Apologetics: witnessing to atheists
- Thread starter GWH
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
B
Blue155
Guest
Right, but it’s still chocolate as it has the truth and qualities that makes it chocolate, and neither negates the truth or the evidence of being chocolate. Just like the word of God still has the truth and qualities to be the word of God, as it doesn’t negate the truth or the evidence of what the Christian faith says.
Hello @Blue155
In grammatical defense of the Johannine Comma in 1 John 5:7 in the KJV, here is....
A Child-Simple Explanation of the Grammar in 1 John 5:7 and 5:8:
A Necessary Clarification Before the Analogy
Before I begin this analogy, I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding by anyone here about my view of the Trinity. I hold to the classic, traditional understanding of the Godhead. The Lord our God is one God numerically, and yet He exists as three distinct persons. With that clarification in place, the analogy that follows is used only to explain the grammar of 1 John 5:7 and 5:8, not to define the nature of God.
Why the Grammar Matters
In 1 John 5:7 and 5:8, the grammar itself explains why verse 8 begins with masculine language even though the elements named later are grammatically neuter. This explanation uses a simple illustration to make a grammatical principle clear, not to make a theological comparison.
What Each Element Represents in the Illustration
Red represents masculine or personal grammar
Gray represents neuter grammar
Words represent bearing witness or testimony
Platform represents how a group is treated as a whole
Verse 7: The Men on the Red Platform
Imagine this scene.
There are three men standing together on a red platform.
Two men are wearing red outfits with words written on them.
One man is wearing a gray outfit, but it also has words written on it.
Even though one man’s outfit is gray, the red platform means the group is treated as red.
This matters because:
They are persons.
They are grouped together.
The group identity controls how the group is spoken of.
As a result, the group is described using masculine grammar.
This corresponds to 1 John 5:7, which speaks of the heavenly witnesses:
Father, which is masculine.
Word, which is masculine.
Holy Ghost, which uses a grammatically neuter noun.
Even though the Holy Ghost is grammatically neuter, all three are treated together as personal masculine witnesses because the group framework is masculine, which symbolizes why they are all standing on the red platform.
Verse 8: The Gray Clay Army Men With Red Witness Words
Now the men take gray clay and form three army men figures and paint red words on them.
The figures are gray, representing neuter elements associated with human life. Scripture teaches that the life of the flesh is in the blood, that man has a spirit, and that the human body is largely composed of water.
Because the group of men in verse 7 has been established as red, meaning masculine in the illustration, the witness or words painted on the gray clay army men are also red. The gray figures represent the neuter elements (water, blood, and spirit), but the red words written on them represent the act of witnessing.
This represents the beginning of verse 8 as it appears in the King James Bible:
1 John 5:8 - "And there are three that bear witness..." (masculine)
The opening words, there are three that bear witness, are expressed with masculine grammar in the Greek. In the illustration, this masculine opening is represented by the red words painted on the gray figures. The point then must shift to clarify that these words are red, meaning masculine, in verse 8 not because the earthly elements themselves are masculine, but because the heavenly witnesses in verse 7 are masculine and establish the grammatical framework that carries forward.
The Key Grammatical Point
Verse 8 does not begin by listing neuter elements.
It begins with masculine grammar, and only afterward are the neuter elements named.
This shows that:
The grammar of the beginning of verse 8 is governed by the masculine group identity established in verse 7.
The neuter elements do not reset the grammatical framework.
If verse 7 were absent, verse 8 would naturally begin with neuter grammar. However, verse 8 begins with masculine grammar because it inherits that framework from verse 7.
Even the Critical Text, which follows the primacy of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, retains the masculine grammar at the opening of 1 John 5:8, despite omitting verse 7.
Final Conclusion
So verse 7 is masculine because it speaks of the heavenly witnesses. Then verse 8 begins with masculine grammar, not because its following elements are masculine, since Spirit, water, and blood are grammatically neuter, but because verse 7 is masculine and establishes the grammatical framework that carries forward.
Verse 8 does not reset the grammar. It inherits it.
That is why verse 8 begins with masculine language rather than neuter language, even though the elements named afterward are neuter.
