This is an excellent description of why I have such a problem with this idea...self attestation.Why does the Bible get a pass? If the problems in scripture were found in other holy books such as the Quran what would biblical scholars have to say about it? What level of scrutiny would the Quran receive with the same issues? We promote what is in our self-interest to promote...this is what is crystal clear to me.
Mike what is crystal clear to you is based upon some very shoddy information.You don't seem to have the slightest clue about the evangelical answers to the "problems" in the Bible to which you refer. Some careful study in this area would do you a world of good.There is no book in human history that has been as scrutized as the Bible. Are you even remotely aware of the extraordinary history of the preservation of the Bible? Are you even remotely aware of the relentless attacks against the Bible throughout history? Conversly, have you ever studied the development of the Quran? The differences could not be more radical.Mike, I get it. You don't believe. Because of this I renew my call to you to repent and believe. Please read and meditate on Hebrews 10:26-39 and think about the consequences of your unbelief. When you stand one day before your Judge you will not be able to plead ignorance. You will not be able to accuse God of being unfair or unjust for not being more "clear" to you. Your unbelief is a choice and it is the wrong choice.
You're making some incorrect assumptions regarding what I have read and what I have not on this subject...I have read Keller, Beale, Mohler and Carson on this subject...all of them come down to what this speaker reiterates...self attestation. All of them pretty unconvincing (unless we want to be convinced).I am aware of the history of biblical development..its defenders and detractors. I don't wish to be either but let the Bible be simply what it is...a book in which men tried (as best they could) to describe God and their world in the zeitgeist of their time. That is what the Bible is...It is a great tool...but should not be an object of worship (infallible word of God) which we have made it.
Mike,Way to fit in zeitgeist.Clearly you have not read the scholars you mentioned very well for they do not rely solely on the Bible's self-attestation. Although self-attestation is an important part of understanding the Scriptures.For one who has bought into the post-modern approach to knowledge you certainly seem to possess infallable knowledge regarding what the Bible is and is not.
Mike, I fail to see how your claim to know that the Bible is as you say, "a book in which men tried (as best they could) to describe God and their world in the zeitgeist of their time. That is what the Bible is..." is any more logically sound than the Bible claiming to be the Word of God. Saying that the Bible just a book written by men because you say so is just as much of a tautology as the Bible claiming to be the Word of God because it says it is. Merely making the attestation come from somewhere else does not make your logic more sound. That the Bible is the Word of God can neither be proved nor disproved. It can be believed or met with unbelief. Todd is right to warn you of the dangers of disbelief. What are the risks of belief?
Todd--at least 5 years of German was not TOTALLY wasted.Timothy--I disagree regarding my view of the bible being any more or less sound than the position of infallibility. When it comes to divine authorship, the burden of proof is on the claimant. To say that I cannot disprove is not an sound argument for it.If I were to write something that I said was divinely inspired you would ask me to prove it...if I said you could not disprove it (and therefore it is inspired) you would hardly take that as evidence for its inspiration. is this the point you are making or have I misunderstood?
Mike,There are far better reasons for believing in the Divine authorship of Scripture than anything you or I have written.
Mike, you are right. We cannot prove the inspiration of scripture (logically). No positive can be proved – only disproved. So, actually, the burden IS to disprove it and not to prove it. Check your formal logic.
Post a Comment