Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

[GWH]

First, there is a difference between discussing and explaining things that do not take a lot of time, vs. faster discussions that are not as time-consuming. While I wish I had the superpower to freeze time and do many things that would normally take a very long time, a verse-by-verse examination with us, going back and forth over is going down a path that requires a lot of time that I do not have in the real world that we live.

Second, you are attempting to only examine one or two verses on my list that need to be dissected with a microscope, but missing the bigger picture or theme or pattern of evidence. The point of my write-up was not to have you look at a few and dismiss it (If that was your intention). The title of my PDF is 77 Changed Doctrines and its not called, 2 Changed Doctrines. Are you willing to look at all 77 points and more and examine them carefully? That's not up for me to walk you through every point and convince you of every one of them. The atheist will desire not to believe even if there is a large amount of evidence that supports the Bible, and yet they will like to focus on one or two weak links in the larger chain of evidence, rather than looking at the bigger picture or pattern. What I am trying to say is that if there are evidences for somebody being guilty for a crime, and a person who doubts that evidence just wants to focus on only one evidence or maybe just two, they miss the fact that there may be a larger pattern of evidence that convicts the criminal. I believe the larger body of evidence is on the side of the TR / KJV over the Critical Text / Modern Bibles. I have 100 reasons (Non-doctrinal) for believing in the KJV. There are 77 doctrinal reasons in addition to that, and that list is only growing. I can demonstrate a clear assault on the real Bible, and this is evidence for even an atheist to believe God's Word.

One time, an atheist had came up to Nick Sayers while he was street preaching in Australia, and they said to him that the Bible tells you to marry your rapist. At first, he thought they were making it up, but he got the reference and saw that it was in the Modern Bibles but not the KJV. In other words, the reading in the Modern Bibles was one of the excuses or reasons against coming to the faith. This is why the Modern Bibles are a problem. My writeup mentions this point, and there is an additional sub article that explains the KJV reading in more depth, as well.

Three, you may have missed my previous posts, but I said before that I am not into debating atheists. I see their belief as about as silly as believing in a flat Earth. So I do not see atheism as any kind of formidable position whereby they have any real case to make with me. To me, hearing their position is like listening to a bunch of nonsense because they refuse to accept any testimony or experiences that I have or consider any evidence for my position. They believe they came from an explosion and that they were once monkeys. How dumb is that? I do not want to consider or entertain their position or give it any kind of credence because it is ridiculous. Granted, I do debate others on other positions I disagree with but this is among brothers. I also want to communicate to the body of Christ that while we may have our disagreements, we can still be respectful and loving with each other. We can fellowship even if we do not agree on certain issues involving the Bible. This is to show that we love one another, as brothers and sisters in Christ which does speak to even the unbeliever.

Anyway, my debate proponent (fellow KJV believer) is Matthew Verschuur who is from Australia and runs the site called BibleProtector.com. He provides the KJV edition that is used at Biblehub.com. I agree with Matthew that the PCE (Pure Cambridge Edition - circa 1900) is that the final settled edition of the KJV, but where we disagree is whether Christians (who have access and time to do basic word studies on occasion with the original Hebrew and Greek that underlies the KJV). With the increase of technology with ai, and other tools, it is all the more easier to know certain Hebrew and Greek words and their meaning that is the English of the KJV does not fully convey. I am not saying that the Hebrew and Greek correct the English of the KJV. No, no. Never. I believe the KJV is God's perfect Word in 1600s English for God's people today. What I am saying is that the Hebrew and Greek can sometimes convey a deeper meaning that is not always present in the English of the KJV. The original languages can bless God's people along with the English in the KJV. Both line up together and are able to give us what God communicates. Matthew Verschuur believes that looking to the original languages are not required if one has access and time to them. While I am not calling all believers to be scholars or to invest their whole life to the original lanuguages, I do believe occasional word studies in the original languages is a must for several reasons. Nick Sayers is hosting and moderating the debate and if all goes well, it may be February 27th at 7:00PM New York Time (Eastern).


....

Just as we can consider only one of your recommended movies at a time, we can only consider one of your claimed changed doctrines at a time, so I will be interested in doing that when you are not as busy. In the meantime may I suggest that you put three of the problematic verses on the title page of your site instead of the three I cited?

 

[GWH]

The inerrancy of scripture is an essential doctrine. Without an infallible standard, there is no final authority for Christians.

The problem with that is there is no way we fallible folks can claim to understand GW inerrantly. We must walk by sufficient understanding aka faith.

 

[rewriter]

The inerrancy of scripture is an essential doctrine. Without an infallible standard, there is no final authority for Christians.

My final authority is God. Humans cannot even agree what qualifies as scripture. Different Christian groups have assigned some different works as scripture, often for political reasons. How many psalms are scripture? Is Jubilees scripture? What about the Wisdom of Solomon? And can you justify your answers without appealing to a human decision that claims God's support although without any scriptural support?