According to Georgios Babiniotis, one of the world’s leading Greek linguists and the author of multiple Greek dictionaries, the masculine grammar in 1 John 5:8 is linguistically explained by syntactic parallelism with 1 John 5:7.
In other words:
- Verse 7 establishes a masculine syntactic pattern for “three who bear witness”
- Verse 8 follows that same syntactic pattern for the sake of parallelism
- This parallelism overrides what would otherwise be expected, namely neuter grammar
Source:
https://johanninecomma.blogspot.com/
Side Note:
Please understand that my illustration is imperfect. The analogy is not suggesting that the Trinity is comparable to three human figures as described in my analogy, nor that the earthly witnesses are comparable to clay army men. It is used solely to make a grammatical distinction visible, helping to explain how masculine grammar functions in 1 John 5:7 and the beginning of 1 John 5:8.
I hope this helps, and may the Lord Jesus bless you and everyone else here.
.....
T
Tex_MidwesternerNW
Guest
Atheism is a political stance against religion. Where there is faithlessness toward scripture, there is no means by which to uphold the Sacraments or the office of the Giver of Life. This kind of nonsense is socially and morally destructive, especially where it has been compelled by the State as a means by which to secure loyalty to government regimes.
Atheism persecutes the Spirit, because it delegitimizes humanity and glorifies social authoritarianism as a means by which to create Law and Order.
Atheism persecutes the Spirit, because it delegitimizes humanity and glorifies social authoritarianism as a means by which to create Law and Order.
@Blue155
Johannine Comma in Verse 7 in the KJV is masculine as a group of three. This colors the beginning words in 1 John 5:8 (There are three that bear witness) as being masculine.
1 John 5:6 is neuter because:
1. Verse 6 begins masculine but does not control what follows
Verse 6 opens with a masculine identification clause:
That masculine grammar is tied only to Jesus Christ as a person.
But verse 6 immediately shifts its focus away from the person to means and testimony:
2. The dominant grammatical subjects at the end of verse 6 are neuter
By the end of verse 6, the active grammatical subjects are:
Both are grammatically neuter.
So if the text moved directly forward, the grammar would naturally continue with neuter agreement unless a new masculine subject was introduced.
3. Verse 8’s opening phrase is structurally dependent
The phrase in verse 8:
If verse 7 were absent and verse 8 followed verse 6 directly, Greek readers would expect:
There would be no grammatical trigger or word(s) to shift it into the masculine.
....
Johannine Comma in Verse 7 in the KJV is masculine as a group of three. This colors the beginning words in 1 John 5:8 (There are three that bear witness) as being masculine.
1 John 5:6 is neuter because:
1. Verse 6 begins masculine but does not control what follows
Verse 6 opens with a masculine identification clause:
- Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθών
This is he who came
That masculine grammar is tied only to Jesus Christ as a person.
But verse 6 immediately shifts its focus away from the person to means and testimony:
- water
- blood
- Spirit bearing witness
2. The dominant grammatical subjects at the end of verse 6 are neuter
By the end of verse 6, the active grammatical subjects are:
- τὸ πνεῦμα
- implicitly, the testimony connected to water and blood
Both are grammatically neuter.
So if the text moved directly forward, the grammar would naturally continue with neuter agreement unless a new masculine subject was introduced.
3. Verse 8’s opening phrase is structurally dependent
The phrase in verse 8:
- τρία ἐστιν τὰ μαρτυροῦντα
there are three that bear witness
If verse 7 were absent and verse 8 followed verse 6 directly, Greek readers would expect:
- neuter agreement, because
- the immediately preceding witnesses are water, blood, and Spirit
- all of which are grammatically neuter nouns
There would be no grammatical trigger or word(s) to shift it into the masculine.
....
B
Blue155
Guest
@Bible_Highlighter, thanks for sending me that info. I appreciate you taking time out to do that. I’m one of the few who believes that verse is inspired, though the majority do not.
