Summations Only

Faith writes: But lemme see, how might I try to answer this? According to your reasoning the truth is to be found in the greater numbers of those who disbelieve in the Bible? It was your point Chuck, not mine. "The Bible has been believed by millions for the last two millennia" But one imagines that the point of it was to persuade? If so it's failed. Christianity is not even a majority belief. And in the developed world it's in decline.

The point of pointing out that millions have believed was specifically to counter your notion that to have any validity it should be understandable by all. My point was that it IS understandable by plenty, by millions, even billions really in the end, and has in fact promoted great good in the world as a result. It wasn't a statement about numbers as such but a way of saying obviously it is understandable and in a way that makes a difference in the world. It isn't exactly that the "point of it was to persuade" but that it is designed to persuade exactly those whom God wants to persuade, as Pascal's comment explains.

Even its being in decline is going to demonstrate its truth in the end, especially if it's an indication that we are approaching the last of the last days, about which scripture has a lot to say.

Faith writes: There are many here who think they understand it but don't. Exactly my point. Why bother leaving this vitally important story in the hands of fallible man? Why not write it himself?

I answered that. So my answer doesn't persuade you. What else is new?

It's actually done and is doing exactly what God intended it to do.

So, does it matter how many people believe or disbelieve?

Not in itself, no, as I just explained to Tangle.

In the OT God says He always has a "remnant" who remain true even when the majority have gone off the rails. That was true then and has to be true now as well.

The point of mentioning the numbers was, as I explained, to show that the Bible IS understandable and by enough people to do great good in the world.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: In the OT God says He always has a "remnant" who remain true even when the majority have gone off the rails.

The problem is that the ones who are off the rails think they're the remnant.

Ha ha. So you say. Time will tell.

Faith writes: It isn't exactly that the "point of it was to persuade" but that it is designed to persuade exactly those whom God wants to persuade, as Pascal's comment explains.

It is exactly that it's designed to persuade - it's god's marketing material. His PR sheep are supposed to market the 'good news.'

It isn't exactly that the "point of it was to persuade" but that it is designed to persuade exactly those whom God wants to persuade, as Pascal's comment explains.

Well that's convenient - if the bible doen't persuade me, then god didn't want to persuade me! What self-serving drivel.

faith writes: So you say.

So the Bible says:

quote:

---

Proverbs 15:28 The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.

---

More study, less mouth, and you might have a clue.

Which has nothing to do with the question of authorship.

Of course you've admitted it's understandable by far fewer than all. Well under half.

Time may tell.

Today there is no convincing evidence.

All I can do is say the same thing again: there certainly is a lot of convincing evidence or the multiple millions I mentioned earlier would not have been convinced. Other religions, by the way, don't have any evidence or require any, unless you happen to get waylaid by one of their demon deities. Christianity does rest on evidence, but the contemporary "enlightened" fallen mind rejects it. All the miracles in the Bible are evidence for starters.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Putting good for evil and evil for good as you are doing is a very dangerous thing to do, are you unable to make a case without the personal accusation?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Gosh, maybe it doesn't have anything to do with the question of authority because I wasn't addressing the question of authority at that point. Golly gosh. And again you are arguing the numbers, as if majority determined truth, while I am not.

Faith writes: Putting good for evil and evil for good as you are doing is a very dangerous thing to do, are you unable to make a case without the personal accusation?

Your own posts accuse you. You claim infallibility in interpreting the Bible. You're idolizing yourself.

And there certainly isn't enough convincing evidence to persuade many more millions. The number of believers doesn't establish truth. As you acknowledged.

On what facts do you base your claim that "religions, by the way, don't have any evidence or require any, unless you happen to get waylaid by one of their demon deities."? Or is another of your fantasies not based on any reality?

I can't figure out what you mean by "unless you happen to get waylaid by one of their demon deities". You are obviously acknowledging the existence of other deities.

No, I am explicitly saying that numbers don't determine truth, and you're flip-flopping between "numbers don't determine truth" and "so many people have been convinced it must be true.

I didn't say" authority", I said "authorship", meaning authorship of the Bible. If your sight is so poor you can't tell the difference you should learn a little Christian humility before ranting like that.

I'm not going to try to find the last time the topic theme was touched upon.

If there's some theme in here you want to further explore, I suggest proposing a new topic.

Adminnemooseus