Incidentally, at least one Christian group will say there are at least 155 psalms that are scripture, at least one that accepts Jubilees and at least one that accepts the Wisdom of Solomon. That is unless you use human guidelines to exclude others.

 

[Blue155]

My final authority is God. Humans cannot even agree what qualifies as scripture. Different Christian groups have assigned some different works as scripture, often for political reasons. How many psalms are scripture? Is Jubilees scripture? What about the Wisdom of Solomon? And can you justify your answers without appealing to a human decision that claims God's support although without any scriptural support?

Incidentally, at least one Christian group will say there are at least 155 psalms that are scripture, at least one that accepts Jubilees and at least one that accepts the Wisdom of Solomon. That is unless you use human guidelines to exclude others.

Since “humans cannot even agree what qualifies as scripture” then can you?

 

[Blue155]

The problem with that is there is no way we fallible folks can claim to understand GW inerrantly. We must walk by sufficient understanding aka faith.

Since I am not omniscient, there are things I don’t know and are wrong about, but I believe one can be wrong about something but still be in a saved condition.

 

[rewriter]

Since “humans cannot even agree what qualifies as scripture” then can you?

I know what I accept as scripture and what I reject, but I do not determine what someone else accepts. I also might challenge how someone else interprets what we both accept as scripture, but I do not have the authority to declare them wrong, only that I disagree. But I also greatly question anyone who declares that they have the authority to declare what is scripture, or what the proper interpretation is.

 

[NightTwister]

The problem with that is there is no way we fallible folks can claim to understand GW inerrantly. We must walk by sufficient understanding aka faith.

God protects His Word so you don't have to.

 

[NightTwister]

My final authority is God. Humans cannot even agree what qualifies as scripture. Different Christian groups have assigned some different works as scripture, often for political reasons. How many psalms are scripture? Is Jubilees scripture? What about the Wisdom of Solomon? And can you justify your answers without appealing to a human decision that claims God's support although without any scriptural support?

Incidentally, at least one Christian group will say there are at least 155 psalms that are scripture, at least one that accepts Jubilees and at least one that accepts the Wisdom of Solomon. That is unless you use human guidelines to exclude others.

God has protected His Word.

 

[Blue155]

God has protected His Word.

Yes. Ps. 12:6-7, 119:89.

 

[Blue155]

I know what I accept as scripture

Has there ever been a time when humans have reached just one single agreement on one single verse, as to “what qualifies as scripture”?

 

[rewriter]

Has there ever been a time when humans have reached just one single agreement on one single verse, as to “what qualifies as scripture”?

On a single verse I am certain agreement has been reached. But as for the claim that God protects scripture, given that there are at least three major version of the Torah, that is clearly different, not minor differences, as well as other differences in both OT and NT texts, for instance did Paul and Titus agree to have Titus circumcised or not, the ancient manuscripts are very divided on this point. The Johannine Comma, most accept that it was an addition as it does not appear in the most ancient texts, others insist that it was original. And there are other such examples. Given those points, God is not doing a very good job of protecting the scriptures, rather He is allowing a lot of human error to creep in. And Colossians 2:20 gets translated 5 different ways, but at least every translation I am aware of stays away from the 6th potential translation, yes, the original Greek really is that vague since they left out most punctuation. And that 6th potential translation would trash a lot of "traditional" doctrines.

 

[Blue155]

On a single verse I am certain agreement has been reached

So then it’s entirely reasonable that humans can know whether someone is speaking the word of God, right?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Just as we can consider only one of your recommended movies at a time, we can only consider one of your claimed changed doctrines at a time, so I will be interested in doing that when you are not as busy. In the meantime may I suggest that you put three of the problematic verses on the title page of your site instead of the three I cited?

Created this today, just for you.



Note: I only mention Vaticanus and Sinaiticus because these two manuscripts are generally preferred for the main text of the Nestle and Aland Greek (which underlies the Modern Bibles). The Beza 1598 Greek (except for 25 translatable differences) is what underlies the King James Bible for the New Testament.


.....

 

[Tex_MidwesternerNW]

My reason for beginning this thread is simply to share my fallible faith with atheists, hoping they will find what I have learned helpful for understanding ultimate truth. I am grateful to all people—famous philosophers and anonymous acquaintances—who have helped shape my beliefs.

I believe reality is interconnected or unified, so that it is not necessary to worry about where to start exploring, but I will begin by asking the following philosophical question: Is there some truth which is not debatable; which everyone believes at least implicitly and uses as a common point of departure in discussing ultimate reality? I think there is such axiomatic truth, because in order to study reality it appears that one must (logically or implicitly) begin by assuming at least the reality of the student. Thus, absolute skepticism in philosophy is like absolute zero in physics: it serves as a hypothetical point that is not actually achieved or else nothing would happen (even in ice .