Yes, even if the Scriptures were written by God Himself in stone? How could we know absolutely or infallibly that it was inerrant? We could not; we walk by faith. We would still need to compare it with the totality of truth in order to discover whether there were any inconsistencies. Thus, a completely inerrant Bible is not needed, as long as there is sufficient consistency in God’s messages to humanity via the creation (TOJ #4), the scriptures (TOJ #3), the incarnate word (TOJ #186) and logic (TOJ #182) for souls to discern God’s requirement for salvation.
Inspiration is like a river: God determines its banks so that the overall revelation each generation along its banks has includes truth sufficient regarding salvation (kerygma), but God allows the river of revelation to have eddies or discrepancies or minor errors that do not prevent God’s purpose from being accomplished (Isa. 55:10f, 1Pet. 1:10-12, Heb. 11:2-12:2).
B
Blue155
Guest
We walk by faith, but that faith is not blind.
“THE Bible contains its own proof of its divine origin. It vindicates itself. No stronger arguments are needed than those which lie within the Book itself. An infidel will come as near being convinced by this internal evidence as by any external proof.”
— George DeHoff
If the Bible is God’s word, it would also have passed the internal reliability test within itself. In 2 Kings 22, when a copy of the book of the law was found by the high priest Hilkiah in the house of the Lord during King Josiah’s reign, no one questioned whether or not it had been tampered with or corrupted. We read that same thing in 2 Chron. 34:14-15, Hilkiah the priest found the Book of the Law of the LORD given by Moses. Then Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan. In Nehemiah 8, when Ezra, “a skilled scribe in the Law of Moses” (Ez. 7:6) was told “to bring the Book of the Law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded Israel”, no one questioned whether it had been tampered with or corrupted, when Ezra “read from it in the open square that was in front of the Water Gate from morning until midday, before the men and women and those who could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive to the Book of the Law.” (v3). People such as Philip and The Ethiopian eunuch believed the book of Isaiah had not been altered or corrupted, as Philip taught from it to the eunuch by asking “of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” and the eunuch was reading from it. Acts 8:30-34.
John 10:35 “…the Scripture cannot be broken”
Ps. 119:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
Ps. 119:160 The entirety of Your word is truth,
And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.
Jesus believed the OT that the Jews had to be faithful scripture and accurate when He said, "You search the scriptures...." (John 5:39).
Is. 40:8 The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.”
Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart
1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
All of this evidence validates facts of it being preserved and reliable.
The accuracy of the Old Testament text was demonstrated forcefully by the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls. Robert Dick Wilson says “we are scientifically certain that we have substantially the same [Old Testament] text that was in the possession of Christ and the apostles and, so far as anybody knows, the same as that written by the original composers of the Old Testament documents.”
God’s word states that Jesus is the Son of the Living God (Mt. 16:16) His only begotten Son (Jn. 3:16), even though the skeptic, agnostic, infidel and atheist say otherwise, the law of non-contradiction requires one of the two claims to be wrong. He can’t be both the Son of the Living God all while not being the Son of the Living God.
God’s word says it’s inspired of God (2 Tim. 3:16), since it says it’s the word of truth (Ps. 119:143, 160; Jn. 17:17; 2 Sam. 7:28; 2 Tim. 2:15; 2 Cor. 6:7; Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5; Jms. 1:18; 1 Kings 17:24), and since holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21), then it is either inspired of God and is the word of truth or it is not. There is no middle ground.
Since Jesus says He is who He says, then either He’s the Son of the Living God or He’s not. He is either “a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst” (Acts 2:22) or He is not.
Kenny Barfield noted in his book, Why the Bible is Number 1, that only seven documents are known to exist in the entire world that openly claim divine inspiration.
“[Yet] none of them exhibits such amazing qualities as the predictive prophecy and scientific foreknowledge that can be found in the Bible. Furthermore, the unity of the Bible and its accurate historical documentation of biblical people, places, and events is unparalleled in human history and bears testimony to the fact that the very existence of the Holy Scriptures cannot be explained in any other way except to acknowledge that they are the result of an overriding, superintending, guiding Mind.” (Eric Lyons – The Claim of Inspiration)
There were also still people alive who could verify the claims as either true or false, such as the “about 3,000 souls” who became saved on Pentecost day (Acts 2:41), the “above five hundred brethren at once” (1 Cor. 15:6), the Corinthians who witnessed “the signs of an apostle”, “in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds” (2 Cor. 12:12). The people of Samaria who “with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did.” (Acts 8:6). It has been recorded what they witnessed personally or what they heard from others who had witnessed the events.
