Title: The Reliability of the Bible (Proof-Positive Provided?) Source:
YT URL Source:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAH_-Du2428 Published:Jun 5, 2019 Author:GENESIS APOLOGETICS Post Date:2019-06-10 11:25:47 by Liberator Keywords:BIBLE, GOD Views:6922 Comments:25
Is the Bible reliable?
Does it include prophecies about Jesus Christ that have come true? Has it been reliably copied over the centuries?
Is the Bible inerrant?
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls help answer these questions!
Poster Comment:
Sequential, repeated evidence is provided for over two millennia of the very same prophecies and information.
Seems the premise is that the prophecies were fulfilled via the tenants of Christian theology. That would, to an extent, make them self-fulfilling prophecies.
I.e. if Isaiah had not written about a man being whipped four our iniquities, would the belief that the whipping Jesus received was because of our iniquities be part of Christian theology today?
Seems the premise is that the prophecies were fulfilled via the tenants of Christian theology. That would, to an extent, make them self-fulfilling prophecies.
A "premise" is a theory; This video demonstrated a lineage and repeatable documentation and proof of fulfilled prophecy. Proof simply does not get any more valid and credible than 2700 years of documentation.
Btw, "Christianity" did not exist in the days of Isaiah. Jesus Christ would not appear for hundreds of years. Isaiah 53 speak to it.
Yes, I did, and I don't find it very compelling for the reason I gave.
It seems you missed my point about Isaiah being a "self-fulfilling" prophecy. To put the question another way: Is there any source in the Bible that claims that Jesus was whipped for our iniquities that cannot be traced back to Isaiah? I imagine Paul wrote of it in one of his letters that is now in the Bible but if so and he was referring back to Isaiah, then that would not count as Paul could be said to be retrofitting the prophecy to create a new piece of Christian doctrine. In which case, it is not fulfilled prophecy at all.
Prophecies about historic events are one thing. But prophecies that find their fulfillment in the form of developed Christian doctrine are quite another and can easily be the *direct* result of the prophecy itself rather than something that came to pass independently.
The speaker at the end argues that a skeptic is choosing to rely on his own judgment about the Bible instead of the Bible's judgment about the Bible. But anyone who chooses to believe the Bible is still relying on his own judgment that the Bible is the WoG, is he not?
It is not possible for any man to disable his own sense of judgment in what he believes, whether Christian or not, or whether he believes the Bible is the WoG or not.
It seems you missed my point about Isaiah being a "self-fulfilling" prophecy.
No I didn't.
You seem to want to either to dismiss Isaiah's prophecies outright, or claim that Jesus' life and death and circumstances were somehow scripted in the most grand conspiracy of all in order to magically create "self-fulfilling" prophecy. This is the Stretch-of-Stretches.
Besides that, the extent of specificity of Isaiah's can't be denied.
Prophecies about historic events are one thing. But prophecies that find their fulfillment in the form of developed Christian doctrine are quite another and can easily be the *direct* result of the prophecy itself rather than something that came to pass independently.
That's such a stretch, bro.
Other prophets didn't know one another, living in different times -- yet they wrote independently.
Given the prophecies began as you describe, "developing Christian Doctrine," why shouldn't this phenomena from the various Prophets from Isaiah to Micah to Psalm to Genesis to Jeremiah also be considered divinely-directed, a tapestry of truth that wound up as White Robe of Jesus The Savior? If anything Isaiah and others not only help prove the Bible's prophecies are true, but who the Messiah was to be.
The collective weight of the thread of prophecies by the various prophets over centuries give no doubt as to its credibility or validity. IF you were to look up and examine "Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus" you'd be inundated by scriptural documentation.
You seem to want to either to dismiss Isaiah's prophecies outright, or claim that Jesus' life and death and circumstances were somehow scripted in the most grand conspiracy of all in order to magically create "self-fulfilling" prophecy. This is the Stretch-of-Stretches.
It's not true that I think the the life and death of one man may have been scripted to fit prophecies. Rather, I suggest that prophecies may have been construed to fit the life and death of one man. I was taught that Jesus is indeed a historical person, as opposed as, say, Abraham who is not, I guess the difference being the existence of multiple historical records, beyond the Bible, of their existence. But I'm also very aware of the human propensity to creatively write stories to fit certain narratives, which is something you are certainly all too aware of to, so long as the stories come from NASA or CNN or any number of sources that have political bias.
But for whatever reason, for you, the Bible is immune to such bias. For me, it is not. If the Bible is the WoG, and not simply a collection of ancient writings, that has taken on a life of its own as each generation ascribes divine significance to it, then it just needs to pass other tests. And I guess one for me is the question of whether God gets angry and jealous. The Bible says yes, which I consider contradictory to the description of a supreme being who knows us completely and all things we will ever do. Anger and jealousy ARE, to me, a clear sign of weakness and insecurity and as such, are incompatible with the idea of a God being everything else the Bible says God is. The reason the Bible says God can feel these things: In my mind, the likelihood that the ancient authors needed this propensity of the Almighty for the purpose of controlling the masses. You simply cannot control the sheeple if they don't have this divine fear hanging over their heads their entire lives.
Prophecies about historic events are one thing. But prophecies that find their fulfillment in the form of developed Christian doctrine are quite another and can easily be the *direct* result of the prophecy itself rather than something that came to pass independently.
That's such a stretch, bro.
I do not see that at all. To you, the gospel is true. I do think you are starting with that premise, as it's firmly locked into your belief set, and working backwards from that point to find that the prophesies must be true. But what if Christianity today is the end result of ancient prophesy? Christian doctrine molded around a story that began with Genises and grew and, yes, evolved from there?
Other prophets didn't know one another, living in different times -- yet they wrote independently.
Agreed, they didn't know each other, but how many of the later authors were aware of the writings of the earlier authors enough to write their sequels in response to them? I don't know, but I don't think it can be ruled out. It's not like 3000 years ago there were libraries so full of books that any literate person would not have been able to read *all* of Judaic history in less than a few months time, it seems to me.
Given the prophecies began as you describe, "developing Christian Doctrine," why shouldn't this phenomena from the various Prophets from Isaiah to Micah to Psalm to Genesis to Jeremiah also be considered divinely-directed, a tapestry of truth that wound up as White Robe of Jesus The Savior? If anything Isaiah and others not only help prove the Bible's prophecies are true, but who the Messiah was to be.
None of the OT testament prophets ever used the name "Jesus". In fact, while Christian claim they were referring to Jesus, Jews themselves do not. They think it's someone else. What makes Christians right and Jews wrong? The OT books are their books, even. Why wouldn't they, therefore, be considered an authority on the matter?
The collective weight of the thread of prophecies by the various prophets over centuries give no doubt as to its credibility or validity. IF you were to look up and examine "Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus" you'd be inundated by scriptural documentation.
Much as I have already seen. But sources are quite biased.
None of the OT testament prophets ever used the name "Jesus". In fact, while Christian claim they were referring to Jesus, Jews themselves do not. They think it's someone else. What makes Christians right and Jews wrong?
THe old Testament said the Jews would reject their Messiah.
That doesn't answer your question but who cares. It's for you to know.
