The best defense of the Bible is

[evangelist6589]

Personal witness or sufficiency
Science
Archeology
The Holy Spirit granting repentance and faith to those whom have been called to salvation (John 6:44) and granting illumination of the Bible.

My answer is D

Next should the Bible be defended yes or no?

My answer is mostly no due to my answer on the previous question, but there are times where I will rely on science and archeology in defending the Bible.

 

[Van]

Nearly all the common attacks on the validity of the Bible are made against items found in the OT. So the best defense to say why fret against what the Bible says is no longer applicable, why not address what the Bible says is applicable.

 

[evangelist6589]

Nearly all the common attacks on the validity of the Bible are made against items found in the OT. So the best defense to say why fret against what the Bible says is no longer applicable, why not address what the Bible says is applicable.

I did not list reason as a defense and I should have. So in your POV its all about reason and books like Is God a moral monster? are applicable since they build a defense of the God of the OT Canon. I agree the OTI can be hard to explain but it's the same God. It's just his JUSTICE on sin is revealed more than in the NT.

 

[Deacon]

Nearly all the common attacks on the validity of the Bible are made against items found in the OT. So the best defense to say why fret against what the Bible says is no longer applicable, why not address what the Bible says is applicable.

This is so sad.
God said ALL SCRIPTURE IS USEFUL FOR TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTION AND TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.

When it was written the NT hadn't even been fully written yet.

The OT is more than 2/3 of the written word of God - and you say it doesn't apply to us???

so sad

Rob

 

[Van]

What is sad is an inability to read. Did I say the entire OT does not apply today? Nope. But you made that unbiblical assumption and then assailed me for your misrepresentation. Again and again the posters on this forum seem reluctant to present truth.

Now lets try a truth test?

Did any of the OT requirements, say to offer blood sacrifices, get superseded by the NT? Will Rob answer that with a yes or no?

Does Rob deny that the NT says parts of the OT do not apply?

 

[Iconoclast]

This is so sad.
God said ALL SCRIPTURE IS USEFUL FOR TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTION AND TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.

When it was written the NT hadn't even been fully written yet.

The OT is more than 2/3 of the written word of God - and you say it doesn't apply to us???

so sad

Rob

You have posted well here......:thumbs::applause::thumbs:

 

[convicted1]

The bible needs no defense. It defends itself quite well all by itself...

 

[Yeshua1]

Personal witness or sufficiency
Science
Archeology
The Holy Spirit granting repentance and faith to those whom have been called to salvation (John 6:44) and granting illumination of the Bible.

My answer is D

Next should the Bible be defended yes or no?

My answer is mostly no due to my answer on the previous question, but there are times where I will rely on science and archeology in defending the Bible.

Itself, as the Bible is the very word of God unto us in written form, and the Holy Spirit is here to make sure that its message comes across just as God intends it to be...

"My word shall not return void unto me"

 

[Deacon]

What is sad is an inability to read. Did I say the entire OT does not apply today? Nope. But you made that unbiblical assumption and then assailed me for your misrepresentation. Again and again the posters on this forum seem reluctant to present truth.

Now lets try a truth test?

Did any of the OT requirements, say to offer blood sacrifices, get superseded by the NT? Will Rob answer that with a yes or no?

ANSWER: Van, you seem to be changing the question.

Study of the OT provides a strong, sound, solid foundation for the new believers in Jesus Christ.

Yes, Hebrew Law was fulfilled in the NT (superseded if you like), but the study of the Torah applies to our present condition. Understanding its purpose allows a believer to defend their faith with assurance.

Does Rob deny that the NT says parts of the OT do not apply?

ANSWER: Paul wrote that ALL SCRIPTURE is useful.

What parts of scripture would you say are "no longer applicable"? and therefore not necessary to know about when defending scripture?

My answer to the opening posts question is to be a faithful and humble witness, approved before God and correctly handling the word of God. [2 Timothy 2:15]

Each of the items mentioned in the OP can be used at various times, in various ways as tools to defend the faith.

The question is like asking what's more important, a hammer or a screw driver? It depends upon the situation.

Rob

 

[OldRegular]

This is so sad.
God said ALL SCRIPTURE IS USEFUL FOR TEACHING, REBUKING, CORRECTION AND TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS.

When it was written the NT hadn't even been fully written yet.

The OT is more than 2/3 of the written word of God - and you say it doesn't apply to us???

so sad

Rob

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

The best defense of the Bible is fulfilled prophecy!

 

[T Alan]

The best defense of the Bible is fulfilled prophecy!

Without a doubt!

 

[Rippon]

Charles Spurgeon :Christ and His Co-workers

The best way to spread the gospel is to spread the gospel...the best "apology" for the gospel is to let the gospel out. Never mind about defending Deuteronomy or the whole of the Pentateuch; preach Jesus Christ and him crucified...The Lion of the tribe of Judah will soon drive away all his adversaries. This was how Christ's first disciples worked, they preached Jesus Christ whereever they went; they did not stop to apologise, but boldly bore their witness concerning him.

