Re: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth

[Bill Taylor]

What PROOF would you find acceptable Bill?   Judy, there is no way to prove anything about the original texts unless you have them in your possession. My point is I do not need to prove anything. I am content to read the texts that I have and believe when I do that I am reading Scripture.   The person who demands proof that our Bible is infallible and perfect before he or she will trust it, is only looking for a reason not to believe it. There are discrepancies in the copies that we do have and we do not have the originals to prove that they were without error. It hardly suffices to claim that they were perfect when you do not have them to prove it. He will only point out the absurdity of your claim.    The person who trusts in Jesus Christ, on the other hand, will find no good reason not to believe the words he reads in Scripture. Why do you insist that he ought to make claims upon it which he cannot validate?   Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 7:37 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Albert Einstein & Karl Barth Why is it so difficult for some to believe that our "Living God" can preserve His "Living Word"? I find it incredulous that prophecy after prophecy comes to pass along with the fact that He is faithful to keep His Word in the lives of His ppl and yet there is this ongoing strife (which is as bad as adultery so far as God is concerned) about the veracity of His written Word.  Are we headed back to the council of Toulouse (1229AD) which forbid the use of the Bible to what they termed "laymen" - What PROOF would you find acceptable Bill?     On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 06:56:44 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: It's great evidence, I agree -- but it's not proof. I am content to trust the evidence and not make assertions beyond it. Why is this to deny the authenticity of the Word? Bill From: ShieldsFamily   As Kevin has pointed out, the agreement between all the copies verifies the authenticity of the originals. This is only hard to understand if you are wishing to deny the authenticity of the Word.  Izzy   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]   In a message dated 3/2/2005 1:55:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Dear JD, Please be notified that the FIRST copy of scripture, written by the FIRST writer (ie: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) was THE ORIGINAL.  There definitely WAS one, whether you have a copy in your sweaty little hand or not.  Love, Izzy This makes me think Lance is right.   If there were no "originals,"  there would have been no Bible  ( I can't believe I am having to point this out).   OF COURSE  I KNOW THIS.   What you don't know is that without these origianls, one cannot make any real conclusions about "inspiration" and these manuscripts.  JD