Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

I can't believe in a good God when there is evil and suffering in the world. Evil is the rebellion against God that God allows temporarily for his own purposes. Acts 1:7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. Suffering is the discomfort caused by sin and its effects on ...


0

There's a difference between how Muslims and Christians view their respective scriptures, which I think drives this argument from Muslims. In Islam, the Quran itself is considered to be holy. That is to say, they believe that the very text itself (and its grammar and words) was given by God through the angel Gabriel to Muhammad and that the text and ...


2

The Adultery Pericope and the Long Ending of Mark prove no more than that they were additions to the gospels as originally written. They, by themselves, do not prove or disprove the inerrancy of the original compositions, and certainly not the spiritual essence of the Bible. Since you believe in biblical inerancy, you would already have a definition for ...


0

Most Christians regard God as omniscient and therefore able to know the future, in which case it should not be possible for God to be satisfied with his creation of man, knowing that later he would repent that he made man on earth. Some Christians do accept that the Bible is not necessarily inerrant, and my answer will be consistent with this point of view. ...


1

"Manuscript Evidence" does not prove that the Bible is God's word - that is a matter of faith. Apologists use manuscript evidence to prove that the Bible has not changed over time; sceptics also use manuscript evidence to prove that the Bible has changed over time. So it takes a very objective person to look at the evidence of the manuscripts and decide ...


1

Classical Apologetics is that style of Christian defence that stresses rational arguments for the existence of God and uses evidence to substantiate biblical claims and miracles. This question does not deal with proving the existence of God, but how apologists deal with claims of biblical inerrancy. In any debate on biblical inerrancy, the apologist knows ...


1

The rules used by scholars to establish the historical accuracy, or otherwise, of scripture are not always those used by apologists to defend the historical accuracy of scripture. One set of rules can, at least sometimes, lead to an unintended conclusion, while the other will always defend scriptural historicity. Archaeology is useful, and indeed some ...


1

There is a key difference between the story of Abraham's "sacrifice of Isaac" in Genesis 22:1-19 and the story of the man of God from Judah in 1 Kings 13. Abraham heard directly from the angel of the Lord that he was not to sacrifice his son Isaac after all (see Genesis 22:11-12). The man of God in 1 Kings 13 did not hear any countervailing word directly ...


0

I will address Abraham as you have addressed the "man of God" I believe the issue you are having comes from your interpretation. I don’t have the NKJV myself, but the KJV uses the word “Offer” in Genesis 22, not the word for Sacrifice. This is consistent with the Hebrew at least. I find both versions lack a comprehensive representation of the original ...


0

The Mormon perspective on this makes it much easier to understand. True prophets obey the word of God; false prophets do not. In this story are two prophets, one pictured as lying and the other pictured as disobeying God’s instructions. Ellis T. Rasmussen wrote: “There are some problems in this story of the man of God who came from Judah to warn the ...



Top 50 recent answers are included