Posts by EverAStudent

77

How do you know the Bible is from God?

by cognac in

jw
friends

i really want to believe it, but, sometimes it is very difficult to figure out how it can be from god.

i mean, in the old testament, he seems horrible in some instances.

the adam and eve thing doesn't make to much sense to me.

EverAStudent

Greetings Leolaia,

I appreciate your logical approach. You asked repeatedly what I believe regarding claims of extra-biblical supernatural phenomena. I am in fact a skeptic of all things, not merely the supernatural, but of governments, bereaucracies, and institutions that have a self-interest to preserve.

How does a skeptic evaluate supernatural claims without including the bias of "there is no supernatural so all things must have a natural explanation"? If my anti-supernatural bias prevents me from investigating the supernatural because I cannot admit the possibility before I even do the investigation, the research is self-defeating before it begins. Merely denying the supernatural excludes the possible outcome of finding the supernatural, so I do not do that.

Some evidences are better than others. Written evidence is usually better than oral, and documents closer to the date of an event are better than contemporary ones. Some evidences are not evidence at all: assumptions, biases, mindreading of motivations, etc. When written evidence has no concrete support or refutation it becomes subject to literary analysis whose rules vary by special interest groups based on preconceptions and biases (whether they are admitted or not). In biblical literature the literary analysis abounds and every academic finding can be and is opposed with a contradictory academic finding. In some circles deutero-canonical books are regarded as blatant frauds, in others, sacred--and each has their own literary analysis to "prove" it. From there the discussion degrades into a contest of whose literary analysis is better.

What can be done by the skeptic who does not wish to preclude the outcome of the supernatural when investigating the Bible? One approach is to apply the criterion of consistency. For example, some of the most credible Christian teachers today, Wayne Grudem is such a person, strongly believes in modern prophecy but published that the best he has seen from the best prophet in his own church is a 40% accuracy rate. That is inconsistent in the extreme. Virtually all such prophecy-minded churches that dare do so acknowledge similar rates. Their claims of religious supernatural activity may therefore be dismissed. Consistency requires, well, it requires consistency. Likewise, UFO enthusiasts have yet to produce consistent evidences of any kind to support their cause. Governments are extraordinarily inconsistent in telling the truth, so what they have to say should always be assumed to be inaccurate.

Scriptures themselves are nothing but one continuous story of supernatural revelation from one God to one human after the other. Virtually every alleged encounter between this God and a human results in this God delivering a future-telling prophecy, which the people then act upon: Abraham goes to Canaan, the patriarchs go to Egypt, Moses leads the Jews out of Egypt, temples are built, animals are sacrificed, and a Messiah is anticipated.

What I found consistent, and thus believable (in lieu of no contravening concrete evidences), is that the theme is pervasive (God is both Creator and Savior) and has revealed Himself to humanity through selected prophets. Either the story is one very long conspiracy of intentional lies from Moses to the apostle John (where at times the entire nation of Israel participates in the deception) with each and every patriarch being so evil as to add his own set of lies to further the story, including Jesus who said the whole story was true, or, the story being told is as accurate as the indviduals can make it. What is more plausible? To me, it seemed more plausible that religious minded indivduals (the majority of whom had nothing to gain by lying) did not all lie to the last man and told the truth. That kind of consistency of supernatural interaction with God is what convinced me the collected work is valid. Others will find the consistency criterion to lead them to say the whole thing is a conspiracy of false religion.

That is my personal story. Other groups, like the Mormons and the WTS lacked credibility for me because their histories did not continue the story of the Bible but created brand new recent plot lines, they claimed prophecies that contradicted the very Bible they claimed to follow, and their future-telling prophecies failed to always come true.

Yes, I am a skeptic of all things. But I do not let my skepticism rule me. For me, the story of the Bible demanded my faith to be placed in Christ. Faith, the very definition of faith, is believing in what cannot be seen or proven, for if it could be seen and proven then faith would not be needed.

