Really?
In philosophy, there is a distinction made between 'inductive process' and 'deductive process'. In the former case, one builds towards an objective conclusion by the accumulation of evidence. In deduction, by contrast, one has knowledge of the whole, and is able to deduce particulars...
This does not answer my question.
If you believe that the Biblical genealogies, which are numerous, and run from Adam to Jesus, are full of myth and error, then it should be possible for you to be specific in your criticism. Therefore, I ask again, Where does the myth end and the true history...
No, science is not objective by definition. Science is undertaken by men, and there remains an element of subjectivity in the conclusions reached.
If the observations can only be accepted by 'the majority of scientists' then one cannot call the observations 'objective'. You could argue that the...
In John 1:18, it says, 'No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him'.
If John is correct, as I believe he is, then we need to understand more about the 'face' of God. For the 'face' and 'countenance' of the LORD appears...
The only truly objective perspective comes from God, as we've already established. If man's observations had been truly objective then his conclusions would have been correct from the start, but as we know 'science' has been in a state of transition and adjustment from the beginning. All we can...
And this is the crux of the matter because the Bible is not full of inconsistencies and contradictions. It proves to be a coherent and incomparable revelation of the will of God, and such an extensive and coherent revelation is not found in any other holy book.
Such is the majesty of the...
I cannot believe that a God of truth, which we agree the one God must be, cannot communicate His truth to mankind. Even knowing that lies and deception are at play in this world, it must be possible for an omniscient God to communicate his will and plan of salvation to mankind.
As l see it, the...
No, l meant find an historian who is reliable.
As regards the irony, l think it's unjust of you to use the same evidence base for me and Subduction Zone. I made it clear in an earlier post that my evidence for God was the Bible. I have been consistent in referring to this source as my evidence.
And his revelation does not add to our knowledge of the Lord.
So, maybe we need some pointers that help us to distinguish the true prophet from the false.
My first suggestion is to have corroboration from others. Two witnesses must be better than one.
Maybe this will allow us to read the days of Genesis in a whole new light?
When is a day not a 24 hour day? I have long wondered at the forces that determine the rotation of the earth.
So, you accept that objectivity can only truly exist from God's perspective. Does it not follow that we can only receive revelation of universal truth (objective truth) by faith?
If one connects the two, and recognizes that God is only known by faith, how do you think we are to distinguish...
You have a habit of regurgitating the same nonsense without regard to evidence.
Can you name me one historian that you believe provides us with reliable history?
So says the atheist...called a 'fool' by God! [Psalms 14 and 53]
It's just a pity you haven't taken the time to check these things out. Luke, whose role is one of historian and recorder, says exactly what his undertaking involved:
Acts 1:1-3. 'The former treatise [the Gospel of Luke] have l...
I agree that 'My servant David' is Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ does not appear once, but twice.
It's worth reflecting that king David was anointed by Samuel [1 Samuel 16:13] well in advance of David becoming king over Judah and lsrael. It follows, in parallel, that the anointing of Jesus...