but my direct response to it was way, way off. I get it now. Crystal clear.

Enthusiasm has nothing to do with it, brother.

50

[QUOTE=Stratocaster]
Right! The post I referred to had everything to do with the OP, but my direct response to it was way, way off. I get it now. Crystal clear.Enthusiasm has nothing to do with it, brother.
[/QUOTE]

Stratocaster, please provide a comprehensive list of whose opinions you would prefer that I consider, I certainly don’t want to provoke more unwarranted insults and thread-crapping from you.

51

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
kanicbird, that is very kind of you. I may hunt that down and refer her to it. Do you mind providing your own POV on my question? Does proven historical records that match Biblical history somehow prove inerrancy for you, or are they just interesting artifacts?
[/QUOTE]
Based on your other posts, and assuming he’s referring to the “Archaeological Study Bible”, you might want to rethink hunting that down, as it’s just more of the same. In the preface to the book it says “a careful study of the world of the Bible enhances our confidence in historical accuracy and in its distinctiveness as the Word of God.” If you say so.

Here is a critique that was done of the book (actually, just a small sample of the book’s contents) to give you an idea that it’s more “The Bible is true because this happened” than an archaeological book.

ETA: Forgot the actual link.

52

Matters of faith should be kept separate from verification in scientific evidence. And actual “proof” is a math concept if you really get nitpicky about it.

But what your friend is doing is taking unreliable and unsupportable data to boister the faith of some young people who may be hesitant. What happens when they find out that the information is not sound? They disconnect.

Your friend is going about teaching the concept of faith with something that doesn’t relate to faith at all.

Why not just tell her that you found out that the source of information is unreliable and that you assume that she wants information that has a more solid scientific support. But if you’ve a mind to, tell her one of your Christian friends is curious about why she would teach faith by teaching about evidence.

(Of course, I know you are not going to do that. :))

Since Der Trihs and I have discussed this very issue time and time again, he knows that he is referring to me, among others, everytime he doesn’t quantify “Christians.” I am a Christian. The label applies to me. I am a white Southern Christian woman. I do not fit the stereotype that most of those words convey.

Mea culpa! And that’s just another good reason not to mix faith and science for now. And it’s not a reliable source of history.

53

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Matters of faith should be kept separate from verification in scientific evidence. And actual “proof” is a math concept if you really get nitpicky about it.

But what your friend is doing is taking unreliable and unsupportable data to boister the faith of some young people who may be hesitant. What happens when they find out that the information is not sound? They disconnect.

Your friend is going about teaching the concept of faith with something that doesn’t relate to faith at all.

Why not just tell her that you found out that the source of information is unreliable and that you assume that she wants information that has a more solid scientific support. But if you’ve a mind to, tell her one of your Christian friends is curious about why she would teach faith by teaching about evidence.

(Of course, I know you are not going to do that. :))

Since Der Trihs and I have discussed this very issue time and time again, he knows that he is referring to me, among others, everytime he doesn’t quantify “Christians.” I am a Christian. The label applies to me. I am a white Southern Christian woman. I do not fit the stereotype that most of those words convey.

Mea culpa! And that’s just another good reason not to mix faith and science for now. And it’s not a reliable source of history.
[/QUOTE]

Heey, Zoe! You know, I actually considered asking your opinion in private, both because of your credentials and beliefs and because I respect your opinions, but I didn’t want to put you on the spot for a reply during Christmas.

Although I’m not making this complaint from the viewpoint that religion=bad, I hadn’t considered the detrimental effects to their beliefs at all; my concerns were specifically for their critical thinking skills for college and such. But now I see that your POV possibly eclipses my concerns- either way her faulty use of science could be responsible for some cognitive dissonance, and that isn’t a good thing. In my opinion we should each have to battle cognitive dissonance on our own terms and our own timeline. It is a rite of passage.

I have attended church a couple times with my friend, so I think I can find an opportunity to start a dialog with her about her teaching methods without causing a rift. Ultimately she will do as she pleases, and will most likely continue with her current style, but I would at least like to make it clear that I don’t view scientific discoveries or archeological finds to be either helpful or necessary when dealing with matters of faith.

54

[QUOTE=Zoe]
Since Der Trihs and I have discussed this very issue time and time again, he knows that he is referring to me, among others, everytime he doesn’t quantify “Christians.” I am a Christian. The label applies to me. I am a white Southern Christian woman. I do not fit the stereotype that most of those words convey.
[/QUOTE]
This was the direct quote he responded to. Bolding mine.

Are you that friend? If not, why assume that he was referring to you? You had not even appeared in the thread yet.

He named no names, as Polycarp did in his example. Must every mention of Christians reference every Christian member of the board?

55

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
That Bible should be easy to find.

To answer your question, not really. God has shown literal accuracy in parts of scriptures that prove to me personally that man’s science and discoveries are totally inadequate for proving the truth. When a discovery matches the Word I am surprised that we were able to figure that out. Also I have not been lead towards the historical accuracy of scriptures aspect but your friend seems to be and that would be a great gift IMHO.