36

What do most ex-JWs "believe" after leaving?

by EverAStudent in

has anyone done a survey to determine what faith system, religion, or set of religious beliefs ex-jws tend to settle into after leaving the organization?

if not, would you care to post what you presently consider to be your own personal religion (e.g.

protestant, catholic, baptist, jw but not in the organization, agnostic, atheist, ...) and especially what you presently believe about jesus (was he a real historical human, is he god, is he an angel, ...).. thank you!.

EverAStudent

LightCloud wrote: "I would describe myself as an agnostic at this point in my life. As for others I knew who used to be JW's most are either atheist or agnostics, it seems very rare for them to return to whatever religion they previously came from, or in the case of those that were born in it seems the JW experience kills any desire to return to another organized religion."

Yes, I am getting that loud and clear from everyone. It seems the WTS experience destroys trust in Scripture, God, the supernatural, and faith itself. :(

81

Are there ANY Bible prophecies that indisputably came true?

by nicolaou in

.

i mean a prophecy made before the event, with specific detail that can be verified in history books.

nothing vague like 'reports of wars'.. .

EverAStudent

Psychotic Parrot wrote: "No one desputes that the scrolls were ever prophecy free, what is desputed is that they were (with the exception of Jesus) written before the prophecies were fulfilled. "

So it is your personal belief that none of the Jewish Scriptures were penned until after all the prophecied events they contained had already happened in chronological history, which puts the penning of all the Jewish Scriptures at about 300 BC, 100 years after there were no more prophets in Israel.

I actually admire that theory because it conveniently explains why there are no extant copies of prophecy-free Scriptures hanging around. But, it is hard for me to envision that there were no written Jewish Scriptures from Moses to Nehemiah and no written prophecies of promised land, release from exile, or future Messiahs for them to cling to during that 1500 years. What evidence do you present that there were no Jewish Scriptures until 300 BC?

18

"Jehovah will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear"

by highdose in

i used to pin all my hopes on this scripture, cling to it no matter what.

eventually i realised that it was rubbish!

life in the borg is so tramatic that it will often be way beyond what you can bear, and the only "comfort" you might get?

EverAStudent

lol

18

"Jehovah will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear"

by highdose in

i used to pin all my hopes on this scripture, cling to it no matter what.

eventually i realised that it was rubbish!

life in the borg is so tramatic that it will often be way beyond what you can bear, and the only "comfort" you might get?

EverAStudent

AllTimeJeff wrote: "I for one, will not be tempted to worship at Corinthian temples ever again... "

Of course, we both know that the meaning of idolatry is broader than Corinthian temples...say, greedy publishing houses that idolize money???? but then, I think that is what you may have been saying...

18

"Jehovah will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear"

by highdose in

i used to pin all my hopes on this scripture, cling to it no matter what.

eventually i realised that it was rubbish!

life in the borg is so tramatic that it will often be way beyond what you can bear, and the only "comfort" you might get?

EverAStudent

I know it will be but little comfort to those who have already been burned by a misappropriation of the passage, but it was not about "bearing up" under adversity, it was about not giving in to sin/idolatry when others would tempt you to sin with them. Jesus was the "way of escape" so that a person did not have to fall back into idol worship.

No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. (1 Corinthians 10:13-14)

81

Are there ANY Bible prophecies that indisputably came true?

by nicolaou in

.

i mean a prophecy made before the event, with specific detail that can be verified in history books.

nothing vague like 'reports of wars'.. .

EverAStudent

I think the question is reveresd. The Bible does exist. Its existence means it is the assertion, it is the evidence. Since it has prophecies (which have been fulfilled) the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that NONE of those prophecies were real, that they were all written after-the-fact.

What evidence is needed to constitute proof that every biblical prophecy was written after the event that fulfilled the prophecy? The best evidence would be to produce the original unfaked scrolls, or copies of them, you know, the scrolls that did not have the prophecies in them in the first place, the scrolls that the rogue scribes allegedly added material to centuries later. Since the Hebrew Old Testament Scriptures circulated widely wherever the people went, copies of those prophecy-free scrolls ought to be everywhere...

Show me the copies of those scrolls and you have some solid evidence.

