Witnesses


JudoMinja
 Share

Recommended Posts

During my scripture study last night, I came across a familiar verse that stood out to me due to discussions I've participated in recently-

Matthew 18:16 - "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established."

I was thinking about how we determine what is true- what evidence do we use to decide what to believe? The more evidence we have of something, the more likely we will be to believe it- but it is still possible to disbelieve certain witnesses or proofs if we do not trust them to be accurate. It is especially difficult to determine the truth of something when witnesses do not all agree about what they saw or heard- because their own perceptiveness and interpretations skew reality. This is an important thing to consider that has application in many aspects of our lives- how trustworthy is a witness? Whether that witness be a person's testimony, a physical object, the written word, etc... How do we judge its accuracy and determine what is true?

As this scripture would indicate, the more support you have the better. It becomes harder and harder to deny the truth of something the more witnesses you have, especially if those witnesses cover different areas. For example- if you have physical evidence, an eye witness, fingerprints, video recording, dna, etc. in a court case, the truth comes into better and better focus and we are able to get an understanding of reality. Having a plethora of only one of those things (ie. 50 eye witnesses), though convincing, will still not be quite as convincing as evidence that covers all these spectra. If a fault were to be found in the medium, it doesn't matter how much of it you have- it will be unconvincing.

People can typically be categorized as decision-makers into two groups- those who make decisions based on logic and those who make decisions based on feelings. We all do both to an extent, but we usually have a natural tendancy to prefer one over the other. Some even determine one of these sources to be "faulty" and will not believe anything from that "witness". But this puts them in a predicament- put all your eggs in one basket and you are missing out on a great deal of possibly supportive evidence as well as setting yourself up for potential failure, should the medium you trust also be proven faulty.

See, no matter what source we go to- it is faulty. Our very bodies are limited in their ability to perceive and interpret. So limit yourself to one source and your sense of reality will become skewed. This becomes very obvious when we look at the difficulties faced by the blind or the deaf- their impairment blocks out one of the senses they need to create a "whole" image of reality. Rely on only one sense, or one witness, and things will become very difficult- because no witness is completely faultless or foolproof. It is by bringing everything together that we start coming closer to what is real and true.

This is why I love the clarification in D&C 8:2 about revelation from the Holy Ghost- "Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart." The Holy Ghost is our witness of the truth of all things, and he provides that witness in two places- our minds and our hearts. He speaks to us through our capacity for logic and reasoning, as well as through our feelings and emotions. It is not a single witness, but TWO witnesses, which gives it more strength and validity and can be understood by decision-makers in both the "logical" and "feeling" categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gopecon

I like what you had to say about the Holy Ghost touching two areas as our witness. To your question about believing (or not) multiple witnesses - I don't believe that the law of witnesses necessitates that we accept anything that we hear from 3 sources. People can lie and work together to deceive us. Multiple people can be honestly mistaken about their observations as well. The law does give us a pattern of how God reveals and establishes truth to us. If He wants us to know something, he will provide a second and third witness to let us know that warning X was serious, not just a personal concern of a prophet. The second witness initially can be the Holy Ghost's confirmation when there are no other physical, personal witnesses available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting topic Judo and a great post. You covered a lot of ground there. I liked what you said about different types of evidences as well as different types of people. I tend to fall more to the side of logic than to feelings.

Allow me to pose a question, if I may. It is generally accepted in a court that eye witness accounts are some of the weakest forms of evidence, that while important they are not truely empirical as they cannot be tested and proved.

If we accept that two or three (or more) witnesses of whatever type is in evidence better supports truth claims, then while we can claim those in the church do they not also support other church's equally? For example:

1. number of people testifying - we are greatly outnumbered by many other religions

2. Martyrdom - many others in different religions have sealed their testimony with their blood

3. Physical evidence - we are better here than many, and worse than some.

4. Fruits of the spirit - again we do fairly well here. THe church members have done an excellent job of demonstrating values and actions that are Christ centered. We have some that have not done so well, but many more that have. At the same time so have many other religions as well.

I see what you are getting at with reference to Doctrine and Covenants, yet at the same time, I think that many in other religions would say that they KNOW (heart and mind) that their church is right/true/ good/chosen fill in the term of your choice, and I know some who have done as asked yet not recieved a witness.

This is a great topic and I am interested in others thoughts.