All of these people (and others) could be questioned to verify the apostles and the other writers of the Bible’s claims as true. Out of the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established (Deut. 19:15; Num. 35:50; Heb. 10:28; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Jn. 8:17).
Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one-sixtieth rise above “trivialities" and can be called “substantial variations." It is 98.33 percent pure. Ezra Abbott said about 9/20 (95 percent) of the readings are "various" rather than "rival" readings, and about 9/20 (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus the text is 99.75 percent pure. A. T. Robertson said the real concern is with about a "thousandth part of the entire text." So, the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9 percent free from real concern. Philip Schaff estimated that of the 150,000 variations known, only 400 affected the sense; and of those only 50 were of real significance; and of these not one affected "an article of faith…”
@Blue155 i just wanted to welcome you to the forum.
I’m not sure who you are but I enjoy reading your posts due to the way you communicate and express your ideas. As you said earlier the Bible was written to be understood by a 7 year old and a 97 year old and you don’t need a PHD to understand it.
As someone who speaks 3 languages I understand you very well on what you’re saying and while I understand that some words are difficult to translate, the core message is never lost. I have mentioned this in the past many times.
The problem is always the interpretation as you also said in another thread.
As an example.
We have gone from (when Christ said) : Love your neighbor
To:
I’m still going to Heaven if I kill my neighbor.
This usually makes for interesting debates and creating many atheists in the process.
God bless you and glad to have you here.
I’m not sure who you are but I enjoy reading your posts due to the way you communicate and express your ideas. As you said earlier the Bible was written to be understood by a 7 year old and a 97 year old and you don’t need a PHD to understand it.
As someone who speaks 3 languages I understand you very well on what you’re saying and while I understand that some words are difficult to translate, the core message is never lost. I have mentioned this in the past many times.
The problem is always the interpretation as you also said in another thread.
As an example.
We have gone from (when Christ said) : Love your neighbor
To:
I’m still going to Heaven if I kill my neighbor.
This usually makes for interesting debates and creating many atheists in the process.
God bless you and glad to have you here.
B
Blue155
Guest
If a detective lets pain, chaos, or unfairness stop an investigation, they’d never solve a single case. Many cases are painful, tragic, and unfair. But if a detective shut down every time a case was difficult or emotional, cases would never get solved. Similarly, if one rejects the investigation into God because life is painful or unfair, they will never find out whether He exists — or whether He’s spoken to us about that pain. If we demand objectivity, courage, and perseverance to solve human cases — why wouldn’t we demand at least that much in our own search for the Creator of everything? Isn’t the question of God’s existence the most important “case” anyone could investigate? Emotions don’t solve cases — evidence does. Feelings are real, but they can’t change the facts. In every case, no matter how heartbreaking, we have to follow the evidence — not our emotions.
Think about everything around you — people, animals, planets, even time itself. None of these things exist on their own. They all depend on something else for their existence. Your phone depends on electricity. A plant depends on sunlight and water. Even you depend(ed) on your parents and the world around you.
Now, imagine if everything that began to exist depended on something else, and that something else also depended on another thing, and so on, forever — a never-ending chain with no starting point. Could anything actually exist right now?
No. Because if there were no starting point — no one who doesn’t need anything else to exist — then nothing would be here at all.
To explain why anything exists at all, we need to recognize there must be something that exists by its own nature, that does not depend on anything else, and that holds everything else up.
This is who we call God — the necessary being, the uncaused cause.
This isn’t just a guess — it’s a logical necessity. The very fact that you and I are here, that the universe exists right now, points to the reality of a necessary being who is the ultimate cause.
Why Can’t the Universe Be the Necessary Being?