 

[Rippon]

Spurgeon :The Lover of God's Law Filled With Peace

Extenuations, explanations, and apologies may be produced from the best of motives; but too often they suggest to opposers that it is admitted that God's most holy Word contains something in it which is doubtful, or weak, or antiquated. It looks as though it needed to be defended by human wisdom. Brethren, the Word of the Lord can stand alone, without the propping which many are giving it...The Word of God can take care of itself, and will do so if we preach it, and cease defending it...Let the pure gospel go forth in all its lion-like majesty, and it will soon clear its own way and ease itself of its adversaries.

 

[Van]

What is sad is an inability to read. Did I say the entire OT does not apply today? Nope. But you made that unbiblical assumption and then assailed me for your misrepresentation. Again and again the posters on this forum seem reluctant to present truth.

Now lets try a truth test?

Did any of the OT requirements, say to offer blood sacrifices, get superseded by the NT? Will Rob answer that with a yes or no?

ANSWER: Van, you seem to be changing the question.

Study of the OT provides a strong, sound, solid foundation for the new believers in Jesus Christ.

Did I seem to be changing the question? Nope. The question is does the Old Covenant in its entirety still apply or are parts superseded and no longer applicable. My answer is "parts are superseded and no longer applicable." That is the same thing I said in my first post.

Does this mean that all scripture is not profitable for study? Nope. How can we appreciate the New Covenant unless we understand how it is superior to the Old Covenant.

Now, having been sidetracked yet again by spurious and mistaken charges, lets return to the premise, defending the Bible. What are some of the lines of attack?

1) Science says it took billions of years to form the Universe and our planet and species as we know them now, but the Bible says it took less that 7000 years. (Answer, the Bible not only does not say how old creation is, it says we do not know how it was formed - Job 38)

2) The Bible condones slavery. (Answer - slavery existed as part of early man culture but the Bible provided rules to mitigate it, and planted the seed - the brotherhood of man - to make it reprehensible.)

3) The God of the Bible ordered the murder of non-Jews, including women and little children. (Answer - God as Creator has the right to create life and take life away at any time, but we can also see God's redemptive purpose in all His actions.)

Note that in these three classic attacks, the focus in on OT history or Old Covenant commands, and sidesteps truths like "two wrongs do not make a right, the ends do not justify the means, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Ask the attackers what is wrong with all that Christ commanded? They do not know. Do you?

 

[Yeshua1]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

The Princi[les and examples are meant for us, but we are not under the Law of israel!

All of the OT was inspired, but not all of it directly applies to us now under the New Covenant!

 

[Deacon]

Sure Van, I'll admit that customs have changed since the writing of scripture.

I was responding to your statement telling them "not to fret" – for I perceived that statement as dismissing the OT writings and the difficulties associated with it rather than dealing with the issues. When we dismiss someone's argument, calling it worthless, we belittle them.

I believe the best defense is educating people about why things have changed.
In your last post you provided some simple quick responses to difficulties that are often brought up.

That may help some who are merely curious; a more extensive study of scripture may be necessary for those whose curiosity still encumbers them.

Rob

 

[Van]

Sure Van, I'll admit that customs have changed since the writing of scripture.

I was responding to your statement telling them "not to fret" – for I perceived that statement as dismissing the OT writings and the difficulties associated with it rather than dealing with the issues. When we dismiss someone's argument, calling it worthless, we belittle them.

I believe the best defense is educating people about why things have changed.
In your last post you provided some simple quick responses to difficulties that are often brought up.

That may help some who are merely curious; a more extensive study of scripture may be necessary for those whose curiosity still encumbers them.

Rob

I agree. But others are not really curious, they are just spouting off the shelf, copy and paste arguments which sidetrack discuss of their understanding of all Christ commanded. When you are heading toward port (a discussion about Christ) rather than plowing into icebergs placed in your way, simply go around them. Recall that the lost cannot understand spiritual meat, but only the milk of the gospel.

 

[Rippon]

Recall that the lost cannot understand spiritual meat, but only the milk of the gospel.

You have a false recall.

1 Cor.2:14 "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." (NIV)

 

[Van]

Pay no attention to Mr. Rippon who cannot seem to understand that Paul spoke to new Christians as if "men of flesh" because the new Christians could not understand spiritual meat. Note that in his (Calvinist) view of the verse it reads "...does not accept [all] the things that come from the Spirit of God...." Others, based on context, understand the verse to say "... does not accept [some] things [i.e. spiritual meat] that come from the Spirit of God...."

Returning to topic, the best defense of the Bible is to redirect the discussion to what the opponents of the Bible believe about Christ.