-RM

Great topic. I'm interested in seeing others thoughts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is generally accepted in a court that eye witness accounts are some of the weakest forms of evidence, that while important they are not truely empirical as they cannot be tested and proved.

Exactly. We know that the testimony of an eye witness is fallible and weak for a number of reasons. There have been a plethora of studies on the human mind and how people can completely miss information and/or substitute information to fill in the blanks of what they see or hear. I think one of the most interesting is the

.

So, since we know that human beings are not always trustworthy witnesses, how can we be sure of witness accounts? How can we even be sure of what we have personally seen or heard? The mind can play tricks on us, can create false memories.. or substitute information in areas where we were not being totally observant to make a whole.

I think the answer is in looking at a variety of information and types of evidence, in recognizing that all information we receive is faulty and so must be tested by comparing it to other information from different sources. Instead of accepting everything we are told at face value, we should study it out and compare things that are presented to us from logical sources, physical sources, and emotional sources.

Our very bodies are capable of providing three witnesses, if we will pay attention to it and utilize it- There is our ability to use logic and reason, there is our intuition- which studies are finding to be knowledge based on sensory intake that does not quite come together in the brain, and there is our emotional or spiritual input. We should strive to utilitze all three areas in determining what is true and making decisions based on that information, instead of selecting just the one that we deem the most trustworthy.

I was doing more searching on this topic and came across 1 John 5:8 "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." Right before this verse it identifies the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as the three witnesses in heaven. So what does it mean here by Spirit, water, and blood?

Well, I don't know if my interpretation is wholly accurate, but in light of this topic of needing multiple witnesses of different types and sources, I see it as the three things we must do as witnesses of Christ:

The Spirit is our faith.

The water is our baptism and ordinances.

And the blood is our acceptance of the atonement- going through the repentance process.

So when there is a combination of faith, action (making and keeping covenants), and repentance/forgiveness, we draw closer to the truth and bear more accurate witness of the truth to others. These three witnesses also make our own testimonies stronger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we must be careful - the promise is not that the Holy Ghost will tell us all things but only those things for which we have studied out in our minds and hearts and through our own diligence.

For example we could pray for clarification of evolution - but if we have not studied and know enough about evolution to understand that process - I do not believe that the Holy Ghost can or will give definitive direction.

Often, when someone pretends to believe something I will ask a question concerning what in their studies has convinced them to their conclusion. If their only answers are that they prayed about it - I am personally concerned and unconvinced that the Holy Ghost has inspired and convinced them of anything.

Also I am concerned anytime a person rejects an observable scientific principle based on their understanding of scripture. My thinking here is that if they cannot correctly understand physical things objectively before their eyes how can I trust them to be correct concerning subjective spiritual things that do not lend themselves to responsible accountability.

This is my personal understanding and opinion

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know what the truth is by knowing the Incorruptible word of God found in the bible. I know that is not popular here, but it is the truth.

Please note the differece... The Word of God as found in the bible and elsewhere is quite popular around here...

Your particular take and interpretation of the Word is what is not popular

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know what the truth is by knowing the Incorruptible word of God found in the bible. I know that is not popular here, but it is the truth.

I don't think anyone wants to stand on the side of being down on the Bible, least of all me.

But, I still have this one nagging question, and if you would open your mind for just a minute and read it in the spirit of love and concern that it is asked:

If one person believes the Bible says you have to be baptized in order to be saved, and another person believes the Bible says you can be saved if you have not been baptized, which person is right according to the Bible?

If two people disagree with interpretation, who makes the decision which is right?

The words can be understood both ways. This seems like an important enough issue to address since salvation may depend on it.

How would you answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone wants to stand on the side of being down on the Bible, least of all me.

But, I still have this one nagging question, and if you would open your mind for just a minute and read it in the spirit of love and concern that it is asked:

If one person believes the Bible says you have to be baptized in order to be saved, and another person believes the Bible says you can be saved if you have not been baptized, which person is right according to the Bible?

If two people disagree with interpretation, who makes the decision which is right?

The words can be understood both ways. This seems like an important enough issue to address since salvation may depend on it.

How would you answer?

