The following two videos are from a debate between Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen and Mr. Edward Tabash, the debate was called "Does God Exist?" and was held on 1.XII.1993.
The following two videos is from where the Christian is answering a side point brought up by the Atheist on Biblical inerrancy.
Presumably the Christian may have missed the point that divine revelation is presumed by us because of miracles recorded in the Bible, and the atheist is asking whether we believe the miracles only because of Biblical inerrancy which is a conclusion to be drawn from divine revelation, my answer being no.
- I
- What is the proof that the bible is inspired by God?
キリストは主である | 10.VI.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5DJf-zSkMg
2:51 Romans 1 indeed does mention the Gospel as a power of salvation, but it is not clear that the "foolishness" and "shameful" part has to do with rejecting Gospel.
More likely, it refers to knowing there is one God from the philosophy of Plato or Aristotle or similar reasonings, and still accepting the inherited (at one earlier stage the new Nimrodian or soon post-Nimrodian) paganism and polytheism.
Do you have any other references than Romans 1 for the claim "all who reject the Bible are reduced to foolishness," or similar?
In the Bible, that is.
- II & III
- How do you defend biblical inerrancy?
キリストは主である | 10.VI.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnybOJ3KkVU
- II
- 0:33 "unlike every other book when it speaks to supernaturalism"
Adversary is here presuming all pagan supernatural claims whatsoever, not just of divinity and right to worship are rejected by Christians.
He is presuming a Christian is viewing the story of Romulus' conception exactly as an Atheist would. We are in fact free to assume a demon did some insemination (along with sense deception about the "mating a god" thing). He is presuming a Christian views all other Floodmyths as absolute lies, when in fact it is rather common even today to view them as garbled but still recognisable memories of the actual Flood described in the Bible. He is presuming a Christian views Hercules as an Atheist would, when in fact very few parts of his biography (last two labours of twelve, conception by Zeus, suckling Hera and making her squirt out the milky way, divinised and married Hebe on dying and burning on a pyre) need to be disputed by a Christian. While Samson arguably had his strength by God and Hercules arguably not, a demon could have also given such strength, including the first feat of strangling two snakes in the cradle.
We don't worship Romulus or Mars, we don't worship Zeus Xenios or Jupiter Hospitalis, we don't worship Hercules, but we do not say the events are all faked and made up.
1:37 "even through alleged primitive people"
Fine ... here is the point. God brought it about, bc the people receiving the revelation (say Moses at the burning bush) were not what is here referred to as "primitive people".
If we don't accept Moses was hallucinating, we don't accept Hesiod was hallucinating.
Hesiod could have been fooled by demons (he never parted any Red Sea to prove his mission was from God) or he could have lied. In the former case, Hesiod did make a partially correct supernatural claim, he had seen spirits in the guise of maidens, and they had honoured what they considered as higher gods than themselves, including ... here is a point "Cronos of the crooked mind" ("Kronon ankylometen").
I think, given that "Cronos of the crooked mind" means "Cronos the deceiver" and that Cronos was also identified with Moloch Baal, Hesiod was deceived by demons who were worshipping their lord the devil. There were other divine names before Kronon ankylometen, but he comes last as a give-away, if not to Hesiod (he both heard that and heard insults to his profession as shepherd and fell for it!) at least to us.
- III
- 2:14 "no other book is like that"
That was not the exact point.
The point is not that Bible is unique, the point is, the Bible contains supernatural claims, and the opponent thinks you ALWAYS discard ALL such from any other book.
If you do, he has a point.
I don't - it is just, I don't accept any that goes against the Bible.
Hesiod and Numa Pompilius may have received revelations from maiden-spirits or spirit-maidens, the point is, since they are at variance with the truth claims of the Bible, these spirits are not from God. Nine muses teaching polytheism or Egeria teaching divination is like Djibreel to Mohammed or Moroni to Joseph Smith : NOT FROM GOD.
That said, Hesiod, Numa, Mohammed and Joseph Smith having received a kind of revelation (but in each case a bad one and not one backed up by parting Red Sea or resurrecting dead before the crowds) is a claim of the supernatural I can entirely consider possible.
2:33 "only one or two other claims even come close to that"
That was about truth claim, not about supernatural claim in general.
2:41 "it's God's word, through the words of men, and as God's word, it is without error"
Excellent.
BUT there must to this effect also be - and there is - a reasonable claim that the words of men in question were not erroneous words.
AND to this reasonable claim, there is a component of trusting tradition.
I trust tradition on Tolkien having written, not just translated from Adûnaic, Lord of the Rings. There is a surrounding tradition, overriding the claim in the text itself. I therefore trust tradition on Lord of the Rings being fiction.
Similarily I trust tradition on Acts or Gospels having been written down as accounts of facts and accepted as such by the community witnessing these facts, which men were all believing in their turn the Jewish tradition that Exodus was an account of facts by Moses, and accepted as such by those having walked through the Red Sea and their descendants.
Does this mean I have to trust some Pagan traditions on claims of supernatural? Yes, but not on truth claims in conflict with the Bible. I do trust Iliad is mainly historic about things happening some time after Joshua but before King David (there is a chronological pairing saying that Troy fell when Eli was judging Israel). I also trust Mahabharata - but not when it says Krishna was a god - about events that I think fit well enough into Genesis 4 and Genesis 6. Hinduism is in a sense nostalgia for the pre-Flood world of Nod.
No comments:
Post a Comment