Summations Only

Yes indeed, I know it. I suppose you can't accept that people could know something and not be able to prove to you how we know it. Oh well. But of course that was at least one reason I posted sermons on the subject that agree with me. Ought to show at least that I'm not alone in my knowing.

Bible inerrancy.

I agree with the gist of your post, thanks. Maybe it can be summed up in Pascal's words, But that is likely to sound again like we have no evidence and that is not the case, I feel there is so much evidence for these things it's astonishing that unbelievers don't see it. But I remember being an unbeliever myself and not seeing it so there you have it, the fact that this is all supernatural and ordained by God.abe: Feel like adding here, I remember reading Pascal's Pensees when I was a very new Christian, maybe not even quite yet a Christian, and experiencing just about every word he wrote as if it was reading my own heart. When I read the debunkery of Pascal by unbelievers it makes me sad but what can I do but shrug it off. He's a brother in Christ I definitely look forward to meeting./abeSome good evidence has been given here from time to time, however, such as the fact of the prophetic nature of the Bible and its provable fulfillment. But they've got themselves convinced this or that timing was wrong so they just dismiss the claim of prophecy and that's the end of that.But: the heart DOES have reasons, as Pascal says, it's not without reasons as our opponents would claim, and they are good solid reasons. Most of them in the case of the inerrancy of the Bible I think we learn from using the Bible, from living in it, experiencing its truth, which just grows deeper all the time, proving itself over and over. Which is also more or less what you are saying.But Percy will answer that other religions say the same thing. You know, I don't think they do but I can't prove that either.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Oh they certainly do claim to have the truth but the way they claim it bears no resemblance to the Bible. That quote you give is simpleminded sophomoric reasoning. But as Mike said, the Bible can only really be known spiritually; unbelievers can't know it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The reasoning is that Allah only needs to declare something for it to be, therefore he wouldn't beget a son (which of course they interpret in a literal fleshly way, how sophomoric can you get?). The Bible DOES declare, it is revelation, it doesn't indulge in silly carnal sophomoric reasoning from the paltry mind of man.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Prophecy is the evidence I've mentioned that others too have mentioned. No other religion has genuine prophecy and certainly not fulfilled prophecy but I AM NOT INTERESTED IN DEFENDING THIS BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY DEFENDED MANY TIMES BEFORE AND STUPIDLY REJECTED AND I DON'T NEED THE FRUSTRATION AND ABUSE, thanks anyway.And if you can't see that the quote you gave is sophomoric reasoning and that what I presented was a valid argument, there is something wrong with you.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Imagine my surprise that you would take a position completely contrary to my own and even try to make it sound true!

As I said I don't need the frustration of going through evidence only to have it dismissed anyway.Here's a page on prophecy:Page not found - Apologetics PressHere's a page on Inspiration:Page not found - Apologetics PressHere's a short argument for inspiration:A Subtle Argument for Inspiration - Apologetics PressPage not found - Apologetics Press

Pascal was a Catholic but the group he belonged to, the Jansenists, had many beliefs in common with Protestants, which brought them to the attention of the Inquisition. I just looked through the Pensees, having forgotten most of it because I'd read it so long ago, and I think now that I am remembering certain parts of it and must have just skipped over others. He ponders a lot of issues that don't interest me, but when he ponders the efficacy of scripture then I appreciate him.Another Catholic Protestants usually appreciate is Madame Guyon for her life of committed faith. Sorry I'm writing this on the run, may come back to say more later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There is no such thing as inerrancy in a translation, but since errors there are recognizable as errors, that means we can reconstruct the original Greek. Those who spend their lives with the Greek documents can demonstrate that reconstruction is possible from all the various mss and fragments.I would regard the denominations you list as orthodox too. I disagree with Arminianism, yes, but that's one of the secondary issues that doesn't affect orthodoxy. Orthodoxy has more to do with salvation by faith alone. Where we get outside of the orthodox camp is with reinterpretations of scripture to accommodate evolution, but even there they may not have completely left the ballpark. I say "may not" because I think at least you're flirting with falling off the cliff.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I shouldn't have posted the links, it was an attempt to dismiss the subject which of course was a silly idea. I generally like the site but haven't read that page and don't want to spend the time on it so you get to have a freeforall with it.

Actually I should have included as definitional of orthodoxy: inspiration and inerrancy, the Trinity, and possibly other doctrines I'm failing to think of at the moment, along with salvation by faith.

True, it's been years since I studied the prophecies and I don't want to take the time now. I remember the explanations as convincing and yes you should believe me.

O give a person a break, do you have to be ALWAYS blasting me?

I'm sorry I did that, truly, I didn't want to get into the subject, it would take a lot of time to track down sources and I just don't want to do it. It was asked what evidence there is for inerrancy and I tossed off "prophecy" and said I thought it had been adequately defended here because I thought it had -- not by me but I've seen it discussed in the past. And genuine fulfilled prophecy is unique to the Bible. I was thinking mostly of the Messianic prophecies but it doesn't matter which ones. Of course I should know that people are going to bring up objections and that's why I'm sorry I mentioned it. I don't want to spend the time to track down answers to the objections. Again, sorry, and I'd like to get off the thread now.