John 3:16. Baptism (Water) is not required to be saved. You need only to believe. Why, because God said so, in His word if you would only soften your hearts and believe it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with relying solely upon the Bible is that it can be interpreted in so many different ways, both for good and for bad. The mere fact that there are so many differing religions each having different creeds and doctrines. Some believe in baptism by immersion, while others believe in sprinkling. Some profess Christ died for all men, while others for only the chosen few. That seems like some pretty important differences right there.

In the 19th century there were schisms within various denominations the southern membership justifying slavery by using the Bible, while their northern counterparts argued that the Bible did not approve of the practice. This caused the Methodist Church to split into the ME North and the ME South in 1844, The Southern Baptists split off the Baptist Church in 1845, and the Presbyterian New School split in 1857 and Old School in 1861.

The point being that the Bible is capable of being interpreted to permit a vast number of beliefs. And yes, it can even be interpreted to prove LDS beliefs. So to a certain extent whether or not it was translated without error, the same passages can often be read to prove the same points. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so what is my take and interpretation since you know me so well?

In your 19 or so posts so far... You have clearly have taken certain scriptures to support your repeated claims that the Bible is infallible no matter the translation...

Yet if I were to quote the end of Revelation about the curses that wait those add to or take away from his word. And then point out quite reasonably that if God intended the bible to be infallible. That he wouldn't allow even one thing to be changed, then these verses make no sense whatsoever. If man can't add to or take away from the bible then the threat is empty. Why would God make an empty threat?

Undoubtedly you will come back and point out the errors in my interpretation/understanding/translation of these verses. But by so doing you are forced to take the position that translations/interpretations/understanding of the bible can be wrong because you are claiming that mine are, and that to truly understand the Word of God it must be translated correctly which you will claim that I have not. Which lines you up in agreement with the first part of our 8th Article of Faith. The very Article you have been challenging us on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scripture that prompted this discussion supports the idea that the Bible alone is not enough. God has made it a rule that He will supply two or more witnesses for His Word. Having more than one scriptural source from which to derive the truth helps provide clarity and reinforces the truthfulness of the gospel message of Christ, the atonement, and salvation. The Book of Mormon is a second testament (or witness) of Jesus Christ.

We come closer to the truth the more witnesses we rely on in finding that truth, the more sources we turn to in collaborating and comparing the similarities to determine what stands out and is supported by these multiple witnesses. I would venture so far as to say that even scriptures such as the Torah, Koran, and Vedas contain portions of truth that stand out as similar to and supportive of the Bible. These are further witnesses of truth- incomplete without the message of Christianity, but still containing messages in keeping with God's way.

Then, of course, we can turn to more than just the written word. We have the voices of angels coming to people in visions, the words of prophets, apostles who stand as witnesses of Christ, missionaries who travel two by two. We have scientific teachings and discoveries that are supporting basic tenets of truth found in the scriptures- appealing to those more logically inclined.

While the Bible has much of what we need to know and understand for our own progression toward salvation, it is incomplete without at least one other witness to stand with it. Many who rely solely on the Bible to find truth have found themselves going every which way and interpreting its meaning in vastly different ways. I do not deny that the Bible brings people closer to God, but I think that relying on just the Bible is like relying on just logic or just feelings. It will only get us so far. We have to appeal to the other witnesses that God has provided to clarify and expound upon His Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your 19 or so posts so far... You have clearly have taken certain scriptures to support your repeated claims that the Bible is infallible no matter the translation...

Yet if I were to quote the end of Revelation about the curses that wait those add to or take away from his word. And then point out quite reasonably that if God intended the bible to be infallible. That he wouldn't allow even one thing to be changed, then these verses make no sense whatsoever. If man can't add to or take away from the bible then the threat is empty. Why would God make an empty threat?

Undoubtedly you will come back and point out the errors in my interpretation/understanding/translation of these verses. But by so doing you are forced to take the position that translations/interpretations/understanding of the bible can be wrong because you are claiming that mine are, and that to truly understand the Word of God it must be translated correctly which you will claim that I have not. Which lines you up in agreement with the first part of our 8th Article of Faith. The very Article you have been challenging us on.

Do you hear yourself? You are building a defense as to why we can not believe Gods word in the bible. "My people perish for lack of Knowledge". Your heart is hard and your yoke is difficult. Listen to Him, come to Jesus for rest. Believe His Word. Your debate and lofty argument is with Jesus, not me. I believe His Word and it is you who does not. I rest in Him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gopecon

John 3:16. Baptism (Water) is not required to be saved. You need only to believe. Why, because God said so, in His word if you would only soften your hearts and believe it.