Because the universe has parts that it needs to exist. Atoms, matter, molecules, energy, space, time, gravity, its forces and laws, etc etc. If the universe didn’t have none of these things, it would cease to exist.
Saying the universe “just is” without cause or explanation is unwittingly accepting the core insight of the Vertical Cosmological Argument (VCA): that something must exist necessarily and independently to ground everything else. Whether you label that entity “God” or use another term, the concept remains the same—an uncaused, necessary foundation that explains why anything exists at all.
Thus, the universe is dependent, contingent upon those things to exist, but what then caused those things to exist? None of those things can explain their own existence, they had a beginning—so they are not eternal, and they are not a necessary being—must exist by their own nature, cannot not exist. They exist, but could have not existed at all.
In order for there to be a cause that is not dependent, the cause has no starting or ending point, the ultimate cause for the existence of us and the world, there must be what Philosophers call a necessary being—a being who must exist by its own nature, and cannot not exist.
In order for the cause to not be dependent upon space, time, nature and matter to exist, then the cause itself would have to be beyond space, time, matter, and nature. And to create space, time, matter and nature the cause must be spaceless, timeless, supernatural, and immaterial.
In other words, the ultimate cause..the ultimate first cause whose existence is necessary and beyond space, time, matter and nature, is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, supernatural being who we know as God.
Think about everything around you — people, animals, planets, even time itself. None of these things exist on their own. They all depend on something else for their existence. Your phone depends on electricity. A plant depends on sunlight and water. Even you depend(ed) on your parents and the world around you.
Now, imagine if everything that began to exist depended on something else, and that something else also depended on another thing, and so on, forever — a never-ending chain with no starting point. Could anything actually exist right now?
No. Because if there were no starting point — no one who doesn’t need anything else to exist — then nothing would be here at all.
To explain why anything exists at all, we need to recognize there must be something that exists by its own nature, that does not depend on anything else, and that holds everything else up.
This is who we call God — the necessary being, the uncaused cause.
This isn’t just a guess — it’s a logical necessity. The very fact that you and I are here, that the universe exists right now, points to the reality of a necessary being who is the ultimate cause.
Why Can’t the Universe Be the Necessary Being?
Because the universe has parts that it needs to exist. Atoms, matter, molecules, energy, space, time, gravity, its forces and laws, etc etc. If the universe didn’t have none of these things, it would cease to exist.
Saying the universe “just is” without cause or explanation is unwittingly accepting the core insight of the Vertical Cosmological Argument (VCA): that something must exist necessarily and independently to ground everything else. Whether you label that entity “God” or use another term, the concept remains the same—an uncaused, necessary foundation that explains why anything exists at all.
Thus, the universe is dependent, contingent upon those things to exist, but what then caused those things to exist? None of those things can explain their own existence, they had a beginning—so they are not eternal, and they are not a necessary being—must exist by their own nature, cannot not exist. They exist, but could have not existed at all.
In order for there to be a cause that is not dependent, the cause has no starting or ending point, the ultimate cause for the existence of us and the world, there must be what Philosophers call a necessary being—a being who must exist by its own nature, and cannot not exist.
In order for the cause to not be dependent upon space, time, nature and matter to exist, then the cause itself would have to be beyond space, time, matter, and nature. And to create space, time, matter and nature the cause must be spaceless, timeless, supernatural, and immaterial.
In other words, the ultimate cause..the ultimate first cause whose existence is necessary and beyond space, time, matter and nature, is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, all powerful, supernatural being who we know as God.
B
Blue155
Guest
When a homicide detective is assigned a case—especially a cold case—they don’t get to choose what kind of evidence they wish existed. They don’t walk in thinking, “I hope I find my favorite kind of proof.” That’s not how investigations work.
Instead, they work with what is available. They assess: What the previous detectives recorded. What’s preserved in the files. Any new evidence that surfaces. The overall picture that emerges from the totality of the facts.
A good detective doesn’t reject a case just because it doesn’t come with a video confession or a fingerprint on the murder weapon. They don’t say, “Unless I get a very specific piece or type of evidence, I won’t believe the suspect is guilty.” That’s unreasonable.