An “ism” affirms some valid part of reality. The truth represented by skepticism is that finite human beings cannot know absolutely, infallibly, perfectly or objectively. I find this truth expressed by the apostle Paul in the New Testament (NT) book of 1 Corinthians 13:9&12, “We know in part . . . We see but a poor reflection” (as in a fogged mirror).

The element of uncertainty does not prevent would-be skeptics from talking as if knowledge with some degree of confidence were possible the moment they attempt to communicate their doubts. An agnostic has “certain” assumptions at least implicitly; so, what do y'all think are three pre-Scriptural axiomatic truths revealed via right logic?

Over...

THE APOSTLE'S CREED

I believe in God the Father Almighty
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.*
On the third Day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen. (Augsburg Fortress 2016)

*Or, "he descended into hell," another translation of this text in widespread use.

The First Article: On Creation

"I believe that God has created me together with all that exists. God has given me and still preserves my body and soul: eyes, ears, and all limbs and senses; reason and all mental faculties."
"In addition, God daily and abundantly provides shoes and clothing, food and drink, house and farm, spouse and children, fields, livestock, and all property -- along with all the necessities and nourishment for this body and life. God protects me from all danger and shields and preserves me from all evil. And all this is done out of pure, fatherly, and divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness of mine at all!"

The Second Article: On Redemption

"I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father in eternity, and also a true human being, born of the virgin Mary, is my Lord. He has redeemed me, a lost and condemned human being. He has purchased and freed me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver but with his innocent suffering and death. He has done all this in order that I may belong to him, live under him in his kingdom, and serve him in eternal righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as he is risen from the dead and lives and rules eternally. This is most certainly true."

The Third Article: On Being Made Holy

"I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy, and kept me in the true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and makes holy the whole Christian church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one common, true faith. Daily in this Christian church the Holy Spirit abundantly forgives all sins -- mine and those of all believers in Christ eternal life. This is most certainly true."

Augsburg Fortress 2016 (Luther's Small Catechism)

OP: Barring the element of uncertainty, I want to answer your question and say that I have some absolute truths about my religion that are worth sharing here. The Apostle's Creed is what I know to be true and easily brought to mind. I would argue that atheism is not a belief of someone initiated in confirmation, since it violates the First Commandment and would be antithetical to any belief in this creed, which would not necessarily agree with a significant part of someone who doubts the omnipresence of Jesus Christ. You refer to Corinthians 13:9-12, "For we know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (KJV Christian Art Publishers 2016)

Unbelief is not the same thing as taking a radical stance to violate your Lutheran confirmation and teach people to rebel against the Advocate. There are some need-to-knows.

My question is, do you think that atheism should be regarded as a blasphemous institution?

For James 2:5-13 says, "Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heard of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoices against judgment." (KJV Christian Art Publishers 2016)

 

[Eli1]

On a single verse I am certain agreement has been reached. But as for the claim that God protects scripture, given that there are at least three major version of the Torah, that is clearly different, not minor differences, as well as other differences in both OT and NT texts, for instance did Paul and Titus agree to have Titus circumcised or not, the ancient manuscripts are very divided on this point. The Johannine Comma, most accept that it was an addition as it does not appear in the most ancient texts, others insist that it was original. And there are other such examples. Given those points, God is not doing a very good job of protecting the scriptures, rather He is allowing a lot of human error to creep in. And Colossians 2:20 gets translated 5 different ways, but at least every translation I am aware of stays away from the 6th potential translation, yes, the original Greek really is that vague since they left out most punctuation. And that 6th potential translation would trash a lot of "traditional" doctrines.

Good points.
Those who believe in Sola Scriptura make a lot of assumptions on what they think God can or cannot do.

 

[GWH]

God protects His Word so you don't have to.

Yes, that is exactly what I believe, which I have stated this way:

nspiration 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).

 

[Tex_MidwesternerNW]

Good points.
Those who believe in Sola Scriptura make a lot of assumptions on what they think God can or cannot do.

Only the Word, through faith and by grace given; by which the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father, can lead us to Jesus Christ.

 

[GWH]

Created this today, just for you.

View attachment 283908

Note: I only mention Vaticanus and Sinaiticus because these two manuscripts are generally preferred for the main text of the Nestle and Aland Greek (which underlies the Modern Bibles). The Beza 1598 Greek (except for 25 translatable differences) is what underlies the King James Bible for the New Testament.

.....

Thanks! The NIV has a footnote acknowledging that many mss have the KJV translation, and I can see how both are possible,
because Jesus might very well have been insulted by the leper questioning (in Mark 1:40) whether he was compassionate and willing to heal people. Thus, I see no significant contradiction between the two translations, although I agree with you that the 1984 NIV and KJV are preferable as the primary understanding, and the nuance of indignation should have been the footnote.