77

How do you know the Bible is from God?

by cognac in

jw
friends

i really want to believe it, but, sometimes it is very difficult to figure out how it can be from god.

i mean, in the old testament, he seems horrible in some instances.

the adam and eve thing doesn't make to much sense to me.

EverAStudent

Leolaia wrote: "It assumes that a sustained skepticism of a supernatural basis to 'biblical prophecy' must incorporate positive statements made at the time that state the prophecies 'were faked'. This shifts the burden of proof from the claimant to the skeptic when it should fall on the claimant and the more extraordinary the claim (e.g. predicting the future, divine inspiration), the heavier the burden of proof should be."

And the circle is complete. Since the skeptic has what Leolaia refers to as "a sustained skepticism" against "a supernatural basis" the skeptic needs no real evidence to assert that every biblical prophecy or revelation is not credible. The "burden of proof" placed on any prophecy is more than just, "was the prophecy really made prior to when it was it was fulfilled?" but ALSO "and at the same time prove that supernatural things can happen."

Therefore, since it is always possible for the skeptic to claim (claim but not prove) that every Bible prophecy was written after-the-fact, and the skeptic can always assert that there is no such thing as the supernatural, the skeptic has created a perfect firewall around their skepticism.

It becomes irrelevant to the skeptic that no copy of Isaiah exists that does not contain the prophecy written in 7:14 or 51:14. Yet, the skeptic claims that Isaiah was first written without such prophecies, that they were all added "later," after the prophecies were fulfilled. But no such copy without them was ever discovered, regardless of the fact that the Jews memorized and circulated their Scriptures religiously. Similarly, no copy of Daniel exists without chapter 8. Nor does such a prophecy-free copy exist of Micah without 5:2.

It becomes disingenuous after a while to hear that the book of Daniel was "altered" in 300 BC (after Alexander's empire was split up) to add-in after-the-fact prophecies about Alexander, even though the book had been read, memorized, and studied for 200 years by the people who had been in exile and brought the book back with them from Babylon. They and their children knew the book inside and out and would have known it had been modified by scribes who were not even prophets. Remember, Israel considered themselves to have had NO prophets from 400 BC until Christ was born. How remarkable if the skeptic is right! No one noticed the changes to the sacred writings, and all the true original scrolls were all lost just before being preserved at Qumran? That is hard to believe.

Since the books exist as they do, repleat with prophecies, the believer does not have to explain them away. The burden of proof really is on the skeptic to "prove" that what exists were all faked. Yet, the evidence, the unfaked scrolls or copies of them, have never been brought to light.

OK, that is not proof, but it is certainly is evidence. For the believer, the very existance of the prophecies is also evidence.

77

How do you know the Bible is from God?

by cognac in

jw
friends

i really want to believe it, but, sometimes it is very difficult to figure out how it can be from god.

i mean, in the old testament, he seems horrible in some instances.

the adam and eve thing doesn't make to much sense to me.

EverAStudent

I noticed that none of the rejections of biblical prophecy quote any extant documents written by eyewitnesses that claim the prophecies were faked. Instead, all the rejections are one of two kinds:

there is not as much ancient secular literature as I would personally like to see supporting the prophecy, or,
well, I have no evidence this was faked after-the-fact, but it could have been, so, I think it was

Those are not strong counter arguments against the thousands of written extant documents of the Bible. There is no ancient written evidence that all or any of the Bible's prophecies were faked or post-dated, only unsupported allegations from modern authors.

81

Are there ANY Bible prophecies that indisputably came true?

by nicolaou in

.

i mean a prophecy made before the event, with specific detail that can be verified in history books.

nothing vague like 'reports of wars'.. .