The goal is not to find the perfect piece of evidence. The goal is to determine whether there is enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion.
And the same goes for a jury.
A juror is told: “You must evaluate the evidence that is presented to you.”
If someone on the jury says, “I demand a different kind of evidence that’s specific to me,” they’ll likely be dismissed. Why?
Because that person is refusing to engage with the actual evidence, and instead demanding a tailored experience.
That’s not how truth-seeking works.
Now shift that to faith, Scripture, and God. Many skeptics reject the Christian claim not because there’s no evidence, but because it’s not their preferred kind of evidence.
They want:
• Their custom-tailored personal miracle
• A scientific formula that proves God in a lab
• A message written in the sky
And if they don’t get that, they dismiss the plenty of other evidence available—like the historical reliability of Scripture, the resurrection of Jesus, the design of the universe, the moral law, prophecy, eyewitness testimony, etc.
But imagine a juror saying, “I need a message from the victim’s ghost before I believe this man is guilty.” That’s not reasonable.
And neither is demanding custom-tailored evidence while ignoring the overwhelming evidence already on the table.
The question isn’t, “Do I get my preferred kind of evidence?”
The question is, “Do I have enough reliable evidence to make a reasonable decision?”
In the case of Christianity, the answer is yes.
We don’t claim to have all the answers, but we have more than enough trustworthy evidence to know:
God exists
The Bible is historically reliable
Jesus rose from the dead
And the God of Scripture is the one true God
If someone rejects that, it is not because the evidence is weak, but because it’s not the type they personally wanted. The problem isn’t the case. The problem is the standard they’re demanding.
Instead, they work with what is available. They assess: What the previous detectives recorded. What’s preserved in the files. Any new evidence that surfaces. The overall picture that emerges from the totality of the facts.
A good detective doesn’t reject a case just because it doesn’t come with a video confession or a fingerprint on the murder weapon. They don’t say, “Unless I get a very specific piece or type of evidence, I won’t believe the suspect is guilty.” That’s unreasonable.
The goal is not to find the perfect piece of evidence. The goal is to determine whether there is enough evidence to draw a reasonable conclusion.
And the same goes for a jury.
A juror is told: “You must evaluate the evidence that is presented to you.”
If someone on the jury says, “I demand a different kind of evidence that’s specific to me,” they’ll likely be dismissed. Why?
Because that person is refusing to engage with the actual evidence, and instead demanding a tailored experience.
That’s not how truth-seeking works.
Now shift that to faith, Scripture, and God. Many skeptics reject the Christian claim not because there’s no evidence, but because it’s not their preferred kind of evidence.
They want:
• Their custom-tailored personal miracle
• A scientific formula that proves God in a lab
• A message written in the sky
And if they don’t get that, they dismiss the plenty of other evidence available—like the historical reliability of Scripture, the resurrection of Jesus, the design of the universe, the moral law, prophecy, eyewitness testimony, etc.
But imagine a juror saying, “I need a message from the victim’s ghost before I believe this man is guilty.” That’s not reasonable.
And neither is demanding custom-tailored evidence while ignoring the overwhelming evidence already on the table.
The question isn’t, “Do I get my preferred kind of evidence?”
The question is, “Do I have enough reliable evidence to make a reasonable decision?”
In the case of Christianity, the answer is yes.
We don’t claim to have all the answers, but we have more than enough trustworthy evidence to know:
God exists
The Bible is historically reliable
Jesus rose from the dead
And the God of Scripture is the one true God
If someone rejects that, it is not because the evidence is weak, but because it’s not the type they personally wanted. The problem isn’t the case. The problem is the standard they’re demanding.
Mountain of Fire is a good documentary to start gathering evidence.
It gives an account of two explorers and a family of Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia.
Orion and Plaides are two star clusters mentioned in the book of Job.
”Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?” (Job 38:31).
Modern astronomy has discovered that the Pleiades are a gravitationally bound star cluster, while Orion is a loosely connected, expanding stellar region, confirming the distinction described in Job 38:31.
…..
It gives an account of two explorers and a family of Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia.
