"Jesus of Nazareth is easily the dominant figure in all history...." (H. G. Wells, historian, and author of Outline of History)
The skeptic cannot get away with dismissing the Bible so lightly by asking the believer to prove it to him: the legal burden of proof is on the skeptic to disprove the legal document. There is no credible reason to disbelieve it outside the presupposition that miracles don't exist, specifically that Christ didn't rise from the dead. The conclusion of any matter depends upon the presuppositions one brings to the problem. By the way, a person doesn't have to be fully convinced of the Bible's infallibility to be saved--Paul preached to this kind of Greek himself. When the skeptic asks you to prove the Bible, you only have to counter that he can prove it himself, by reading it (the Bible can defend itself, much like a caged lion).
Many scholars, including famed archaeologists, have endeavored to disprove the historical accuracy of Scripture and failed, even becoming believers as a result of their research. Over 25,000 digs have verified its historical reliability and accuracy. The Bible has never been proven wrong, either historically, geographically, scientifically, archaeologically, or theologically. In fact, the reason some don't believe is that they think that secular scholars know the most about the Bible--if two facts are in dispute, the world generally accepts the authority and word of the secular scholar over the Bible scholar, though the Bible has never been controverted by any so-called fact.
There is plenty of evidence for the Bible, and one should take its spiritual truth for face value and seriously, because of its historical reliability--why should it be distrusted on spiritual matters when no other matter is in question? The Bible asks you to believe nothing counter to evidence or against reason! We have sound reasons to believe it and there are compelling reasons and much evidence to give ample reason to lend credence to it (point in fact: Sir Isaac Newton said, "No science is better attested than the religion of the Bible."). One can never discount it due to lack of evidence; one goes in the direction of the preponderance of the evidence legally, and the evidence points in favor of this historical document (for the Bible is the basis of a religion based on history and no other religion is based on history or appeals to it with evidence to back it up).
There are many people who claim they don't believe the Bible but have never read it--this is blind faith. If they even say they have read it, ask them what its main point is! Surely, if they don't believe it they must know what its main message is or at least understand it! This type of challenge to the skeptic is called finding the fulcrum in the opponent's stance, whereby you attack at his weakest point where the leverage is in your favor and throw them off balance unexpectantly and doing what they aren't prepared for. Asking this question will give you the opportunity to present the message of salvation to the skeptic. A doubter can also have faith at the same time--honest doubt is no sin, in fact one doubter told Jesus: "I believe, help thou mine unbelief" in Mark 9:24.
Let me point out the theme of the Bible: salvation only in Jesus, who is God in the flesh. The Bible, in a nutshell, is about our generation, degeneration, and regeneration (it has been wisely put). It's all about our creation, fall, redemption plan, and restoration of God's kingdom and final Judgment Day. History in the Bible is about revelation, fulfillment, and consummation of history--yes, history has a beginning of time, a climax, a turning point, and a conclusion, and is not circular but headed somewhere.
The Bible, in a nutshell, reveals God's redemptive plan for man being unfolded in real-time and progresses from eternity past into the eternity of the future all through Jesus as its common thread. The Bible answers all our innermost needs and questions and solves all our dilemmas, including sin, sorrow, and death. The Bible could be easily dismissed if one could disprove the resurrection, but it's never been done--its truth stands the test of time. The Bible certainly isn't guilty of not going out on a limb--more than 2,000 prophecies have been fulfilled to prove its divine origin.
There were those who attacked the apostles' testimony in the beginning, but they countered that it was not fable or myth, but they had been eyewitnesses. It wasn't long ago when scholars were doubting the historicity of Jesus (no reputable one would today), and ascribed the miracles to legend! It shouldn't be surprising that the Jews of the time didn't deny his miracles, but only attributed them to Satan!
People who say they don't believe the miracle of the resurrection are really against the whole concept of miracles themselves, which is a philosophical and theological issue, and can only be resolved if the historical documents and witnesses are credible and reliable--if there's a God, there are miracles by consequence, because God can overrule his own natural laws and is not bound by them by definition. The Bible is a supernatural book in that it was superintended by the Holy Spirit or God-breathed, and is inerrant and infallible, which has never been disproved--and you know who has the burden of proof legally now and no reasonable person can deny its fidelity without committing intellectual suicide by not examining the evidence, i.e., if they have any cerebral pride.
We must avoid Eve's retrogression: she doubted God's Word, disbelieved it; believed Satan, and then disobeyed God. In retort, one may challenge: What proof or evidence have you found to disbelieve the Holy Scriptures? In conclusion, let me quote Sir Frederic Kenyon, famed archaeologist: "Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." Soli Deo Gloria!