EverAStudent

Previously posted:

The original poster asked, “Are there ANY Bible prophecies that indisputably came true?” Of course, by the time the hidden rules of the presupposition game were slowly revealed by the skeptics, the answer seems to be, “no.”
The hidden rules of the presupposition game are:
If a prophecy was made in one book of the Old Testament and fulfilled in another book of the Old Testament it must always be assumed that the prophecy was a recent edit added after the fact (about 400 BC) and did not exist in the first writing of the book.
If a prophecy was made in the Old Testament regarding the future Messiah (e.g. virgin birth, born in Bethlehem, died via crucifixion, resurrected from the dead) then whenever the New Testament demonstrates that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy it must be assumed that the gospel writer invented those details about Jesus and that they never actually happened to Jesus.
In short, the hidden rules of the presuppositionalists guarantee that no biblical prophecy can ever be accepted as valid prophecy. Worse, it makes every Old Testament book of the Bible a fabrication filled with falsehoods and every New Testament apostle that wrote a letter or endorsed a gospel account to be a flagrant liar.
Virtually the entire Christian faith is dependent on the truths that Jesus was born of a virgin, was born in Bethlehem, lived a perfect life, died a sacrificial death, and resurrected from death to life. Since all those events were first prophesied in the Old Testament about the Messiah, it means that either Jesus fulfilled them all and was the Messiah, or, every foundational aspect of Christianity is a brazen lie and never happened.
In other words, if one accepts that Jesus did live a perfect life, and/or died a sacrificial death via crucifixion, and/or resurrected from death to life, then you have “personal proof” that at least five Old Testament prophecies absolutely were fulfilled.
Opposite that, if one accepts that the gospel writers and the apostles all lied in their writings about such things as Jesus being born of a virgin, Jesus being born in Bethlehem, His perfect life, His sacrificial death by crucifixion, and His resurrection to life, then EVERY aspect of Christianity is false and immoral; all of it having been based on falsehoods. There can be nothing good or wholesome in the Christian religion in such a case for it is all comprised of deceit, errors, and intentional mis-directions.
Now, if every Bible prophecy is a fabrication and was never made in real human history, then God never revealed Himself in it or through it, ever. For example, Abraham could never have encountered God because God always prophesied the future (including a son and a nation) to Abraham on every encounter. Certainly Moses never encountered God because at the burning bush God supposedly prophesied that Moses would lead the nation out of Egypt into the promised land originally granted to Abraham (a prophecy later fulfilled by Joshua).
Kind David was given a future-telling prophecy that his lineage would rule Israel for eternity and would save all the world from their sins. That too had to have been a lie, a fake future-telling prophecy, a fabrication added to the scrolls by devious scribes in 400 BC.
And the worst part, there never was a promised Messiah. Every promise of a Savior/Messiah in the Old Testament was a future-telling prophecy. Every one. If all of those prophecies were recent edits by sneaky Jewish scribes in 400 BC and were not made by the original prophets who first wrote the books, or, if they were never fulfilled by anyone, including Jesus, then the world never did have a Messiah from the line of David. No Messiah means no sacrifice was made for sins. No sacrifice for sins means no forgiveness and no salvation. None.
That about sums up the two choices:
Every patriarch in the Bible is a liar for having claimed an encounter with God and having claimed to have been given a future-telling prophecy regarding a promised land, a great nation, or a coming Messiah, thus, all of Judaism and all of Christianity are a giant conspiracy of uncounted liars covering a span of four thousand years.
The prophecies were presented to the original patriarchs just as the Scriptures report them and Jesus is the fulfillment of every one of the prophecies just as the gospels, apostles, and eyewitnesses have reported.
Which choice is backed by the best evidence and is more plausible? If you have a presupposition that everything supernatural is impossible, you will choose option one. If you presuppose a living personal God who loves His creation and has communicated with it, option two may have some appeal for you.

As for me and my house, we have chosen to believe in the Lord.

----------------------

I noticed that all the rejections of biblical prophecy quote no extant documents written by eyewitnesses that claim the prophecies were faked. Instead, all the rejections are one of two kinds:

there is not as much ancient secular literature as I would personally like to see supporting the prophecy, or,
well, I have no evidence this was faked after-the-fact, but it could have been, so, I think it was

Those are not strong counter arguments against the thousands of written extant documents of the Bible. There is no ancient written evidence that all or any of the Bible's prophecies were faked or post-dated, only unsupported allegations from modern authors.