Knowledge said:
What I do saw however, is if you're not truely born again, you do not understand the scripture, dispite what you may think.
Right, because I don't agree with you, you somehow know that I am not "truly born again." Sorry, but I've heard that before, and I refuse to commit blasphemy against my God, who has time and again graced me with insight into the Word through the Holy Spirit, by ignoring the insight I have gained and caving in to what other people tell me I should believe. I don't feel that you are right, but I am not saying that you are not born again. I am offended at your implication that I am not, simply because we disagree.
Have you ever repented from your sins, made Jesus the Lord and Savior of your life (trust in him insomuch it forces a change)?
Yes. And I stand by my experience of Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit in my beliefs. I stand by the interpretation of the scripture that I have gained through years of prayer and meditation on the Word, as well as study. If others have alternate interpretations, I am not worried about it. That is their own path. I trust the guidance of God above the interpretations of others.
But sorry, you're wrong. There are many instances where archaeology and history prove the Bible. In fact, the truth of this is pretty much public consensus.
As I said:
They support that there was a Jewish religion and people, that these times and places existed, and that some events happened. They cannot prove the essential tenets of many people's faith- that the Bible is infallible, that all the miracles happened, that Jesus was resurrected.
They prove PARTS of the Bible. SOME of the historical parts. They do not prove the infallibility of the religious parts (or even the infallibility of the historical parts). My point is that the Bible is still a sacred text to be taken on faith.
As a scientist, there is a difference between proving that a culture, time period, and religion existed, or that a historical event existed, and proving that a religious text is accurate and infallible in its entirety. You can tell me I'm wrong, but I do this for a living, so I would say that I probably have some insight into how the science of archaeology works and the general consensus of people in that field.
The Bible has the abality to change lives in that people are willing to die to preach the truth. They dont even try to fight back, they go as lambs to the slaugher. You probably think these people are nuts?
No, I don't think they're nuts. I don't think other people who die for other religious beliefs are nuts either. People of every faith have been willling to die for their faith. Christians aren't the only ones who have been martyred.
the Bible has a 100% prophecy record. Also, there are SO MANY scientic break throughs that were all along in the Bible. Also, there is the amazing Bible Code phenom that proves super natural origin.
1. Care to give evidence that the prophecy record has been 100%? As I see it, there's a lot of prophecy that has yet to occur, so we're still waiting to see how that all comes out.
2. All religions contain scientific breakthroughs. The Ancient Maya religion had figured out astronomy and great arts of medicine. The Ancient Inca performed *successful* brain surgeries. The Chinese philosophies about chi resulted in a complex and very useful medical system. Druids also had a complex system that mingled science and religion. My point- all indigenous/traditional/ancient religions were partly science. It is a recent phenomenon in our culture that separates the two. In traditional societies, science and religion were entwined because they both tried to provide explanatory models of the world for people and improve people's lives.
3. The Bible Code is hotly contested, including by Christians. All I know is that it did not hold up under scientific scrutiny. If you take *any* text of that length you can find similar patterns, even in texts that are not religious. Statisticians proved that such patterns are inherent in lengthy literature, which I still think is interesting on its own. If you choose to believe in it, fine, but I don't need signs from the Bible. It contains wisdom, and that's enough for me.
For us to know God we must first have faith -- trust in his Son, and what he has done for us.
Actually, I do trust in Christ personally. However, the Bible also says that we can know God because the knowledge of Him is already within us, even if we do not know the Gospel of Christ (Romans 1:19). The Bible also says that we can know God through His handiworks, the Creation (Romans 1:20).
Do you think faith is foolish?
Absolutely not. That was my point. It is foolish to me, to try to prove the infallibility of the Bible, because the point is not to "prove the Bible" but to take the Bible on faith if that is your path. Far from faith being foolish, it is the cornerstone of my path. I have faith in my direct experience of God, and in the insights I feel I've gained through divine grace. Without faith, my path would not exist. As a mystic, I must have faith in order to experience God, to gain intuitive understanding. Without the trust that God is there, just waiting for us to embrace Him, for me it would be meaningless.
That said, I think this is beginning to go off on a theological tanget that is not directly relevant to the thread, so I'm going to end my response there. If you'd like to continue the discussion, we could start a new thread on that stuff. I was just trying to display the wide variety of opinions on this topic, even between people using the same scriptural basis. And now back to the issue...