This was in Athens, not the entire country. There is reference in Acts about poems to the unknown God, I suspect it was fairly well known.
According to the Word, this Unknown God did provide everything.

We (believers) are the body of Christ, we are the ones to open up the word to all God’s people.
[/QUOTE]

Believers may make up the Body of Christ as they see it, but they are taking the word of a human, not any God. One can believe the Bible is God’s word but that doesn’t make it so. Muslims believe God told their Prophet to write a book does that make it so?

Monavis

56

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
I am not sure I understand this statement. Scientists are not white-coated morons bumbling about in an attempt to prove or disprove Biblical history; our knowledge is either a product of our success in understanding our environment, or we are granted insight and knowledge by divine permission, depending on your POV. But neither of these warrants such a throwaway and derogatory comment.
[/QUOTE]

It’s not really intended as a derogatory comment against man, but to show the greatness of God, far beyond our knowledge and understanding. It is also a belief in scriptures that God will make the wise man a fool (paraphrase).

[QUOTE=monavis]
Believers may make up the Body of Christ as they see it,
[/quote]

No, humans working in their own flesh can not make up the body of Christ, that’s the the believer has to surrender to God and be guided by the Holy Spirit. “God is one” which leads to one body and a coordinated effort.

[QUOTE=aruvqan]

Please do not fall into the fallacy of considering someone from 2500 years ago and a nonchristian background of feeling like they were living in a spiritual darkness just jonesing fer jazus … they had to them what was a fulfilling religious life.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry about my terms. I use spiritual darkness as the true God and His power and glory are being shielded from a person. It doesn’t not mean that one is blocked from contact from the supernatural. I’d say that the Greeks had contact and guidance with their gods and daemon and had very spiritual lives.

That being said, their gods are not God, they lack the completeness that would really justify creation. I think some of the Greeks (Atheanians) knew there must be something more that what was revealed.

[QUOTE=RT]

If you mean created everything, yes, it says that. If you mean the Bible says that the unknown god provided not only that which was missing but all that the Greeks required spiritually, i’m going to need a cite, since I don’t see that in Acts 17. I don’t actually see the Bible saying the Greeks felt any need for that unknown god, in fact. We can infer it from them having altars to it, but they don’t necessarily refer to the same god.
[/QUOTE]

The unknown God is defined as the one true God, and that God is defined elsewhere in scriptures as providing everything we need.

Possibly/I don’t know. It they worshiped fallen angels/demons then they were most likely lost.

57

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]
Stratocaster, please provide a comprehensive list of whose opinions you would prefer that I consider, I certainly don’t want to provoke more unwarranted insults and thread-crapping from you.
[/QUOTE]
Consider whoever’s you’d like. My advice remains the same. If, as it appears, Der Trihs’s response created something of an epiphany for you, you needn’t have started a thread to understand his position, which is that all religious thought is evil, deluded, and with terrible motives. That was, and is, my point. It seemed a little comical to see your “Now I feel a little silly” comment when Der Trihs “revealed” to you the true motive behind this person he’s never met. I ask for clarification to see if I misunderstood your response, and apparently I did not.

More power to you. Heed whoever’s advice you’d like, no skin off my nose. Apparently anyone’s opinion you don’t like amounts to insult and thread-crapping. Far be it from me to offend such a hothouse flower as you, so I’ll return to your thread no more. It might give you the vapours. Try to bravely soldier on with this dreadful news.

58

[QUOTE=Beaucarnea]

I am not sure I understand this statement. Scientists are not white-coated morons bumbling about in an attempt to prove or disprove Biblical history; our knowledge is either a product of our success in understanding our environment, or we are granted insight and knowledge by divine permission, depending on your POV. But neither of these warrants such a throwaway and derogatory comment.
[/QUOTE]

Going a bit further on this, it is IMHO that man cannot discover the truth for himself, we were just not designed for it. We do the best we can and do what we have to do.

It would be interesting what would happen if science got advanced enough to find out that the Bible is literally true. What would happen to other religions, politics ect. if science started to converge on absolute Biblical truth.

59

[QUOTE=kanicbird]
Going a bit further on this, it is IMHO that man cannot discover the truth for himself, we were just not designed for it. We do the best we can and do what we have to do.

It would be interesting what would happen if science got advanced enough to find out that the Bible is literally true. What would happen to other religions, politics ect. if science started to converge on absolute Biblical truth.
[/QUOTE]
If science proves that the Bible is literally true, then the Bible is literally true. That’s how science works, btw-it constantly changes as new facts come in, entirely unlike religion.
Now, here’s one for you. What would you do if science thoroughly disproved that the Bible is literally true? Would you accept the findings, or discard science and embrace absolute blind faith?

60

[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
If science proves that the Bible is literally true, then the Bible is literally true. That’s how science works, btw-it constantly changes as new facts come in, entirely unlike religion.
[/quote]

That is perhaps a statement that can be made by man made religious practices, but in terms of faith, new things are revealed as God allows. Revelations of the truth are made known to His people. The basis of that truth is the steady unchanging God.