Earlier in that same chapter (verse 5) Jesus says that "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Not to be too argumentative, but that sounds like baptism. Verse 16 requires belief, but it doesn't preclude actions from being required to demonstrate that belief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you hear yourself? You are building a defense as to why we can not believe Gods word in the bible. "My people perish for lack of Knowledge". Your heart is hard and your yoke is difficult. Listen to Him, come to Jesus for rest. Believe His Word. Your debate and lofty argument is with Jesus, not me. I believe His Word and it is you who does not. I rest in Him.

I hear myself just fine... And I understand myself quite clearly too... Do you understand how you are coming across? If you are here to learn about what we believe and why we believe what we do and/or to share your belief in a respectful manner then you are welcome. Such exchanges are part of why the site is here.

This is not how you are coming across, you are coming across as insulting and closed minded. This behavior is not what the site is about and will get you kicked out if it continues.

Now let me put my money where my mouth is... and see if I understand you.

You believe the Bible to be the Word of God. You believe the Bible to be the ONLY Word of God. Because of these two principles, the bible, in your position, must remain remain intact otherwise we lose the Word, and you don't believe God would allow that.

This is what I understand your position to be. Please feel free to correct me if you feel I misunderstood your position. Please note that I did so without implying that you don't believe the Word or that your relationship with Christ is suspect.

Now using the same pattern I will try to present our position again so that you can hopefully begin to see where the real differences are, versus were you have so far shown that you think they are.

We believe the Bible to be the Word of God. We DO NOT believe the Bible to be the ONLY Word of God. Because of this we don't have to worry about the Word of God being lost. Therefore we can acknowledge that man can mess with the written form of the word. When they do this they receive the curses found in Revelations and God renews his Word so that it is not lost in spite of that.

The method of renewal is repeatedly shown in the Bible. God calls Prophets and Apostles. This is our position. You don't have to agree with it, but please stop insulting us by misrepresenting our beliefs and our faith in Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you come to this conclusion?

The Traveler

That is a good question. I believe the bible to be true because...

1. God is real

2. He loves us

3. He has given us His Word

4. God is powerful and more than able to protect His Word

5. The Byzantine and Alexandrean bibles have no glaring differences.

6. The Dead Sea Scrolls are added proof of scripture integrity.

Why are some of you so eager to tear the bible down? This forum is full of members quotations making arguments against Gods Word. You say in your doctrin that "...yes we use the King James Bible". What do you use it for? When you start to doubt Gods word than your foundation is quick sand.

The original question of the thread is about how we know if it is God or just feelings we hear. The answer is found in God's Word. If we hear something that is contrary to His Word than we can discard it. His word is the foundation for everything. Feelings are dangerous and can be and often are deceiving spirits. We must be anchored in His Word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gopecon

Showing that the Bible alone allows room for debate is not tearing it down. It seems self evident that the Bible alone can be taken numerous different ways, given the large divisions in the Christian world. That doesn't meant that the Bible is wrong - it means that some of the interpretations of it are. We also should be careful about picking verses from different places and building whole doctrines on them without looking at context or what other verses say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original question of the thread is about how we know if it is God or just feelings we hear. The answer is found in God's Word. If we hear something that is contrary to His Word than we can discard it. His word is the foundation for everything. Feelings are dangerous and can be and often are deceiving spirits. We must be anchored in His Word.

Actually, I was just asking how do we know what is true? Since I believe there is a God, I believe that we can find truth in His Word, and that is why I was reading the Bible while pondering this question, but what if someone were to decide that the true reality is that there is no God? That is actually what led me to be pondering this topic while I was reading the scriptures.

I was having a conversation with someone on here (in a now closed thread) and asked what he thought we should accept as evidence in deciding what is true. He had decided to reject the testimony of his "feelings" when making decisions, because he deemed those feelings untrustworthy. He felt that it was better to rely solely upon logical and empirical evidence to decide what is true. He never clearly identified what he actually believed to be true, but my impression from his posts was that he believed God does not even exist.