Orion and Plaides are two star clusters mentioned in the book of Job.
”Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?” (Job 38:31).
Modern astronomy has discovered that the Pleiades are a gravitationally bound star cluster, while Orion is a loosely connected, expanding stellar region, confirming the distinction described in Job 38:31.
…..
The KJV itself has unexplainable biblical numerics that defy coincidence 50 times over.
While I may not agree with everything Brandon Peterson believes, his study on biblical numerics is generally really mind-blowing.
Note: I do not agree with his Elton Anomaly videos that he has promoted, which were a discovery through a friend.
Side Note: I do not agree with the title of the video that the English of the KJV has superseded the Hebrew and Greek.
I believe that the original languages are still very important to the life of the believer. Nevertheless, you cannot look at these videos and claim that this is all just a random coincidence. If you do, you simply do not understand how statistical probability works.
…..
While I may not agree with everything Brandon Peterson believes, his study on biblical numerics is generally really mind-blowing.
Note: I do not agree with his Elton Anomaly videos that he has promoted, which were a discovery through a friend.
Side Note: I do not agree with the title of the video that the English of the KJV has superseded the Hebrew and Greek.
I believe that the original languages are still very important to the life of the believer. Nevertheless, you cannot look at these videos and claim that this is all just a random coincidence. If you do, you simply do not understand how statistical probability works.
…..
B
Blue155
Guest
I agree with most of what you said. But in evaluating evidence humans are not able to exclude their emotions and/or psychological factors that might cause a human to ignore evidence. In some cases that gets reinforced by a specific culture.
A case in point, in the 1st century CE, the Jewish High Priest was appointed by the Imperial Legate of Syria, thus deriving his authority from that of the Imperial Legate. The Imperial Legate derived his authority from the emperor. In the 30's of the 1st century the Tiberius and his successor Gaius had zero authority in the city of Damascus. Thus, neither the Imperial Legate nor the Jewish High Priest had any authority. Acts records Paul going to the Jewish High Priest to gain authority to detain Christians in Damascus. Either Paul was ignorant, which does not fit with his claim of having studied under Gamaliel, or Luke invented this episode. There is a conflict in the biblical evidence, so how does one deal with this simple problem, Paul and Luke cannot both be correct in what they recorded in the scriptures.
B
Blue155
Guest
The judge, detective, etc will not allow their emotions to get in the way of solving a crime or making the right judgment when the guilty has been caught and or suspected. The general consensus is that they are not to follow or allow their emotions to be the determining factor of what really happened, but to follow the evidence where it leads.
This is true, but it is also true that humans are emotional beings and psychologically flawed. Evidence that contradicts someone's worldview will likely be discounted as not credible because of either emotional or psychological reasons. Strongly pro-Trump voters simply do not see what others call evidence of flaws or even illegalities in Trump's actions. This is not a consciously willful action, they honestly cannot see the issue. And it applies to numerous other aspects of life.
There is a video where a group of basketball players stand in a circle, and the viewers are told to count how many times the ball ius passed from one player to another. After watching the video, they are asked about the person in the gorilla suit. Very few people report having seen this individual walking into the circle, yet the action is clear when one is not focusing on the ball.
The ideal of following the evidence is prominent but the number of false convictions where evidence was clearly ignored is higher than one would like. In these cases, the accused party is deemed guilty for whatever reason, and contradictory evidence is simply not noticed. We work against it, but emotional and psychological factors are usually not in our awareness. Very few people are aware of most of their biases, I have heard of none who are aware of all their biases.
There is a video where a group of basketball players stand in a circle, and the viewers are told to count how many times the ball ius passed from one player to another. After watching the video, they are asked about the person in the gorilla suit. Very few people report having seen this individual walking into the circle, yet the action is clear when one is not focusing on the ball.
The ideal of following the evidence is prominent but the number of false convictions where evidence was clearly ignored is higher than one would like. In these cases, the accused party is deemed guilty for whatever reason, and contradictory evidence is simply not noticed. We work against it, but emotional and psychological factors are usually not in our awareness. Very few people are aware of most of their biases, I have heard of none who are aware of all their biases.