BTW, even if the difference is deemed to be a "change", it is contained in a historical rather than a doctrinal passage. If there is an implicit lesson, it would be: Of COURSE Jesus is willing to heal sinners (cf. Matt. 13:14-15, 22:37-40)!

The flip of the coin by the 2011 NIV translators might put this verse in the same vein as when Jesus manifested righteous indignation by driving the moneychangers out of the temple. IOW, the doctrine is that divine indignation/wrath does not contradict divine love.

That was fun BH (my initials also using my nickname). Please share another couplet as time permits.
HAND (Need that emoji as well as praying hands added to the icons :^)

 

[NightTwister]

Yes, that is exactly what I believe, which I have stated this way:

nspiration 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).

It's your lack of acceptance of the Bible's inerrancy that led to your false soteriology, including your false alternate gospel.

 

[GWH]

THE APOSTLE'S CREED

I believe in God the Father Almighty
creator of heaven and earth.

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.*
On the third Day he rose again;
he ascended into heaven,
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come to judge
the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic church,
the communion of saints
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen. (Augsburg Fortress 2016)

*Or, "he descended into hell," another translation of this text in widespread use.

The First Article: On Creation

"I believe that God has created me together with all that exists. God has given me and still preserves my body and soul: eyes, ears, and all limbs and senses; reason and all mental faculties."
"In addition, God daily and abundantly provides shoes and clothing, food and drink, house and farm, spouse and children, fields, livestock, and all property -- along with all the necessities and nourishment for this body and life. God protects me from all danger and shields and preserves me from all evil. And all this is done out of pure, fatherly, and divine goodness and mercy, without any merit or worthiness of mine at all!"

The Second Article: On Redemption

"I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father in eternity, and also a true human being, born of the virgin Mary, is my Lord. He has redeemed me, a lost and condemned human being. He has purchased and freed me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil, not with gold or silver but with his innocent suffering and death. He has done all this in order that I may belong to him, live under him in his kingdom, and serve him in eternal righteousness, innocence, and blessedness, just as he is risen from the dead and lives and rules eternally. This is most certainly true."

The Third Article: On Being Made Holy

"I believe that by my own understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my Lord or come to him, but instead the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, made me holy, and kept me in the true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and makes holy the whole Christian church on earth and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one common, true faith. Daily in this Christian church the Holy Spirit abundantly forgives all sins -- mine and those of all believers in Christ eternal life. This is most certainly true."

Augsburg Fortress 2016 (Luther's Small Catechism)

OP: Barring the element of uncertainty, I want to answer your question and say that I have some absolute truths about my religion that are worth sharing here. The Apostle's Creed is what I know to be true and easily brought to mind. I would argue that atheism is not a belief of someone initiated in confirmation, since it violates the First Commandment and would be antithetical to any belief in this creed, which would not necessarily agree with a significant part of someone who doubts the omnipresence of Jesus Christ. You refer to Corinthians 13:9-12, "For we know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (KJV Christian Art Publishers 2016)

Unbelief is not the same thing as taking a radical stance to violate your Lutheran confirmation and teach people to rebel against the Advocate. There are some need-to-knows.

My question is, do you think that atheism should be regarded as a blasphemous institution?

For James 2:5-13 says, "Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heard of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoices against judgment." (KJV Christian Art Publishers 2016)

Thanks for your reply, fellow Texan.
Please realize that the three axiomatic or unavoidable (beginning) beliefs I shared were these:

1. Truth or reality exists. The classic expression of this belief was by Rene Descartes (d.1650): cogito ergo sum: “I think, therefore I am”.
2. (Objective) reality is subjectively known by seekers. David Hume (d. 1776) was a notable proponent of this opinion, and 2Cor. 5:7 expresses this truth by saying, “We live by faith, not by sight” (or proof, cf. 1Cor. 13:9&12 cited previously).
3. Reality is meaningful and communicable or able to be discussed rationally in fellowship with other truthseekers. As Isaiah 1:18a (c.735 B.C.) says, “Come now, let us reason together.” Perhaps whoever invented language should be regarded as the founder of this fact, because the discussion of reality uses language as the means.

Then note that these beliefs are pre-Scripture, whereas the Apostle's Creed is post-Scripture.
I affirm the Apostle's Creed and the commentary on the first three articles that you cited.

Regarding your opinions, may I note that they are no more certain knowledge than my affirmations.
We walk by confident faith, not by absolute or infallible certainty--and "we" includes atheists.
I am glad to note that you did not disagree with 1Cor. 13:9-12, and I agree with Jam. 2:5-13.

Regarding your question, Jesus seemed to view atheism as blasphemous in John 8:42-44.
However, it is forgivable: a person may stop resisting God's calling/repent and seek God's salvation (Matt. 7:7, Heb. 11:6).

Over...