Many of the people who were posting and backing up their belief in God were doing so with evidence based on their feelings, evidence that he had rejected because it was not logical. So, can we trust our feelings when making decisions or trying to determine what is true? This is what I was thinking about when I read the scripture in Matthew about two or more witnesses- and I realized that our feelings and our logic are, in a sense, two witnesses. We should be striving to rely on both and find the common ground in what our logic and feelings tell us to be true. We should not reject either. This is why the Holy Ghost speaks to both our mind and our hearts- to witness to both our logic and feelings of the truth.

I wanted to broaden the topic and talk about all kinds of witnesses, so naturally this would include the scriptures. If we believe that there is a God and that Christianity is true, then- as God said he would provide- there should be at least two witnesses of such truth. The Bible is God's word, but it is not a complete witness all on its own.

I understand that it may feel like an attack for someone to say the Bible is incomplete and therefore not infallible. But it is only logical to realize that man with his free agency and imprefections can misconstrue and pervert what has been given him. So, how does God protect His Word from corruption? By providing multiple witnesses. We can then compare what is similar between those witnesses and discover truths that may have been lost from one or the other, because the multiple witnesses provide a more complete picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good question. I believe the bible to be true because...

1. God is real

2. He loves us

3. He has given us His Word

4. God is powerful and more than able to protect His Word

5. The Byzantine and Alexandrean bibles have no glaring differences.

6. The Dead Sea Scrolls are added proof of scripture integrity.

Why are some of you so eager to tear the bible down? This forum is full of members quotations making arguments against Gods Word. You say in your doctrin that "...yes we use the King James Bible". What do you use it for? When you start to doubt Gods word than your foundation is quick sand.

The original question of the thread is about how we know if it is God or just feelings we hear. The answer is found in God's Word. If we hear something that is contrary to His Word than we can discard it. His word is the foundation for everything. Feelings are dangerous and can be and often are deceiving spirits. We must be anchored in His Word.

Hey Maygraceabound,

Though latter-day saints consider the Scriptures, including the Bible, to be the word of God, and are bound to regard them as such, we do not worship the scriptures or any object. God's Word, according to the New Testament, is Jesus Christ, not any particular book (see John 1:1). We accept the revelations of Christ, as they were received in purity, as His words.

Christ reveals his words to his servants, the prophets and apostles, and they in turn cause those words to be written down. This enables others to read and ponder the revelations for themselves, and in a process not that different from the prophets, gain a witness for themselves of the truthfulness of the message. Thus prophets and revelation are greater than scripture. If you were to gather up all the Bibles in the world, and pile them up and burn them, God can reveal them again in their entirety through his prophets, as He has always done. And the rest of us can find out the truth of the things we hear or read through the process of revelation, exactly as it has always been done.

That's the program.

I do have a couple of questions for you.

How do you know "God is real" and that "He loves us"? Any book can claim to be the "word" of God. How are you certain that the Bible is in fact God's word?

Thanks,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a good question. I believe the bible to be true because...

1. God is real

2. He loves us

3. He has given us His Word

4. God is powerful and more than able to protect His Word

5. The Byzantine and Alexandrean bibles have no glaring differences.

6. The Dead Sea Scrolls are added proof of scripture integrity.

Why are some of you so eager to tear the bible down? This forum is full of members quotations making arguments against Gods Word. You say in your doctrin that "...yes we use the King James Bible". What do you use it for? When you start to doubt Gods word than your foundation is quick sand.

The original question of the thread is about how we know if it is God or just feelings we hear. The answer is found in God's Word. If we hear something that is contrary to His Word than we can discard it. His word is the foundation for everything. Feelings are dangerous and can be and often are deceiving spirits. We must be anchored in His Word.

A most interesting post:

But you have not answered how you came to the conclusions you have.

So I will point out a few things that you may have missed – you talk about the Dead Sea Scrolls. Did you know that the name of the community and place that preserved the Dead Sea Scrolls was anciently called Damascus? Are you aware that the Dead Sea Scriptures may be the very version that Jesus used and quoted from as the word of G-d. That the documents left are the very documents that brought Paul to an understanding of the doctrines of Christ.

That the Damascus to which Paul was traveling when he saw a light was quite possibly that same Damascus from which the Dead Sea Scrolls have come? That the most quoted scripture by all the writers of the New Testament is the ancient Old Testament Book of Enoch – which is not in today’s Bible?

How do you know that your Bible is better (the word) than those scriptures that were the” word” used by Jesus and the first Christians?

