Evidence for God from Science

stuartcr wrote:

Philip wrote:The problem with debating Neo utilizing Scripture is that it appears there is so much of what it says that he doesn't believe is true or is actually God's word.

Is it possible for someone to believe in God, but not that the bible is the word of God?

Philip wrote:To know ALL of God's mind would mean to have a complete understanding of ALL there ever was, is, or ever will be.

But while God left some mysteries in Scripture, it was primarily given so as to be instructive and beneficial - meaning, properly studied, most of it CAN be understood and applied. Otherwise, it would be of little good to us. Scripture that is not God-inspired and given, is useless to us. But a study of the history of how the Church received the Bible shows a protected history and continuity that is remarkable. So, while there are false gospels and groups who add to Scripture, there is a protected whole that we can have faith to be God's unified Word. As God is all powerful, as He came to DIE for His Word that points to Christ, would He not find it important to protect and preserve that word? Would He not have the POWER to protect it? Those that assert that many parts of Scripture are not God's actual inspired words are on very dangerous ground. They are picking and choosing what parts to believe and what not to. And if we couldn't know the difference, the Bible would be just a matter of a guessing and debating truths from non-truths that would be meaningless to us. So, is God in control or not? Is His word important to Him or not? If you believe that Scripture is mostly JUST the words of man, that much of it is not God's word, then what does that say about God and how He views its integrity? He created a world and universe of unfathomable detail and complexity, and yet people think He didn't think it important - or COULDN'T - protect His word???!!! Absurd!

Paul: Tell me Phillip, do you believe that ALL of the books and letters and poems and so forth in the bible, ALL are God's word? come DIRECTLY from Him and passed on by Man unaltered ?

Philip wrote:

Paul: Tell me Phillip, do you believe that ALL of the books and letters and poems and so forth in the bible, ALL are God's word? come DIRECTLY from Him and passed on by Man unaltered ?

I believe the 66 books in Protestant Bibles are God's inspired Word - excepting some very minor places, it's what He wanted in the canon. However, that is not to say there aren't many but meaningless copyist errors of a variety of types. There are a couple of places that scholars can reliably show that some scribe added a few verses. Perhaps the most grievous, are the final verses of Mark, people being able to take up snakes, etc. But there are only a few such places, they are well known, the huge number of manuscripts available allow us to see exactly those places when compared to earlier manuscript copies. God has given us a way to see the incredible continuity in Scripture, and where there have been deviations. But not one doctrinal point is in question with the few problematic passages. God protected what was IMPORTANT in the documents and copies to give us a protected canon. This means the minor errors and the tiny few problematic verses (likely added) are discernible and irrelevant. And He gave His word through mortal, failable men. In fact, he uses such failable men to do His work on earth, to spread His Gospel. God doesn't need pristine manuscripts or people to effectively communicate and spread His word.

Here are scholars' insights on this issue: https://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php/B ... e_Evidence

You must be very wary of your sources here philip. This Ankerberg fellow is not only not a scholar, he perverts the word of God, outright lies and is in denial of biblical morays and scriptural veracity. He is, IMO, a heretic in may ways and will absolutely be called on the carpet, by God, 2 Timothy 4:3, for his teachings that have lead many astray.

Storyteller: Is it not just man's opinion on what is true?

Philip wrote:

Storyteller: Is it not just man's opinion on what is true?

No! The criteria base of the statement comes from Scripture.

Here's what the statement contains: http://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/

Here's more on it: http://www.theopedia.com/Chicago_Statem ... _Inerrancy

Philip wrote:

Storyteller: Is it not just man's opinion on what is true?

No! The criteria base of the statement comes from Scripture.

Here's what the statement contains: http://defendinginerrancy.com/chicago-statements/

Here's more on it: http://www.theopedia.com/Chicago_Statem ... _Inerrancy

Storyteller: Is it not just man's opinion on what is true?

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

The GOL IS an inspired writing because we have in it the words of Christ and Luke was most certainly inspired by the HS to collect these accounts and pass them on ( Thank the Lord He did).

BUT was Luke under the direct influence of God when He wrote?
He doesn't seem to think so.

This does NOT, IMO, make His writing any less inspired then the others BUT does make them of a different kind of inspiration than the writings of Isaiah for example or John ( Revelation).