thought some of you might get a kick out of this:
SOUND ARGUMENTS GIVENOf course, the content of this chapter deals mainly with using the Bible as a basis for arguments. However a little later when discussing non-biblical evidence, this unusual advice is given:WHEN you make a statement, your listeners are fully justified in asking: "Why is this true? What is the proof that what the speaker is saying should be accepted?" As a teacher, you have the obligation either to answer such questions or to help your listeners find the answers. If the point is crucial to your argument, make sure that you give your listeners strong reasons to accept it. This will contribute to making your presentation persuasive.
The apostle Paul used persuasion. By sound argument, logical reasoning, and earnest entreaty, he sought to bring about a change of mind in those to whom he spoke. He set a fine example for us. (Acts 18:4; 19:8) Of course, some orators use persuasion to mislead people. (Matt 27:20; Acts 14:19; Col 2:4) They may start with a wrong premise, rely on biased sources, use superficial arguments, ignore facts that disagree with their view, or appeal more to emotion than to reason. We should be careful to avoid all such methods.
Are you endeavoring to help someone realize that the Bible really is the Word of God? You might quote scholars who say that it is, but does that prove it? Such quotations merely help people who respect those scholars. Could you use science to prove that the Bible is true? If you were to use the opinions of imperfect scientists as your authority, you would be building on a shaky foundation. On the other hand, if you start with the Word of God and then point to findings of science that highlight the Bible's accuracy, your arguments will be established on a sound foundation.huh? i dont even understand this. the most secure foundation to reason on the accuracy of the bible is the bible itself? this reminds me of the tireless arguments about imperfect 'human wisdom' versus 'godly wisdom' as though there were any kind of wisdom that wasnt human or imperfect. how on earth can there possibly be any evidence to support the bible that ISNT non-biblical and ISNT based on imperfect human thinking? that doesnt make sense. thats what evidence IS.
oh also of note. unlike the last book, at the end of this book there are several pages under a section entitled 'The Message We Must Proclaim' arkwardly tacked on that are purely doctrinal and unrelated to the Ministry School or speaking. its kind of as if they are unwilling to write any books that DONT explicitly explain the kingdom message. anyways this section mentions 1914 twice, as the date of the kingdom, the beginning of the last days, and the start of the preaching work. the chronology behind it is neither mentioned nor referenced.
just for those of you who are keeping track of the 1914 teaching and its likelihood of being phased out.
mox