My problem – to be honest. Is that those that were inspired some hundreds of years after the death of Jesus, the Apostles and those that wrote what we have in the New Testament – that those great inspired thinkers and scholars that gathered together all possible sacred writings and determined what would be scripture and what is not and that determined what you so strongly defend as the undefiled word of G-d – also so inspired to also look at the world around them and the skies above them and determined that the world is flat and that earth is the center of the entire universe to which all other things orbit.

I would be much more comfortable with you claim that there is nothing unchanged and undefiled in the Bible if that Christianity that depends so desperately on the Bible was not so changed, defiled and so divided in doctrine from having access to it.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone wants to stand on the side of being down on the Bible, least of all me.

But, I still have this one nagging question, and if you would open your mind for just a minute and read it in the spirit of love and concern that it is asked:

If one person believes the Bible says you have to be baptized in order to be saved, and another person believes the Bible says you can be saved if you have not been baptized, which person is right according to the Bible?

If two people disagree with interpretation, who makes the decision which is right?

The words can be understood both ways. This seems like an important enough issue to address since salvation may depend on it.

How would you answer?

I find it indisputable that different people interpret the bible in different ways to mean different things. If this were not so, there would not be the plethora of christian churches that we have today.

This is why God called Apostles/Prophets. When disputes arose and doctrines clashed, the Apostles/Pophets were there to determine, through divine revelation, the correct interpretation.

When all the Apostles/Prophets of the early church had been lost, so was the means to settle doctrinal disputes. Lacking this, what did they do? They voted.

In my mind, Prophets are required. Inspired men called empowered and authorized by God with the gifts of prophecy and revelation. Where such men are, there you will find the Church of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scripture that prompted this discussion supports the idea that the Bible alone is not enough. God has made it a rule that He will supply two or more witnesses for His Word. Having more than one scriptural source from which to derive the truth helps provide clarity and reinforces the truthfulness of the gospel message of Christ, the atonement, and salvation. The Book of Mormon is a second testament (or witness) of Jesus Christ.

We come closer to the truth the more witnesses we rely on in finding that truth, the more sources we turn to in collaborating and comparing the similarities to determine what stands out and is supported by these multiple witnesses.

While the Bible has much of what we need to know and understand for our own progression toward salvation, it is incomplete without at least one other witness to stand with it. Many who rely solely on the Bible to find truth have found themselves going every which way and interpreting its meaning in vastly different ways. I do not deny that the Bible brings people closer to God, but I think that relying on just the Bible is like relying on just logic or just feelings. It will only get us so far. We have to appeal to the other witnesses that God has provided to clarify and expound upon His Word.

Hello Judo

Interesting thread. My thinking is the Bible is not just one witness but rather 40 witnesses writing 66 books. (Protestant:lol:) I would add to that the witness of creation and the witness of our conscience(Romans 1). Also the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:16 Heb 10:15)

I believe as you do that feelings and experience are an inner witness also.

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some more thoughts on our senses as witnesses:

We can learn much from our senses, but not everything. They are limited in their abilities. Many people deign not to believe in something becaue they cannot "see" it, but there is much in the world being discovered by science that is beyond the ability of our senses to perceive.

For instance, our ears are only capable of hearing certain frequencies of sound. Other animals can pick up on different frequencies, and we have utilitzed this knowledge to our advantage. Dog whistles, rat and insect "repellants" that you can place in your home (they give off a sound the pests can hear and don't like). We are also coming to better understand how some animals communicate with sounds we cannot hear- whales and elephants for example can hear very low frequency sounds that travel long distances. Bats and dolphins use high pitched clicks and chirps to "see" with echolocation.

Our eyes are also limited and can only percieve light within the color spectrum. Yet we have tools to help us see things we otherwise would not be able to, like infrared goggles. And there are again- animals with the ability to pick up on spectra we cannot. Birds for instance often have patches of ultraviolet feathers, and they can see this coloring and use it to communicate with one another.

All of our senses are limited in different ways, and there are animals who can see, hear, feel, taste, and smell things that we cannot. I believe that many spiritual things are very physically present, right here with us, and we just cannot "see" them.

Deuteronomy 29:4 "Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day."

Matthew 11:15 " He that hath ears to hear, let him hear."

Edited by JudoMinja
unfinished sentance
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share