Proofs For The Bible

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

The Bible is true, and this can be proven by pointing to sources outside the Bible.

This can be evidence for historical events, places or people...or proof of doctrines, miracles, etc.

True or False?

[Cal]

Whether the manuscripts that were used to translate the bible (DSS or otherwise) describe REAL history or not is not really an issue. Obviously the Hebrews were a real people, described to exist in multiple records. Whether its events were all described accurately, who knows. However, many of the cities and places mentioned still exist to this day, and archaeolgy proves it. We can start there.

As to the BoM---you don't find any evidence that the authors even existed, nor can any of the places mentioned, that are not also in the Bible be shown to exist. So why go any further?

[Paul Osborne]

Apparently the PROOFS of the Bible are not convincing enough to convert the whole world to Christianity, or Judaism for that matter.

Did a man named Moses really part the Red Sea? No one can prove that it happened. One must accept it on faith. Did a man name Jesus Christ really perform miracles? Again, one must accept it on faith because they weren’t there to see firsthand what happened and all they have is a story bound up in testimony of what people said happened 2000 years ago.

Paul O

[Cal]

Paul--and that is the point. You don't HAVE to take any of it on FAITH. You can call it what it appears to be! Man made history, like the rest.

[Tr2]

The Bible is true, and this can be proven by pointing to sources outside the Bible.

This can be evidence for historical events, places or people...or proof of doctrines, miracles, etc.

True or False?

Go do some reading and find out for yourself.

[USNationalist]

Paul-

Obviously we dont know if these mircales exsisted, but the legitmacy of biblical claims, such as the setting for the story, give a reasonable foundation for the faith we have that those miracles happend. It is foolishness to have faith in a religion that would tell you things fall up or that pigs fly when it is obviously not the case. Maybe a little less obviously- the claims of the mormon church leave the same foundation for placeing its members faith upon.

Example: USN 2:3-4

"And the lord healed many people that day, and when the people blew soap bubbles in celebration of the miricals, in new york city, they did float until they poped, or ran into something, be it the ground, another person, maybe an animal, or until hit by a stick."

CrazyCraroo 5:45-48

"And the lord healed many people that day, and when the people blew soap bubbles in celebration of the mircicals, in atlantis 4 million miles below the sea, they did not pop even if they ran into something, be it the ground, another merman, maybe a fish, or even poked by a might trident. And those bubbles forever have, and shall remain unpopable."

In both the miricle is what cant be proven. But one provieds foundation for a faith, while the others foundation is just as fair fetched as the faith itself.

Faith without foundation is misplaced faith. The mormon faith ofers no more foundation for their beliefs then i could if i made up my own religion. Except i may have more- since i would use places that actualy exsist

[Paul Osborne]

Guys,

Yes, we have a choice. We can choose to have faith in any given system of religion. We can study these systems and make it a matter of prayer. Hopefully through the help of an all kind and wise Deity (assuming he really does exist)-- we will learn the truth. I feel that I have learned the truth. Yes, FEEL! And, you know that feelings are really the best attribute we humans possess. Feelings are good. Feelings of the Spirit are good. :) Feelings of goodwill towards others are good. B) Feelings of sexual activity are good. Feelings! I like good feelings; and I assume you do to; right?

Paul O

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Jan 29 2004, 03:34 PM

The Bible is true, and this can be proven by pointing to sources outside the Bible.

This can be evidence for historical events, places or people...or proof of doctrines, miracles, etc.

True or False?

False. Snow made a good point -- that early, perhaps even original, manuscripts for portions of the Doctrine & Covenants exist. The Doctrine & Covenants makes mention of places like Boston, whose existence archaeology (not to mention the evening news) confirms. The evidence that the Doctrine & Covenants was written about a real place, and during the time it claims to have been compiled, is therefore substantiated as well as or better than the Bible. Logically, all that proves is that Joseph Smith wrote the Doctrine & Covenants -- not necessarily that the miracles and revelations described therein are authentic.

It works the same way in evidence law. Before you can offer a document into evidence, it has to be authenticated. The authentication process is preliminary to the actual weighing of the evidence. Authentication of a document doesn't mean that its contents are recognized as being true, only that the document's provenance is established. At best, the Bible can only pass the authentication process. Since the Bible's contents are not independently verifiable (i.e. no reliable corroborating evidence of the miracle of the loaves and fishes, etc.), its contents have to be accepted on faith.

Al-Ghazzali was right and Averroes was wrong.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Originally posted by Tr2@Jan 29 2004, 11:28 PM

The Bible is true, and this can be proven by pointing to sources outside the Bible.

This can be evidence for historical events, places or people...or proof of doctrines, miracles, etc.

True or False?

Go do some reading and find out for yourself.

Well, this question is not really important to me.

I just wanted to start another healthy debate.