The skeptic cannot get away with dismissing the Bible so lightly by asking the believer to prove it to him: the legal burden of proof is on the skeptic to disprove the legal document. There is no credible reason to disbelieve it outside the presupposition that miracles don't exist, specifically that Christ didn't rise from the dead. The conclusion of any matter depends upon the presuppositions one brings to the problem. By the way, a person doesn't have to be fully convinced of the Bible's infallibility to be saved--Paul preached to this kind of Greek himself. When the skeptic asks you to prove the Bible, you only have to counter that he can prove it himself, by reading it (the Bible can defend itself, much like a caged lion).
Many scholars, including famed archaeologists, have endeavored to disprove the historical accuracy of Scripture and failed, even becoming believers as a result of their research. Over 25,000 digs have verified its historical reliability and accuracy. The Bible has never been proven wrong, either historically, geographically, scientifically, archaeologically, or theologically. In fact, the reason some don't believe is that they think that secular scholars know the most about the Bible--if two facts are in dispute, the world generally accepts the authority and word of the secular scholar over the Bible scholar, though the Bible has never been controverted by any so-called fact.
There is plenty of evidence for the Bible, and one should take its spiritual truth for face value and seriously, because of its historical reliability--why should it be distrusted on spiritual matters when no other matter is in question? The Bible asks you to believe nothing counter to evidence or against reason! We have sound reasons to believe it and there are compelling reasons and much evidence to give ample reason to lend credence to it (point in fact: Sir Isaac Newton said, "No science is better attested than the religion of the Bible."). One can never discount it due to lack of evidence; one goes in the direction of the preponderance of the evidence legally, and the evidence points in favor of this historical document (for the Bible is the basis of a religion based on history and no other religion is based on history or appeals to it with evidence to back it up).
There are many people who claim they don't believe the Bible but have never read it--this is blind faith. If they even say they have read it, ask them what its main point is! Surely, if they don't believe it they must know what its main message is or at least understand it! This type of challenge to the skeptic is called finding the fulcrum in the opponent's stance, whereby you attack at his weakest point where the leverage is in your favor and throw them off balance unexpectantly and doing what they aren't prepared for. Asking this question will give you the opportunity to present the message of salvation to the skeptic. A doubter can also have faith at the same time--honest doubt is no sin, in fact one doubter told Jesus: "I believe, help thou mine unbelief" in Mark 9:24.
Let me point out the theme of the Bible: salvation only in Jesus, who is God in the flesh. The Bible, in a nutshell, is about our generation, degeneration, and regeneration (it has been wisely put). It's all about our creation, fall, redemption plan, and restoration of God's kingdom and final Judgment Day. History in the Bible is about revelation, fulfillment, and consummation of history--yes, history has a beginning of time, a climax, a turning point, and a conclusion, and is not circular but headed somewhere.
The Bible, in a nutshell, reveals God's redemptive plan for man being unfolded in real-time and progresses from eternity past into the eternity of the future all through Jesus as its common thread. The Bible answers all our innermost needs and questions and solves all our dilemmas, including sin, sorrow, and death. The Bible could be easily dismissed if one could disprove the resurrection, but it's never been done--its truth stands the test of time. The Bible certainly isn't guilty of not going out on a limb--more than 2,000 prophecies have been fulfilled to prove its divine origin.
There were those who attacked the apostles' testimony in the beginning, but they countered that it was not fable or myth, but they had been eyewitnesses. It wasn't long ago when scholars were doubting the historicity of Jesus (no reputable one would today), and ascribed the miracles to legend! It shouldn't be surprising that the Jews of the time didn't deny his miracles, but only attributed them to Satan!
People who say they don't believe the miracle of the resurrection are really against the whole concept of miracles themselves, which is a philosophical and theological issue, and can only be resolved if the historical documents and witnesses are credible and reliable--if there's a God, there are miracles by consequence, because God can overrule his own natural laws and is not bound by them by definition. The Bible is a supernatural book in that it was superintended by the Holy Spirit or God-breathed, and is inerrant and infallible, which has never been disproved--and you know who has the burden of proof legally now and no reasonable person can deny its fidelity without committing intellectual suicide by not examining the evidence, i.e., if they have any cerebral pride.
We must avoid Eve's retrogression: she doubted God's Word, disbelieved it; believed Satan, and then disobeyed God. In retort, one may challenge: What proof or evidence have you found to disbelieve the Holy Scriptures? In conclusion, let me quote Sir Frederic Kenyon, famed archaeologist: "Both the authenticity and general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." Soli Deo Gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment